House of Representatives
26 October 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

The House met at 2.30 p.m.

page 2471

ABSENCE OF MR SPEAKER

The Clerk:

– Gentlemen, I have to inform the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr Speaker. In accordance with standing order 14 the Chairman of Committees, as Acting Speaker, will take the Chair.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) thereupon took the chair, and read prayers.

page 2471

PETITIONS

Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees: Taxation

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition;

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Houseof Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aid to Refugees in East Pakistan

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I present the following petition:

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

That many Australians are concerned about the tragic plight of the refugees from East Pakistan and the rapidly worsening condition of thousands of children who have come as refugees into India from East Pakistan.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will -

increase Australia’s aid for the refugees in East Pakistanto$ 10m, and

find the means by which regular and large consignments of high protein foods and vitamin additives canbe sent to sustain the children who are now dying in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid to India and East Pakistan

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

-I present the following petition:

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

It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some 9 million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not evert receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies to assist their work in these countries.

As some 20 million refugees and displaced persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further $50m over three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid to India and East Pakistan

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some 9 million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also thay are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies to assist their work in these countries.

As some 20 million refugees and displaced persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

You petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further $50m over three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid to India and East Pakistan

Mr GORTON:
HIGGINS, 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 Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally, concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees that have closed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries.
  2. As some twenty million refugees and displaced persons are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by, far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further $50m over 3 years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees: Taxation

Mr ENDERBY:
ALP

– 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 respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modem history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugeesin India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10,000,000 immediately, and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees: Taxation

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, 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 respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10m immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settle- - ment which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees: Taxation

Mr STEWART:
LANG, 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 respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modem history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least $10m immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of$2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all In its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees: Taxation

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

-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 respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and diseaseis occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modem history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government hat an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary, aid for the refugees in India to at least $10m immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

Grant tax deductibility to donations of $2 and over to Australian voluntary agencies working with the refugee problem.

Ensure that the Australian Government does all in its power to help bring about a political settlement which would be acceptable to the people of East Pakistan.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

-I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occuring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modem history.

That as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least $10m immediately even if this entails reducing spending in other areas.

Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.

Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees

Mr GORTON:

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an Immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least 10 million dollars immediately even if this entails reducing spending in other areas.

Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.

Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least 10 million dollars immediately even if this entails reducing spending in other areas.

Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.

Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Monetary Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on. a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees to at least $5m immediately, even if this entails reduced spending in other areas.

Encourage and sponsor teams of volunteers with needed skills and medical supplies.

Maintain all this aid for as long as the crisis persists.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees: Taxation

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– 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 respectfully showeth:

that death from mass starvation and disease is occuring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history,

that, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

that the Government grant income tax deductions for donations over $2 made towards the relief of overseas disaster areas. - (2) that this be effected with hastetoensure the maximum possible aid to those at present in refugee camps and those in danger of famine in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistan’s Refugees: Taxation

Mr GORTON:

– 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 respectively showeth:

  1. That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.
  2. That, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

  1. That the Government grant income tax deductions for donations over TWO DOLLARS made towards the relief of overseas disaster areas.
  2. That this be effected with haste to ensure the maximum possible aid to those at present in refugee camps and those in danger of famine in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Refugees: Bangla Desh

Mr GORTON:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the immediate prospect in East Bengal is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That only a quick settlement of the Pakistan-Bangla Desh conflict will make it possible to avert the death of many millions.

That concerted action by the world community is an immediate imperative.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Australian Government, in order to effect relief to some, grant at least temporary entry to academic and qualified persons among those from Bangla Desh.

That donations over $2 be tax deductible when contributed towards the relief of refugees inside and outside East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Refugees: Bangla Desh

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable Speaker andthe Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the immediate prospect in East Bengal is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That only a quick settlement of the Pakistan-Bangla Desh conflict will make it possible to avert the death of many millions.

That concerted action by the world community is an immediate imperative.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Australian Government, in order to effect relief to some, grant at least temporary entry to academic and qualified persons among those from Bangla Desh.

That donations over $2 be tax deductible when contributed towards the relief of refugees inside and outside Bast Pakistan.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Refugees: Bangla Desh

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the immediate prospect in East Bengal Is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That only a quick settlement of the Pakistan-Bangla Desh conflict will make it possible to avert the death of many millions.

That concerted action by the world community is an immediate imperative.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Australian Government, in order to effect relief to some, grant at least temporary entry to academic and qualified persons among those from Bangla Desh.

That donations over $2 be tax deductible when contributed towards the relief of refugees inside and outside East Pakistan.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Refugees: Bangla Desh

Mr CREAN:

– I present the following petition:

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

that death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

that, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Australian Government take steps to offer employment, at least on a temporary basis, and in order to effect some relief, to academic and qualified persons among the persons from Bangla Desh.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Refugees: Bangla Desh

Mr GARRICK:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament asembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

that death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

that, as part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Australian Government take steps to offer employment, at least on a temporary basis, and in order to effect some relief, to academic and qualified persons among the persons from Bangla Desh.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Trial of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Mr GORTON:

– 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 respectfully sheweth:

That death from mass starvation and disease is occurring among Pakistan’s refugees on a scale unprecedented in modern history.

That, as a part of the world community, the Australian Government has an immediate responsibility for concerted action. Your petitioners most humbly pray:

That the Government go beyond the plea of the Prime Minister for magnanimity and compassion in the trial of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on charges of treason, and insist on the liberty of this openly and democratically elected leader. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Additional Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the new Australian grant of $l.Sm to Pakistan refugees in India is completely inadequate and does not recognise the true value of the situation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will immediately grant a further $10 million in aid to Pakistan refugees and use all diplomatic channels available to urge the creation of a political climate in East Pakistan which will enable the nine million refugees in India to return to their homeland. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr HUGHES:
BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament asembled. The humble petition of 10 electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

Petition received.

Kangaroos

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 residents of Victoria, respectfully showeth:

Australian, custodians of the world’s largest _ marsupial, the red kangaroo, have allowed it tobe reduced so low numerically that even CSIRO research has had to to be suspended in some areas and alternative means of research employed In others.

The kangaroo is being exploited whilst facts on population and numbers of kangaroos are unknown - any day the numbers can be reduced below that level needed for survival of droughts and natural mortality. At this date neither the number needed for survival nor the number of kangaroos left is known.

Pending the outcome of investigations by the Select Committee, it can be logically assumed that shooters, fearing restrictive legislation in the future, will intensify their efforts to obtain as many animals as possible, while they can. We, your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that you will:

  1. Immediately ban the export of products made from kangaroos.
  2. Strongly urge the State Governments to ban the shooting of kangaroos for commercial purposes, at least until the Select Committee has made its investigations and recommendations.
  3. Add to the Constitution a clause giving power to the Commonwealth Government to act to safeguard any species of wildlife thatis endangered through any cause. And we your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.
  2. That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.
  3. That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.
  4. That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.
  5. That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for 78 per cent of Australia’s children. - And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersighed citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (a) That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

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

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

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

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

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

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Or SOLOMON - ] present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 ls inundated.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Peddar 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.

page 2477

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Corio moving forthwith the motion relating to aid for Pakistani refugees of which he gave notice on 12th October 1971.

Mr Acting Speaker, the real issues are the fate of the people of Pakistan in India, amounting to one-sixth of the world’s population - the threat of war, the threat of starvation, the epidemic proportions of all the diseases there and the sheer misery of the situation. But the issue at this moment is the capacity of this House to discuss the matter. Therefore I believe it is necessary, in the light of everything that has gone on in the community - in the light of public demand and the way we ought to operate; - that the Standing Orders be suspended. I know that a lot of traditions, precedents and procedures prevent us from effectively doing anything as a House of Parliament in this instance. First of all the Constitution imposes limits upon what the House can do. It can consent to do something with money only on the initiative of the Crown.

Then there are the Standing Orders themselves which on this occasion prevent iw from discussing the matter. The Standing Orders allow the Ministers to propose the order of business. Ordinarily and traditionally the Ministers have that right. How this House functions is traditionally - and, I think, as custom has developed, reasonably so - the business of the Government. Then there are our own traditions which mean that the Parliament very rarely takes the initiative in such a matter. But I believe that we are in a special international and public situation and that the Parliament has to confront the issue in the same way as the rest of the community does. When my colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) raised this matter a couple of weeks ago the Leader of the House (Mr Swartz) said that there was no need to suspend the Standing Orders in the way in which the honourable member wished to do because the matter would be brought on in the ordinary course of events.

All of us know that, with the best will in the world, that will not happen. The Government is committed to its procedures and has its business to do. One has only to look at the notice paper and see that the first notice under general business was given by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) on the last sitting day and that the notice given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) was placed on the notice paper on 8th May 1970. In the ordinary course of business there will be no possibility of my colleague, the honourable member for Corio, speaking to the House on this matter, let alone having a discussion on it. Therefore, unless it is brought up now there is no chance of its being brought up.

I agree that we should accept the Government’s right to adjust the business of the House and we have always done so. Standing Orders 101 and 105 give the Government this power. Section 56 of the Constitution lays down exactly the procedures by which funds shall be allotted for any purpose. Yet in the general tradition of the Parliament and the system that has been developed over the last 3 centuries the Ministers in the Cabinet decide what can be done. I do not think that we can withdraw our own responsibility in this issue. The 173 members of this Parliament who are not members of the Cabinet cannot leave it all to the Cabinet to decide. I believed that it is essential that it ought to be assisted in the task. I say that consciously. The Government has brought down its Budget. The allocation of funds had been worked out over months. As a member of the National Library Council, I know how carefully the budgeting is geared to the system of governmental needs. Therefore, when we are required to do something extra with finances it is necessary for the Parliament to express its will in an emphatic way. This is an unprecedented situation. The public response on this issue is greater than on any other issue that T ran *tpc** in so on - with a great deal of spontaneity from the community. What people say about Australian democracy is on public record. Donald Home had this to say:

It ls hard to escape the conclusion that is Australia parliaments are now mainly of ritualistic significance and the significance of the peculiarly parliamentary part of Australian democracy is quite slight.

I do not agree with him, but publicly that is the way that we are spoken about. In Don Whitington’s book ‘Inside Canberra’ this passage occurs:

Freedom in Australia Is not dead, but it is in a deep coma, sedated by apathy, affluence and middle-class mediocrity.

The rise in public concern, and in many respects, dismay on this issue is unprecedented. Usually we get very few letters from our constituents about public matters. We get them about telephones for themselves or about pensions if they are pensioners and sometimes on a general issue of that sort, but in most instances all of us would say that nearly all of the representations that are made to us are on matters concerning people themselves. There are very few letters, very few callers and very few public manifestations of concern about wider issues, but on this issue Australians have decided to stand up and think for people other than themselves, and I believe that that is our task, too.

I believe that the parliamentary task is one of representation. What does ‘representation’ mean? It means: ‘Holding the place of, and acting for, a larger body of persons in the work of governing or legislating; pertaining to, or based upon, a system by which the people is thus represented’; and on this issue I believe we have to speak as representatives in the strict sense of the word because one of the democratic dilemmas is to get governments to respond. It is not just a part of the Australian pattern of life; it is part of the democratic pattern throughout the world. Occasionally we can stop governments doing things. Occasionally there are furores and manifestations of public concern to stop governments acting. Unions can strike, but JUs- very difficult to make governments act my public life. There has been an unprecedented number of petitions. In this instance most of them come - although they have been developed by organisations and because the administrative system has taken over and is rolling on. We still have not resolved the question: How do you unlock the administrative processes and make governments respond? I believe that parliament has to do that. Our duties as members of this place transcend our duties as members for a certain area; they transcend the ordinary needs of the parliament itself and they transcend parties.

I did not discuss this with my colleagues on the front bench. I did not take the members of the front bench - my Leader and my deputy leader - into my confidence, and insofar as it has been traditional to do this in a situation such as this I offer them my apologies. But I stand here and speak as a representative as such, not representing any particular party or person in this instance and not particularly representing the electorate of Wills but, I hope, responding to all those people - the countless thousands in this country - who have demanded that we do something. We have to find some machinery for responding to the expressed wishes and needs of the community. So all this has to transcend the sovereignty inside Pakistan and India, the Standing Orders themselves, the Constitution, and all the precedents that we have always accepted. It has to transcend parties.

Therefore I believe it is important that this afternoon my colleague from Corio be given the opportunity to move his motion so that honourable members on both sides will be able to express their concern in such a way that - faced as it is with plenty of problems inside the nation such as pensioners who want more and schools that are in short supply - the Government and this Parliament itself can express themselves in such an emphatic way that whatever steps the Government takes financially the community will know that on this issue at least it has the Parliament on its side. I believe it is also an important issue that we face the question of what the Parliament is. I believe that the Parliament and not the Cabinet is the Government of Australia and that Australians govern themselves through this Parliament. It is with an opportunity such as this issue, which I believe has very little partisan political point about it at all on which none of us are concerned with lambasting the other side, that we should govern ourselves by this Parliament offering the opportunity to the membership to say emphatically that something must be done about Pakistan. Therefore we should suspend the Standing Orders, forget about the ordinary procedures and think of the suffering humanity and all its misery which we can, perhaps ameliorate by some governmental action in this situation.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is the motion seconded?

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– -1 second the motion, and in doing so, I should like to draw the attention of the House to the petitions that were presented this afternoon. At least a dozen of them must have been on this subject. They came from every State of the Commonwealth. So there is public concern about this matter. I believe, therefore, that this is an urgent matter and that we are justified in suspending Standing Orders because of this. A responsible officer of the United Nations has said that no matter what aid is given now, something like 400,000 people will die before Christmas, but that if this aid is organised now something like 400.000 people will be saved in the months after Christmas. So it is a question not only of Australian action but also of action by the Australian Government to mobilise other nations in this situation.

I am sure that the petitioners have been concerned primarily about the humanitarian position but the world has another interest in this situation beyond what ought to be its humanitarian interest. The other interest is that a war between India and Pakistan will be made more likely if the outside reaction to the situation is one of indifference, because it can be concluded that if the refugee problem is to continue it might be better to strike a blow at the government that one side might conceive as organising the refugee position or the other side might conceive as encouraging the movement of Bangla Desh, and such a war could become a world war. I believe that the interest of outside people in the displaced persons on both sides of the frontier is one factor of sanity which might well allay the situation and diminish the tendency of the 2 sides to go towards war. I therefore believe that this Parliament should discuss freely, as an urgent matter, what should be the level of aid. We are not wedded exclusively to the terms of the motion of the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), but the terms of the motion of the honourable member-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! I point out to the honourable member for Fremantle that at this moment he is going into the subject matter of the motion that it is suggested should be discussed rather than the motion for the suspension of Standing Orders.

Mr BEAZLEY:

-I was not debating the merits of the matter; I was merely saying that the motion is a vehicle for this House to discuss what ought to be the level of aid, and that therefore, as this question of aid and of the interest of the outside world is an important one, both for humanitarian reasons and for maintaining peace in the sub-continent, which includes India and Pakistan. I believe that the Standing Orders ought to be suspended.

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

– The motion that has been moved and seconded is a procedural motion for the suspension of Standing Orders and it deals only with the procedures which were referred to by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) when he moved the motion. Naturally, however, some comments went beyond the bounds of the procedural motion, and what has been mentioned during what developed into a part of a debate of course strikes a responsive cord on both sides of the House. Honourable members on the Government side of the House as well as honourable members opposite have raised this matter fairly constantly over recent weeks. As has been stated, the Government has taken some substantial action to assist in this field to date and some further action was announced only recently. However, as I indicated when a similar motion was moved the week before last, this is not the appropriate form to deal with this matter, however much sympathy we have with the subject that has been raised.

The position at the moment is that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), since his return from overseas, has been in close consultation with the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on this matter. At present the Minister for Foreign Affairs is in the process of preparing a statement which he will make to the House concerning action which the Government will be taking. I hope that that statement will be made to the House tomorrow. I have already mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) that when that statement is made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs some debate will take place on its subject matter.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Acting Speaker, I-

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Bryant:

– Can I not close the debate?

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I point out to the honourable member for Wills that the honourable member for Corio also is on his feet.

Mr Bryant:

– All right,

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– I call the honourable member for Corio.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

- Mr Acting Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Swartz) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 62

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put.

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

AYES: 52

NOES: 62

Majority .. ..10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2481

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Does the right honourable gentleman recall telling the House on 18th February that his predecessor, the right honourable member for Higgins, had contributed wisdom and leadership to the fight against inflation? I ask him whether the right honourable member for Higgins told a Liberal Party dinner last Wednesday that:

It is little use to dampen down demand by raising taxes or interest rates and by, increasing government surpluses, which is the classic economic antidote to demand inflation. . . . Such action may be as harmful as would be the action of a physician who treated a patient for an illness he did not have, and could well make his condition worse.

I ask: Are the anti-inflation measures stigmatised by the right honourable member for Higgins as ‘harmful’ and ‘of little use’ those currently being followed by the Government? Docs the Prime Minister retain his former respect for the economic wisdom and leadership of the right honourable member for Higgins and, if so, will he commend that right honourable gentleman’s advice to the Treasurer while he himself is overseas?

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

– I think what the honourable gentleman will remember is thatI commended the policy decisions made by the right honourable gentleman from Higgins whilst he was a member of the Cabinet, and that included the time when he was the Prime Minister as well as the time when he was Minister for Defence during the last Budget discussions on the state of the economy and the measures which should be taken in the national interest. I have not read in any detail the comments made by the right honourable member at a Liberal Party branch. But what I will repeat, as has been said over and over again in this House, is that the major cause of our problems of inflation today is due directly or indirectly to wage increases.

I have also pointed out very, very clearly that the policy of the Budget - and as I have said the right honourable gentleman was present when the decisions were made - was to prevent demand inflation superimposing itself upon wage cost inflation, directly or indirectly caused. There is only one answer to be given here. But first, may I go further and say that I have pointed out again and again that, should we regard it as necessary to take action we will do so. 1 should like to point out to the honourable gentleman 3 ways in which we have taken action in recent weeks which is a clear indication of our sensitivity to the problems and our willingness to act whenever we think it is desirable to do so. As an example, we have made sure that there will be 3,000 fewer immigrant workers coming into Australia over the Christmas period than we budgeted for at Budget time. Secondly, the Reserve Bank of Australia has, with the Government’s approval, agreed with the trading banks that their advance limits should be increased by something of the order of $5m a week, permitting cash flows to go on in the companies and a greater degree of flexibility to be achieved. Thirdly, those who care to look can see that at the short end of the bond market the Reserve Bank, again with the approval of the Treasury, has agreed that there should be some moderation of interest policies. I can assure the House that we are watching this problem with very great care and as and when we consider it desirable we will take action._

But if the honourable gentleman who asked this question was really sincere and wanted some impact on inflationary forces, he should ask his colleague, and 1 believe master, to ensure that when the next national wage case comes on the Australian Council of Trade Unions will observe moderation. If moderation is observed 1 believe that we will quickly overcome our problems. If moderation is not observed in the wage claims then, Sir, I can assure you that we will be looking at the future with considerable difficulty. I go one step further and say that if there is a national wage claim the House can be assured that the Australian Government will intervene and will caution the greatest moderation in wage demands.

page 2482

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr GORTON:

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will he read the speech to which the Leader of the Opposition referred in order that it will be clear to him, the Prime Minister, that my remarks were not directed towards what has happened in the past in the attack on inflation but rather towards a discussion of what proper action would be now should that inflation continue? 1 am sure that if he reads that speech his belief in my wisdom will be reinforced.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– If the right honourable gentleman will extend to me the courtesy of letting me have a copy of the speech 1 assure him I will read it on the trip between Australia and San Francisco, or if I am unable to do that, I will read it when I am on shore in Honolulu. If the right honourable gentleman will let me have a copy of his speech fairly quickly I will make up my mind whether the contents deserve further study.

page 2482

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister rejects the analysis of his colleague and predecessor the right honourable member for Higgins, I ask him whether the General Manager of the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce said on Sunday: ‘a lack of confidence is pervading the business community, and it stems from the deflationary aspects of the August Budget’. Did the Victorian Employers’ Federation assert on the same day that any further delay in abandoning the Budget strategy would add to the grave doubts already expressed over the competence of our present leadership? Did the national president of the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia refer to the need to relieve industry of a general apprehension and lack of confidence? Will he, in the light of these comments from sources normally sympathetic to his Government, reconsider his rejection of the views put forward by the right honourable member for Higgins and thus avoid delay in correcting the economy which the Victorian Employers’ Federation described on Sunday as ‘the height of electoral folly’?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It must be obvious that the question asked by the honourable gentleman was drafted for him before he heard the question asked by the right honourable member for Higgins. Because if he had heard that question and the answer to it he would know that I have not rejected the advice which might have been tendered by the right honourable gentleman. I will look at the statement and 1 will look at the advice with a great deal of attention and refer it to the necessary authorities. As to the second part of the honourable member’s question, there are many people saying just as favourable things about the state of the economy. If the honourable gentleman would care to look at some of the speeches made by the General Manager of the Bank of New South Wales, Sir James Vernon and other people at a meeting of the Institute of Directors last week he will see that they clearly identify the present problem as one of cost-push inflation. If the Labor Party wants to make a contribution towards solving this problem it can do so in the manner I have just mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition.

page 2483

QUESTION

SYDNEY HARBOUR

Mr BURY:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Navy. Is it true that the Royal Australian Navy has been taking soil from excavations at South Head and dumping it over the cliff into Sydney Harbour? If this is so, will it despoil the environment? Is it true that complaints have been received from fishermen that this action would be a serious hazard to fish life in the vicinity?

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

– It is not true that the Navy is dumping in Sydney Harbour anything of the nature that the honourable member has mentioned. Excavations to place the tactical trainer on South Head below the skyline in order to present as little interruption as possible to the vista of Sydney Harbour are being undertaken by the Department of Works and the contractor for the Department has decided on a method-

Mr Uren:

– Why do you not move it elsewhere? It does not need to be there at all.

Dr MACKAY:

– Am I allowed to answer the question? The contractor has decided that the best method of getting rid of the spoil from this area is by taking it to the outer side of South Head - not into the Harbour at all - and to a deep water spot to be shot over the cliff in a way which will eventually cause no kind of hazard and in no way spoil the view of this part of the coast. The alternative was to trundle this material through the suburbs for a distance of some 26 miles, involving approximately 180 return trips a day which would cost up to $60,000 extra. This procedure would be a nuisance to the residents in that environment and it would cause dust and deterioration of the roadway. I can assure the honourable member that I have been to visit the site and there has been nothing of the kind that has been publicised in the Sydney evening Press relating to despoiling the waters of Sydney Harbour. There is some topsoil which is causing some discolouration outside Sydney Harbour, but it certainly would be nothing like the discolouration caused by the topsoil coming down the Parramatta River in a normal flood season. The topsoil causing this discolouration would cause nothing compared to the pollution caused by nightsoil around that area. This is the beginning of the operation, and when it is completed a bulldozer will be lowered over the cliff, to clean up the area. The spoil will be put into deep water and there will be no residual adverse effects.

page 2483

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he will be overseas when the next set of employment figures is released. Did he tell a Press conference in Canberra last week that these figures would contain a pleasant surprise? If so, will he give the House a preview of this pleasant surprise? If it is intended to vary in any way the statistical treatment given to the raw employment figures, will the Prime Minister outline the new procedures so as to avoid any suggestion that the next lot of figures are to be doctored?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Anticipating this kind of question because of an article that appeared in the ‘Sun Herald’ last Sunday, I immediately caused to be made inquiries from the Government Statistician as to whether there would be any technical factors associated with the October registrant for employment figures. I am informed by him today that no technical adjustments whatsoever are involved. I have had this also cleared with the Department of Labour and National Service. That Department believes that this suggestion that technical factors are involved is a flight of imagination and has no relationship to reality. So that is the position with regard to the so-called technical adjustments. The normal technical adjustments are made over the Christmas period and are reflected in the March figures. They do not take place in any of the other figures involved. As to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I was then thinking about the severity of the increase in the registrant for employment figures in actual registrations and I did imply that there might be a change in the severity of the increase in these figures, not than there would be. 1 think it is highly desirable that this matter be put in perspective. Regrettably there has been too great a tendency to use the seasonally adjusted figures when referring to unemployment. I am prepared to say that if 1 were to ask what is meant by seasonally adjusted figures not 2 people on the Opposition benches would know what I was talking about. What the man in the street wants to know is the actual number of registrants. That number is 63,679, which is not an abnormal figure for the month in which we are considering it unless there are strong inflationary pressures and the labour demand is exceedingly high. I hope that when the figures come out either we will look at the actual figures of registrants, which have for so long “Stood us in good stead, or, it we are looking at the seasonal figures, at least we will look at the explanation for them and the technical factors involved. Everyone using seasonal figures is warned by the people who draw them up that they are for technical purposes and do not illustrate the actual figures of registrants existing on the date the registration was taken.

page 2484

QUESTION

RURAL RECONSTRUCTION SCHEME

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: What funds have been allotted to New South Wales for this financial year under the rural reconstruction scheme? How much of this sum has been drawn to date? Does the appropriate Act provide for a constant review of the provisions of the Act with a set time limit on the first review? Does this review apply to the funds for the scheme and allocation between the States? If the funds allotted to New South Wales are already spent or committed, as some claim, has that State made any approach to the Commonwealth for the review to be expedited?

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

– The answer to the first of the series of questions put by the honourable gentleman is that in this financial year $11.5m was allocated to New South Wales. In addition $4m was allocated in the last financial year and a further $2.5m of pre-war funds were released from their previous ties so that they could also be used for rural reconstruction. In answer to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question relating to how much of those funds have been drawn this year) $4m of last year’s funds have been drawn, the $2.5m of pre-war funds are, of course, in the hands of the New South Wales Government, but none of the $ 11.5m allocated this year has been called on by the New South Wales Government. The third part of the question related to the terms of review. In the agreement between New South Wales, the other States and the Commonwealth for the introduction of the rural reconstruction scheme areas of review were agreed on. These areas included the interest rate, the extent to which write-offs were permissible under the scheme, the percentage of funds allocated to farm build-up and rural reconstruction and one or two other specific areas. A series of identifiable, possible areas of discussion for review was set down in the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States.

The final part of the honourable gentleman’s question related to the extent to which a request had been made for an expedition of the review. There is an obligation that a review should take place during this financial year. New South Wales has requested that this review be expedited. The position at the moment is that I have asked the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to gather from the respective States all the possible information available to date on the administration of rural reconstruction so that we can expedite this review. I might add that it is my belief that in one State at least the legislation to implement rural reconstruction has only just been introduced and I would think that in the other States administration is really only just starting. In some States, on the other hand, the administration has been moving apace and I know that the commission constituted by the State Government seems to have been doing a very admirable job. The position at the moment with respect to the review is that when the information that we need in order to inquire into these series of items which are the subject of review has been gathered from the States then the question of the time allotted to this review can be considered.

page 2485

QUESTION

DEFENCE: AMERICAN INSTALLATIONS IN AUSTRALIA

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the

Minister for Defence: Has it been drawn to his attention that a report has appeared in a normally authoritative publication ‘Janes’ indicating that an American station in Australia is being used to spy on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? I ask: Is this true? If it is true is it being done with the consent and approval of the Australian Government? If it is true would one of the consequences be, as indicated by one of the Minister’s predecessors, that in the event of nuclear war this base would be a nuclear target? Are there now available any other technical means of achieving what this station does?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am sorry that the honourable member was not here when I made a full statement to the House and I would suggest that he look the statement up. I have constantly made it clear that the Government has no intention whatsoever of reacting to the many rumours which are constantly brought out in an attempt to try and undermine the security of the American bases in Australia. We believe that only harm can come out of any of these and it is an obvious attempt by certain members of the Press and by certain members of the Opposition to try and break the security of these bases. These installations are part of the defence of the free world. Australia believes that there is every reason why we should co-operate with our great allies and particularly with the United States as part of the ANZUS agreement, and I have no intention whatsoever of either confirming or denying any rumours which are published in the papers.

Dr J F CAIRNS:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to order. I do not know, Mr Acting Speaker, whether the Minister’s answer appeared to you as it appeared to me, but to me it was a straightout statement that this question and other questions had been asked for the purpose of undermining security. It seems to me that this is a very serious charge that should be made only on a substantive motion. I think the Standing Orders are quite clear about that and if the Minister wants to make this charge I ask him to make it in the form of a substantive motion so it can be debated and not just splashed across the House and the radio stations of this country in this way.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:
Mr Lucock

– Order! The honourable member for Lalor has stated his point of order. I rule on the point of order that the question was answered by the Minister in general terms and while I would not be dogmatic about it until I see the answer in print, I would at this moment rule that there is no substance in the point of order.

page 2485

QUESTION

OBJECTION TO RULING

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I note, Mr Acting Speaker, that you have ruled against my point of order. I move:

That the ruling be dissented from. (Dr J. F. Cairns having submitted his objection to the ruling in writing)-

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not desire to detain the House for very long in speaking to this motion, but I do so having clearly heard what the Minister had to say and having had a good deal more reason to listen to it more clearly than perhaps you had yourself, Mr Acting Speaker, and perhaps more reason than other members of the House had to listen to it. 1 was quite clear that the Minister was deliberately saying that certain people who write in newspapers and certain members of the Opposition had raised this matter and were asking questions about it for the purpose of undermining security. To me this means a very serious charge. It means, I think, specifically that those members of the Opposition who have asked questions about this matter have been doing so to undermine the security of Australia. One well remembers when this matter was last raised in this House by the honourable member for Ballaarat (Mr Erwin). It resulted in a very notable libel action being taken by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), as a result of which one of the largest and most monopolistic newspapers in Australia was required to pay very substantial damages. I should like the Minister for Defence to say this in a place where I could make him also the subject of a similar action. If he does that 1 will make him the subject of a similar action.

But at the moment I am concerned with the procedures of this House. At the same time I am concerned about the attitude of other members of the Government to one of their colleagues who will choose to do this sort of thing. If they remain silent and if they vote with the Minister, I will assume that they agree with him about my position, because I think it is I who am involved at the moment. I will assume that they agree with him unless they either say that they do not do so or take some appropriate action. I have moved this motion because this is a matter that has direct significance under the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are quite clear. They provide that if any member of this House desires to make any submission of this order or of this character about any other member he shall do so by means of a substantive motion that can be debated and voted upon; he shall not do it in the course of answering a question or in the course of debate about some other matter. I have not had time to look at the. Standing Orders in detail or to ascertain what particular standing order is involved here, and I think that those honourable members, like the former Minister - one is never sure now, when one looks across the chamber, on which bench Ministers are sitting -

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You have been away a long time.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I have been away long enough to be unsure about who is the Prime Minister this week, and I am sure that if 1 had been away another week there might have been another change in the Prime Ministership. But that is not the point that is the subject of debate here. Mr Acting Speaker, the subject of debate here is whether your ruling should be disagreed with, and I submit that it should be because I think it is completely contrary to the facts. Firstly, it implies that the Minister for Defence did not say what he did say. Secondly, it implies that what he did say is not an offence under the Standing Orders. Both those implications are wrong. So I submit therefore that your ruling in this matter is wrong and that the House should vote that your ruling is wrong so that the matter can be put in order. For many years in this House it has been too easy for people to make direct statements, implications and insinuations of disloyalty. Working to undermine security’ is a common expression that has been used. It has been far too easy for Ministers, in particular, in answering a question to say these things and to get away with them. They have been able to get away with them because too many people who have occupied your chair, Mr Acting Speaker, have been prepared to rule the way that you did.I say therefore that your ruling is wrong and that it should be disagreed with.

Mr Nixon:

– That is a reflection on the ruling of the Chair.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Of course I am reflecting upon the ruling of the Chair. The whole purpose of this motion is to reflect upon the ruling of the Chair. The purpose of the motion - and it may have escaped the attention of honourable members who were interjecting - is to indicate that the Acting Speaker’s ruling is wrong. Of course I am reflecting upon his ruling.

What would he the purpose of moving the_ motion if I were not? I ask honourable members who were interjecting to give the matter a little more careful thought than their interjections indicate they are giving to it. I submit that if honourable members opposite give this matter a little more careful thought and have regard for the reputation of this Parliament, even for their own reputations, they will agree that this kind of practice should be curtailed and Ministers should not be allowed to make statements of this type contrary to the Standing Orders, which require such statements, if they are to be made, to be made in a different form. That should be the effective law of this Parliament and until rulings such as your ruling, Mr Acting Speaker, are disagreed with, this will not be the effective law of this Parliament. Therefore I submit that your ruling should be disagreed with.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I second the motion. The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) said very deliberately that there were members of the Press and members of this House who were trying to undermine the security of this nation. The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) asked a question and the Minister for Defence, in his reply, implied that the honourable member for Lalor was undermining the security of this nation. It may be that the Minister for Defence was flustered when he was replying to the question and possibly he would wish to make the position clearer. The honourable member for Lalor has every right to draw to the attention of this House the requirements of the Standing Orders. Too frequently there has been use of innuendo and, if I may use the word, smear, in this House. Normally the Minister for Defence is not one who engages in this practice but there are other members opposite, from the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) down, who do not hesitate in making accusations by smear or by innuendo against members of the Opposition.

Surely in 1971, when consideration is being given to the admission of China to membership of the United Nations, members should be able to ask questions about and express praise of countries which have ideologies different from our own. Surely it is time we acted in a more adult way and spoke rationally and constructively instead of there being implications against honourable members. I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) probably will quote to you, Mr Acting Speaker, one of your previous rulings which will indicate that the ruling you have given today is not consistent with your past ruling. It is true that had Mr Speaker been in the Chair the ruling he may have given may have been consistent, but your ruling today is inconsistent with rulings that you have given in the past. 1 ask honourable members to give deep consideration to the details that have been mentioned by the honourable member for Lalor. When an honourable member rises in this place to ask a question it should not be doubted that he is speaking only for himself, for his constituents and for this nation which he represents here. Honourable members should be free to ask questions. They should have the basic right to be able to speak freely without being subjected to intimidation. For for too long there has been implied intimidation in this House. I am sick to death of it. I had to take action outside this House not only on my own behalf but on behalf of all honourable members and I hope that honourable members opposite will not regard this motion of dissent as a party issue but as a matter affecting their rights in this House because if the situation changes and we are on the Government side and members opposite are in Opposition 1 will defend their right to stand and speak in this chamber without there being any inferences concerning their personal character. Whether the Minister for Defence intended it, there was an implication against the honourable member for Lalor which I believe should be withdrawn.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– 1 support the motion. Mr Acting Speaker, I draw attention to your ruling and consequential requirements on 4th May 1967. 1 will concede that there has been a difference of interpretation between yourself and the present Speaker. Members of the Opposition have complained consistently about the collective defamation which the Speaker has permitted, but we have supported your own refusal to permit such collective defamation. The words used on this occasion refer to some members of the Press and of the Opposition imperilling the security of this country. The words used on 4th May 1967 which you required to be withdrawn were these:

  1. . there are members of the Opposition - I refer to them perhaps as the red belt in the Opposition, and I am going to avoid names because I do not think it is fair to mention them -to whom it would be unwise to entrust classified information if that information related to affairs-

Then there was an interruption. Sir, you will see the similarity of the 2 remarks - this relating to a threat to security, that relating to a breach involving classified information. Let me illustrate again the position that can arise, as 1 did on an earlier occasion when I said:

If I were to say that every member of the Ministry received bribes I would quite properly be required to withdraw the remark. If I were to say that outside the House I would quite probably be subject to a suit for damages for defamation. If 1 were to say in the House that a certain named Minister had received bribes, or if I were to say outside the House that a certain Minister had received bribes, I would be subject to similar discipline. If I say that some Ministers receive bribes I should be made to writhdraw the remark. Because I had deliberately spoken obscurely, I should be able to avoid any punishment in the courts. The honourable member for Mackellar has developed this technique of never specifying any particular person who can require a withdrawal and never applying his remarks to the whole body, in which case every member of that body could require the withdrawal of the remark.

I suggest, Mr Acting Speaker, that you should, straight away in the life of this Parliament, put an end to this technique. If the honourable member believes what he says about any honourable member in this place, if he believes that the conduct or character of any honourable member justifies the remarks he made, he should specify the member, who can then ask for a withdrawal. If the honourable gentleman were to be similarly direct, frank and honest outside the House then action could be taken through the courts.

Sir, on that occasion, after fairly full argument, you upheld the point and you required the offending member to withdraw the collective but unspecified defamation he had cast, and I submit that you should adhere to the ruling you gave on that occasion. It is one which is valuable to every individual member of this chamber, whether he is with the majority or the minority. Sir, I submit this is a principle to which you should adhere.

Question put:

That the Acting Speaker’s ruling be dissented from.

The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock) Ayes .._ .._ . . 54 - Noes - 61

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority .. ..7

AYES

NOES

In Division:

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Order! Any particular matter will be decided as it arises. The ruling that I have given in this instance is that the circumstances were not such as -to - necessitate -my - complying with the request of the honourable member for Lalor.

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2489

QUESTION

POST OFFICE

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. I refer to the notice given by the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs, Sir John Knott, that he intends to retire in January. Will the Postmaster-General assure the House that consideration will be given to the claims of members of the postal services for appointment to the position of Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs? I know that the Postmaster-General is aware that many great men as administrators in the Post Office started off in the ranks as telegram delivery boys.

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

– The answer to the honourable gentleman’s question is: Yes, together with all other persons who might be eligible for consideration.

page 2489

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr MARTIN:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the right honourable gentleman aware that his former Cabinet colleague and the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Wentworth, acknowledged last Thursday that inflation had ‘largely passed beyond the power of the Government to do anything decisive about it’? Did Sir James Vernon tell the New South Wales Institute of. Management last Thursday that the Government’s current deflationary restrictions on demand were irrelevant to the current inflationary situation and would fail to contain inflation even if carried to the point of ‘gross unemployment’? Does he recall that on 15th September the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ summarised ‘the whole underlying strategy of the Budget’ as ‘creating a pool of unemployed to moderate wage demands and price increases’? Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge with the former Treasurer and the former Chairman of the Committee of Economic Inquiry that the Budget strategy was misconceived and should now be changed?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have read the first statement. I read part of the second statement and only today I have written to Sir James and pointed out to him that some of the figures in his statement- are wrong. I have not read the third statement.

page 2489

QUESTION

HEALTH

Dr SOLOMON:

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that any claim by a medical practitioner for health insurance reimbursement in respect of treatment given to his own child is disallowed under a ruling of the Department of Health? Is he further aware that this is so even when surgical treatment is involved and the necessity for it occurs in a rural locality well removed from any alternative medical assistance? Will the Minister encourage his colleague in the Senate to review the stringent application of this ruling with the aim of leaving judgment as to the propriety of any claim to the health fund concerned, as is generally the case?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– 1 can recall this matter being raised some years ago when I was Minister for Health. The decision made at that time was that in view of the special circumstances treatment of their own children by medical practitioners would not be recognised under the National Health Act. This matter has been reviewed from time to time but the situation still applies at the present time. I know there are some problems related to rural areas and also when the problem of surgery arises. There are some legal technicalities also associated with the matter of a charge being made for the person himself. However, in view of the fact that the honourable member has raised the matter I will ensure that it is referred to my colleague in another place for consideration.

page 2489

TOBACCO INDUSTRY

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

– Pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955-1965, I present the sixteenth annual report on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 2489

AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICE

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

– Pursuant to section 96l of the Post and Telegraph Act 1901- 1970, I present the annual report of the Australian Post Office for the year ended 30th June 1971 together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements.

page 2490

TARIFF BOARD REPORT

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

– For the information of honourable members I present a Tariff Board report on grinding wheels of the depressed centre type and cutting-off wheels (Dumping and Subsidies Act) dated 19th August 1971.

page 2490

OIL

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

– ‘For the information of honourable members, I present the report by Sir Leslie Melville, K.B.E., appointed by the Commonwealth as Arbiter, on oil industry terms and conditions for refining of indigenous crude oil on behalf of independent marketers. Honourable members will recall that the appointment of Sir Leslie Melville as Commonwealth Government Arbiter was announced in my statement to the House on 7th September 1971.

Mr Stewart:

– May I have leave to make a statement on the paper which the Minister has just presented?

Mr CHIPP:

– No.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– Leave is not granted.

page 2490

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army and Minister Assisting the Treasurer · Kooyong · LP

– In accordance with the undertaking I made to the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) on 7th October, during my second reading speech on the Loans (Qantas Airways Ltd) Bill (No. 2), I present the text of a letter to be exchanged between Qantas and the United States Government on the use of aircraft.

page 2490

WAR PENSIONS ENTITLEMENT APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repat riation · Indi · CP

– Pursuant to. section 82 of the Repatriation Act 1920-1971, I present the reports - of - War - Pensions - Entitlement Appeal Tribunals Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the year ended 30th June 1971 and No. 5 in respect of the period 1st July 1970 to 21st June 1971.

page 2490

ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930-1963, I present a statement of moneys received and expended during the year ended 30th June 1971 by the Commonwealth in the administration and development of the Australian Capital Territory.

page 2490

VOTING RETURNS FOR 1970 SENATE ELECTION

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the statistical returns from each of the 6 States. showing the voting within each subdivision in relation to the Senate elections 21st November 1970.

page 2490

QUESTION

REORGANISATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITIES

Ministerial Statement

Sir ALAN HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP

– by leave - Mr Acting Speaker, on 16th September 1971 I informed the House of the decision to reorganise the telecommunications services of my Department into 32 management areas, 6 metropolitan and 26 country. I have since received many inquiries and representations from honourable members,town councils and others concerning the economic and social effects of the withdrawal of staff and their families from country towns, some of which are already quite seriously affected by circumstances within the primary industries. I have therefore explored ways in which area management headquarters staff might be decentralised without serious loss of efficiency in that organisation. I would like to explain the change in arrangements which has been decided on. At the same time I would like to remind the House of the principles of area management and to clarify one or two points which may have been misunderstood.

_

At present the telecommunications service is represented in provincial and rural areas by 2 relatively small and quite separate units - the district telephone office responsible for commercial and customer advisory functions and an engineering unit responsible for the technical aspects cf the service. As I explained previously each of these district units has limited authority. There is shared responsibility for some activities and official co-ordination and final authority rests at State headquarters in the capital city. Under area management co-ordination and authority in respect of most of the functions involved in providing and maintaining the telecommunications service will be transferred from the capital city to area headquarters. Thus those activities, instead of being managed by 6 very large State units at capital cities, will be largely managed in a town within each of the 32 areas. I will not repeat the advantages of this change except to say that it is designed to improve the quality, the efficiency and the economy of the service and it has been developed in the public and national interests.

To obtain the full advantages from decentralisation of authority, responsibility and accountability, it is necessary to place a management unit in an area geographically larger than existing districts. In general, a new area embraces two or three districts. A small proportion of existing district staffs would need to be grouped eventually at area headquarters. It is this factor which has given rise to most representations. It is on this point also that there could have been some misinderstandins Staff responsible for commercial and customer advisory functions are not affected by the establishment of area headquarters. That is. almost all members of the district telephone office - telephonists, lines staff and installation and maintenance staff - will remain in their present locations. Engineers and some supporting staffs, and a small commercial group would be concentrated at headquarters. On this basis the original plan would have involved the eventual movement of about 25 to 35 staff positions from a district centre not selected as area headquarters over a period of several years. This was clearly stated by me on the 1 6th September.

As I mentioned at the outset in this statement, the matter has been further investigated to determine whether or not it would be both feasible and practical to decentralise within each country area some of the positions carrying out area head- quarters functions. 1 have concluded that decentralisation of a high proportion of these area headquarter functions would be possible without too significant an effect on the economic benefits and increased business efficiency which would have resulted from the original scheme.

The results of this change will be fourfold. Firstly, approximately two-thirds of district staff that was proposed to be transferred or moved by promotion or otherwise will remain where they are at present located. They will operate in circumstances or in a situation similar to a business branch. Secondly, the effect on the town not chosen as the management centre will be minimal, both commercially and socially. Thirdly, it is expected that all staff changes that do occur will be achieved by normal promotions, voluntary transfers, normal staff wastage and by local recruitment. Fourthly, personal economic problems of most members of the staff who are not promoted will be overcome or certainly alleviated in substantial degree. in addition 1 should again explain that the changes even on the new basis will be gradual and spread over several years. The decentralisation of authority, responsibility and accountability for telecommunication services to 32 business units of adequate but manageable size is in harmony with the modern business practice for the control of large organisations. I am satisfied that the introduction of area management in the Post Office will have considerable advantages in terms of service, efficiency and economy. The modification to !he original arrangements will enable the benefits and advantages of area management to be substantially achieved whilst ensuring that community needs are met. I present the following paper:

Australian Post Office, Telecommunications Activities, Reorganisation - Ministerial Statement, 26 October 1971.

Motion (by Mr Howson) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– When the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) made his original statement on the reorganisation of the Australian Post Office telecommunications activities on 16th September, about 5 weeks ago, he commenced by saying:

I present to the Parliament a statement on a matter of great importance to the Post Office and the community it serves.

He went on to say:

An opportunity to review our organisational structure and working arrangements arose following a recent service-wide study of the employment of engineers by the Public Service Board.

In the statement which he circulated to honourable members, under the heading Conclusion’ he said:

The changes are quite radical. They are designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Post Office telecommunication management. They are in harmony with modern business practice of clearly identifying management authority and responsibility.

But nowhere in the Minister’s original statement or in the statement that he has made today did he make any mention of consultations with staff associations. It was not until my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) was speaking, on 16th September, that the Postmaster-General indicated by interjection that consultations had been held with staff associations. My information since then is that if any discussions were had with staff associations they took place belatedly and were very perfunctory in manner. If it had not been foi the. diligence and initiative of the New South Wales branch of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union and in particular Mr Peter Evans, a State organiser of that Union, these radical changes, which are of great importance to the Post Office and to the community it serves - there I paraphrase the words of the Postmaster-General - would almost have escaped the notice of the staff and the community affected and would almost have escaped the notice of this Parliament.

The New South Wales branch of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union, through Mr Evans, let the results of the reorganisation of the telecommunication activities of the Post Office be known throughout the areas affected and to the staff of the Post Office. I repeat that there was very little consultation with anyone before the reorganisation decision was announced. In his original statement the Postmaster-General mentioned a survey by the Public Service Board. He went on to say that the changes were in harmony with modern business practice of clearly identifying management authority and responsibility. That is a typical ministerial statement. It is typical Government practice. The Government asked the Public Service

Board to make a survey of the engineering sections of the Postmaster-General’s Department. I would say that most of the men conducting the survey would have no experience in the workings of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. Having obtained their opinions, the Government then looked at management practice, and those 2 things have been taken into account. But the human welfare of the staff concerned and the human welfare of the communities affected have not been taken into account at all. The chambers of commerce, the unions, and the staff associations knew little or nothing about the reorganisation of this section of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department until it was announced here.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Assistant Minister assisting the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Robinson) let the cat out of the bag in a country area 2 or 3 days before the Postmaster-General had an opportunity to announce the decision in this Parliament. Typically, the statement made today and the statement made on 16th September demonstrate the attitude of doing everything without consultation with the men and women who are working in the Post Office or in a government department and of making a decision without telling or without consultation. Then if industrial unrest is created the employee is immediately blamed for that industrial unrest. In this instance the staff associations have been treated almost with disdain. Over the past few weeks I have received letters and telegrams from various sections of the Post Office unions and from personnel. One letter reads as follows:

We the undersigned members of the ACOA located in the Costing Section of the Administrative Branch of the Engineering Division, PostmasterGeneral’s Department, view with considerable concern the complete lack of information available to us on our future career prospects following the proposed introduction of the Telecommunication Area Management and Restructuring of Engineer Organisational Concepts arising from the Engineer Review Team report.

Our Director, Posts and Telegraphs-

This letter comes from Sydney - in a communication dated 9th September 1971 urges that an encouraging and optimistic note be struck regarding the proposed reorganisation. He concedes, at the same time, however, that uncertainty must exist as to how the restructured organisation, may affect individual careers. We are assured in the same letter nevertheless, but only in the most general terms possible, that inconvenience will be minimised and career prospects enhanced for all in the reorganisation.

We feel as a group whose salary classifications and career opportunities have already been depressed for a considerable period past, that a more specific statement of intentions concerning our particular sections is indicated. It is hard, indeed, to imagine that the type of spirit which the Director quite rightly seeks to engender in us could possibly be forthcoming in a climate where the mors pessimistic among us even suspect that a fragmentation of our specialist group could lead to a loss of existing classification and status . . .

I have received a letter from an individual, part of which reads as follows:

The most disturbing aspect of the whole exercise is the complete lack of information given to staff prior to the recent statement by the Postmaster-General in the House. Even now, the Clerical/Administrative group have no indication as to how their career opportunities and in fact their present positions, could be affected.

In his statement today the PostmasterGeneral said: 1 have since received many inquiries and rep resentations from honourable members, town councils and others concerning the economic and social effects of the withdrawal of staff and their families from country towns, some of which are already quite seriously affected by circumstances within the primary, industries.

Those circumstances existed when the Minister made his original statement.I hope that the Minister’s reference to ‘others’ does not mean staff associations. I am reasonably certain that the Minister and his Directors-General in the various States have been approached by staff associations from various Post Office unions.

Mr STEWART:

– And you dismissed the staff association organisations under the words ‘and others’. Is it any wonder the Post Office is subject to industrial unrest when you, the Minister, and your senior officers treat the employees’ representatives in this way? In your statement today you again mentioned that only 25 to 35 staff members from the districts not designated as area headquarters are likely to have to be transferred but then you go on to make alterations in the proposals that you announced only 5 weeks ago.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– Is there anything wrong with that?

Mr STEWART:

– No, there is nothing wrong with that, except that I cannot understand how you as the responsible Minister in the Government can come in on 16th November and make an announcement in this House without giving any facts or figures at all and relying on a Public Service Board survey and on management practices, and within 5 weeks you change that reorganisation.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– Why do you not read the Act and see where the responsibility lies?

Mr STEWART:

– You changed the reorganisation and in the 4 points that you set out in your statement today, you have deliberately tried to curtail some of the criticism that has already been made about the proposed alterations. I condemn the Minister because he did not know what was proposed in the reorganisation until such time as the New South Wales Branch of the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union let it be known not only to members on this side of the House but also to councils in the country areas, to Country Party supporters and to Liberal Party supporters, and it was then-

Sir Alan Hulme:

– Nonsense.

Mr STEWART:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, inhis statement the Postmaster-General says that he made his original statement on 16th September. I have quoted the following extract from it:

I have since received many inquiries and representations.

As a result of those representations the Minister changed his original proposals. I do not think he has given nearly sufficient consideration to the reorganisation. As far as I am concerned, and I think I speak for most Labor Party supporters, I am not against the efficient reorganisation of the Postmaster-General’s Department but we do not want these decisions made without due and proper consideration not only for the top echelons of the Post Office but also for the workers. Human beings are affected in this situation and to those of us on this side of the House human beingsare the most important commodity in this country of ours. They have to be considered; otherwise there will be industrial unrest and the Government will continue to blame the workers in the Post Office and in the Public Service generally for the things that are happening in the community at the moment. The Government cannot ride roughshod over the people in these organisations. There are staff associations that are prepared to meet the PostmasterGeneral or any of his administrative officers at any time over these matters.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– And they did.

Mr STEWART:

– They met one or two days before you made this announcement.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– They met the appropriate people.

Mr STEWART:

– They met one or two days before you made this announcement and 1 believe that it was not until the honourable member for Cowper let the cat out of the bag that you decided to go and see them. This reorganisation is perhaps necessary, but if it is necessary surely greater consideration should have been given to it than has. been given to it. In 5 weeks you can make some drastic alterations to it but you still stick to that figure of 25 to 35 people in the area not designated as area headquarters but there are still to be 25 or so people transferred or otherwise disposed of in those areas.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– I did not say that at all in today’s statement if you read it properly.

Mr STEWART:

– The minister said:

On this basis the original plan would have involved the eventual movement of about 25 to 35 staff positions from a district centre not selected as Area Headquarters over a period of several years. This was clearly stated by me on 16th September.

He made no other mention of 25 to 35 staff positions there.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– Read later on where it mentions two-thirds of district staff.

Mr STEWART:

– The indications are from information that I have - I understand that this information has been given to the Postmaster-General and he has not contradicted it in the statement that he made today - that in New South Wales the country centres which will be affected are: Armidale, Bathurst, Dubbo, Gosford, Goulburn, Kempsey, Lismore, Maitland, Narrandera and Parkes. In Victoria something like 8 centres will be affected, in

Queensland3,in South Australia 3, in Western Australia 2 and in Tasmania one. No consideration has been given to the people who are likely to be affected in those areas.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– Read No. 1 of the conclusions and see whether you come up with the same answer. You do not.

Mr STEWART:

– The factual information has been provided from outside this Parliament.

Sir Alan Hulme:

– Nonsense.

Mr STEWART:

– The minister has made 2 statements and has not given one fact. He has generalised on everything and if it had not been for the staff associations highlighting to Country Party supporters what was likely to happen to the staff of the Post Office the proposed reorganisation of this section of the Post Office outlined in his original statement would have continued exactly as he set out. The PostmasterGeneral has again indicated that he has very tittle consideration for the employees in his Department. He has very little consideration for the community at large because he started off his statement of 16th September by saying that thu was a statement on a matter of great importance to the Post Office and the community it serves; but nowhere in that statement or in the statement that he made today does he spell out in any way what is likely to happen.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Dr Patterson:

– I rise to order. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, as this is a most important statement in which the Postmaster-General makes it obvious that he has back somersaulted, will this Parliament be given an opportunity to debate this matter within a very short time?

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

– I ask for leave to reply to that question.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr SWARTZ:

– I can assure the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) that an opportunity will be made available. I cannot indicate exactly whenthatwillbe,but it willbeassoonas possible. I know that members of the Opposition wish to speak on this matter but there are also Government supporters who want to have reference made to it because they are vitally concerned about it. So I can give the honourable member an assurance that it will be brought on as soon as possible.

Debate (on motion by Mr Robinson) adjourned.

page 2495

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS DEBATE ON CHINA

Ministerial Statement

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– by leave - As we have made plain for many months and as we have asserted in the speeches delivered on Australia’s behalf in the General Assembly and by the resolutions we have co-sponsored, we have supported the representation of the People’s Republic of China in the General Assembly and their occupation of the seat on the Security Council. We are therefore pleased that the People’s Republic of China will now be enabled to be represented in the United Nations and take the seat on the Security Council. A vote was taken at the United Nations General Assembly on Monday - they are 15 hours behind us - first on the question whether priority should be accorded to the non-expulsion resolution which Australia and 21 other countries were co-sponsoring. The vote was in favour of according priority for the vole on this resolution before the vote was taken on the Albanian resolution. The result of the vote was 61 in favour, 53 against with 15 abstentions. A vote was then taken on the non-expulsion resolution of which Australia was co-sponsor. The result was that this motion was lost, with 55 votes in favour, 59 against and 15 abstentions.

A motion was moved by the leader of the American delegation to divide the Albanian resolution for the purpose of the vote. This was ruled out of order by the President of the Assembly and this ruling was supported by a vote of the Assembly. A vote was then taken on the Albanian resolution and this was carried by 76 in favour, 35 against, and 17 abstentions. Australia voted against this resolution. In view of the vote on the Albanian resoluion no vote will now be taken on the dual representation resolution of which Australia was also co-sponsor with 18 other countries, and which in its terms would have provided for the representation of the People’s Republic of China and its taking the seat on the Security Council and would also have provided for the continued representation of the Republic of China. I will seek to table copies of each of the substantive resolutions referred to at the conclusion of my statement. Honourable members have been aware of the general nature of these resolutions.

Mr Whitlam:

– Would you like leave to incorporate them now? That means that they will appear in Hansard.

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

– Yes, I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Halletf)

Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The documents read as follows):

page 2495

RESTORATION OF THE LAWFUL RIGHTS OF THE PRC IN THE UN ALBANIAN RESOLUTION

Submitted on 15 July, 1971

Albania, Algeria, Burma, Ceylon, Congo (Brazzaville), Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, Nepal, Pakistan, Romania, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, and Zambia

The General Assembly,

Recalling the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Considering that the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China is essential both for the protection of the Charter of the United Nations and or the cause that the United Nations must serve under the Charter,

Recognising that the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations and that the People’s Republic of China is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council,

Decides to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognise the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organisations related to it.

Annex

page 2495

REPRESENTATION OF CHINA IN THE UN IMPORTANT QUESTION’ DRAFT RESOLUTION

Submitted on 22 September, 1971

Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gambia, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, Lesolho, Liberia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Philippines, Swaziland, Thailand, United Slates, Uruguay, Bolivia, Guatemala and Mauritius

The General Assembly,

Recalling the provisions of the Charter,

Decides that any proposal in the General Assembly which would result in depriving the Republic of China of representation in the United Nations is an important question under Article 18 of the Charter.

Annex

page 2496

REPRESENTATION OF CHINA IN THE UNITED NATIONS

page 2496

QUESTION

DUAL REPRESENTATION’ DRAFT RESOLUTION

Submitted on 22nd September 1971

Australia, Chad, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Japan, Fiji, Gambia, Haiti, Lesotho, New Zealand, Philippines, Swaziland, Thailand, United States, Uruguay, Liberia, Bolivia and Mauritius

The General Assembly,

Having considered the item entitled the Representation of China in the United Nations,

Noting that since the founding of the United Nations, fundamental changes have occurred in China,

Having regard for the existing factual situation.

Noting that the Republic of China has been continuously represented as a member of the United Nations since 1945,

Believing that the People’s Republic of China should be represented in the United Nations,

Recalling that Article 1, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations establishes the United Nations as a centre for harmonising the actions of nations,

Believing that an equitable resolution of this problem should be sought in the light of the above mentioned considerations and without prejudice to the eventual settlement of the conflicting claims involved,

  1. Hereby affirms the right of representation of the People’s Republic of China and recommends that it be seated as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council;
  2. Affirms the continued right of representation of the Republic of China;
  3. Recommends that all United Nations bodies and the specialised agencies take into account the provision of this resolution in deciding the question of Chinese representation.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Do you mean the individual countries?

Mr Whitlam:

– Yes.

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

– I have not got the information. I will get it and supply it to you. In the course of the debate on the

Albanian resolution andprior to thevote being taken, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of China, Mr Chow Shu-kai, announced that his Government would take no further part in the business of the

United Nations General Assembly. It is a disappointment to us that the collective decision of the United Nations membership should result in the Republic of China losing its place in the world organisation.

The Government of the Republic of China remains in effective control of Taiwan, as the Government of the People’s Republic also controls the mainland of China. The authority of either in their respective territories is not altered by this decision. We recognise, however, that the People’s Republic of China claims sovereignty over Taiwan, and the Republic of China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and the Mainland. We do not expect an early resolution of these conflicting claims. But our great and continuing desire is to see all countries in the region live in peace and we shall, in our policies, continue our efforts towards that end. We shall continue pursuit of our dialogue with the People’s Republic of China, with a view to the progressive normalisation of our relations with it.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) marks the end of the charades and manoeuvres of 22 years in the United Nations to exclude the Government of China. It ends, one trusts, the waste of so much diplomatic effort by Australia. Many of the most highly trained men in the Commonwealth’s employment, many of the best educated and dedicated men in the service of Australia, have wasted some of the best years of their lives in a futility. I need say no more about the past. Let us look to the future now.

The most populous nation in the world, the only nuclear power in Asia, is now a member of the United Nations. It should now be possible to have a realistic treatment by the United Nations of all the matters which should properly come before it. The Minister, in the last sentence of his statement, said:

We-

Australia - shall continue pursuit of our dialogue with the People’s Republic of China, with a view to the progressive normalisation of our relations with it.

For over a year now, ever since Canada and China normalised their relations, my Party has urged that Australia should take the action that Canada took. It might not be so easy now to accord recognition of China on the terms which Canada and then Italy and many other nations have achieved in the last 12 months. One thing is clear: There is nothing to be gained by Australia or by the present Australian Government further closing their eyes to the march of events in our region. The voting in the United Nations of these resolutions - the crucial resolution being carried by a majority of over 2 to 1 - will show that not only nearly every nation in Europe, but also nearly every nation round the Indian Ocean and the nations in South East Asia with which we have been most closely associated, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, all voted for the Albanian resolution. Australia has been signally isolated in her region.

If Australia is now to have relations with China, however small and insignificant the Minister may regard our country the fact is that she cannot achieve from China any lesser terms than China has received overwhelmingly from the United Nations. One learns from the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) - as reported in Hansard a fortnight ago - that there have been ministerial emissaries to China seeking a trade mission. If Australia is to have a trade mission of the power, prestige and effectiveness of Canada’s trade mission, she will have to follow the United Nations; she will have to recognise the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. There is no other way that Australia can have official relations with China. China has been patient; she has comported herself throughout the last year with notable dignity. The Australian Government should now accept the situation. If we are to pursue a dialogue with the People’s Republic and if we are to normalise our relations with Peking, we must now do so on the terms overwhelmingly accorded by the United Nations, including most of those countries in the Common wealth, in our region and in Europe with which we have been associated. Let us do it with as good grace as we can. The Australian Government has failed hitherto. It should now accept the facts. It should now act in Australia’s interest. It should normalise relations with China. It can do so only if it follows the decision of the United Nations.

page 2497

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported: Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill 1971. Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Bill 1971.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Bill 1971. Apple and Pear Organization Bill 1971. National Health Bill 1971.

page 2497

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 14 October (vide page 2445).

Second Schedule.

Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts

Proposed expenditure, $30,460,000.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– During the time available to me I intend, naturally, to concern myself with Aboriginal welfare and with the way in which Aboriginals will benefit this year from the estimates of the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. The speaker who preceded me in this debate was the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) who is, of course, well known for his pontificating on various subjects and for entering the electorates of other honourable members, wandering around generally and passing judgment on what is happening with respect to Aboriginal affairs in the remote areas. He made specific mention of my home town of Cloncurry. I regret that I did not know that he was visiting Cloncurry because I most certainly would have liked him to have inspected the transient home in Cloncurry. My goodness, what a description that is. This was a building constructed by a Labor government for Aboriginals who were passing through or spending some time in Cloncurry. It is a rather remarkable building. When constructed it did not even have the conveniences that are provided in some stables which are no more than 200 yards from it. It had an earth floor and no partitions. All in all it was an utter disgrace. I should have liked the honourable member for Wills to have examined this building while he was in Cloncurry. I am sure that he would have been terribly impressed with this shocking contribution, or so called contribution, to Aboriginal affairs in those days.

Many theories are advanced concerning what should or should not be done for Aboriginals by people who have not the slightest knowledge of how Aboriginals live, what their reactions are to specific matters, what their attributes are and what are their general attitudes. There is only one way of understanding the Australian Aboriginals and that is by living among them, sharing their way of life and understanding their attitudes to our way of life. They often say: ‘When is someone going to talk to us and ask us what we think is the best that should be done for us?’ I. will give an example. I refer to the participation by Aboriginals in development that is proceeding in various parts of Australia. I remember well when Mornington Island was in the electorate of Kennedy visiting that island with the honourable member who subsequently became Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Honourable Bill Wentworth. One evening we met members of the local Aboriginal council. We sat and chatted with them, seeking their views. We were most successful in our efforts, if I may say so. They said: ‘Look, let us face it. We cannot adapt ourselves to what other people think we should be doing. We excel at the things we know most’.

They mentioned particularly fishing in the waters in the vicinity of Mornington Island. They were sensible and constructive in what they proposed. They said: ‘People are coming here with new equipment and new methods of fishing out these waters, but we alone know the habits of the prawns and the fish in these areas. We have been here from the dreamtime days’. Their corroborees and their entertainments are all based on what they claim is their dreamtime history. It is a wonderful experience to be present in the actualenvironment in which their folklore and corroborees originated. The Aboriginals know these areas. They had a sensible approach to participation in an industry 10 which they could make their contribution. They have a down to earth knowledge of the best way of fishing those waters. These people foreshadowed that if the acceleration of the intensity of fishing the waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria were to continue those waters would be fished out. This happened, but, of course, those waters have come good again.

I refer now to the development at Gove. The normal and logical approach to this development would be to permit the Aboriginals to provide the food requirements for the area. This is being done to some extent. They should be enabled to occupy the land in that area and to raise cattle, perhaps in the early stages under the supervision of people who understand the business side of such activity and the best way of producing the most from the land. If this were permitted there would be a sensible, constructive and gradual participation by Aboriginal people in the way they want it, and not as someone else suggests it should be. These people cannot be pushed. They do not want to be pushed. Some people, with the best intention, suggest ways in which Aboriginals can be assisted and they seek to press them into what they feel is best for them. I am not for one moment reflecting on the intentions of these people but, in many cases they smash the things that are most sacred to the Aboriginals - his family life and family unit. If this is done the Aboriginal is wrecked. Everything else becomes nonmeaningful because what he loves best in this world is his babies.

No-one will deny that there is not serious mortality among Aboriginal infants, particularly in the backblocks of the Northern Territory and in my own electorate. This is very worrying. It should not be suggested that the Government is not doing everything possible to try to cope with the situation. One should talk to the people who really understand this problem. I remember having lengthy discussions with the matron of a hospital which was dealing with maternal and child welfare in the Alice Springs area. She pointed out that Aboriginal mothers would come in from the tribal grounds in the Northern Territory and be trained to look after their babies. She said that the results were almost dramatic. The Aboriginal women had a natural ability to learn maternal and child welfare. The unfortunate thing was that these women could not be kept at the hospital indefinitely but had to return to their tribal grounds.

I am sure that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) would substantiate this claim. He is regarded by all fair minded people in that area as having a deep understanding and deep sympathy for the Aboriginal people. Those people who are not influenced by political stirrers who come into areas that they do not even understand will admit frankly that the honourable member for the Northern Territory is highly regarded. Why should not the people in those areas by sympathetic towards him? He has lived for 30 years in the Northern Territory. He did not go there for purely political purposes. I have said it before, and I say it again, that those stirrers who come into the remote areas go through them like a brumby with his tail on fire. They are in and out like a flash, leaving trouble behind them. However they do not have much influence on local opinion and I am sure that when the results of the election held last weekend for the Northern Territory Legislative Council come out this will be clearly in evidence.

On the question of education of the Aboriginals it is interesting to note that at present there is one Aboriginal university graduate. A further 14 Aboriginals are presently at university and there has been a gradual building up of those who are capable of being admitted to universities. This, in itself, is progress, although not as fast as we would wish it to be. Here again the wishes of the people themselves must be considered. As long as I am a member of this House I will protect the right of the Aboriginal to maintain his own dignity, to preserve his own family unit and his desires to blend in and to enjoy progress and not to be pressed into it.

A few moments ago I referred to participation by Aboriginals in activities in their own areas. When planning is being undertaken for the Aboriginals it should be done in consultation with the local Aboriginal councils which comprise men who are highly intelligent, who have the confidence of people in the area and who understand and live with Aboriginals in the area. They have not only the confidence of their own people but of other residents. They can be a means of liaison which is extremely valuable. For goodness sake, let the Government take advantage of their knowledge. If this is done we will see the genuine advancement of our Aboriginal people. While I am a member of this House I will fight against the Aboriginals being exploited for political purposes, which is a shabby, distasteful and unacceptable thing which is happening throughout the country.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– We have just listened to the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) giving his once a year, or is it once a session, expression of concern for the Aborigines. Having visited the Aboriginal settlements and missions in central Australia in the last 10 days, the only point 1 would like to make is that the Aborigines are not impressed by either him or the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder).

Mr Calder:

– They could not be impressed by you.

Dr KLUGMAN:

– When I was working last week in an area where the Aborigines live, the votes from only one ballot box in the Legislative Council election had been counted, and the colleague of the honourable member for the Northern Territory, representing the Country Party had received 39 votes and the Australian Labor Party candidate had received 152 votes. That is approximately the correct proportion so far as the Aboriginal voters there are concerned. Referring to the Country Party, one well known Aboriginal said to me: ‘They have done bugger all’. I assure the chamber that I do not want to be critical of the Government for the rest of my speech.

When I visited central Australia I was impressed by the many people who worked for the Aborigines and by the shocking conditions under which the Aborigines live. I do not say that the Government is at fault because it has not put enough money in there. But I would like to raise certain issues, and I think at the end of my speech it may well turn out that the honourable member for the Northern Territory basically agrees with me. The reason I went up there was that I was impressed by the figures showing a sudden increase in the Aboriginal infant mortality rate, that is, the mortality rate of Aboriginal children up to 1 year old. We have an infant mortality rate in Australia of approximately 18 per 1,000 head of population. In 1969 for Aborigines in central Australia it was 89 per 1,000. In 1970 it increased to 182 per 1,000, and this year the rate is over 200 per 1,000. It means that more than one in every 5 Aboriginal children dies before it reaches the age of one year. This is a shocking position. I went to Alice Springs and from Alice Springs out into a number of settlements and mission stations when the Parliament adjourned some 11 or 12 days ago. No!hing I say now is intended to reflect on either the sincerity or the integrity of the people who are working there with the Aborigines.

Mr Calder:

– How about Mr Shepherd?

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I did not meet Mr Shepherd. The Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts certainly has to think about these matters. The settlements I visited were Papunya, Haasts Bluff, Areyonga, Hermannsburg, Jay Creek, Santa Teresa and a- couple of others. Let me deal with specific points relating to each place. At Papunya we have some 800 Aborigines from different tribes. It is the first of the settlements I visited. It is a shocking place. The conditions there are quite shocking. I am sure that people in Australian in 1971 would not believe the conditions under which the Aborigines are living there. They are living there like animals. The only shelter they have are small wind breaks they have built themselves. The whole family plus a number of dogs per person plus hundreds of thousands of flies live there. There is no vegetation. The people lie in the sand and dust. That is the sort of settlement to which we have invited them to come. The average income per person on that settlement is $5.50 a week. That includes all pensions, child endowment, etc. The people have to be fed on that. The average income of the newest tribe is only $3.50 per week per person. The only modern buildings on that settlement are the police station and lock-up - a concrete, extremely impressive building bigger than anything in the suburbs I represent and dealing with 5,000 or 10,000 people- 2 new houses for 2 white policemen and 3 flats which our group used and which are intended for visiting civil servants, for example, auditors. I think more must be done there and I think the Government is at fault as far as Papunya is concerned.

Dealing with the position at Hermannsburg, I may say in passing that as one who is an agnostic I probably went there with a prejudice against the people who are running the mission. It is a Lutheran mission. As far as I am concerned, the Lutheran Church is a very conservative church. But I probably could not find a group of more concerned people or more with-it people than I found at Hermannsburg running that mission and trying to help the Aborigines there, whether they were there as teachers, nurses or in some other capacity.

At Santa Teresa we have 600 Aborigines. The hospital is an old cottage consisting of a main room which is used as a ward and which is partly divided for a kitchen. A verandah has been enclosed to become a labour ward. I was called to the labour ward because a child born some hour and a half before I arrived had had breathing difficulties at birth. When I had a look al the child there were other child patients crawling around the floor where the baby was lying. An oxygen cylinder was lying on the floor and one of the children was playing with the tap and adjusting or maladjusting the oxygen supply to the baby. After I had looked at the baby the sister asked me to have a look at another child. A 6 months old child had been brought in by the mother because the mother was worried. The child had gastroenteritis plus something else, possibly suspected meningitis. As honourable members know there had been some 50 cases of meningitis in the general area and there had been some at Santa Teresa in the previous week. The only place where one could examine that child was in the labour ward on the 1 bed on which the other child had been delivered some H hour? previously and within one foot of that extremely sick baby. It was the only bed over which there was a fairly adequate light. It is a shocking hospital. Obviously a new hospital has to be built there. I ordered that 6 months old child-

Mr Calder:

– Did they not tell you that a new hospital was to be commenced this year?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– No. I have not time to go into that. If the honourable member represented the Northern Territory he might find out that that project has been suspended. The Government has withdrawn the money. The baby died and the other child was admitted to the Alice Springs hospital. The position is extremely bad generally. We have these huge mortality figures and these Aboriginal children have a tremendously decreased potential. Dr Kirk in his thesis, which I would recommend to anybody, points out that some 50 per cent of Aboriginal children never reach the health parameters - the height and weight, etc.- which are normal or average for less than only 2 per cent of the Australian population. In other words, they are below the worst 2 per cent of the Australian population. What chance have they in later life? They receive an education without having any future. There is no future even if the children are doing reasonably well at school, and I understood from the teachers there that a significant number were able to do well. But there was no worth while employment. The children finished up as labourers or cleaners. It reminded me of the proposition which was put to me by a psychologist friend of mine who was working at a psychiatric hospital in New South Wales. He had to classify new arrivals at this long term psychiatric hospital. Within the classification alternatives available to him he had to decide whether they were to work in the laundry or in the kitchen. What possible hope is there for those Aboriginal children to get keen on education or to see anything worth while in education? The whole education system is aimed at the children. If it is intended to bring about social change - I would hope there is some intention to bring about social change - it must be aimed at the adults. The children spend only very few hours at school and then they go back into the surroundings of the adult people in their own tribes.

I would like to make many other points but my time has nearly finished. Earlier this year I visited Papua New Guinea. The only similarity between Papua New Guinea and central Australia is the relationship between white Australians and black indigenous people. But there the similarity ends completely. I was impressed by the significant number of people in Papua New Guinea who were involved and who felt that there was some future for the Papuans and the New Guineans. Nothing of this nature will be found in central Australia. There is no political education and no attempt is made to encourage Aborigines to look after themselves. People such as the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) talk big about leaving them in their own culture and so on, but all he is concerned about is that they should not get so worked up that they might take action to remove him from this House.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– There has been a number of useful contributions to the wide ranging topics which come under the head of these departmental estimates but despite their usefulness, I venture to suggest that the topic which I wish to embrace is in fact more useful than any which has preceded it. The great majority of environmental problems stem from the population growth of industrial societies around the world and the impact which they have made on both physical and social environments. In fact, the 2 often are not distinguished in common parlance. However, they are greatly distinguished in fact. The forces of industrial agglomeration - the forces which have led to scale economies in industry - have been until recent times, by which I mean the last few years, irresistible in the western world and are beginning to be irresistible in some parts of the eastern world. Until diseconomies occur in urban industrial agglomerations they remain irresistible.

Recent studies have shown that in some of the great cities of the world the forces of dis-economy came to bear only when populations of the order of 5 million or even more were reached. There are no cities in Australia with even approximately that level of population. While public and political awareness of the issues of urbanism, environmental control and the preservation of the quality of life in cities or, for that matter, in the countryside is highly desirable, it is undesirable to make a direct transfer of European or United States experiences and problems to the Australian scene without modification or qualification. In particular, I mean that they should be regarded with qualification in the matter of scale and of density of population. For example, there is a population equivalent to, or even more than Australia’s population feeding itself into, or in one way or another and dependent upon the River Thames in south eastern England. To suggest that it is beyond our capacity, with a certain amount of will and expenditure, to control the flow of effluent in some of our larger cities or, for that matter, in some of our smaller ones, of course is stupid, when we look to other parts of the world and see the problems of scale and of population density with which they are coping and, in some cases, with which they have coped for upwards of a century.

It is highly desirable that we should know and be aware of the problems which depend on and flow from population density and urbanism in base, but we should not be alarmist about it. We should try to judge the situation as we have it, not as somebody else has it, although that does not prevent us from learning from their experiences. The interrelation of population distribution in toto - the whole population distribution of any political area - and of urbanisation - the process by which towns grow and by which, in recent history, an increasing proportion of the total population finds itself in those towns as distinct from the countryside and which in turn affects the issues of immigration, decentralisation and quality of life - must be recognised and given practical attention.

There are many aspects of urbanism. In fact, they are almost too numerous to mention in any short speech on such a subject. However, we are dealing with the questions of building regulations, traffic control, the conservation of air and water supplies and the preservation of buildings and other objects which are worth preserving as an historic heritage. All these things, some of which are more peripheral than others, must be taken into consideration if we are to be concerned about urban environment. I mention in passing that I have made one such study, extending over about 8 years, of our smallest capital city, Hobart. To my knowledge, it is the most intensive study which has been made in this country and possibly anywhere of a single urban organism. So, I hope I know what 1 am talking about in havingsome cognisance of what happens in these areas, why it happens and what might be predicted to happen in the future. I believe that the time has long since passed when this Government or, for that matter, any other government, should take unto itself this problem in Australia. I do not agree completely with the manner in which people such as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) have been putting their views forward. For example, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) tends to cry havoc and to talk of crises in practically every respect and this is set against Utopian visions of what might be but what never was in any other place in the world. 1 believe that this is an unbalanced treatment of the problem which only impedes the essential tackling of it in the best possible way.

As I suggested earlier, what we must do is assess the problem as it falls in our area. We should learn from other people’s experiences and make judgments on the bases of scale and density, the amount of ill that is being done, what might happen and how it can best be controlled. We should stand on our own feet on this matter and not just import ideas as though the problems of Los Angeles, London, New York, Shanghai or wherever it might be were exactly the same as our own. I believe that we must follow a form to find out the things that we do not know. I think 1 can speak with reasonable authority in saying that there are things we do not know and things about which not enough is known by anybody in Australia to take any sensible action on them. It is not enough to advocate decentralisation without knowing its factual relationship or its predictable relationship to urbanism as it now is and as it might become. I believe we must conduct an inquiry of a very thorough - going kind, and I believe there is no better place for this inquiry to be conducted than in this House. The inquiry must be into such matters as future population distribution, the alternative forms of urban growth and the extent to which this Government should become involved in these matters. While making the last point, I do not believe that it is necessarily the province of the Federal Government to become a centralising authority and to take over the whole of this problem lock, stock and barrel. The expenditures involved might be enormous, but what we need to know is what should be done for the good of the country. We can talk later about who shall share the financial responsibilities and what should be done and at what rate it should be done. 1 should like to suggest in very simple terms what we need to look into. Firstly, we should examine the likely pattern of urbanisation in Australia by the end of this century, to take a date. Secondly, we should look into the implications of this for the utilisation of resources in Australia, because those implications do exist. Thirdly, we should look into the extent to which the Federal Government should encourage metropolitan growth or alternative forms of urbanism, or both. Lastly, perhaps, we should examine the likely cost of developments in fields such as urban transport and housing and also the related fields of decentralisation of industry and population. All these things are distinctly interrelated; in fact, it is impossible to unrelate them. One cannot proceed without the other. We cannot understand decentralisation or any proposal for decentralisation without understanding the forces of urbanism and the likelihood of moving those forces in another direction. Finally, I point out to honourable members on both sides of the House that the Greek word polis means a city, and politics can be loosely defined as the art of governing the city. There are few places in the world where a greater majority of people live in an urban environment than do Australians. So, I believe that a case has been fully established for an examination of this important area of environment, for the simple reason that the greatest number of people in this country will be affected by environmental changes in that particular area. The greatest number are involved in urban environments and by any predictions are likely to be. Therefore, despite all the problems of the countryside - and there are some in relation to agriculture and pesticide use and that sort of thing - the fact is that the quality of urban environment and the direction in which it is moving is the outstanding problem which remains for this or any other government in Australia to take on.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– We would have reason to be depressed if we felt that the speech of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) expressed Government thinking. He appeared to be gratified with the situation of Aboriginals as it exists in Australia today and to find as his only ground of criticism a description of a building that was put up by the Gair Government many years ago and he invited the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) to consider that as a Labor achievement. We ill need an attack of modesty on this. Although constantly there have been rising expenditures on Aboriginal affairs, nevertheless it is always possible, it seems to me, for someone like the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) to point out that Aboriginal infant mortality is rising, Aboriginal neo-natal mortality is rising and Aboriginal child mortality is rising. Although from time to time we have new statements and new government offensives in some direction on Aboriginal welfare always there later comes the shock.

The honourable member for Kennedy appeared to believe that the aspects of Aboriginal policy in Queensland that are not gratifying belong to the far past. I invite the honourable member’s attention to the January 1970 issue of the entirely non-political ‘Medical Journal of Australia’. I refer again to one of the conditions mentioned by the honourable member for Prospect - the condition of chronic protein deficiency in Aboriginal children which precludes normal growth, which warps the development of the brain and which determines that these children will never be able to function academically and educationally equal to other children. If one were to say that this was something intrinsically Aboriginal that nobody can help, one might with regret make the statement. But the tragic thing which was expressed in the article of the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ was that these conditions did not apply to Aboriginal children on the mission stations; they applied to Aboriginal children on Queensland Government settlements. The missions had had the intelligence to feed protein supplements to Aboriginal children in infancy and early childhood. Therefore a completely different picture emerges of a large number of Aboriginal children - a large enough number for the sampling to be significant on the mission stations that were analysed in Queensland and on the Queensland Government settlements. This pointed home straight to the Government of Queensland.

The former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), made certain statements about, or took a certain attitude towards, Queensland Aboriginal policy which, I think, was very salutary. But for reasons which had nothing to do with Aboriginal welfare when there was a change of Prime Minister, a new, ingratiating attitude was taken towards the Government of Queensland with this egregious failure as its record and it has been left in immunity. I hope that the Government of Queensland has taken the hint that was given by the right honourable member for Higgins and has started to reform itself. So far we have not seen the evidence of this.

I believe that in the referendum of May 1967 the Commonwealth was deliberately vested by the Australian people with full responsibility for the Aboriginal people. This was the only referendum in all Australian history that was carried in every electorate and, I think one can say, it was carried by overwhelming majorities in every polling place. Although the Australian people do not have the technical knowledge as to what ought to be Aboriginal policy they showed that they had a real concern that a new deal was necessary. Yet the Government of Australia, in relation to Aboriginals, proceeds now as if the referendum of May 1967 had never been carried. And I am not surprised.

For a long time the governmental forces did not want that referendum. All that the right honourable Sir Robert Menzies wanted was an alteration of the Constitution that Aboriginals would be counted in the census. He did not want a transference of power and behind him was a majority that did not want that transference of power all the time. There was the accident of the change of the attitude of the late right honourable Harold Holt, the Transference of Power Referendum was promulgate andthepeoplevotedoverwhelm- ingly for it. But the power which was transferred by the people was never wanted and we continue to act as if the referendum had never taken place.

I am not going to say that the Commonwealth example in the Northern Territory is so overwhelmingly superior to the States that this constitutes a case for exclusive Commonwealth action. But I believe that until the Commonwealth will face the fact that the responsibility is exclusively the Commonwealth’s, there will be no traction in this policy. So long as claims come from a State such as that it thinks it needs so much for Aboriginal housing we get into the pattern that exists - the depressing pattern of separate and colliding sovereignties which is illustrated at every Premiers’ Conference. A State puts in its claim, the assumption is made that too much is being asked for and the claim is scaled down.

The Government of Western Australia is faced with the fact that on the television screen there can be shown Aboriginals living within 10 miles of the Perth General Post Office in what would be the equivalent of very bad hen houses. There has been a movement in population to the city. Because of the present depressed position of the rural economy the seasonal work available for Aboriginals on farms has declined. They come into the towns looking for work. There is no housing for them and they live under unsatisfactory conditions. The position in the metropolitan areas dramatises more nearly whatis true in outlying country towns and on reserves near country towns.

The State Government might come up with the conclusion that something like $19m is needed for Aboriginal housing. However, it would receive a very small fraction of that amount. The fraction is so small that it does not catch up with the aggravation of the problem caused by new movements of the population. Therefore one can describe the situation as more depressing. Were it the Commonwealth’s own department which said: ‘You need $19m here for housing’, there would be an entirely different reaction. The buck stops here.

The people of Australia in a referendum decided that on Aboriginal affairs the buck stops here. I am not interested whether

StateLiberal governments succeed or fail or whether Labor governments succeed or fail, if the responsibility finally rests here. The responsibility is on us and on this Parliament to. find the means. I am not going to fling a lot of cheap criticism at the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) who is sitting at the table. There have been tragedies in Aboriginal health. Maybe the tragedies in Aboriginal health became apparent only when Aboriginals concentrated in settlements. But certainly their concentration in settlements from a nomadic way of life spread disease such as tuberculosis, leprosy and so on rapidly among them. As a bare minimum, as a beginning, let us look at health. Then let us actually commit ourselves to reducing their infant child and neo-natal mortality to the European levels, even if we have no other objectives than that. I know that consequentially that will bring in housing, nutrition and all sorts of other things. But let us get definable objects and achieve them, not vague things like assimilations or integrations which put the Administration under no discipline of achievement at all.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I want to state immediately that T have no solution to the Aboriginal problem; nor am I at all critical of those who are anxious for more to be done for Aboriginals. I would like to point out that there are considerable numbers of Aboriginal people in my electorate. I would be the first to admit that I know very little about the proper solution ‘.o the Aboriginal problem. I have found to my surprise that ignorance is usually no barrier to eloquence in this place, but I would say that I am sceptical about many of the things that are put forward as solutions. For instance, I have seen the impact of unlimited supplies of liquor to the Aboriginal population and to me this is devastating. Anybody who pretends that by giving the Aboriginal people equal drinking rights with us we are benefiting them is, I think, ignoring the facts of life. The same can be said in regard to social services. Anybody who thinks that by giving them equal rights in social services with the white people we will automatically improve their position is ignoring the facts of life.

I repeat that it is easy to be critical of efforts being made to help the Aboriginal population and, as the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) said, it is easier to be generous. To find the means is comparatively easy. The thing that is hard to find is the way in which we can really tackle the problem at the. grass roots level.

It is easy to make speeches about this; it is easy to supply the money. The fundamental problem is much deeper than this. I have no solution to offer. I hope that this Government will set in train an examination of the problem at the grass roots level. That would be better than having us kicking one another around trying to score political points for one another. That will not help to solve the Aboriginal problem.

In this speech I want to speak mainly about soil conservation. This matter has suddenly become a popular bandwagon which a great many people are endeavouring to get on. In this field I speak with some knowledge, having been a member of the Soil Conservation Committee in my own State of South Australia for 17 years and having been responsible for and constructed the first contour banks in that State. I feel that I should spell out the kind of problems which I envisage the Government is facing in this field. I recall one day when I was out with another man assisting in the construction of contour banks. An aeroplane flew over us very fast and very high. I said: ‘I wonder who is in that?’ The chap said; ‘I suppose somebody who will tell us how to tackle our problem.’ There is a tendency to fly over our problems very fast and very high and to say: ‘Let us hand it to the national Government; let us have a national plan,’ and then go away. The point I want to make, and what I am begging the House to realise, is that soil conservation is a grass roots problem. It is something that obviously has to be tackled at the grass roots and it can only be tackled in this way.

Those people who pretend that the Commonwealth can do any more than give a lead in this very vital matter of soil conservation are ignoring the facts of life. We must use State knowledge on this matter. The State departments have worked on the soil in each State and they have done research. The States know their soils. If they do not. they should know. If the Commonwealth has a burning desire to do something in regard to soil conservation 1 would recommend that it look into its own bailiwick, the Northern Territory. Soils in the top end of the Northern Territory . are very erodable types of soil that must be cared for with more than the usual -tender care. The Commonwealth has ‘ a direct responsibility in this area. If the Commonwealth Government has an overwhelming desire to get into the action I recommend that it should tackle this problem in the Northern Territory at the grass roots level. My main plea to the Government, to the Minister for the Environment (Mr Howson) and to the House is that we should not give way to the temptation to make political capital out of such a desperately important subject.

The other matter I want to refer to as an illustration of this tendency to get on bandwagons in an attempt to extract votes is the Simpson Desert discussion which has been going on recently. About one-third of the Simpson Desert is in my electorate. The people who want to get on this bandwagon should know three or four particular facts. Firstly, there has never been and never could be any intention to sell this land. It has never been sold. This land has always been let out on lease conditions and these conditions are very strictly controlled. It would be a surprise to many people to know that the pruning that comes from wise stocking helps to conserve the vegetation in the area. If honourable members want some confirmation of this I commend them to a study of experiments carried out at Yudnapinna before the last war. The problem is that of wise land usage. To use it, as it was recently, in an attempt to frighten people into apprehending that something awful was to happen to the Simpson Desert is one of the things that destroy the impact on the people who think that conservation is important.

I think that soil conservation and plant conservation are very important. I make a plea to the House that we should not use this subject of conservation in an attempt to obtain political capital in the way I fear it was used in the Simpson Desert episode. We have a national problem which can be solved by the States taking an interest and an increasing responsibility. It is not good enough for us to use conservation in an attempt to drum up a few votes in an electorate. - Mr WALLIS (Grey) (5.33) I would like firstly to endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) when speaking of the need for greater Commonwealth involvement in

Aboriginal affairs. We on this side of the House fully recognise the fact that in 1967. the people by way of referendum gave power to the Commonwealth Government to involve itself in Aboriginal affairs. Anyone who moves around areas where Aborigines are will find that there seems to be a bit of a clash in regard to responsibility, a clash as to who is responsible for providing this and who is responsible for providing that. 1 do not believe that this is a particularly good state of affairs, lt is for this reason that I support fully what the honourable member for Fremantle said in regard to this matter. Anyone who moves around areas with Aboriginal populations will know how much needs to be done. I know that some work is being done now but we still have quite a long way to go before we can say that we have a satisfactory situation.

In my electorate of Grey I suppose I have a greater number of Aborigines than there are in any other South Australian electorate. Some are most unsophisticated situations, they vary from the highly edu- .cated Aboriginals in the southern part of my electorate to those in the north west Aboriginal reserve who do not have a great deal of contact with the white man. Their only contact is through the mission stations and Government reserves which exist in that area. On a recent visit to that area I was rather shocked by a few things. One was the matter of health. I spoke with a health officer about this. The problem of the health of Aborigines in the north west area reserve is the same as the problem existing just over the border in the Northern Territory. When the figures showing the high mortality rate in the Northern Territory are mentioned, the figures for the area to which 1 am referring just over the border in South Australia should be included because most of the hospitalisation of people in this area is at the Alice Springs Hospital, lt is for this reason that I am gratified that the Federal Government has recognised this problem. I certainly hope that the purchase of the motel in Alice Springs will help to alleviate this problem in this part of the country.

On the question of health, the South Australian Aboriginal Affairs Department does have health officers moving through this area. Their main job is to point out the various health hazards that arise in various situations. But there is an obvious need for a health education programme - different from the health education given by these officers - under officers who can move through these areas and spend more time helping the Aborigines to overcome the hygiene and health problems that do occur. The present health officers can only go from place to place and give advice on drainage and matters like that, whereas a health education officer can teach the people the way in which they can protect themselves. There is no doubt about the fact that these people have now moved out of their natural environment in many cases. They have moved into missions and Government reserves and are not as before moving from place to place where health hazards did not arise to the same extent as they arise now. Good housing conditions in the settlement are practically non-existent. The former Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs has toured the area and has seen these conditions. Most of the people live in witchas and wurlies made out of spinifex. In their old way of life they would have stayed there for some time and then moved on, not creating a health hazard. But because they are now clustered around these settlements a great health hazard does exist.

While in that area I spoke to quite a few of the people involved with Aborigines. I was at the Ernabella Mission which is run by the Presbyterian Church. The mission runs a cattle station called Fregon which carries about 1,000 cattle. This provides some work for the Aboriginals. They are quite skilled stockmen and the station is a success and provides meat for the people in the area. It can be said that the Ernabella people are running this successfully and by doing so are providing something for the Aborigines to do. Other than work around the missions and Aboriginal reserves and on cattle stations there is no work available for them. This does create problems. I have received a letter from the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) today. It states that because these people do not have a work record they cannot receive unemployment benefits. Because of the low wages that are paid throughout the area I get the feeling sometimes that there is encouragement for these people not to apply for unemployment benefits since the unemployment benefits they would receive would be as much as they would receive in wages if they were working.

I made some observations in this area. I noticed in other areas where Aborigines are that there is a great need for preschool kindergartens. We are all aware that even in an area like Port Augusta where there are quite a number of educated and sophisticated Aborigines, most Aboriginal children because of their background and their parents lack of education start off at school behind white children. The preschool kindergarten has a special function for Aboriginals. Through the well trained staff at such schools it would be possible to involve the mothers and by doing this the mothers would learn something as well as the children. By the time the children got to school age they would have a chance of absorbing an education. 1 know of a preschool kindergarten at Port Lincoln which is run by the Save the Children Fund at which they involve the mothers in preschool activities. I was speaking to the woman running this pre-school and she said it has certainly been of great benefit.

I would like to move further south to the Port Augusta area and deal with the Aborigines in the southern part of my electorate. In this area they come in contact with white people more than they do in the north. Probably there are a lot more job opportunities available for them. There are many more educational opportunities. It is pleasing to see in Port Augusta that there are now up to 1.00 children attending secondary school when a few years ago there were no children attending high school. But the problems arise when these children leave secondary school because in many cases there are no jobs for them. There would be very few apprenticeships available and very few girls would find work in the shops in the town. Once they leave school there is a gap. They can usually get adult employment on the railways, but there is a gap from the time they leave school till the time they reach adulthood and can move out into employment. This can create lots of problems. It can happen anywhere. Wherever there is a group of young people unemployed we find social problems arising. Housing is a big problem in the southern areas. The Housing Trust of South Australia does allocate so many houses to Aboriginals but when we look at the figures given by the Minister a few weeks ago in his second reading speech on another Bill we find that, although Port Augusta has an Aboriginal population varying between 500 and 600, in the list of towns where housing is supplied in South Australia there are no Commonwealth houses at Port Augusta. From memory I do not think there were any provided by the Commonwealth last year. Whether the Housing Trust of South Australia has to provide all the houses I do not know, but this indicates a failure in the Commonwealth Government’s provision of Aboriginal housing.

One also finds that where there is work there is usually no housing. For instance, Whyalla is an expanding town and there is a demand for labour but there is very little housing available for Aborigines. This is one area at which the Commonwealth could look to see in what way it can assist the South Australian Government. It should consider Whyalla from the point of view of providing hostel-like accommodation so that people could obtain employment in Whyalla while stopping in such accommodation until they were allocated a house by the Housing Trust. In this way we would make possible a lot more employment for Aborigines in Whyalla. The same situation applies on the west coast of South Australia where there is a decline in jobs in the rural industries. There is not nearly enough work for Aborigines and this means that they are drifting more towards towns like Port Augusta and Whyalla and this again creates unemployment problems.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KEOGH:
Bowman

– I want to make a few remarks in the debate on the estimates for the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts mainly because of events that have taken place in the last few days in my electorate of Bowman. This afternoon we have heard Opposition speakers very clearly illustrate that the Government cannot continue to pass the buck in regard to responsibility for Aboriginal welfare. As has been said, the referendum result clearly laid the responsibility at the Federal Government’s feet. Speakers from the Government side, such as the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), this afternoon got on to the old theme, hackneyed though it is today, of the bandwaggoners and the do-gooders. It is a great pity that there are not a few more genuine do-gooders among Government supporters, because if there were I am sure that the event to which I wish to refer this afternoon would not have eventuated. I refer to the announced resignation a few days ago of Matron Joyce Wilding, who has been matron of OPAL hostel or the Joyce Wilding hostel in the Mount Gravatt area of my electorate, lt was established 16 months ago as a hostel for Aboriginal mothers who were passing through Brisbane and requiring temporary accommodation for various reasons - perhaps while they or their children were in Brisbane for hospital treatment. In many instances they were deserted wives.

Previously Mrs Wilding had run a hostel for these people in Russell Street, South Brisbane. At one time she had more than 160 people staying at the hostel. Many of them were young fellows seeking accommodation. The Government saw fit to advance money to the hostel through the efforts at that time of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who is present in the chamber this afternoon. I believe that he had a genuine interest in the welfare of these people and certainly a genuine interest in the social work that Mrs Wilding was carrying out. But frustrations have been thrust on her by the Government and by the Department administered by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) who sits at the table this afternoon. He has shown a complete lack of understanding of the problems she faced at Mount Gravatt. The officers of his Department refused to recognise the problems that I brought to their attention only in July of this year when the resignation of Mrs Wilding was imminent.

I contacted officers of the Department and pointed out to them that all Mrs Wilding had asked, in her efforts to provide the very valuable service that she was providing in an efficient way, was that a few small requests be met. These requests were blocked time after time by the dictatorial attitude of the OPAL board of management in Queensland. I took the case to the Minister’s Department and suggested that such small items be provided as an independent budget for Mrs Wilding to maintain the home efficiently and effectively, an independent board of management to assist her and a car so that she could take the sick and injured children for medical treatment in times of emergency. These requests have been rejected because of the influence of the OPAL organisation in Queensland which has frustrated Mrs Wilding and driven her to the stage where she had no alternative but to hand in her resignation.

Yesterday when the resignation was made known to the OPAL board its president, Senator Bonner, who sits in the other place and represents Queensland as a senator, said ‘We shall miss her’. Yet I suggest that it was the influence of this gentleman in particular, who has taken action in the past to prevent Mrs Wilding from receiving the assistance that may have been accorded to her by the Department for the carrying on of the very essential and valuable work that she had undertaken at Mount Gravatt, which has driven her to resign and driven her out of the hostel in order to illustrate the frustrations which she has faced, in working for the welfare of Aboriginals, through the incompetence of the Government. The Minister who at present administers the Department must bear a heavy responsibility for the failure to see the problems not only in this field but also in other areas of Aboriginal welfare in Queensland which are developing so quickly that it is almost too late to overcome them.

Mr HOWSON:
Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · Casey · LP

– 1 want to say first of all how interested I have been in listening to so many speakers address the House on this first time that the estimates of my Department have been the subject of debate here. It has been a most interesting time to see that all the facets of the Department - environment, Aborigines and the Arts - have come under scrutiny. I assure honourable members that I will take note of all the things that have been said. However, I have been asked to try to confine my remarks to a few minutes, so it will not be possible for me to deal with all the matters that have been raised. For instance, I will take note of the remarks of the honourable member for Bowman (Mr Keogh). I am well aware of the matter he raised. There will be an opportunity to discuss some of these matters at greater length in the debate on the States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill which is on the notice paper. I would prefer to save my remarks on the future of Aboriginal welfare until that later debate. 1 turn now to the matters raised on the subject of the environment. Let me deal first of all with those matters which were raised by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I feel that I should dwell for a short time on the role as I see it of the Commonwealth in our environmental affairs. I have had an opportunity to study the way in which Federal and State systems relating to environmental matters have been adopted in places throughout the world, but I have not studied it in great depth because the time has not been available. In all the systems that I have looked at I have seen that, however the relationship of division of powers between the Federal government and the State government has been arranged, it has been found that there has to be co-ordination between State and Federal governments. In no case have I found it possible for the Federal Government to lay down policy and expect the States to carry it out unless there is co-operation. The remarks of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly) on the matter of soil conservation illustrate this point.

Wherever there is a federal system there has to be a policy department of the environment and these have to be administrative departments that carry out individual environmental procedures. As I have indicated to the House before and as the honourable member for Reid mentioned, there are seven or eight Commonwealth departments that administer various facets of environmental policy. Therefore, I believe that in environmental matters the role of the Commonwealth - exclusively; of its own responsibility - should be firstly to set an example within its own territories. What we have been doing, for instance, in establishing a land use advisory authority is an example of this. Secondly, it should see that the administrative departments carry out the task and realise how important environmental matters are at this time. In fact it should prod them into activity where that activity possibly needs to be accelerated. Thirdly, the Department of the Environment should co-ordinate the policies of the various administrative departments and generally see that the whole matter is co-ordinated at Common*wealth level.

We must also remember that at State level there remains the same need for coordination. For instance, I believe that in one State the Minister for the Environment has to co-ordinate 14 other administrative departments. To my mind it is therefore not possible to achieve complete coordination at both State and Federal levels until a similar organisation has been set up at State level to that set up at Commonwealth level. This is what we found at the first meeting of Ministers in September when we addressed ourselves to the problem. However, I have raised these matters with the State Ministers and they will be the subject of further discussion when we meet, again at the end of November. I have also raised with them the need for a national advisory council and as to whether the council should advise the Commonwealth only or whether it should advise the State Ministers as well. Some of the States have asked that they should have time to consider this before I proceed to establish a national advisory council. These are matters that again they have asked for further time to consider, and I think it is right in the light of these important - matters that they should be further considered by the States before we come to a final decision.

I have also asked them to advise me at the next meeting of Ministers on the attitude they want to take towards the Stockholm conference, a matter also raised by the honourable member for Reid. As I have only a few minutes left I want to turn quickly to the remarks made on the subject of the arts. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) has drawn attention to the form of the estimates and I will take this up with the Chairman of the Australian Council for the Arts and see that next year they conform more to the recommendations of the honourable member. I would agree generally with his views that my task should be to enhance Australian cultural development, and in a statement that will be made later today by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) 1 think that the honourable member will see what steps are being taken in that regard. Therefore 1 will not go into greater detail tonight on the subject of our general policy on the Arts.

During the course of this debate some matters have been raised concerning estimates and figures relating to the proposed film school. After answering a question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), the Prime Minister has agreed to take this matter under notice himself and 1 will therefore not comment on it at this moment. However, on the subject of the film industry I want to make it clear that we believe that the film industry should be an efficient industry and an expanding industry but it should be a viable industry. Particularly in the way in which the Film Development Corporation is operating its procedures, it is out to see that films that are helped by the Corporation are viable and profitable. Some of these matters will be referred to in its annual report which 1 hope will be tabled within the next 2 to 3 weeks. On the subject of the school, let me say that the Government has made it clear that because of financial stringencies the decision to establish it had to be deferred. But during that period of deferral I have had a number of important recommendations and suggestions from the industry.

The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Sherry) asked me whether I had heard from the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations. At the time when he was speaking to these estimates I had not, but since then I have received a letter from the Federation and I will be conveying its suggestions to the Interim Council for the Film and Television Training School so that it can take them into account because I believe that important above all things in the film industry is that there should be complete co-operation between the Film Development Corporation the Interim Council and the industry itself. If there are indications that there are ways in which that co-operation can be improved then I think that it is wise that we should take them into account at this stage and that I hope will be done quickly and effectively during the next few weeks.

Progress reported.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 2511

THE ARTS IN AUSTRALIA

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– by leave - Mr Acting Speaker, in recent years my Government and its predecessors have given greatly increased support to the arts in Australia. The response has been most encouraging. As a result, our policy on the arts and the interpretation of action taken or not taken by the Government have attracted a good deal of attention from honourable members as well as from the media and the public. It is timely, therefore to give to the House a fresh appreciation of our attitude to the arts. It is proper for me to clarify some aspects of our involvement which have been under discussion in recent weeks. The Government sees the arts in a multitude of expressions and forms - not as an adornment but as an integral part of life; not something exclusive to the hours of leisure but as a force, penetrating and enriching every aspect of human affairs; not as the preserve of the rich and the sophisticated but as a source of delight for all.

The arts are among the factors which go to create a quality of life unique in Australia. In the past we may have been inclined to stress the physical and material satisfactions of life at the expense of the pleasures of the creative imagination. And as a result many talented Australians who wished to be painters or writers, actors or dancers, musicians or film directors have had to leave Australia to build a career in a more sympathetic artistic climate elsewhere. We could not afford this leaching of our society any more than we can now afford to allow our incomparable environment to be despoiled and polluted by lack of foresight and conscience. But, with the growing cultural awareness of the Australian society and because of support provided by governments, the opportunities for talented Australians to pursue a professional career in this country have been increased significantly in recent years. While there is still much to be done, novelists and poets, painters and sculptors can now command a better market as professionals here and abroad than they could do not so many years ago.

The Australian Opera Company, the Australian Ballet Company, the State drama companies, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Australian Elizabethan Trust orchestras, and many other smaller companies, all now employ artists on a continuing basis, and they attract back to Australia artists who, having gone abroad for further experience, wish to return and work in their own country. This flow will increase as time goes by and bring great stimulus and enrichment to the daily life of all Australians.

The effectiveness of policy in relation to the arts of course will depend in part on the vitality and wisdom of the institutions set up to administer it. In the Commonwealth, overall responsibility for the arts has been placed by me with the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson). This Ministry was created to take over from the Prime Minister policy issues of increasing importance on a variety of matters which demanded more sustained attention than it was possible for him to give. Nevertheless, I find a certain logic in the combination.

The Minister’s responsibilities are all in different ways concerned with the quality of life which opens out before the Australian people. It is increasingly clear that the superb natural environment which this continent provides for human life can no longer be taken for granted. It must be protected with understanding and with care. If, as I have said, the arts should be deeply integrated into our lives, they too form part of the intellectual and cultural environment within which our lives are lived - offering diversity of experience and lending form and substance to our personal and natural identity. Aboriginal Australians are an unqualified responsibility of governments - a challenge to our conscience and to our political and social wisdom.

There is, particularly in relation to the environment and the arts, much that we can learn from them. For tens of thousands of years they have inhabited this continent, living in harmony with it and its creatures. They established a way of life in which the arts, of music, dance, theatre and ritual were woven into the texture of their dailylives. It is indeed a happy combination of responsibilities which I am sure will give the Minister and his advisers great stimulus and satisfaction. In the past, when responsibility for the arts lay with the Prime Minister, several separate bodies were set up and were responsible for advising him on various aspects of the arts. They continue to this day and now advise the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts.

The Commonwealth Literary Fund had its own advisory committee. In the building up of the national collection of works of art and on many related matters the Prime Minister was assisted by the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board. Advice on the needs of composers has been provided by the Board of the Commonwealth Assistance to Australian Composers. In the field of the performing arts help was given by the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, a private corporation supported by Government funds. In recent years several major institutional developments have occurred including the establishment of the Australian Council for the Arts, the completion of the National Library, and the decision to begin planning a National Gallery for Canberra. More recently the Government established 2 new organisations in the field of film and television, the Film Development Corporation and the Interim Council of the Australian Film and Television Training School.

Apart from these bodies, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, through its symphony orchestras, television and radio programmes, has continued to exercise powerful direct effects on the content and style of the performing arts. The Government has now, therefore, a range of organisations, advisory and executive, to assist it to form and give effect to policies for the support of the arts. The time, therefore, may be ripe to review the structure of these bodies and their relationship to one another so that they can best promote the vigour and diversity of Australian artistic life. When the late Mr Holt announced the Government’s decision to set up an’ Australian Council for the Arts he said it would be responsible primarily for the performing arts, but would also have the task of advising the Government on those aspects of the arts not receiving aid through existing channels. He said also that the establishment of the Council did not preclude the possibility of an overall council responsible for all aspects of Government support for the arts along the lines of the Canada Council and the Arts Council of Great Britain. Support has also been expressed for a comprehensive ministry pf culture in the style common among European countries.

During the last two or three years the Council for the Arts and other advisers have given thought to these possibilities. After consultation with them, I am inclined to distrust the idea of a single monolithic controller of public patronage. With all its faults I believe that our pattern of various channels of support, with scope for varied artistic and social influences, is almost certainly healthier. Nevertheless the arts are in a perpetual process of change and are unlikely long to fit a pattern of institutions evolved slowly over many years. New art forms emerge under the stimulus of technological change which do not fall readily within accepted classifications.

One of the most exciting aspects of contemporary cultural life is the crossfertilisation which now occurs between different art forms, a process greatly stimulated by developments in film and electronic processes. It is important, therefore, firstly, that the organisational structure should be flexible and capable of adapting itself to change and, secondly, that the state of the arts should continuously be studied so that, where necessary, gaps may be filled, collaboration ensured and new initiatives stimulated. My colleague, the Minister, tells me that he intends shortly, and thereafter at intervals, to bring together the Chairmen of the various Commonwealth agencies in the arts to discuss their present responsibilities and relationships one to the other. This will be a valuable opportunity for them to offer their advice on the effectiveness of the present structure to meet the changing demands of contemporary art forms.

It will continue to be the function of the Council for the Arts to study and report on those aspects of the arts which are not assisted through existing Commonwealth agencies and to make its contribution to advice available to the Minister on the balance and effectiveness of our programmes as a whole. It was in pursuit of these functions that the Council presented my predecessor with a report which led to major developments in the field of film and television to which I shall return later.

More recently a study of the state of music in Australia has been completed and the Council will shortly be presenting my colleague with its recommendations arising from that study. Two additional studies will be undertaken this year by committees to be established by the Minister. The first of these will examine the role of crafts as art forms in their own right, as a widely spread experience of creative processes and as the foundation of good industrial design. The committee will include representatives of the Council for the Arts, the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board and the Council for Industrial Design who will jointly advise on the committee’s terms of reference.

The second will concern itself with means whereby children and young people can be helped to enjoy and practise the arts more effectively. The chairmen of the Council” for the Arts, the Commonwealth Assistance to Australian Composers Advisory Board, the Commonwealth Literary Fund and the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board will jointly advise on the terms of reference of this study which will also involve educational authorities. Special attention will be given in these and other future studies to the effect of innovation in art forms and the mutual stimulus they can provide for one another.

Before leaving areas of the arts for which the Council is responsible, let me comment on the increased support for the performing arts being given this year. The grant has been increased by almost 17 per cent to $4.5m. The greater part of the increase has been given deliberately to the Australian Opera and to the orchestras of the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust. Their share has been increased by 45 per cent to $1,290,000. Some critics have seen this as an example of discrimination or favouritism. The Government believes that increased support for the arte cannot sensibly be given uniformly across the board. That way, no large development can ever be achieved, given the competitive pressures on Government funds. It is more effective to seize opportunities for major break-throughs as they are offered by the occasion or by some other stimulus to innovation.

In 1973 the opening of the Sydney Opera House will give Australia the chance to match the splendour of that building with performances which will be worthy of it and of the long association of Australians with this art form. The Government makes no apology for the emphasis it has this year given to strengthening the opera company and its associated orchestra. Their success will set new standards for all the arts and I am sure that the special occasion for others will be not far distant. Those who love the arts will rejoice that Australian opera has been given an effective opportunity to set new standards of excellence.

Let me turn now to developments in the visual arts. As honourable members know, the first steps have been taken to establish a national gallery. Over many years the Art Advisory Board has built up in the gallery an historical collection of the works of Australian painters of the past and the present. It will also incorporate outstanding examples of the work of indigenous artists of New Guinea and aboriginal Australia, art of the South-East Asian and Pacific region and art on a world-wide basis, beginning with the 20th century.

The gallery will be more than the home for a unique and splendid collection of works of art. Its functions are broadly conceived so that it will become also a centre of creative activity for the exhibition of collections from abroad and of the work of contemporary; artists, and a focus of education and research exercising, in collaboration with sister galleries in the States, a profound and pervasive influence on the life of Australians.

When the decision to proceed with gallery planning was taken in 1967 an interim council was appointed to administer certain aspects of the initial programme. Its terms of office expired recently and it is the Government’s intention, now to legislate for a permanent council as a statutory body to administer the gallery. Much,, of course, will depend on the gallery’s first director. I am pleased to announce tonight that , the

Government proposes to appoint Mr James Mollison to the post. Pending the submission of the legislation and the establishment of the statutory office, Mr Mollison has agreed to make his services available under contract to the Government to carry out the duties and responsibilities that will fall to the director of the gallery. The Government has deliberately chosen in Mr Mollison one who is young as well as talented and experienced. It will be some years before the building of the gallery is complete and its work in full flower. By then the new director will have grown with it in stature and have benefited from the experience of others in Australia and abroad.

The Government is fortunate also that Mr James Sweeney, the eminent American Gallery Director and international art and gallery consultant, has agreed to work with the new director and the architect during the present design phase of the gallery. He will work as a specialist consultant and adviser to the Government and. the National Capita] Development Commission which has charge of the whole project. Mr Sweeney has already given distinguished service to the Government and the National Capital Development Commission and we value highly the contribution he has already made to the preparatory phase of work in the gallery. Honourable members will share, 1 am sure, my appreciation of his work and his readiness to continue to assist us. I should also add that when the permanent council for the gallery is appointed the Art Advisory Board to which I have already referred will become part of the council. The Art Advisory Board will also perform those other functions it now exercises which are not directly concerned with the gallery.

Mr Acting Speaker, I come now to the film and television industry. When the Council for the Arts presented its report for the development of the film and television industry it urged the establishment of 3 new institutions - the Australian Film Development Corporation, the Experimental Film Fund and the Australian Film and Television School. The Australian Film Development Corporation is actively at work and a number of investments have been made. The Corporation was designed to serve as a source of part of the capital needed for commercial film and television ventures, and thus act as a catalyst for funds from private and banking sources.

The Government looks, however, to other sections of the film and television industry to share more actively with the Corporation the development of an effective Australian industry. The Experimental Film Fund has, until recently, been the responsibility of the Australian Council for the Arts. It has already proved effective in identifying original creative talent in this medium. The Council has also developed a more general programme to stimulate the Australian content of film and television programmes and to extend sensitive and critical appreciation of high quality film and television. Responsibility for these programmes will now be taken over by the Interim Council for the Film and Television School as has been announced by the Minister. It was partly with these new responsibilities in mind that the Government has decided to add to the Interim Council 2 men long experienced in radio, television and film making. They are Mr Hector Crawford and Mr Lenard Mauger. Their knowledge will be, I am sure, of great value in helping us to promote plans for the development of the film industry.

There has been a good deal of misunderstanding of the Goverment’s attitude towards the question of assistance for training of film and television producers. The Government decided at Budget time to defer consideration of a proposal to establish a training school for this purpose. This was one of a number of proposals over the range of Government activity on which consideration was deferred because of the need to restrict Government expenditure. This does not mean that the Government has abandoned the idea of establishing a training school. In this House on 7th October 1 informed honourable members that I had instructed the Minister to proceed as quickly as possible to collect all the evidence that becomes available to him so that the proposal could be presented to the Government well before the next Budget and not necessarily, therefore, in a Budget context. He is doing this.

The current position is that the enlarged Interim Council to which I have just referred has been asked to review the relationship of the training already undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the commercial television organisations and the film industry to the programme of the proposed school. It will seek the co-operation of those interests for this review. When it has received this report the Government will then consider the most appropriate way in which it might act to assist the industry in this important area.

In addition to the institutional developments recommended to and adopted by the Government, the Council for the Arts drew attention to the need of the Australian film industry for some degree of protection to establish itself on the Australian market. The Council suggested that advice on this matter should be sought from the Tariff Board or a specially constituted committee. Many other countries have found it necessary to establish quotas or to provide other forms of protection to prevent their vigorous but infant film industry being overwhelmed by imported features. I have therefore asked my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, to invite the Tariff Board to consider the need and appropriate form of protection for this industry. He has agreed to do this and in due course the Tariff Board will begin its work. I should also remind honourable members that the Government has done much to advance the cause of the Arts by ensuring that the Australian Broadcasting Commission and, through the Broadcasting Control Board, the commercial stations, give a substantial percentage of their viewing time to Australian made programmes. Under recently specified new requirements commercial stations have increased their quotas of Australian programmes. All stations which have been established for 3 years or more must televise at least 50 per cent of Australian programmes, and 45 per cent of peak-time programmes between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. must be Australian in content. Audience surveys in recent year show that some Australian programmes are getting top ratings.

There remains much of the more detailed work in support of the arts of which my colleague, the Minister, will tell the House at the appropriate time. This statement has been designed to express my Government’s deep concern for the arts as an essential and vigorous component of our national life; to acquaint the House with the principles which underlie our organisation for making that concern effective; and to inform the House of certain initiatives which will, I am sure, be welcomed inside and outside Parliament by those who share our belief that the arts can add both richness and diversity to the quality of life. Mr Acting Speaker, I commend this statement to you. I present the following paper:

The Arts In Australia - Ministerial Statement, 26th October 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– The

House was under the impression tonight before the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) commenced his address that some major changes were to occur in the national policy on support of the arts. All that has occurred has been some very moderate tinkering by the latest maintenance mechanic or his assistant in charge of art policy. All that has occurred have been some mild changes to what is already established practice. 1 do not think that any honourable member on the Government side could feel any significant degree of comfort from this statement tonight because too much dissatisfaction is being expressed in the community by those people who are intimately and essentially involved in the various forms of art expression in Aust tralia. But on the one or two points which apparently were considered to be of some significance, even there there is room for considerable criticism of the Government.

Let me deal with one or two of them. The first one is not without its cynicism - the reference to the National Art Gallery. I know that Mr Mollison, who is to be appointed as director of the Art Gallery works within the Prime Minister’s Department. I understand that he is an acquisitions officer there, but I do not know what his qualifications are outside of this. Perhaps that is my fault. Perhaps I should know more about him. I have an open mind. But the thing that keeps burning . into my brain is the fact that the Interim Council which was charged with the responsibility of making recommendations on this specific matter voted 8 to 4 in favour of Mr Laurie Thomas, a well known man in the field of art criticism and before that Director of at least the Queensland Art Gallery and, if my memory serves me correctly, of the Western Australian Art Gallery. He is a man eminently qualified and with a great deal of practical background. What I would like the Prime Minister to do when he announces fuller details of the qualifications of Mr Mollison is to list side by side the comparative qualifications of Mr Mollison and Mr Thomas so we can gain a fair impression of the justness or otherwise of this appointment. I am not suggesting that it is unjust, but what I am saying is that this House and the Australian community have the right to full information on this aspect.

What is particularly galling is that the Prime Minister came into the House and talked as though some magnificent achievement had been made for Australia in this announcement in relation to the Art Gallery. It is more than 5i years since the National Art Gallery Committee of Inquiry reported on proposals for a National Art Gallery. The proposals included a proposal that the Art Gallery should be opened in 1970, among other reasons, as a fitting tribute to the Captain Cook bicentenary. The first bucket load of concrete for the foundations has yet to be poured for that art gallery. If we were to have a major statement on art policy in Australia and if in fact the report was to be a major one, tonight would have been the occasion on which these matters could have been discussed.

These were some of the recommendations which were made in this report but which have not been acted upon to this point: The establishment of an Australian national gallery trust fund; the establishment of a friends of the gallery society; and the gallery to be given statutory authority. Of course, the Interim Council was to have some persuasive say in the appointment of a director. Of course thai has gone by the board. It is 2i years since the setting up of the Interim Council and only now we have the announcement of the appointment of a director, and the whole atmosphere surrounding that announcement has a sort of tawdry value. I am not reflecting on Mr Mollison in any way. I am reflecting upon the politicians who have been involved in this unnecessary delay in announcing who shall be the director of the National Art Gallery of Australia. I have always regarded it as a disgraceful situation that the national capital of this country should be deprived of this sort of centre of artistic presentation. There was 15 months delay in naming the site of the gallery and, as I mentioned, more than 2 years delay from the date the recommendation was first made by the Interim Council to the Government before an announcement was made about the appointment of a director.

There are other matters too which the Government could have dealt with in some greater depth, for instance, the establishment of a television and film school, which seems to be not without controversy in Government ranks. Perhaps the Prime Minister tonight could have taken the opportunity to clear the air of assertions made by the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) in this House that the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) had been inaccurate and misleading in information he had supplied to the House - a squalid performance. The Minister asserted that the cost of the land necessary for the school was about $2.4m. The right honourable member for Higgins, able to draw on reliable knowledge, advised the House that in fact the cost was only $320,000 and then went on to inform the House that there had been a misrepresentation in the way in which the running costs for the operation of the school had been presented to us. Of course what is particularly distressing is to discover that the head of the school has yet to be appointed. I understand that the appointee was to have been Professor Toeplitz from the Lodz Film Training School in Poland who is at present temporarily on duty at the La Trobe University because of the generosity of Mr Ken Myer, who has supplied money to hold this man, one of the most eminent, if not the most eminent, in his field in the world, in the hope that the Prime Minister and the Government would be persuaded to make the appointment of this man.

What the Prime Minister’s statement is notable for is its lack of discussion on important subjects such as what is to be done in particular areas, for instance, to promote painting- There is a tariff duty of 15 per cent on paintings, so the ‘Mona Lisa’ is equated with the foreign rag trade. As the 1951 Tariff Board’s report pointed out, the free circulation of paintings, statues and other works of art is of very great importance to the development of the culture and the aesthetic life of the community. It is quite unreal and wrong to apply this sort of barrier to a work of art. The results are, among others, that it tends to isolate Australian art and could conceivably lower the standard of Australian artistic presentation. Australian art misses out on the challenge and the stimulation which can be absorbed from the regular and free flow of this sort of art work into the community.

But of even more concern is the fact that it will deter private collections which can eventually be bequeathed to national institutions, much as was the case with the Felton bequest. I understand that it is the only European art collection in this country to be bequeathed in this way. I am well aware of the argument that we ought to raise money through taxation to buy these sorts of things for our art galleries but there are also additional ways in which taxation can encourage public actions, such as bequeathments and which, therefore, should be stimulated in this way. There has been no discussion about the rights of authors to royalties on books. Gavin Souter, in an article quite recently, pointed out that it would cost a mere bagatelle in terms of national expenditure if authors were to be given royalty rights on books that came off the shelves of lending libraries. Harking back to the case of bequeathments of art collections, if we were to structure our tax system in an adequate way it would be quite easy to build incentives into the taxation law to ensure that sufficient bequeathments took place.

My greatest criticism of art policy in this country - nothing said tonight diminishes that criticism in any way - is its diffusion, its unevenness, and most of all, its preference for the performing arts. The Prime Minister tried to justify that preference. I would not care to see support for the performing arts reduced in any way, but, there seems to be an overwhelming case that the other forms of artistic expres sion need a great deal more support than they are now receiving. I mentioned that there is diffusion and unevenness. There are 8 different organs through which the Commonwealth operates to provide financial support for the promotion of the arts. There is Commonwealth assistance to Australian composers, the Arts Council of Australia, the Commonwealth Film Corporation, the Commonwealth Art Advisory Board, the Elizabethan Theatre Trust, (he Commonwealth Literary Fund, the Australian Council for the Arts and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. These are only some of the organs. Of course, not all of these organs which the Government uses to distribute support for the arts are fully public, and the only proposal by the Prime Minister to try to bring some of these loose threads together is that the chairmen of the various committees which manage the affairs of these organisations will meet periodically in some sort of discussion with the Minister. This is a most ad hoc and unsatisfactory way in which to be developing a broad and, as much as possible, an even promotion of arts in the Australian community.

I mentioned the unevenness of the distribution of support and the preference for performing arts. This year $4.5m will go to the performing arts. The figure will be higher than that if we include the ABC but only a little more than $500,000 will go to the other forms of artistic expression. The Commonwealth Literary Fund will receive $170,000 which, in fact, is slightly lower than the amount it received last year. But the question that keeps coming to my mind is: How do we know that what we are doing is adequate and appropriate for the needs of art promotion in the Australian society? One can think of many things which could conceivably be done with great benefit, one would expect, for the promotion of Australian art and culture but one really does not know, and the more one becomes involved with people in this field, the more one realises that there are all sorts of difficulties. Not the least of these is that many people who are involved in these fields have particular and quite passionate interests of their own. So, it is quite clear to me that, even at this stage, there is still an overwhelming case for a national inquiry into the needs of Australian art and culture so that we can establish what the pattern of support should be from the public level. Of course, no-one argues today that there should not be state involvement in the support and promotion of Australian art. The day of the private patron is pretty much long gone.

Accordingly, I come to a point where 1 should like to make some suggestions of my own as to what we might be able to do with, I suspect, a great deal of success in the promotion of the arts in Australia, in the development of cultural forms of expression and participation and, more importantly, appreciation. The Prime Minister said in his address to the House that the aim of Government policy is to be not the preserve of the rich and the sophisticated but as a source of delight for all’. I challenge that assertion although it is made in good faith and is no doubt what he hopes to aim at and achieve. I challenge it because one does not only have to look into the field of participation in the arts - not only as a creator but also as an appreciator and as a consumer, if one can use that word in the context of the arts - but also into the broad area of cultural deprivation of the Australian society, because one finds that there is here a very real problem. Because of their background, the peculiar deficiencies of our education system and especially in socio-economically deprived areas, there are people who generationally suffer deprivation and who will not be able to enjoy the benefits of this sort of activity in the community about which the Prime Minister was talking.

I should like to refer to the Lloyds Bank Review of July 1971. The article is headed The Economics of the Theatre’, and states:

There does seem to be ample scope to put up prices. The Royal Court a few years ago, charged nothing at all at one of its presentations in an attempt to get an audience along. They found what others at free concerts have found before them: That the audience is largely the same as the one which would have come anyway.

The article continues:

The audience profile remains ‘well-educated and comfortably-off.

This is the point 1 am making. What we are doing in the field of the arts in the Australian society today, to the extent that we promote it and make it more easily reached by members of the community, is making it cheaper and more easily reached by people who, in fact, are already enjoying the benefits of artistic expression and who are in not as great a need of this sort of assistance as people from the broader bulk of the community and who, particularly in those areas, suffer cultural deprivation.

Accordingly, the points 1 make for such a programme are these: Firstly, we should move into the educational system to reach children. Secondly, we should develop a system of regional creative activity through the development of centres where we would .encourage, I would hope, mothers to participate in this sort of activity. I will return to each of these points in a few minutes. Thirdly, I would urge the introduction of a guaranteed income for artists. [Extension of time granted] Fourthly, we should perhaps consider some sort of arrangement such as a foundation for the arts. Let me come back to the subject of reaching into the educational system so that we can get to the youngsters. It is altogether too late to maintain a system of artistic support which is aimed at providing artistic expression to an adult audience. As 1 mentioned a few minutes ago, the adult audience which will be reached by this sort of expression will be reached in any event because these are the sorts of people who are motivated, who have the background and who can appreciate this form of expression in society. However, if we are going to broaden the audience and broaden the number of consumers who in turn can more easily and more generously support the artists in our community, we must go to the base roots of our society - into these areas where there is, in fact, cultural deprivation - and somehow enrich these children so that as they grow up they have a better acquaintanceship and a better appreciation and will derive more joy from the various forms of artistic expression.

The only way this can be done is through the schools. Some people argue that this is an endeavour to develop a State system of culture and are opposed to it. Others argue that it becomes a part of the drudgery of the normal school system and accordingly will repel children rather than attract them. I dismiss these arguments completely. If the approach is realistic and flexible enough and is adequately financed these problems should not arise.

But more importantly, if we do not go into the schools, if we do try, as seems to be the case at the moment through the Arts Council, to reach children through community activities, we shall miss out largely on the children we are talking about - the vast majority of children. From my observations, I conclude that the majority of children who are participating in these various forms of artistic or art expression in the community are coming from middle class homes. They are the sort of children who in any case would go on to appreciate art in its various forms of expression. So this is why we have to go into the schools.

It must be a relatively free system of education with the minimum amount of discipline involved - a system where children are encouraged to be creative, to express themselves freely and as much as possible to develop their own forms of music, drama and literary expression and gradually to be brought into association with the works of people whose contribution is regarded as worthwhile in these fields. This cannot be done by the normal teacher in the school.It must be done by a good generalist who has the background over a broad spectrum of artistic expression.

This scheme will involve, I should hope, the expenditure of public finance to establish attractive, challenging, stimulating and creative activity centres at the schools in the community. We have done this with science blocks and we are doing it with libraries. There is no reason why we cannot do it in this sphere. When we do this, we must identify those areas of priority according to socio-economic needs. We must identify the areas where obviously there is the greatest social and economic deprivation. These are the areas which must be reached into first. We must develop systems which do not destroy the creative capacity of our youngsters whose creativity is snuffed out all too often by the deadly repression of the education system somewhere along the line as they proceed through the system. I would like to quote from what Herbert Read had to say in the The Philosophy of Modern Art’. He states:

I advocate a reform of education which puts art where it should always have been - right in the heart of things. Let us begin with the primary schools. If we can reform our methods of teach ing and our attitude towardstheobjectives of education so that some native aesthetic sensibility is preserved in children, and children are no longer brutalised and anaesthetised by the bludgeoning -process of ‘learning’ - that is to say, hammering conceptual knowledge into their innocent minds - then there would be some human material to work with. You can’t make the silk purses of art out of the sow’s ears of school certificates. You can’t expect the flowering of the creative instinct in an epoch which condemns its children to a via dolorosa of examinations.

If this system is to be effective, we must reach somehow into the homes. Otherwise the whole effort that has been carried out at school will be undermined and destroyed. This is what has been discovered in the United States of America in relation to efforts in the anti-poverty campaigns in that country.

The most hopeful people to reach here are the mums. If we can develop creative activity centres but with, of course, a different pitching in the community where the mums from working class homes and lower income homes can be encouraged to come and participate in various forms of artistic expression there will be a better appreciation on the part of mums and a reinforcing at home in support of youngsters who are absorbing the appreciation and the values with which they are being brought into contact in the creative activity centres in the schools.

I next contend that in order to do all this we will have to provide funds generously, apart from the educational concept I am putting forward, for local authorities through a regionalised hook-up to develop the creative centres so that these sorts of projects can be undertaken.

Of the other 2 points that I want to mention quickly I first relate to guaranteed incomes for artists. This society must surely be well past that nonsensical stage where it was believed that penury and extreme deprivation were the stimulus to greatest creative activity on the part of artists. One only has to look at the background of Mendelssohn, who created such beautiful music and who came from such a wealthy home, to realise the nonsense behind the assertion that it is poverty that makes a great artist. There are too many instances of artists being given the choice between being a cleaner or a chattel of an agent. I know of a painter who was put into the position where he either cleaned office floors or tied himself by contract to an agent to mass produce paintings. He ended up doing the latter. In either case there was not an adequate opportunity for him to express himself. I know of a poet being a bricklayer. It would be a simple matter to guarantee a level of income for a number of promising artists in the Australian community for a fairly lengthy period - say 5 years - subject to review and to subsequent extension if this is desirable.

Finally I argue against the Prime Minister. I believe strongly that there is a case for a foundation for the arts or for some sort of council for the arts to tie various groups together and to give the sort of advice and feed it into the government in a fairly balanced and unbiassed way so that we do not have a situation where one, two or three powerful interest groups are able more effectively to assert their point of view when they are challenging the Government round about budget time for more funds for their form of artistic endeavour. This has been done quite recently in the United States and in another country. I believe it can be done with a great deal of benefit here. Finally, I believe that we must have this inquiry because there are too many unknown facto rs–

Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 2520

QUESTION

NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– On 14th October, in reply to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, I undertook to look at figures concerning the proposals of the Interim Council for a National Film and Television Training School that my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) had presented to the House and at criticisms that had been made about them. 1 have had the matter looked into and I have studied the various statements that have been made in the House. I arn satisfied that the Minister did not give to the House - to quote the Leader of the Opposition - ‘figures which were not accurate or estimates which were misleading’. The discussion that has taken place in the House has centred upon the cost of acquiring land and whether an area of 60 acres, or an area of 8 acres, should be acquired.

In November 1969, the Government set up an Interim Council for a National Film and Television Training School. The Interim Council submitted its first report in November 1970. I table a copy of the report. In paragraph 11.4 the Council expressed the view that: ‘It is not a viable proposition to set up a National Film and Television School on its own, with a student body of only limited numbers’. In paragraph 11.8 the Council said that: ‘The school should be established as an independent College of Advanced Education immediately adjacent to an existing educational institution’. In paragraph 12.3 the Council suggested that an area of some 60 acres might well be required. The full import will be apparent . to members on reading the text of these paragraphs of the report.

The Interim Council’ submitted a second report in March this year. I table a copy of that report. In it the Council put forward a programme of action on the basis that the National Film and Television School would open up for some pupils early in 1973. In paragraph 4 of the report the Council suggested a timetable and said that - and I quote from sub-paragraph 5 - ‘the programme as set out in the timetable is applicable whether the Government accepts the recommendation to purchase the larger area required for a Centre or a lesser area sufficient for the Film and Television School alone’. Mr Acting Speaker, it is clear that the ( Council was to be taken in its second report as adhering to its recommendation in the first report that an area of something like 60 acres should be acquired, although it was recognising that the Government, on its initiative, might only authorise the acquisition of a lesser area.

In June this year the Minister raised with the Council the question whether the School might not progress along rather more cautious lines than the Council had proposed. On 30th June the Minister received estimates which I now table. It will be seen from an examination of these estimates that on the basis of the acquisition of 60 acres, which was the Council’s recommendation, the cost would be $7. 6m, and that on the basis of the acquisition of 8 acres the cost would be $5. 6m. I table a copy of a letter dated 28th July 1971, addressed to the Minister by the Chairman of the Interim Council, lt reads:

At the meeting of the interim Council on Tuesday, 27th July, it was decided that I should confirm, in writing, two of the points made in our personal discussions, as being the firm views of the Interim Council.

Whilst fully recognising the present need for economies, the Council stresses that it would be self-defeating to begin the school inadequately. Although it would be possible to move more slowly than envisaged in the original reports, the Council considers the the school must start off with adequate resources at each stage if it is to be developed in a worthwhile way.

The Council also is anxious to make perfectly clear that its recommendation on the purchase of the land, now available in a non-intensive subdivision, is based on the belief that the site should not be confined to the area needed solely for a Film and Television School. Other schools in associated studies are under active consideration, and their eventual close association and physical location alongside the Film School is considered of great importance to its long-term success. The opportunity to acquire the full site so advantageously will never reoccur:

I realise I have already made these points in personal discussions with you, but I agree with the Council that it is desirable that they be confirmed in writing.

On 8th September the Minister made a statement in the House in the course of which he said:

Whilst the Council’s enthusiasm for this project is fully apparent from its reports, the continuing economic stringencies and the substantial cost which is estimated to be over $7m during the next 5 years have led to consideration of its proposal being deferred for 12 months. The proposals may then be considered in the light of what I hope will be more propitious economic circumstances.

Having regard to the very recent and, I might add, firm advice that the Minister had received in Mr Coleman’s letter of 28th July, the Minister was justified in treating the Council’s proposals as being proposals involving the expenditure of over $7m during the next 5 years.

There remains one matter, namely, the matter of the number of graduates, to which the Minister referred in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition on 10th September. The Minister gave a figure of 12 graduates. The report to the Interim Council by P. A. Management Consultants Pty Ltd reflected some doubt about the needs of industry for graduates. The report said:

Under the assumption that present trends will continue, the number of graduates from the School that the industry believes it could absorb has been determined in the range from 30-40 graduates.’

However, on the same page the survey went on to conclude that the School should cater for an initial output of only 15 graduates a year for the industry. The Minister acknowledges that he was in error in referring to 12 graduates. The figure should have been 15. I table a copy of the consultants’ report.

Mr Acting Speaker, 1 have stated the position in some detail, and I have tabled reports and other papers, so that the whole matter can be looked at fairly and squarely. I have done so myself and am fully satisfied with the account that the Minister has given to the House. It is true that consideration had been given by the Minister to the possibility of proceeding with the School by itself in an area of 8 acres. But that was not the Council’s proposal. The Council had recommended the acquisition of 60 acres and on 28th July it affirmed that recommendation. The making of a decision was a matter for the Government. The advice of the Council was not, however, lightly to be disregarded. In all the circumstances, and in view of the economic factors to which the Minister referred in his statement of 8th September, the Government concluded that it should look at the whole question again within the next year. This the Government has undertaken to do and this it will do. I present the following papers:

National Film and Television Training School - Interim Council - First Report of November 1970, Second Report of March 1971, Tables of Estimates of Costs of Establishing the School, A Survey of Employment Opportunities for Graduates of the Training School,

A copy oi a Idler dated 28th July 1971 from the Chairman to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts,

Answer by the Prime Minister to a question by the Leader of the Opposition on 14th October concerning the proposals of the Interim Council for a National Film and Television Training School, 26th October 1971.

Mr Gorton:

– I ask for leave to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr McMahon:

– Yes.

Mr Swartz:

– I think it might be easier to move that the House take note of the papers.

Mr ACTING SPEAKER:

– There are 2 ways in which this can be handled. The right honourable member may speak to a motion that the House take note of the papers or he may ask for leave to make a statement.

Mr Gorton:

– I am quite happy to move the motion, “That the House take note of the papers’.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

told the House that the cost of establishing the proposed National Film and Television School would be ‘over $7m during the next 5 years’. In subsequent statements or answers to questions he informed the House that the School would produce 12 graduates a year and that it was doubtful if sufficient attention had been given to the numbers of graduates which the industry would require. I subsequently refuted the 2 latter statements, pointing out that the Interim Council had commissioned a full survey into the needs of the industry - this has now been tabled - and that the number of graduates was planned to be many more than 12 a year even though the number in the initial years may be only slightly more than 12 a year. The corrections I so made have not been questioned except in a minor way by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) tonight and I therefore presume they are admitted.

But I also corrected the statement made by the Minister to the effect that the cost of the School would be over $7m over 5 years. I pointed out that the Minister had included a cost of $2.4m for land for the School whereas the School itself required only 8 acres of land, and that was estimated to cost some $320,000. This assertion of mine has been questioned tonight yet it is correct as I believe the reading of the 2 reports which have been tabled will make crystal clear. All the way through the reports the Committee differentiates between what is required for the Arts Centre, consisting of many schools, and what is required for the School itself. Thus in the recommendations made on page 4 of the first report it is recommended:

That the establishment of the National Film and Television School be regarded as a priority matter, nol to be delayed pending decisions and actions on the proposed Centre.

That is, the larger proposition. On page 15, paragraph 11.5 of the first report, the Committee supports the idea of the larger centre in which:

The Film and Television School would share the common facilities and services with other similarly oriented schools.

In page 17, paragraph 12.3, the Committee states that only Macquarie University appears to have a sufficient area of land immediately adjacent to it not only for the Film and Television School but also for the additional area that might be required for the Centre with its other schools. Past experience in establishing other colleges of advanced education indicates that some 60 acres may well be required. I point out that the Committee is talking of the area required for the Centre, not the area required for the School. Having indicated that 60 acres were needed for the whole Centre, including the Film and Television School, the Committee then went on in its second report at page 7, paragraph 4.5, to say:

The programme as set out in the timetable is applicable whether the Government accepts the recommendations to purchase the larger area required for the Centre -

That is, the 60 acres - or a lesser area sufficient for the Film and Television School alone.

It is clear that the Committee in talking about 60 acres was talking about the area needed for the whole Centre and was urging the Government to go ahead and buy a smaller area sufficient to the School alone if it was not prepared to buy the larger area. Therefore, to take the cost of the larger area and attribute all that cost to the film and television school which only needed a smaller area is to present incorrect figures to the House. I congratulate the Prime Minister on having tabled the 2 reports of the Committee and on having tabled the very extensive survey which was carried out and commissioned by the Interim Council on the requirements of the industry for graduates. I congratulate him because now there are before all honourable members the actual reports of the interim committee, and every member of this Parliament and of the public who is interested will be able to read these reports, to have the factual information in the reports before them and to make up their own minds as to the accuracy of the figures previously presented.

Debate (on motion by Mr Whitlam) adjourned.

page 2523

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1)

1971-1972

In Committee

Consideration resumed (vide page 2511). Second schedule.

Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts

Proposed expenditure $30,460,000.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of External Territories

Proposed expenditure, $111,495,000.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– In his speech to the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72 the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) expressed the view that in the long term Australia would be judged by the way in which it performed the task of economic development which he chose to describe as more complex than political development. This is a glib oversimplification of the kind which all too often characterises the Government’s policy on New Guinea. Unless Australia helps to create a realistic political structure with active political parties working with a dedicated and capable public service all economic development will prove to have been in vain. However, even on the Minister’s own limited and narrow terms the performance of this Government, and its Administration in New Guinea, in economic development deserves critical scrutiny. The Minister’s office has again this year issued a set of notes for its Estimates debates as well as a glossy publication titled ‘Papua New Guinea … a guide to growth’. These documents contain no acknowledgment of the problems and difficulties in economic planning and achievements in New Guinea. In the world of the booklets there are no failures to reach targets, no sense of urgency, simply selfcongratulation. To understand what is happening, and not happening, in New Guinea’s economic development, we have to turn to the publication The Development Programme Reviewed’ which was presented to the House of Assembly in August this year. However, the document itself can be understood only by comparison with the original economic development programme announced in September 1968 to cover the 5-year period 1968-73.

Appropriately enough, a substantial section of the review is devoted to the prospects for the rural sector. But the programme ignores one of the crucial problems confronting New Guinea, that of land hunger in certain areas, in particular the Gazelle Peninsula. The planners implicitly assume the maintenance of the status quo in expatriate land ownership. On their projections, by 1975 there will be a slight increase in the acreage under coconuts held by expatriate planters. In cocoa, expatriate acreage in 1975 will still be 3 times that of New Guineans. In rubber it will be also almost 3 times and in tea 650 per cent. Only in coffee will the existing trend of local domination be maintained. There are a significant number of plantation owners prepared to assist in the transition to local ownership. There are others who are simply running down the plantations, achieving maximum profit now at the cost of future development. The time to act is now. The Government’s policy of inaction in this area is destroying the chance for partnership during selfgovernment and after independence. For too long we ignored the development of political intelligence in New Guinea and now the Government is making the same mistake in relation to land hunger. It is an insult to the intelligence of this Parliament for the Minister to flourish the figure of 3 per cent land alienation in his notes for honourable members. This figure is a percentage of the entire New Guinea land area - swamp, jungle and mountain, as well as arable and pastoral areas. I will refer later to Professor Salisbury’s recommendations on land problems in the Gazelle Peninsula.

Another extraordinary omission in the Minister’s notes is the failure to refer to problems posed for New Guinea rural industries by Britain’s pending entry into the European Common Market. The development programme itself makes no attempt to assess the effects of the loss of Commonwealth preference on the British market for copra, coconut oil and coffee, but merely hopefully comments that representations to EEC members for special accommodation ‘are continuing’. The serious shortfall in recruitment for professional and sub-professional officers for the Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries, on which I commented last year, is still unsolved. The target set in 1968 was for the hiring of 280 officers in the next 5 years. By December last year only 68 had been recruited. There is also a grave staffing failure in the Department of Forests. During the first 2 years of the programme the target for recruitment of overseas officers was 27, but only 16 were recruited. The target for local diplomates was 108 by 1975, but has now been cut back to 56. These 2 Departments present a very different picture from that presented by the Minister of unchecked progress. But this failure to reach targets is not confined to those 2 departments. In education a significant and important policy shift has been glossed over. The 1968 programme set a target for primary education enrolments of 249,000 by 1973. This year’s result shows the 1973 figures as not available. When we read the fine print, however, we find the programme stales:

It is unlikely that the resources available for primary education will permit any . significant expansion in the two-years to 1972-73.

In plain words, further expansion of primary education where there are still substantial numbers of children unable to attend primary school has been cut off. This is confirmed in the Minister’s notes, where the now available figure turns up as 223,500.

Secondary school enrolments have shown a significant increase, but the programme gives no explanation for the target failure for form 5 and 6 students. In 1968 the projection was for 450 form 6 students. Now the figure has been revised to 255. For form 5 students the comparable figures were 550 and now 375. This failure presents a threat to the very necessary localisation targets, modest as they are, It is depressing to find that only one in seven civil engineers will be New Guineans by 1976, one in six electrical engineers, one in five surveyors, one in seven lawyers and only 29 per cent of doctors. It is an extraordinary reflection on past planning that by 1976 there will not be a single New Guinean architect. I welcome the appointment of a committee of inquiry into higher education which is re-examining priorities and 1 trust that it will not be too leisurely.

Unfortuntely the same melancholy picture confronts us in the field of apprenticeship. The latest figures available for June last year show only 1,280 New Guinean apprentices. Of those 370 were working with one body - the New Guinea Electricity Commission^ which deserves very great praise for its far sighted planning. Only 543 apprentices were employed in the private sector. Unless some improvement can be shown in this vital area more stringent measures should be considered to ensure active co-operation from private industry. There are, one supposes, explanations for the failures. There always are. There are very substantial achievements - the fruit of the dedication and commitment of many. Australian and local public servants. But what is disconcerting about the review of the development programme and the tone of the Minister’s speech and notes is the absence of urgency. Even the most conservative views concede independence by the end of this decade, but the Government appears to he living in the past decade rather than planning for the next.

No comment on New Guinea estimates can exclude discussion of the situation in the Gazelle Peninsula. The tragic death of Mr Emmanuel has unfortunately exacerbated feelings, both locally and in Port Moresby. Several exchanges in the House of Assembly in recent months have done nothing to mitigate bitterness. However, the administration is fortunate in having the report from Professor Salisbury of McGill University on the problems of the Gazelle Peninsula. The relevance of the report is strengthened by the fact that Professor Salisbury was in the Gazelle at the time of Mr Emmanuel’s death. The response of the Administrator’s Executive Council, or perhaps the response of the dominant clique, has been luke warm. While the professor recommended that priority should be given to assistance for the purchase of under-utilised freehold land, AEC merely noted that a general investigation into the purchase of freehold land, not necessarily in the Gazelle, was already under consideration’. Professor Salisbury present a careful argument for the concentration of high level Tolai public servants in the Gazelle but this was dismissed peremptorily on the grounds that ‘adoption of such a policy could lead to similar demands in other parts of Papua New Guinea’. Professor Salisbury anticipated this objection in his report when he said:

Localisation of Public Service can be tried out to the full here in the Gazelle, and its snags ironed out If it does not work here, the prognosis for an independent New Guinea is not good, but it should be tried.

As he argues later, the central government in New Guinea has always been strong on central decision making and weak on explanation and responsiveness to public Opinion. The continuing crisis in the Gazelle cannot be resolved by dictation from Port Moresby. It can be resolved only by the Tolai people. Professor Salisbury’s recommendation for full-scale localisation is extraordinary, but so is the situation in the Gazelle.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I have listened with a great deal of interest and a certain amount of surprise -to the criticism by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). He came into this debate critical of what the Government has done. He made no reference at all to the contributions which his Party has made to the circumstances that have developed in recent years in Papua New Guinea. It is fair and reasonable to say that there are many people in the Territory who have given dedicated service to the Administration and who believe that the honourable gentleman has personally, and with his col leagues, created many of those problems and exacerbated the problems of the people who have been seeking to take the Territory of Papua New Guinea along the progressive road to democracy. In my opinion he has shown a dedication to policies designed to induce approval from critics in the United Nations of Australian policy, a sort of sheer political expediency aimed at what might be described as a form of international exhibitionism, a tragic irresponsibility and a gross neglect of the reality of the problems facing the Territory.

It is only within the last 3 years that the ultimatum was thrown down to the people in the Territory of self government by 1972 and independence by 1976. With all the blandness possible the Leader of the Opposition said only this evening that even the most critical people would not deny that there must be independence by the end of this decade. I do not accept that there is a burden upon the Commonwealth Government to accede to international pressures however proper they may appear to be. I believe that it is reasonable for the Government of Australia to satisfy itself that the maximum amount of effort and development and the optimum amount of progress have been achieved in the Territory so that at a given moment if the people in the Territory are reasonably ready to accept responsibilities for self government they can at least try their hands in that field to begin with. The expression ‘whether you want it or not* that was used by the Leader of the Opposition at Kavieng on New Ireland was, to my mind, most unfortunate and has contributed to and exacerbated the problems of those who are doing the job in the Territory.

There has been a gradual growth of political awareness resulting from Government policy throughout the years. The focal councils, the House of Assembly and the ministerial members are an essential part of the Administration. There has been a real development of responsibility. The structure of the University of Papua New Guinea, for example, has developed soundly. The University has a spirit. The Commonwealth of Australia has given it great assistance. It has been said, as if it were something to be ashamed of, that the

Department of External Territories has followed paternalistic policies. I regard this as the most unctuous hypocricy because when World War II finished and the people of Australia, in a national sense, were conscious of the existence of the Territory of Papua New Guinea their attitude towards the Territory was in fact paternalistic. They wished, with all the good feeling and humanity in the world, to develop that Territory. Why on earth anybody should disapprove of such a description is something [ will never understand.

The encouragement of investment in the Territory by the present Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) has been a remarkable achievement. Over the years Australian banks have been developed in the Territory and have provided large sums. The Minister has assured the Australians in the service of the Administration that their future will be protected. The fearful legacy of irresponsible speed in forcing self government onto people not equipped for responsibility is to be seen in Africa. Heaven only knows, perhaps it may be seen in East Pakistan today. I would remind this House that a Labour government in England might inherit a degree of historical responsibility from posterity in due course. Yet the Australian Labor Party exhibits a slavish regard for those international manipulators who will prosper from anarchy and from revolution. In the immediate post-war period the ALP Government of that time accepted what 1 will describe as paternalistic responsibility. That government would have rejected confusion and anarchy as the Labor Prime Minister in 1949 rejected anarchy in the coal fields of New South Wales with the aid of Australian soldiers in military uniform. Then we had a change of government in 1949 and what I will describe as the Hasluck period in the Territory. There was growth, progress, humane interest and dedication to the creation of a nation. Those of us who took part in that development, if only in the most minor sense in the technical fields of communications, transport and so forth, saw the development taking place. We know full well that the progress that has been made in the Territory - at least I can say this from my own knowledge in the field of aviation - has been remarkable over the last 15 to 20 years. When the Minister took over from the former Minister, who is now His Excellency the Governor-General, we had - and I have described this as the Barnes period - a greater acceleration of progress towards democracy and a political tolerance which I regard in a British Parliament as being quite remarkable. I believe that the Minister has withstood all sorts of assaults, in terms of fair play, upon his own dignity in such a manner as to earn the utmost respect of those people who recognise that with dignity and forbearance ail sorts of insults can be tolerated.

The problems of the people 1 have referred to, exacerbated by our Australian Labor Party visitors from Australia, are seen, for example, in the reference that was made by the Leader of the Opposition to the Mataungans and the other Tolai people who are residents of the Gazelle Peninsula on New Britain. The Mataungans by no means represent the mass of the people living in that area, and that they were encouraged by the ALP visitors cannot be denied, lt is absolutely true that they were encouraged. Of course, it has to be admitted that they were requested to avoid violence, but I cannot help feeling that this House should recognise that there was a certain measure of naivete in such a recommendation in the light of those circumstances. The Leader of the Opposition used terms such as ‘Uncle Tom’. I say to him that one cannot use terms like that to people who are struggling for their own progress and development without insulting them, without undermining them and without destroying their integrity amongst their own people. That is an expression that he applied to one of the gentlemen who is now a Ministerial Member of the Government of the Territory.

In the last few moments that I have available to me I wish to point out that the work of the Development Bank has been remarkable. The Investment Corporation will assist greatly in the future development of the export trade capacity of the Territory, and after all, whatever happens in that Territory it will be Australian support that will be most significant in the movement towards its economic viability. It will be the people of the Territory, with their intelligence, their forbearance and their innate dignity, who will best handle the problems of government. They will not be helped by those people who by misrepresentation and assertions of ‘When I am Prime Minister, when 1 am this and when I am that’, seek to encourage them to adopt an arrogant attitude towards law and order and proper decisions. What was done by those people who broke the law would not be tolerated by their own government when they were independent and in command of their own destiny, be it in Bougainville, on the Gazelle Peninsula, in Port Moresby or in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on excellent work well done. I hope that with forbearance and with good sense those manipulators throughout this world who would destroy that good work will not succeed if the most important thing to defeat them is the moral courage of the people in this Parliament.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– I thought that the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) made a very relevant point when he referred to the fact that Australian banks have been established in Papua New Guinea. He made the point quite strongly that the Territory has no national banks. In fact, I do not feel that we Australians have given them anything which they can call their own, let alone a nation. They own nothing and I think that that is in fact the crux of the problem facing us in Papua New Guinea today - our investment from outside and no national interest. I am appalled at the apathy which exists in Australia and in the Government ranks about what we are doing to a nation entrusted to us by the United Nations to administer not only for the benefit of Australia but primarily for the benefit of the local population of Papua New Guinea, to give them nationhood in a responsible manner and to allow that nation to take its place in the world community of nations.

Let us remember that Papua New Guinea will be our nearest foreign neighbour with an equal say in the world community. What memories will they have of us? Let us not delude ourselves about the attitudes of the local population or of those in authority in the Territory. Let me quote from the House of Assembly debates of the Parliament of Papua New Guinea from 1st March to 19th March 1971. On 16th March 1971 at page 4030 Mr Paulus Arek, the member for Ijivitari - I ask Government supporters to look very closely at this speech - said:

Mr Lapun has introduced the motion and I support il. The motion reads very clearly on the subject, but during Mr Lapun’s speech he was frightened and 1 think be has no faith in Papua and New Guinea. Why is be frightened? Does he think we will be fighting among ourselves? I would like to know which country in the world has developed without disputes, bloodshed and chaos. Do you think to get self-government we will have to raise our hands to heaven and that God will give us self-government and independence without war? We will achieve it whenever we are ready and we have to prepare for it. Do not think that there will be no bloodshed and chaos when we want self-government. This is false talk. People in England fought for independence, Americans fought for independence and many other countries fought before getting independence. We must not be frightened, for this will happen to us.

That was said in the Parliament of Papua New Guinea. His reference to their readiness to fight for independence should make us think. Here we are speaking to estimates of money to be spent in a country where they do not in fact want our physical presence. We should be speaking instead about a grant to be issued to and spent by their own Parliament and by their own departments in a manner totally decided upon by the voice of the local people. We in Australia would be speaking as Mr Arek spoke if the same decisions we are imposing on Papua New Guinea were being debated in the British House of Commons in relation to Australia, In defence of the perpetuation of these decisions we of course say that they are not ready and by some mysterious judgment of the wise man say that at some future, distant, undefined date they will be ready

What will we have to do? Will we have to sacrifice the lives of some of our young people conscripted under the National Service Act to suppress a population aroused by such incredible actions as this Government’s decision to make separate wage systems for Papuans and New Guineans and expatriates? According to Mr Warren Dutton, the member for North Fly when opening the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly ‘This system has saved the Australian Government more than $100m’. This is a dreadful expose of cheap labour exploitation for which we will have to answer in the future. This decision alone has caused more harm and more division between races than any other decision that has been made by the Government. Further, when one considers that the Australian Government in 1969-70 spent $1,226 for every person in the Northern Territory and yet in the same year spent only $71 a person in Papua New Guinea one cannot wonder at the bitterness of the local people who see, rightly or wrongly, the white man enjoying a superior wage structure for the same work and winning positions in the Public Service ahead of local men. According to the rules applied, this must be upheld. But one successful appeal against this system can do untold harm in race relations. We have done all these things as an autocratic administration trying to transplant our system ‘ to another country and using the local population as servants.

On a recent visit to New Guinea I was confronted at the front door of my abode by a fine strong healthy young man of approximately 30 years of . .age seeking house work. The reference he handed to me stated that he was a good worker but was apt to borrow things. I should think he would borrow because if he had a family to support, the miserly amount paid to him as a domestic would be quite inadequate. Fortunately he could not read the reference himself, but somewhere, sometime it will be read by a more literate friend and this man will become another potentially resentful citizen, as must a large number of these men who have been forced to take the only available work as servile servants with a backyard garage type building for accommodation. These people will be the voters and the decision-makers of our nearest neighbour. What memories they must have.

When we speak to those people who will communicate and who have some authority, we find that they use, as a yardstick of our sincerity towards them, the standards which we have set for our own Aboriginal population. They claim that we have dispossessed the Aboriginal of his land, of his birthright, and that our general attitude is to treat Aborigines as second rate citizens. This is something tangible which they can see and on which they can judge us, as does the rest of the world. It is not a very pretty sight and it offers no reassurance to them. Recently I had the honour of representing this Parliament and laying a wreath at an Anzac Day ceremony in a New Guinea town. 1 was impressed by the way in which almost the total population turned out in pouring rain and the manner in which the local ex-servicemen paraded together with expatriate ex-servicemen. But I was not impressed to find that 2 servicemen’s clubs existed - one a substantial, well appointed structure for expatriates, and another structure, which was unlined and had a plain cement floor, for native ex-servicemen. I was proud to attend both clubs because the ex-servicemen of both clubs had fought for the freedom of their country. But I repeat that I was so bitterly disappointed at the disparity in treatment that it was difficult not to make further ill will by complaining whilst there. This Parliament is the proper place in which to seek to have this type of discrimination eliminated.

The legislation on wages only furthers this type of disaster. We have been lax in coming to grips with the problem. We have treated it as though time does not matter. The basic education facilities in Papua New Guinea are insufficient in quantity or quality to cater for all of the population. There is a crisis in education there which is even worse than that which exists in Australia. I admit that the Government has established higher educational institutions, but it is a matter of too little too late. Too much is left to the missions and to other voluntary agencies. To illustrate this point, one of the establishments proudly shown to me was a returned servicemen’s school. It was housed in a good building by tropica] standards for that area. It had just been completed. It had a cement floor, an iron roof, asbestos half walls and openings for windows. It was a palace compared with the building which the pupils had just left, which had a dirt floor, a thatched roof, woven walls and bush timber. This is the situation some 22 years after the closure of the Second World War. The just completed building was constructed of some secondhand material by voluntary labour using donated money. All this is being done for the sons and daughters of ex-servicemen who were our allies and to whom we owe so much.

All this aroused my interest in the state of the basic book stock of the libraries. At that time some of the libraries did not possess a modern set of reference encyclopedias, others had a fair standard of stock, but none was in any way equal to what we would expect to be available to Australian citizens generally. Here I might add that the expatriate population must suffer, although those attending the higher educational institutions would have access to modern material. But this materia] would not be available to those who depend in the restricted general system of public libraries. In fact, I wonder how many of the indigenous population receive sufficient education to appreciate and use the library system in a country in which there is little else to offer to those seeking extended learning or self-education, or insufficient income to finance the library system. This is a system which, with self-government, the country will inherit. We give these people little to look forward to. The buildings are old and inadequately stocked. But this is common. The attitude has been to mould Papua New Guinea to a situation in which maximum profits flow to Australia. One political party has even gone so far as to attempt to perpetuate the situation by sending a political organiser to Papua New Guinea. I am sure it is to protect the interests of its members Who are expatriates in that country.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava

– In this debate we are discussing Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72, and more particularly we are referring to the Department of External Territories. The total estimate that we are being asked to approve is $111,495,000, of which the major portion is allocated under Division 266. In other words, $106,582,000 is allocated under Division 266 which relates only to the Territory of Papua New Guinea. I suggest that the Department of External Territories, has as its main function, the administration and the bringing into the 1970s and 1980s of this great Territory north of Australia. In other words, the main job of the Department is to deal with the problems of government and to bring the people in the Territory into the 20th century. I believe that to the $106m which I have mentioned should also be added expenditure by the Department of Works, the Department of Civil Aviation, the Postmaster-General’s Department and probably other departments. Whilst I have looked at the Appropriation Bill and the legislation from front to back, I have found it impossible to find any expenditure associated with these Australian Government departments which is spent in Papua New Guinea. I believe that some effort should be made by the Minister for Externa] Territories (Mr Barnes) and by these departments, too, to ensure that information relating to this additional expenditure is added to that incurred by the Department of External Territories. Thus we would be able to obtain information about the total amount of money which the Australian taxpayer sends to Papua New Guinea each year.

The local budget for Papua New Guinea, as submitted by the Administration, amounted to $197. 6m, whereas the internal revenue of the Territory is shown as amounting to only $84. 3m. I suggest that the Territory is living at a pace which it can ill afford. In other words, there is a deficiency of at least $113m in the Territory’s budget, which is more than the total amount of revenue brought into the Territory. So for a number of years the Territory of Papua New Guinea has been running at an increasing deficiency, so far as income or revenue is concerned, and I appreciate that this position will continue for a considerable time. However, I believe that the Minister, the Department and the territories should be looking not only at the possibility of decreasing - not increasing - the aid given by Australia in the form of finance and in the form of loans which are raised, in Australia and elsewhere, by the Administration through the House of Assembly and loans raised but also at endeavourng to become selfsufficient. I say this because the figures available to me indicate that imports last year, that is for 1970-71, were valued at $260m, which was an increase of 18 per cent over the previous year, whereas exports from the Territory were valued at $99m, which was an increase of only 9 per cent Over the previous year. Here again we see that imports are increasing at double the irate of exports.

Obviously the Territory cannot be selfsufficient whilst this set of conditions applies. 1 believe that the Territory must be trained in self-sufficiency particularly now that the Bougainville Copper Co. is to begin operations at Bougainville. It is quite evident from the reports that are available to all of us that this company will be in operation in 1973 and that a good deal of revenue will be available to the Administration as a result not only of the company’s granting 20 per cent pf its dividends to the Administration to be used for the benefit of the people but also from the taxation imposed on the company. In fact, my information indicates that because of the long range prosperity of the Bougainville Copper Co., a total of $276m will be available to the Administration over the next 10 years - an average of $27m per year. In other words the revenue figure of $82m, which I have mentioned, will be augmented by dividends from the company, taxation by the Administration on the company and by other means, royalties and the like.

A good look must be had by the Minister, by his Department and by the Administration itself at the self-sufficiency of the Territory. We all know that income lax - personal exertion taxation - is considerably lower in the Territory than it is in Australia. We know, too, that many companies are not paying the same quantum of company tax as they pay in Australia. This is a good thing in the initial stages but I think that those people in the Territory who earn equivalent to what can be earned in Australia should be paying the same proportion of personal exertion tax and (hose companies, which have been established in the Territory for a given time - say 10 or 15 years - should also be paying taxation almost to the same extent, if not to the same extent, as they would pay in Australia. After all, it must be conceded that foreign companies are being established in the Territory and the subsidiaries of foreign concerns are producing goods and paying less tax than they would pay in their own countries and certainly less than they would pay in Australia.

I believe there are 3 real dilemmas facing the Territory of Papua New Guinea. 1 have only a limited time in which to men tion these. The first dilemma centres around unity within the Territory itself. This is not my own thinking because the United Nations has sent delegations repeatedly to the Territory and one of the points the delegations have emphasised is the lack of unity in the different ethnic groups in the ‘ Territory itself. There is no need for me to amplify what has been said before and what may be said again. It is a problem for the local people. This is illustrated by the way the people in Bougainville regard the rest of the Territory and the people of Port Moresby, Rabaul and Lae. It is not necessary tor me to emphasise the problems that are still associated with the Gazelle Peninsula. This has been mentioned by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham). But there must be some way by which we who have the trust responsibility for bringing these people into the latter part of the twentieth century can do more than we have done hitherto. The idea seems to have impinged on the minds of the people from the United Nations, and on my mind also from newspaper reports, that instead of unity getting closer in the Territory it is spreading further away.

The second dilemma is associated with the economic situation. I see grounds for. being more positive about future possibilities because the Bougainville copper company will be in production by 1973 and it has long range projects which will help the revenue of the Territory. The third dilemma is associated with diplomatic relations - with foreign affairs. Little is being done by our Government, by our Minister or by the Administration to enable the local inhabitants to undertake diplomatic relations with other countries. I know that a start has been made and that an international relations branch has been set up, no doubt in the Administration, but I feel that there should be a nucleus of people who can conduct on their own behalf, the same as our people can conduct for Australia, discussions with their neighbours in South East Asia and in the South Pacific region. These would be discussions associated with their Territory and the associated countries with which they are talking.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

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

– 1 note from the Budget itself that SI 30.7m is being allocated for specific proposals in the Territory of Papua New Guinea and that, additionally, other expenditure is proposed. This is quite a substantial sum and one would imagine that the Australian people would be pleased to think that this sort of grant in aid would be welcome to the people of Papua New Guinea. However, on a recent visit to the Territory - and such visits are available to all honourable members of the Parliament - I discovered that this is not the case. Despite the fact that we have been allegedly endeavouring to help the Territory for many years- - more particularly in the last 25 years-we find more hostility than ever before and it must be sheeted home to the Government that it apparently is not looking at the problems of the Territory in the same way as is the indigenous population of the Territory. There is great resentment of the Government. The indigenous population feels that it is being exploited. If honourable members examine the Hansard records of the House of Assembly of Papua New Guinea they will see great criticism of the Australian people. Admittedly it may be illinformed, but I would say that it is related to the system that we have endeavoured to impose on the people of the Territory. Our civilisation, in the main, seems to be whether we built a brewery or a large number of hotels and a few motels. We have a Western civilisation - a capitalistic system of making profit.

I suggest that the indigenous people of the Territory could teach us many things. They have a clan system - a tribal system - whereby they have been able to help each other. It is a system in which there is no juvenile delinquency, no poverty and no orphans and in which they have been able to have a splendid social structure. We have fragmented it on many occasions by interposing our own Western civilisation with the result that in the towns in the Territory one can see people who have been drawn away from their villages and left without that strength upon which to fall back. We have been saying that they have to learn to behave the way our children behave. If honourable members examine what members of the local population are saying they will find that time and time again reference is made to this matter. In a debate in the House of Assembly as recently as March of this year Mr Olewale said that he deplored the fact that his people were the low paid wage earners. He said that if his people go into a Burns Philp store they have to pay 50c for a can of beef which is the same as an Australian would pay for that can of beef but that 50c represented a substantial sum to his people wheras it was nothing to the Australian. By this example he suggested that there was discrimination. He continued:

I would suggest one solution. In our traditional society there are no such problems.

He mentioned what I have just said when he said:

There are no juvenile delinquents in our traditional society. In our traditional society there were and still are very strict rules by which young people live. Young people are initiated into clan life. Young people are initiated at an early age so that they change from young children to men.

He said that they still adhered to their culture. He said, in effect, that by all means there should be Western ideas for Western children but that we should not try to impose on his people, who are of a different racial origin and of a different culture, our Western civilisation. He said that children perhaps could receive some Western education but to really make them live with security and confidence ;n their own society they should have their own tradition and culture. Here again is evidence of hostility to our type of civilisation. In a later debate reference was made to what might be termed cheap labour. There is plenty of cheap labour in Papua New Guinea. 1 think it is to be deplored that in the Territory there is the houseboy system under which in a white household an unfortunate native is employed because, it is said, he cannot get a job elsewhere. Do honourable members think for one minute that this is enhancing his dignity? Do they think that he is impressed with his white overlord? Not at all! The great danger is that when independence is achieved we may have created a master and servant relationship that will be regretted. If ever we get a Belgian Congo in that situation it will be because of that boy’s hatred of certain incidents. This cannot be denied. A lady in Madang said to me: ‘My houseboy said to me, “Independence means I get the house, the car and I get you as well” ‘. This could well be the attitude of mind. This area is not far from where there was the Cargo cult on Mount Turu. The indigenees are not really impressed by Western civilisation. They could admire some of its better qualities, but do not let us fool ourselves that the money we have expended has necessarily been to their advantage, because dealing with industrial relations we see from the House of Assembly Hansard that Mr Michael Somare, talking about plantation people, says that a businessman in Wewak has been given approval by the Department of Labour to recruit labourers. He said:

This man is treating these new recruits like animals.

This is happening this year. There is not much point in anybody saying here that this does not happen. This is being said in their own House of Assembly. Honourable members should go out and talk to these people as I did. I spoke to Tammur of the Mataungan Association, and T can understand his difficulties. He said to me: ‘Mr Bowen, they served 2 summonses on my people the other day. They brought 170 policemen to do it. They confronted me with the largest force possible. What am I to do? My people have been here for centuries. You talk about civilisation. We have had enough of your civilisation. We have had the German civilisation, your civilisation, the Japanese civilisation, the American civilisation and you back again. We have had a hundred years of your so-called civilisation. We have had enough of it. We can well run our own community. We want the Gazelle Peninsula for the Tolais. We want Tolais as leaders. We want a unified Papua New Guinea. That is most important. We want that. But do not insult me as a leader of my people by saying that I do not know what is good enough for them’.

Do we not see from the debates in the House of Assembly that he is not being successful? He has not the numbers. He has the numbers in the Gazelle Peninsula but he is not getting the numbers over the whole of Papua New Guinea. That does not say he is wrong. All the Tolais want to do is run their own area. This could be done if this Government were immediately to encourage self-government where the people want it now. In the Highlands they do not want it now. They want more money for schools, hospitals and roads. But we cannot run a system in Papua New Guinea whereby, because there is a multitude of representatives from the Highlands, we are going to retard the development of all these other areas. As can be seen from the Hansard reports of the House of Assembly there is already a movement for secession in Bougainville because the people there feel they can make a better fist of the arrangements in Bougainville, particularly as they pertain to the copper mine, than the Administration has been able to make.

Again in the Hansard we see criticism of the foreign domination of the Bougainville copper mine. The local people are not impressed by that. These people cover many ethnic groups and speak some 700 different dialects. Admittedly there would not be a ready-made situation where we could get unity, but let us make it clear that if we give self-government quickly in the areas that want it now, as has been established by the final report of the House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development, we will be easing’ a lot of the tension. Let us not work on the basis that because they are not yet ready to run their own arrangements we will not grant them the opportunity to do so.

Government supporters should look at where the Liberal-Country Party philosophy fits into this sphere. There is a Country Party organiser in the Territory organising for the United Party - against God knows what. It is not against the Labor Party. It must be against the Pangu Party. The Government has created this division amongst the people. It did not exist before. Government supporters have a responsibility to say why they have done it. I want to submit to them that in many cases they have done it because they have some interests in the commercial developments in the Territory. The boards of directors in some cases come very close indeed to some senior members of the New South Wales Government. It would bear examination by this House as to what are the vested interests in the Territory from a commercial point of view. Who are the shareholders in commercial enterprises? Who are the people who own the land? Who are the people employing these natives on low wages? We should see whether this is not the basic problem. The Government cannot justify its actions by saying: ‘We are encouraging development’. It is not. It is encouraging exploitation.

It is important that this be a nation that speaks with one voice. It is anxious to do that. It can only be done if we quickly implement this report which talks about internal self-government. That should happen now in the Gazelle Peninsula. It should happen now in Bougainville. It is important that the leaders of these areas that want self-government also be elected members of the central government. Thereby We would get some opportunity for communication across the board. At the present time we say we are allocating money and progress is being made, but I very much doubt it. I am very concerned that the Australian people are not aware of this situation. It is important that in this place there be more frequent debates on the Territory. More importantly, their elected representatives should come down here and talk to all of us, not just to the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), without being disrespectful to him, to get our points of view on their problems. At the moment it is really impossible to get any report on what they want done. It is important that they get self-government.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr PETTITT:
Hume

– I am appalled as I sit in this place tonight and listen to the uninformed nonsense that is being spoken by some of the members of the Opposition - 5-minute visitors to Papua New Guinea who have no understanding and no knowledge of the position there. Some of them have gone there recently for 5 . minutes and have become experts without any appreciation of the problems of the people or of what the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) has done over the years.

Mr Armitage:

– Are you one of them?

Mr PETTITT:

– The Australian Government has done a tremendous job in Papua New Guinea. The Government’s aim has been to discharge to the utmost of its capacity the obligation that Australia accepted under the United Nations Charter - to promote the political, social, economic and educational advancement of

Papua New Guinea and its progressive development towards internal selfgovernment and independence with freely expressed wishes of the people.

To one uninformed interjector on the opposite side of the chamber I say that my first experience of the Territory was back in 1942 or 1943. I do not claim to be an expert, but I have been back to the Territory continually. I know something of the people, something of the problems and something of the Territory. To say that this country has set out to exploit the people of the Territory is to show a complete lack of appreciation of what has been done over the years by this country. We are pouring into the Territory about Si 30m annually of Australian taxpayers’ money to help these people with the sole objective of helping them towards selfgovernment and eventual independence. We have developed their industries; we have developed roads, we have developed transport. We have done a tremendous job, and what is more we have done it with their co-operation. That is something that these people who have no real knowledge of the Territory do not appreciate. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) was the most ignorant man who ever went to the Territory, but I am beginning to wonder whether some of his supporters are not even more ignorant - and that is saying a great deal indeed.

The United Nations was critical early in the piece of Australia’s handling of Papua New Guinea because some of the nations represented on the committees that visited New Guinea were critical. But I would ask honourable members to read the last United Nations report and see what that independent committee ‘ said about New Guinea and what has been done over the last few years. It gave Australia a tremendous commendation for what it had done for the people of the Territory. Those of us who were there during the war remember what those people were like 30 years ago. They were completely primitive people. Today we can go back and see some of the development in which they have taken part. Only last week we had down here 5 Ministerial Members of the House of Assembly, every one of them an able man and every one of them proud of his country and grateful for what has been done. Of course there are problems. There always will be problems in the development of a backward nation such as New Guinea.

Under the constitutional development approved by the House of Assembly and approved by our Government the people of the Territory have been given a tremendous amount of self-government. Today they virtually have self-government in almost all areas. There are only very few areas where they do not have it. The Ministerial members and the Assistant Ministerial Members make the final decisions in many areas such as education, public health, tourism, co-operative societies, business administration, posts and telegraphs, Territory revenue, taxation, shipping, civil defence, and corrective institutions, which is a tremendous responsibility that they carry out very well indeed. The Commonwealth has retained control in only a very limited area, namely, in the area of law and order, internal security, international affairs, defence and international trade relations and civil aviation. The Commonwealth exercises some supervision over developing projects where it is needed. Many leaders in the Territory, including Michael Somare, have said to me: The worst thing that could ever happen to this country would be if we lost the support of the Australian people, if we lost the services of the experienced expatriate officers before we are ready’.

Only last week a member of the Press said: ‘Shortly, when a Labor government comes into power, Papua and New Guinea will have self-government overnight’. I quickly jumped in and said: ‘You are jumping to conclusions’. A Ministerial Member sitting beside me said: ‘We do not want self-government until we are ready’. This was said to me by members of the Pangu Party and by members of all the other parties up there. They said *We want it when we are ready for it, not when Mr Whitlam or somebody else dictates to us’. These are proud and able people. We recently interviewed in Papua New Guinea a number of local government councillors and when one expatriate who was a teaching sister on one of the councils suggested that the difference in payment was a big problem and could cause jealousy between the expatriates and the indigines, several members of the council got up and said: How foolish can you be? We need these people. They have a different standard of living. They come up here at a considerable disadvantage. We are prepared to pay them until we have trained people to take their places’. These people understand the position and as I said, they are people with tremendous ability and a shrewd assessment of the situation.

One of the great problems in Papua New Guinea is that there are so many ethnic groups. Some 700 languages are spoken. We must try and weld these people together into a national unity because if it is to be a successful nation, there must be some sort of national unity. This is not easy. The highlanders have different interests to the people around the coast. The people in the Gazelle Peninsula have different interests to the Bougainvillians. There is no question that most of the trouble in Papua New Guinea in recent years has been aggravated, as was mentioned earlier, by the visits of some irresponsible members of the Opposition. The most irresponsible member of all was the Leader of the Opposition. If honourable members do not believe this, let them go to Papua New Guinea and talk to the New Guinea people themselves. He is the man who spoke in the streets and very nearly caused riots and had to be walked off the streets by a District Commissioner because of his irresponsible statements and his encouragement of lawlessness by people who have yet so much to learn.

There are tremendous projects being developed in Papua New Guinea. The people have educational facilities. There are high schools all over New Guinea. They have primary schools, technical colleges, a university and an institute of technology and they are keen to fit themselves to take over control of their country as quickly and as soon as they are able. However, they are aware that they are not yet ready. There are tremendous developments in forestry and there is great potential for the export of wood chips and the supplying of timber. The beef industry has also expanded. From virtually no cattle at all, there are now about 79,000 head of beef cattle and slaughter houses have been established in places like Port Moresby,

Lae, Goroka, Mount Hagen and Madang The oil palm industry has been a successful enterprise and one in which the indigines themselves are taking a great part. The company which has been the main developer of this industry has gone to considerable lengths to assist and finance indigines and has provided them with their own areas so that they can become proficient. While the tea industry is certainly still in the hands of expatriates, tremendous efforts are being made to train and teach the indigines to develop and harvest tea. Fisheries have a great potential in Papua New Guinea and, of course, there is mining at Bougainville. There are other areas where there is tremendous potential for these people to develop an export industry so that they can become independent. Australia cannot forever pour money into this country at the rate of $!30m a year.

Land presents a great problem as it does all over the world. Even in Australia land problems create quite a lot of tension. Wealthy professional men and business men boost the price of land. It seems to be inherent in human nature that people want to own land and the people of Papua New Guinea also want to own land. They have a very involved system of land tenure and one that we have endeavoured to accommodate so as to encourage them to handle their own land problems. This also is not an easy matter. There is a great problem with roads and highways and the transport system in a country with a terrain like Papua New Guinea. The New Guineans have co-operated in the building of aerodromes in remote areas as well as highways over almost inaccessible places. A tremendous job has been done in Papua New Guinea over the years by cooperation between the New Guinea people and the Australian Government. I cannot too highly commend the Minister for his cool direction, despite unfair and unjust criticism, in a very difficult situation.

I believe that these people have a great future. We should not forget that they live very close to us. It is important to Australia for many reasons that they remain our friends and that we remain the friends of the people of Papua New Guinea. I know many New Guinea people; I have known them for many years. They are very fine people indeed and it makes my blood boil to hear uninformed criticism of what Australia has done and what these people are doing for their country. I commend the Minister and the Government for doing a great job in difficult circumstances. There are some members of the Opposition, such as the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley), who do understand the situation and who must be embarrassed by what has been said.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– 1 also wish to say a few words on the appropriation for the Department of External Territories, particularly as it affects Papua New Guinea. I do not wish to make it a political football in the way that the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) has done but I am unfortunately put in a position where I must answer one criticism which he made. If my recollection is correct, he said that the Pangu Party does not want self government.

Mr Pettitt:

– I did not say that at all. 1 said they did not want it before they were ready.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– 1 should like to quote from an article in the ‘Post-Courier’ of Thursday, 21st October. The article is headed ‘Urgency Theme for 1972 Policy’ and states:

Urgent preparations for early self-government will be the main theme of the Pangu Party’s campaign for the 1972 House of Assembly elections. The Party leader, Mr Michael Somare . . . revealed this in the Pangu election manifesto he released in Wewak.

I think that answers the statement of the honourable member for Hume. Having recently visited Papua New Guinea after an absence of 8 years I expected to see great change. However, unfortunately my impression of the greatest change was the dramatic growth in racialism and I left the Territory very concerned about Australia’s future relations with it, as I believe it is of paramount importance, not only to this generation but also to the future generations of Australians that a sound and friendly relationship and understanding of the problems of the people of Papua New Guinea and Australia should be forged. I am sorry to say that my impression is that a great deal of the blame for the growth of racialism rests with the attitudes of the great majority of the Europeans in the country, particularly those in commerce and industry, who have only their own self-gain in mind and who are not concerned with the problems of the indigenous people or with Australia’s relationship with them in the future. I do not suggest that this statement covers all the European people in the Territory as there are many, particularly in the Public Service, who are very dedicated and who are a good advertisement for Australia. But I believe that at least 75 per cent - to quote some old-time Australians who have been there for many years and who have made it their life’s work to help to develop the country- of the Australians there are not a good advertisement for our country and it is a pity that some way has not been found to cull them out and send them back to Australia in an endeavour to reduce the growing racial tensions.

I visited remote areas as well as the more sophisticated districts in both the coastal regions and the highlands, including Rabaul. I arrived at Rabaul just as the civil disturbance was occurring at the airport, which honourable members will recall hearing of last July. Three hundred police were marching up and down the airport in accordance with the old gunboat technique and my impression was that there was an almost complete lack of dialogue between the Administration and the more radical indigenous organisations such as the Mataungans. I found it almost impossible to make contact through the Administration with Mataungan leaders. I also obtained the impression that a great deal of the responsibility for the serious situation which exists there rests with the Secretary of the Department of the Administrator, Mr T. Ellis, who, I was advised by some of the small band of dedicated and sincere kiaps which exist in the Territory - unfortunately this is by no means all the kiaps - has continually insisted upon a hard line being taken towards the Tolai people, with a resultant difficulty in obtaining or maintaining a worthwhile dialogue with them. I impress that this information was only given privately as no-one seemed to be game to give it in front of a third person.

Honourable members will recall the incident in the House of Assembly last November which involved Mr Ellis and, to refresh their memory, I quote from an article in the ‘Australian’. The article states:

The head of the Papua New Guinea Administrator’s Department, Mr T. W. Ellis, was crawling around the House of Assembly floor on all fours. For the second time on the last day of the November sitting Mr Ellis was expressing his rage at the honourable member for Kokope on the Gazelle Peninsula of New Britain, Mr Oscar Tammur. Mr Ellis had suggested that Mr Tammur wanted the Administration to crawl like a dog and dropped down to mime out his precise meaning, as stunned members - who are often told that a Parliament must have dignity - looked on.

Surely this display of arrogant racialism by the most senior Public Servant in the Territory can only do irreparable harm and I believe that the sooner the policies, which this man is helping to frame, are completely reviewed, the better it will be for Australia, the people of the Territory and our relations with them.

On the question of education, I believe there has been a complete misuse of resources. There is a dearth of students with secondary education to fill th positions required by the necessary step-up in localisation in commerce, industry, the public service and the teaching profession, not to mention the need for undergraduates at both the University of Papua New Guinea and the Technological Institute at Lae. For example, the Technological Institute has not been able to find sufficient students to fill their classes in some faculties, even though they know that there will be a demand in the Territory for more graduates than they are teaching. Therefore, the localisation campaign is being seriously impaired by this shortage of persons with secondary education.

On the other hand, with regard to primary education, the great mass of the students who leave primary school - say, after completing second to sixth class primary education - have no job to go to. If they try to go back to the village, they are considered ‘big-heads’ by the older men and so a great body of them simply wander around the towns such as Port Moresby, Rabaul, Lae and Hagen with nothing to do. In other words, they simply cannot fit into either their old or the new culture. To put it another way, there is a massive unemployment problem in the Territory; and is it any wonder that the result is stoninga of Europeans, crime, vandalism and great discontent?

Whilst there is some secondary industry developing in centres such as Lae, nevertheless the Administration does not appear to have adequately tackled the problem of providing industries which will give employment to this huge, unskilled work force which is at present unemployed. Perhaps honourable members can see what I mean when I say there has been a misuse of resources.

On the question - a very vexed question - of land, I believe action must be taken by the Administration to help overcome the great land shortage of the indigenous population before independence is granted. I say before. For example, the Administration should acquire plantations in and around Rabaul from Europeans as quickly as possible and cut them up into smaller blocks for the indigenous people. I cannot understand why action has not already been taken on this question as I met one plantation owner who has been trying to get the Administration to enter into negotiations to buy his property for some considerable time, without avail, and he assured me he is only one of many. They know that the days of plenty are past and that their days of being white plantation owners amongst an indigenous population are numbered. Furthermore, the very vexed problem of the land title system is also so great that I believe that, if some demagogue arises in the country and undertakes to overcome the land title and land shortage problems, he could unite the country under a dictatorship. This would not be in the interests of that country or Australia.

I also believe this Federal Government should have an early look at the question of the border of Australia and Papua New Guinea, because it should be remembered that the nearest island owned by Queensland is only approximately 2 miles from Papua. Why cannot honourable members see the problems that this could raise after independence?

On the question of self government and independence, the Territory now virtually has self-government as Canberra is not using its right of veto. So far as indepen dence is concerned, I cannot help but subscribe to the proposition that it is far better to get out too early than too late, as if we wait too long we will see an ever increasing demand by the indigenous people for local autonomy. If we insist on staying as a policeman, we will see great damage to our chances of influencing the policies and development of the country after independence, plus bloodshed, growth of racialism and hostile country as our nearest neighbour. It is better to take chances on an early independence than face these inevitable happenings.

Mr Deputy Chairman, 1 suggest that the Government should look very carefully at the problems at present being encountered in the Territory. I believe that we have made serious errors in the past and I think it is essential that there should be a complete review of policy to see that those errors are corrected in the future.

Dr SOLOMON:
Denison

– It is very clear from the tenor of the previous speeches made in this debate that the speed of the move to self-government is a continuing theme in any discussion of the estimates, or the matters relating to the estimates, of the Department of External Territories and in particular of Papua New Guinea. I want, if I may, to take up that theme on at least 2 facets. But before I do, I would like to make a small allusion to what was said earlier on the other side of the chamber. I want to say only this: It would be foolish of me with limited experience indeed of the Territory to deny that all the things that honourable members opposite say are true. Clearly, they have made their own personal contacts on some occasions and some of their experiences undoubtedly bear the weight of that contact. But it does seem to me, in listening to a succession of speakers, that they do the cause of Papua New Guinea’s self-government and independence some disservice in their highly selective criticism of what is in fact happening there. Again, I do not say that they are wrong; T say they are highly selective in what they choose to talk about.

It is strange then that our Government members committee, for example, when it went to Papua New Guinea last March, found an almost total absence of the supposedly widespread criticism accorded the population there by, for example, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). That is not to deny that criticism does not exist. Of course criticism exists in a situation of an emerging, selfgoverning nation. But if we take up any of those points we have to draw attention to the fact that, for example, as has been said by honourable members on the other side of the chamber, there is a useful clan system in operation. Of course there is. But the other side of the ledger shows that the process of bringing forward to European standards of education, or the beginnings thereof, produces considerable conflict and gives rise to a considerable social problem as between the offspring of a particular family and their tribal parents. Two worlds become apparent in the educational sphere. So we cannot leave it at the fact that there is a useful clan system - and this has been so for some centuries - in operation in Papua New Guinea.

It has been said that the people of Papua New Guinea can - and they say they can - run their own community. I have no doubt that might be so; but given the situation of United Nations pressure and Australian Labor Party pressure for ever increasing speed to self-government, the context is not one of running one’s own stone age community. The context is one of running a community which is coming into the ambit of western sophistication - if that is the appropriate word - and the local people have shown very little aptitude for running, for example, their own land system which is perhaps as basic as any problem existing in the Territory. Therefore, until the people have proceeded part of the way along the road to westernisation and until certain values of land ownership, for example, are accepted, there remains a fundamental land problem which appears to be getting worse. So just let us qualify a little this apparently universal capacity of Papua New Guineans to run their own show in the face of international overtures, competition and international desire for investment. We cannot have it both ways.

I want to speak on 2 matters only. One is the expatriate administration officers and the other is the potential regionalisation of government. The matter of expatriate administration officers and how officers are treated in the future is quite a critical one. It is certainly critical for those officers concerned. In the White Paper - if I may call it so - issued by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) on 30th August 1971, which is entitled ‘The Future Security of Permanent Overseas Officers of the Public Service’, we have set out the options - they are 3 in number - open to the permanent overseas officers as they are called, or ‘Poos’ for short, if I may use a local term. They are in fact those who are eligible under the employment security scheme to take advantage of these options. There is not time in such a short contribution as this to examine the detail of these propositions, their validity, their beneficence or anything else, but what one must say is that on the face of it the options, the alternatives, appear to be quite generous.

But in saying that one has to bear in mind that there are considerable reservations expressed by the people of the permanent overseas service in Papua New Guinea. It is difficult for me to say whether their fears, their reservations are justified in whole or in part. There does appear to be, and to have increased in the last 6 months or so since I was there, a certain lack of trust that this Government may implement and arrange those things which it wishes to implement and says it will arrange. I think it is perhaps unfortunate in relation to these negotiations in this matter of trust that the proposals put forward by the Minister appear to have been somewhat modified by the Cabinet.

The amount of money to be involved ultimately is not known but it will probably be substantial; of the order of $50m or so. So we are not talking about peanuts. Nevertheless we are talking about the lives of people who in some cases have worked decades in the Territory and from my observations, whatever the observations of honourable members opposite might be, these men have had an almost universal dedication to the task in hand. I must say that I was considerably surprised to find the universality of the apparent inclination of these people to get out in favour of local people taking over their jobs in due course. So it is not surprising that when they get out, if they do, they want to get out under fairly substantially shored-up conditions. They have in mind, of course, the model of the British treatment of Britain’s former colonial servants who were given very good treatment indeed. I think it must be said here that the conditions are probably a little different. The writing has been on the wall in Papua New Guinea for quite some time. It has been spelled out increasingly over the years, so that it is not quite the situation that the people have suddenly been confronted in the space of a year or two with a rush of nationalist movement. They have not suddenly found a Papua New Guinea equivalent of Kenya or some African State coming under other ownership. I think we need to bear that qualification in mind.

But my main point here is that whatever this Government has decided or will decide shall be the terms under which the permanent overseas officers leave the Territory, if they wish, or stay there, if they wish, it is most important that there should be the utmost in negotiations, so that the best possible compromise can be achieved. In this way these people who have served New Guinea so well and who have served the arm of government in this country so well may come out of that Territory, if they do. with reasonable peace of mind and reasonable security in the future.

The second point in relation to this movement to self-government that 1 want to make is this: Only the other day the question of regionalisation of government was brought up. Mr Oala Oala-Rarua in particular has advocated not only that there should be the Territory government in the House of Assembly - 1 presume there will still be the local government councils or their equivalent - but also there should be an intermediary level of government on a regional basis. If I remember correctly the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ editorial this morning set out very well the problems involved in carrying out that proposal. I think I made mention of this in my last speech on the Territory. I believe that the situation now is as I saw it then. Who would wish on the Territory of Papua New Guinea or an independent Papua New Guinea with a couple of million people, having a substantial problem with large areas of land differentially occupied in terms of population density and even in land use, a 3-tier system of government which half the speeches in this House deal with as being a major problem of national operation? It seems to me that the local government councils, all, as far as I can see, astute bodies of people, represent local interests very well. The House of Assembly in a relatively small population should adequately be able to cull what there is on offer. I think there should be very great circumspection exercised in any possibility or contemplation in a serious vein of introducing a formalised and to that extent, once implemented, a relatively inflexible third or middle tier of government in so young a territory as Papua New Guinea. I very much hope that the present arrangement with whatever modifications may be necessary could be made viable and could continue that way without formalising or stiffening the situation any further than is absolutely necessary.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

– It seems to me that one of the major problems in Papua New Guinea is that not enough of the leadership in the House of Assembly or in the local government councils has made a conscious, intelligent commitment to create national unity. I do not underestimate how difficult the creation of national unity, of a genuine sentiment of national unity, is in a country like Papua New Guinea. 1 do not want to go through the familiar argument that it took England hundreds of years from its tribal state to create national unity. There were figures such as Alfred who could create it but then the country slipped back into disunity; then Edward the Confessor could bring about unity again; then there was the conquest, and so on. I do not think that any country will recapitulate the history of the Middle Ages; nevertheless national unity came about in most countries because some leader and some people decided to create it.

The most disturbing thing about Papua New Guinea is that there does not appear to have been among enough leaders - if among any leaders - a conscious decision that the goal of their life is to create a united Papua New Guinea. The Pangu Party, whose name means Papua and New Guinea United, did state this goal of national unity on its platform. For perhaps good reasons and for perhaps bad reasons it has not been particularly popular with the Government.

But outside that Party there has hardly even been an articulation of national unity as an objective. One thing that I think honourable members on both sides of this House can do is to encourage the people to achieve that goal. If we say: ‘How is it to be done?’ the answer is: ‘None of us knows!’ But until somebody makes a wilful decision that that is what is going to be done it is not likely that national unity will be created.

Nor do I draw false analogies between Papua New Guinea and the difficulties of national unity in some African countries. Some African countries had very, very large disputing entities. The Ibos of Nigeria numbered some 10 million. The Haussa numbered somewhere in the vicinity of 20 million. Actually Nigeria was a compulsory union of peoples who might individually have been regarded as nations. So when there was conflict between them there was conflict on a very large scale. I do not believe that there would be any conflict on a very large scale in Papua New Guinea because the tribal units are not large enough - if the people reverted to tribal loyalties - to carry out war. The tragedy of Nigeria was that it was rich enough to be able to sustain several years of war to the utter ruin of the country. The things that seem to me to threaten unity in Papua New Guinea are relatively few. There is a tendency to say that the lack of education threatens national unity. I doubt that the illiterate villager is a threat to national unity at all. I do not think he is worrying very much what the Government in Port Moresby is doing. It is only in areas where the people have felt that the Government in Port Moresby threatened their land as in Bougainville and perhaps in the Gazelle Peninsula, that there has developed a kind of a conscious secessionist movement. This land insecurity wherever it has developed has been the basis of violence and the basis of the threat to national unity.

I have said many times that I am extremely critical of the wage structure in Papua New Guinea. I do not think it corresponds with justice. I do not want to reiterate that except to say that we are deceiving ourselves if we put forward the proposition that some entity or other called New Guinea cannot afford to pay adequate wages. There is no entity called

New Guinea paying wages anyway. If there were a system of arbitration there, the question that would arise would be whether Burns Philp and Co. Ltd, W. R. Carpenter and Co. Ltd and Steamships Trading Co. Ltd can afford to pay adequate wages. If there were any adjudication between employer and employee nobody would be going about saying there was an entity called New Guinea and what it could afford. I do not want to exaggerate this because the number of people who are in the wage economy is relatively small. It is probable that there are not many more than 100,000 in what we could call a wage or salary sector of the economy in Papua New Guinea, even throwing in plantation labour, and in a large population of 2.5 million there are very many more people who are living in a traditionalsubsistence economy and who are not affected by the level of wages.

I do not want to be complacent about that because after all. crises in nations are very rarely created by majorities. Crises in nations can come from some strategically placed sector in the community and it is quite possible that those who have come into a wage and salary kind of life are able to threaten national unity if there is profound discontent among them. We have had some great good fortune that we have no reason to believe will continue. One of the threats to social stability throughout the Pacific has been the development of shanty towns and colonies of unemployed, and these have been centres of crime and delinquency. We have been extremely fortunate in Papua New Guinea that although these places have developed there as badly as in almost anywhere else in the Pacific, the people who have come to dwell in shanty towns have come in tribal units and the tribe can sit with a pretty severe discipline on the young people of the group which has moved in. There has been somebody in the shanty towns responsible for the behaviour of younger people and there has not been to the same extent as there has been in other areas of the Pacific the breakdown of tribal disciplinary sanctions among shanty dwellers in Papua New Guinea. Nevertheless, the situation is unsatisfactory.

I was alarmed to get correspondence from missionaries in the Bougainville area whom I respect speaking about the position of migrant workers who have been taken from other parts of Papua New Guinea to work for construction companies which have been carrying out construction ancilliary to the development of the mining areas there. These workers have become unemployed when their work is finished and have not been repatriated. It is pretty well known in this House that people who originally said many years ago - and did not say it as a Black Power slogan either, but as a genuine conviction - ‘black is beautiful’, are the people of Buka and Bougainville, who are the blackest people in Papua New Guinea and have the habit of calling the browner people of other areas ‘red men’. The unemployed who have come from other areas and are living in shanty towns developing in the Bougainville area are not terribly liked by the indigenous people of the locality and are referred to as “red men’. This tension that has developed there, according to my missionary informants, seems to be causing further receding of whatever little sentiment there was on the island of Bougainville for national unity. Of course Bougainville waa originally part of the Solomon Islands. It had some difficulty regarding itself as part of Papua New Guinea. I am disturbed at reports of the demoralisation of unemployed workers on Bougainville.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

during the course of his speech tonight mentioned that he believed that the lack of educational opportunities in the Territory of Papua New Guinea was not important. T have no intention of challenging those remarks. T intend to make a study of the educational background in the Territory. As all honourable members know Papua became an Australian Territory in 1906. Under the Treaty of Versailles New Guinea became a mandate of the League of Nations and in 1921 Australia was given responsibility for civil administration. In the early decades our interests were conceived narrowly in terms of strategic importance. Prior to the Second World War there were only 500 children in Administration schools and 90,000 children in mission schools. At this stage 1 think it is only proper that we express our recognition of the fact that if missions had not moved into the Territory in the early years the base which has been built upon in recent years would have been very shaky. Recently in Auckland the Anglican Bishop of New Guinea, the Rt Reverend David Hand, said that the church was in the box seat because of its past efforts in education. Society in Australia recognises that the church is involved in hospitals, homes for the aged, corrective institutions, work in underprivileged areas here and overseas and is doing nothing but good.

It is appropriate at this stage that I praise and mention my feeling of admiration for those people who are working as missionaries in the far flung regions of the Territory and doing a good job. In fact, the Australian liberal philosophy is one which promotes, assists, helps and encourages selfhelp. In recent years the Government has made a marked contribution in the field of State aid to assist the churches in their educational work. But when we hear the concept of State aid being defended, arguments such as the right of choice of education and the benefits of a dual system of education are discussed. Briefly I shall mention what comprises the dual system of education as it exists in the Territory. The T schools follow a Territorial syllabus and provide the indigenous population with primary, high, technical and vocational school education and the A schools follow the New .South Wales syllabus and provide a primarily academic education for the children of expatriates as well as for indigenous and mixed race pupils with early facility in the English language. That is different to what we in Australia understand as a dual educational system. The dual systems of the Administration and non-Administration schools generally do not overlap. In 1970 non-Administration schools had approximately 50 per cent greater total enrolments than did Administration schools. Unfortunately the extent and depth of educational services in Papua New Guinea are as yet insufficient to meet the potential demand. In reply to a question asked in the House about a month ago the Minister for

External Territories (Mr Barnes) provided information in relation to the number of children in the Territory who were unable to obtain primary and secondary education. It is estimated that there are 359,000 children in the 7 to 12 age bracket in the Territory and of these 223,000 are in primary schools. It is estimated that approximately 60 per cent of students completing a primary education are unable to obtain a place in secondary schools. That means that 3 out of 10 children have the opportunity to go through to secondary schools.

Prior to the Second World War the great bulk of educational opportunity in Papua New Guinea was provided by voluntary mission schools and was essentially limited to primary schooling. After the war an increased awareness of the needs of and responsibility for territorial advancement brought a much greater official Australian involvement in education as well as in other fields. Despite this growth and its anticipated acceleration the missions will continue to be the major educational force in the Territory. This can be seen most clearly in the present policy of locating new Administration schools in new areas so as to spread educational resources as widely as possible and to prevent competition between the 2 systems. In effect an educational monopoly is held by either the Administration or one of the voluntary missions in each area or village. Some criticism has been levelled at this.

The missions have tended generally to operate at the purely local level and hence are more village oriented than are schools in the Administration network. Village pressures have tended to cause missions to expand their facilities horizontally rather than vertically. Mission policy has been aimed at preparing the majority of pupuls for village life. Alan Randall’s ‘Reorganisation of Education in Papua New Guinea’ covers this quite clearly. He is an officer of the United Church. This emphasis upon the village has worked against the building up of a national character and national attitudes in the indigenous population. In particular, political education has suffered. This was emphasised recently by the United Nations mission which visited the Territory earlier this year.

Missions have tended to regard spreading the gospel as their prime activity.

Recently I made a study of a paper by Daniel Kunert who is a member of the New Guinea Lutheran Mission-Missouri Synod. He made a study of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Ghana. I say to the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) that we have nurtured a system of education in the Territory which I believe is making one of the greatest long term contributions to the lack of unity in that country. The system now is that if the Catholic church, the Anglican church, the Methodists, the Baptists - if any church one wishes to name goes into the area we say: ‘OK. That territory is yours.* The system is such that the cargo cult could qualify for State aid in the Territory if it wished to set up a school. If anyone doubts that he should make a close study of it. I believe that we in Australia, not through meanness but perhaps through lack of vision, are making a big mistake for the future, perhaps 50 years from now.

In the paper to which I have referred Mr Kunert said that schools have also been used by various missions to cause divisions within the country, setting denomination against denomination. While this has been true only to a limited extent, it is something which a country preparing for unity and independence cannot afford to tolerate. I believe that parents have the right to pick the school of their choice and to choose a particular denomination if they want their children to have a religious upbringing. But what I am arguing against is that no choice exists. Either one goes along and becomes indoctrinated or trained in some particular religion or one does not get an education at all. I believe that the people of Australia must play a much greater part in the Territory by making more money available for 2 aspects of education. The first is to ensure that a greater percentage of the people does receive an education. The second is to ensure that the dual system which we have adopted, which we cherish and which we have fought for in our own country is offered to the people of Papua New Guinea. At present we are giving them a second rate choice in education. Unfortunately I think that we will feel the effects of this policy in years to come. It will not contribute to the stability of this nation which is our closest neighbour.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I thought that the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) ended up on an odd note. One of the great problems of education in Papua New Guinea is simply to get education to the people. What the honourable member wants - I think that I am right in my interpretation of what he had to say - is to ensure that the people of Papua New Guinea have a freedom of choice, that is, that they can send their children either to a State school or to a non-State school.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honourable member for Fremantle said that he did not consider education opportunities as playing a major role in the long-term considerations in Papua New Guinea.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is fair enough. But what we are pointing out is that we have not extended education opportunities throughout the whole of Papua New Guinea. Now, the honourable member apparently wishes to create 2 systems, neither of which would be effective.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– No, that is not right. We should step forward both ways.

Mr BRYANT:

– I will debate it with the honourable member some time in Brisbane. Personally, 1 thought that the achievement of uniformity, if we can call it that, between the 2 systems in Papua New Guinea was an achievement of some magnitude and that the living together of church schools and Administration schools or State schools - call them what we will - was an achievement of great social importance. Surely it is possible inside an education system to preserve these values which the honourable member for Griffith apparently treasures so much as, I suppose, we all do. But the important thing about education in Papua New Guinea is that there are so many people who still are getting none at all.

What I wish to say first of all is that I hope that all Australians are starting to realise how important is our work in Papua New Guinea. We are developing a nation which geographically, I think, is spread over at least twice the area of New Zealand and which has a population probably a fraction larger than that of New Zealand. So, we are creating in Papua New Guinea, if this is the term which we should apply to this social and political exercise in which we are engaged, a nation of some international significance. It is important that in all our relations with Papua New Guinea we realise that this is the case, and that every step that we take which produces negative results can be fraught with danger and difficulty for the future. If any step produces positive results in our relations with the people of Papua New Guinea, no matter what is its cost it is well worth while.

I believe we have still to surrender a lot of the paternalism with which we treat this country. As an example, take our relationship with the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly is the Parliament of Papua New Guinea. It ought to be at least as significant as any State parliament in this country. In fact, it is as significant as the Parliament of New Zealand with which I have drawn comparison already. As I understand it - and the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes) will correct me if I am wrong - earlier in the year a resolution was passed by the House of Assembly in Papua New Guinea asking for a committee of this Parliament to visit Papua, I think it was, to have discussions on the grounds - let me put it that way - of some of the problems associated with it. This was, as I understand it, a resolution of the Parliament itself. That was not asking much.

The House of Assembly asked that we should by acceding to this kind of request acknowledge it as an equal partner in the area. Their Parliament and our Parliament should treat one another in this way. As I understand it, the Minister did not see eye to eye with the House of Assembly. The result was that some members from that House came here and visited the Minister. I have a great respect for the Minister - not as a Minister but because of the sort of man that he is. But I have no respect for his judgment in this matter. Those members came here last week. We were not paid the courtesy of being invited to meet them. I believe that we must start to treat these people as equal partners in this area. They have embarked on an enterprise of great significance to the security of the whole area. That is my first point.

My next point is this: What are our relations to be with Papua New Guinea? Are we to continue to treat the people of

Papua New Guinea as a race apart. I know it is fraught with all sorts of problems for the Australian community. It happens that they have one distinct difference from us: They are black - most of them. As my friend the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) pointed out, unless a person is jet black some people would regard him as not being black but a redskin. They can have the same sort of attitudes as we do. Now, what are we going to do about their right to travel to and from Australia? Earlier this year I came back to this country and the only person picked out of the airplane load of people to be examined thoroughly by officers of the Department of Customs and Excise and Immigration in Brisbane was a little girl from Papua. Why was she picked? Well, she was black. We cannot carry on like that.

How will we treat the members of the House of Assembly? The only difference between them and us is perhaps in the colour of their skin. I know that this is a great problem as far as many Australians are concerned, though no Australian ever admits to being racist. I do not think Australians are racist, but they are frightened their next door neighbours might be. It does not matter much in the long term perhaps how we treat the people from Central Africa, or from Mongolia or from India; they are thousands of miles away But these are our next door neighbours and we have to find some greater rapport with them as regards the right to travel to and from. We might have simple relationships where they pass resolutions about what their people can do and we pass equivalent resolutions stating that no Australians can go and live there freely but they can visit fairly freely. If we can do that so should they be able to do it. In the long run we will not be able to treat the people of Papua New Guinea differently from the people of New Zealand. I hope we will not find the solution to our problem as the British did when they clamped down on everybody.

It is not too early to start thinking about it and talking to the people up there because it will have to be a communion of spirits that finds a solution. I do not believe that countless thousands of them will want to get up and come and live in

Australia but I do think that they ought to be able to come and go as freely as anybody else. It is time we started to resolve this question. I do not know what the answer is. I do know that I feel offended on their behalf when they find that they are unable to travel to this country as freely as they should. This applies particularly to all those thousands whose education and so on has committed them to the same life style as ours.

On the other side, we have to think about what our trade relations will be. Are we going to isolate them more than we isolate some other countries? What are the fields of co-operation in this area? There are another 24 to 3 million people scattered throughout the islands. I think one of the lessons of recent times is the growing importance of our island neighbours. The people of Papua New Guinea, the British Solomons, Tonga and all the rest - all the people associated with the South Pacific Commission, for instance - are people with whom we have to find a new relationship. We are vitally important to these people as, indeed, I think they are important to us. There are not so many of them. While there are 2 million people in Papua New Guinea the population in other places is relatively small - 100,000 here, 20,000 somewhere else. We ought to concentrate all our expertise, diplomacy, social endeavour and so on in finding some way of living side by side with these people and getting complete rapport with them. I put it to the Minister that only by the employment of all the skills, resources and personnel of this House will we do it. That is why I am disappointed that our relationship as a Parliament with the Parliament of Papua New Guinea has been so peripheral. We are allowed to go there. We can go up there once a year now - an act of great grace. It costs one a fortune to stay in the hotels and so on, of course, but I think it is important that this Parliament itself - I have been saying this for years as have my colleagues on this side and others - that we should get closer to them.

As we have all pointed out, there is of course a certain nonsense about the debate on the Estimates. We have 10 minutes to cover these great areas. That is not the fault of us all but the fault of those who voted for restrictions in speaking time. What are some of the things we ought to do? First of all, we ought to get rid of any suggestions of racism in our administration up there. There is racism in the administration of housing. Honourable members can describe it how they like, but that is how it looks to the customer. There is racism in the payment of wages and in other areas. We should be saying: ‘What can we do for you? What would you like?’ For instance, would it be worth while putting a satellite in orbit above the Territory for communications purposes because communications are vital to the Territory. I understand that this might cost $20m but it would solve-

Mr Irwin:

– You would look very good up there.

Mr BRYANT:

– I thought it had seeped through even on your side of the House that this is the way it is done round the world. The same applies in relation to roads and television for educational purposes. Of course, there is a feeling abroad that the provision of television is very expensive. But, by the expenditure of $250,000 we could probably put it into places such as Rabaul and the Highlands, where there are quite large populations, for educational purposes. I wish the Parliament could get around to examining these matters more closely. Surely we do not intend to leave all these questions of real difficulty and requiring proper examination to the Senate. It is time that we ourselves did something. We could do something about the exploitation of the people of Papua New Guinea by the Australian airlines. The Australian airlines charge nearly twice as much in Papua New Guinea as they do here.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I take the opportunity to make a submission in this debate. I have listened with interest to the submissions made. There is one matter which concerns me and which has concerned me on the several visits I have made to New Guinea. I do not think it has been raised in this debate. It is that, although we gave the natives in New Guinea drinking rights - which I think all members of the House favour - we have overlooked the fact that in New Guinea, if not now then in the years ahead, there will be a high incidence of alcoholism, as we know exists in the European countries, and no provision is being made to create a fund by which to give treatment to the alcoholics in New Guinea when such a situation arises.

I also want to make some reference to the South Pacific Commission, which was mentioned by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) a short time ago. Members of this Parliament and Australians generally are proud of the fact that Australia is the largest contributor to the South Pacific Commission. I believe that an argument probably exists for giving more to the South Pacific Commission. Recently I had the pleasant experience of visiting some of the countries of the South Pacific Commission as a member of a delegation led by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes), who is at the table. It was quite educational and beneficial to me and I believe the other members of the delegation, in every way.

As a result of contributing to the South Pacific Commission, we also contribute to the University of the South Pacific in Fiji. I want to bring to the notice of the House what I consider to be a grave injustice perpetrated by that University on a former resident of Canberra. This man is a native of Fiji. His name is James M. Anthony. For some considerable time he was a resident of 4 Raymond Street, Ainslie. He was attending the Australian National University on a scholarship. Time will not permit me to read the whole of the contents of the correspondence, which he has authorised me to use. But, for the purpose of my submission, I quote this statement from the third paragraph of his letter:

The taxpayers of Australia alone have contributed something in the vicinity of $20,000 to my higher education. You can see very, very clearly that the Appointments Committee of the Council of the University of the South Pacific had decided not to offer me an appointment (letter dated 17 November, 1970 - enclosed). You can see also from correspondence which is enclosed that when I asked for reasons for the Appointments Committee’s decision the Vice-chancellor himself refused to disclose them.

In another paragraph Mr Anthony states:

I am reliably informed and am now satisfied after a personal discussion with the Vice-chancellor at the University of the South Pacific that the reasons for the Appointments Committee’s decision were based on political considerations. I am also convinced after making extensive inquiries that the Vice-chancellor himself directed that I be refused employment at the University. I believe that I am being victimised because of my political beliefs and my past association with the trade union movement in Fiji.

A number of members of this Parliament have met Mr Anthony. He is a native Fijian and an outstanding Fijian scholar. His list of qualifications is very lengthy. He won a scholarship to study at the University of Hawaii. I have had the pleasure of being in the home of his parents in Fiji. He is the eldest of 12 children. When he attained all these qualifications after years of study he applied for a position at the University of the South Pacific in his native land of Fiji, but his application was rejected. He has suggested in his letter, and I agree, that he was victimised because as a young boy he took an active interest in the trade union movement in Fiji. He led what is known in Fiji as a gentleman’s strike, as a result of which the wages of the workers in Fiji were lifted from approximately $3 to $7 a week.

Mr James Michael Anthony was born on 6th March 1935. He is married with 4 children. He has British citizenship. He gained a Bachelor of Arts degree, with honours in political science, at the University of Hawaii in 1964 and a Master of Arts degree in political science at the University of Hawaii in 1966. At the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in the summer session of 1965 he attended the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research. He was awarded a research scholarship for a doctorate of philosophy at the Australian National University in July 1967, and gained that doctorate early this year. His list of qualifications covers one and a half pages of foolscap paper. At a time when the Fijian Government is constantly asking the Australian Government for additional finance to overcome its economic problems and when its own university, the University of the South Pacific, victimises one of its own nationals in the manner described in the correspondence which I am prepared to show to any honourable member, I think that we have to have another look at the position. If we are going to subsidise a government and a university which defeat by victimisation the very purpose for which their nationals travel to friendly countries such as Australia, the State of Hawaii and the United States mainland in order to achieve high academic qualifications to enable them to take up positions at the university in the country in which they were reared, I believe that our Government should use its good offices to see that these sorts of things are not repeated. I do not believe that Government supporters or any decent Australian would condone the treatment that has been meted out to this brilliant scholar - this mao Anthony from Fiji. Mr Anthony wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of the South Pacific, Dr Aikman, and asked him to state the names of the members of the committee that decided to reject his application for employment, the time of the meeting and who was present. Dr Aikman refused to give him the information.

I believe that Dr Aikman acted very shabbily to a national of Fiji who had high qualifications to fill the position that became vacant at that important University which we visited with the Minister. In fact, I raised the matter in the presence of the Minister at the University in Fiji when we were on this study tour of external territories with the Minister during the recent recess. I hope that my remarks tonight at least will prevent a repetition of this sort of injustice happening to nationals of the south Pacific islands when they come here and do extensive studies at the cost of the Australian taxpayers.

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · Mcpherson · CP

– I am grateful for the contributions made in this debate by honourable members from both sides of the House. Of course it is the duty of members of the Opposition to endeavour to find weaknesses but they have found it very difficult. Some of their arguments were very weak indeed. I hope to mention a few of them at least. However, I am grateful for the contribution from various honourable members on the Government side of the House who endeavoured to show what the Government is doing in Papua and New Guinea which, I believe, is to the great credit also of the Australian people.

I was surprised at the sort of things that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) tried to bring up in this debate. Of course I should not have been surprised because he does not surprise anyone in this House.

He denigrates our economic development in Papua New Guinea. Obviously he has not studied this report entitled ‘Development Programme Review’ although his office asked for a copy of it. If he troubled to read it he would see the tremendous advances in all sectors of the economy. 1 will not go through all the figures contained in it as it might bore people if I read figures like this.

Mr Bryant:

– We have nothing better to do.

Mr BARNES:

– That was quite a glib remark from the honourable member for Wills but let us think back to 20 years ago when practically nothing was happening that country. This year it is expected that the Territory will generate $84m of revenue. It has developed from practically nothing 20 years ago. Is that not a substantial advance? One would think we had been developing that country for years but we have not. We started in the last war. Before the last war Australia itself was an underdeveloped country. How on earth could it then have found millions to develop Papua New Guinea? Australia was emerging from a desperate depression. The remarks of members of the Opposition are idle and they do not surprise me.

The diversity in New Guinea has been mentioned and there are differences of opinion about tribes and all the rest of it. You get differences of opinion from expatriates everywhere. There is only one thing on which they are united and that is condemnation of the Leader of the Opposition. Everywhere we find that to the expatriates he is a disaster. He has been a disaster to New Guinea.

Mr Foster:

– He discovered it for you.

Mr BARNES:

– I will not descend to answering the honourable member for Sturt but that is well known. The Leader of the Opposition has had a particular interest in the Gazelle Peninsula where the situation has been most unfortunate. I know that he counselled the people there against violence but, as I think the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) said, he encouraged them just the same and this has had disastrous results. Unfortunately, only for that encouragement I think we would have settled this trouble in the Gazelle Peninsula. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of our failure in regard to recruitment. Goodness me, after the sort of stories he tells and the attitudes that he advises I wonder that we get any recruits at all. He has amazing attitudes towards the people of Papua New Guinea.

The honourable member for Swan (Mr Bennett) mentioned the wage system in the Territory and referred to the payment of differential wages. This, of course, is the accepted view of the Opposition which refused to acknowledge that all developing countries have this type of wage structure because such countries cannot afford otherwise. If they are to be independent they must have a wage structure related to their own economy otherwise they will have a false independence and will have to depend on subsidies from outside sources. This wage structure exists in Fiji, throughout Africa and in all developing countries. We would be false in our attitude if we said that we would bring this country to independence but saddle it with a wage structure based on Australia’s economy. When the Government formulated this wage structure it was based on the primary products of Papua New Guinea - copra, cocoa, coffee and similar products. These are goods produced in the equatorial belt by countries which have the lowest standards of living in the world.

I inform the Committee that the Australian Government has increased the wages in these highly intensive labour industries. The wage in the agricultural sector of Papua New Guinea are higher than in any similar country. If honourable members examine the wage structures in the newly independent African countries they will see that those countries have not improved their wages, but Papua New Guinea has to compete against those countries on the world markets. This is a problem that confronts the Territory. I will defend to the last drop of my blood our policies on the wage structure in Papua New Guinea. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) had some quite-

Mr Bryant:

– He made a good speech.

Mr BARNES:

– I am glad that the honourable member appreciated it, because if the honourable member for KingsfordSmith had not said that he had visited Papua New Guinea 1 would have concluded that he had gained his information from the mass media. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith suggested that we should let the indigenous population go along with their own way of life. If I interpreted his remarks correctly he said that we should leave them to their own devices. He seemed to criticise our introducing our form of law and order.

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

– 1 quoted what they said.

Mr BARNES:

– That is right. This was quite extraordinary because I do not think the honourable member would get any of the local people of Papua New Guinea to agree with him. One thing that they treasure is the form of law and order that Australia has introduced to Papua New Guinea. I remind the honourable member that until a few years ago in many parts of Papua New Guinea a man would be born and would live his whole life in one place, never moving more than about 5 or 6 miles from it because if he did he would be murdered in another tribal area. Today they can move from one end of Papua New Guinea to the other. I doubt whether there is any other country whose inhabitants appreciate what law and order means more than do the Papuans and New Guineans. They are jealous of this situation, so I think that the honourable member has been misinformed. 1 think he made a veiled criticism of the kiaps. This is the type of unfair criticism we hear from members of the Opposition. This body of men has made a most admirable contribution to the Territory. These few Australians brought law and order and government to Papua New Guinea. A few Australians went into that primitive and hostile country with a few policemen and native carriers and, with a minimum loss of life, brought control to the country and a better life to its people. I do not think their efforts could be equalled anywhere else. Yet these people are denigrated.

The honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) made a most extraordinary statement. He said that he went up there recently for the first time in 8 years and the only change he noticed was a change in the racial problem. He did not notice that since we was last up there a university had been built. He did not notice that an institute of higher technology, a forestry school and an agricultural school had been established. He did not notice that a road had been built from Mount Hagen to Lae. He did not notice the improvements which have been made to the ports. He did not notice that this area has probably the most efficient telecommunications system of any underdeveloped country in the world.

Mr McLeay:

– He must have eye trouble.

Mr BARNES:

– I do not think I need elaborate any further on what he did not notice because, as the honourable member for Boothby said, myopia is his problem.

Mr Bryant:

– He is a good romantic.

Mr BARNES:

– There is no doubt about the fact that he makes up a good story.

Mr Bryant:

– I am talking about you.

Mr BARNES:

– I think it is proper to apply it to the honourable member for Chifley.

Mr Foster:

– 1 rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. You pull up honourable members on this side of the chamber when they only whisper but during the time the Minister has been on his feet Government supporters have been bellowing out and you have not said anything.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! All interjections, interruptions and comments are out of order. The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat.

Mr BARNES:

– 1 support the remarks of the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) about the problems of unity, which is a critical matter to the Territory. I support his remarks that every effort should be made to bring unity to the Territory. The divisions among the people are extraordinary. Human factors are involved. Logic and reason do not come into the matter. It is a matter of emotions, which is a difficult problems to combat. The honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) seemed very concerned about the Government having disregarded the House of Assembly. That is quite an extraordinary statement from a member of the Opposition. I think a great achievement of this

Government has been to give a representative House of Assembly to Papua New Guinea. The House of Assembly has been elected by the people of Papua New Guinea to express their views.

Mention has been made of self government and independence. The policy of this Government is to give self government and independence to the Territory whenever its people want them. But the Leader of the Opposition - this great democracy - has said that this decision will be made in Canberra and not in Port Moresby. He has said that the people of the Territory will have self government by 1972, which is next year, and independence by 1975. The honourable member for Wills said that the Government does not respect the wishes of the House of Assembly.

Mr Bryant:

– What about the request for an all-party committee?

Mr BARNES:

– I will reply to that interjection. But honourable members opposite should not forget what I have just said about the Opposition’s attitude. The Government is trying to bring democracy to Papua New Guinea but the Labor Party has said that the views of the people should be disregarded. The Labor Party says: ‘It does not matter what they say about self government and independence; it is what we say’. This is paternalism. It is quite ridiculous. The honourable member for Wills is very disappointed because the Government did not accept the request by the House of Assembly for an all-party committee to look at self government. That would have been a great thing if we could have accepted it. But how could we have done so? We do not have a bi-partisan policy. How could the Government appoint an all-party committee when the Opposition has shown such disregard for democratic principles in Papua New Guinea? It could not be done. One group would be going at a tangent from the other group. We have had a most successful meeting with a group of ministerial members. I believe we will be able to ameliorate the problems that exist in the underdeveloped areas. But that is past history now. They have gone back and statements have been issued.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (Kingsford-Smith) - I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented.

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

– Yes, I do. I have been misrepresented in 2 comments that have just been made by the Minister for External Territories (Mr Barnes). He was condescending enough in his own selfimportance to think that I should have known more than I did on the basis that I said certain things. He said - this is not true - that I said we should leave the people of the Territory of Papua New Guinea as they are. I did not say that. I quoted the House of Assembly Hansard report of what Mr Olewale said. He said he would like to retain most of their culture. Secondly, the Minister said I made a veiled threat as to the kiaps. I did no such thing. I quoted Mr Tammur. whom I met personally. I might say that I met Mr To Liman as well, and they both agreed that it was improper that 2 summonses should by served by 170 policemen. I think that is a fair comment. I have the great respect for the kiaps. 1 made no criticism of them at all. I think it has been one of the great and interesting facets of Australian administration that the Australian kiap has done so much for the Territory. It is a pity that his views are not being implemented by this Government.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Deputy Chairman, there was just a point that the Minister made-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr Bryant:

– Can I not speak again? I want to raise again the question of the committee that I raised with the Minister.

Progress reported.

page 2549

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed: That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I do not want to take a great deal of time tonight because of the fact-

Motion (by Mr Giles) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.23 p.m.

page 2550

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Naturalisation (Question No. 3081) (This answer replaces the one appearing at pages 490-1 of Hansard for 20th August 1971 which contained a typographical error.)

Mr Grassby:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

What are the percentages of settlers in the forty-nine national categories, listed in the Return for the year 1969-70 under the Citizenship Act, who have applied for and been granted Australian citizenship by naturalisation and registration during the years of the post-war migration programme.

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

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

The following table shows the estimated percentages of eligible persons who have been granted Australian citizenship by naturalisation in the period 1st January 1945 to 30th June 1970 in the alien national categories listed in the 1969-70 Citizenship Return:

No statistics are available to show the percentage of eligible persons of each citizenship who have acquired Australian citizenship by registration.

However, between 26th January 1949, when the provision for citizenship by registration was introduced by the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948, and 30th June 1970, 52,590 persons became Australian citizens by registration. This represents approximately 4.4 per cent of those eligible as at 30th June 1970 to seek citizenship by this means.

Of interest in this connection is the following statement made by my colleague the Hon. B. M. Snedden when introducing the Citizenship Bill 1969 which provided a very simple means by which British migrants could acquire Australian citizenship through the process of notification after 5 years residence:

British migrants, after living in Australia for long periods come to think of themselves as Australian citizens. Few of them give any serious thought to making application for the formal grant of citizenship by registration, for of course they have nothing material to gain from becoming Australian citizens, already having the right to vote to be appointed or elected to public office, and the like. It is therefore natural that after being in Australia for long periods they think of themselves as Australian citizens; and so, when they wish to travel abroad, for instance, they are surprised and hurt to find they cannot have Australian passports.It is a very common occurrence chat they do not have time before travelling to obtain Certificates of Registration, and as a result are obliged to obtain British passports from the British High Commissioner. The Government believes that these members of our community should have an extremely quick and simple way of becoming Australian citizens, and Clause 8 of the Bill will make this possible.’

This provision came into force on 1st May 1970 and since then slightly more than 4,500 persons have acquired Australian citizenship by notification.

International Research Co-operation (Question No. 4191)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Edu cation and Science, upon notice:

How much has Australia contributed in each year since 1960-61 on international research cooperation?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Australia has contributed through CSIRO’s budget the following amounts on international research co-operation since 1960-61:

Papua New Guinea: Citizen Military Forces (Question No. 4193)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information contained in answerto question 765 (Hansard, 18th August 1970, page111).

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. As at 25th August 1971, there were ‘550 members of the Citizen Military Forces in Papua and New Guinea.
  2. This comprised of 387 indigenes and 163 expatriates.
  3. (a) Officers.
  4. indigenes - 1

  5. expatriates - 49

    1. Other ranks:
  6. indigenes - 386
  7. expatriates - 114
  8. Pacific Islander members of the Citizen Military Forces receive rates of pay equivalent to the appointment/enlistment or promotion rate applicable to the regular Pacific Islander soldier. Expatriates receive the same rates as indigenes plus an expatriate allowance which, in effect, brings expatriate rates up to the same level as received by mainland Citizen Military Forces members.
  9. The amounts paid to members of the Citizen Military Forces in Papua and New Guinea for the financial years 1969-70 and 1970-71 are as follows:
  1. There is only one Citizen Military Force unit in the Territory - the Papua and New Guinea Volunteer Rifles. It has 525 members. The headquarters of the unit and A Company are located at Lae and other elements are located at Rabaul, Madang, Goroka, Banz, Mount Hagen, Wewak and Port Moresby. In addition to the 525 members of the PNGVR there are 25 members of the Citizen Military Forces located in the Territory who are posted as follows: 21 officers with Headquarters Papua and New Guinea Command; 1 officer and I other rank with 19 Psychology Unit; 2 officers with Headquarters 35 Cadet Battalion.
  2. The Papua and New Guinea Volunteer Rifles is organised and equipped on the same basis as Citizen Military Forces infantry battalions on the mainland. The unit is equipped with machine guns, mortars, anti-tank weapons and automatic rifles. However, the basic weapon is the LIAI 7.62 mm rifle.
  3. Training depots are located in Port Moresby, Wewak, Rabaul, Lae, Goroka, Mount Hagen and Banz. Rifle ranges are located in Port Moresby, Madang and Wewak. Members of the Citizen Military Forces may attend schools and courses in Australia or at the Papua and New Guinea Training Depot at Goldie River. Coaching for Citizen Military Forces officer promotion examinations is conducted in conjunction with Australian Regular Army officers as arranged by Headquarters Papua and New Guinea Command.

Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 4209)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What was the date of the establishment of the inter-departmental committee formed for the purpose of ensuring and maintaining close and effective liaison between the departments and authorities concerned with the quality of waterways in the A.C.T.
  2. Which departments are represented on the Committee.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. and (2) Representatives of the Department of the Interior, Department of Works, Department of Health and National Capital Development Commission formed into an ad hoc committee on 24th April 1969 for the purpose of ensuring close and effective liaison between the departments and authorities concerned with the quality of waterways in the A.C.T.

Canberra and Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 4216)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many petrol service stations are operating in Canberra.
  2. What are the names of the oil companies who own these service stations and supply oil and petrol to them.
  3. What was the (a) date when each service station site was acquired, (b) name of the particular oil company concerned and (c) price paid for each site.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. There are 61 petrol retailing outlets operating in Canberra at present. Crown leases of a further six sites have been granted specifically for use as motor service station sites, and buildings are under construction upon them.
  2. and (3) Information about the identity of the supplier of oil and petrol, and the price paid in respect of transfers and sub-letting arrangements subsequent to the initial grant of the Crown Lease, is not readily available.

Not all of the Crown Leases on which the business of a petrol service station is now operating were granted for this specific purpose. Many of them would have been used initially for some other purpose in keeping with the purpose clause of each lease.

The following schedule gives some details of the Crown Leases on which the present petrol and oil retailing outlets are operating. It might be noted that there is one service station operating at the Canberra Airport which is the subject of a lease arranged by the Department of Civil Aviation.

Education: Scholarships and Cadetships (Question No. 4221)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is his Department preparing a bulletin to be entitled Scholarships and Cadetships in Australia for Australian Students (Hansard, 7th September 1971, page 873).
  2. Will his Department prepare a bulletin to be entitled Scholarships and Cadetships in Australia for Overseas Students (Hansard, 20th August 1971, page 494).
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. My Department has no plans to produce a bulletin under the title suggested by the honourable member, but there is currently a Departmental bulletin entitled ‘Australian Scholarships for Overseas Students for Study in Australia’, which contains details of scholarships available in Australia for overseas students. This bulletin is produced annually and was last issued in June 1971.

Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 4222)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Have projections been made of Canberra’s population growth in the next 20 years; if so, what are the projections.
  2. Has his Department completed a study of the water resources and supply for the Australian Capital Territory covering the period; if so, will he make the study available.
  3. Will he ensure that any decisions on water supply will take into account the existing commitments and future needs of communities along the Murrumbidgee River.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. In the long term the growth of the Canberra workforce and population depends on the growth of the Australian population and the national economy, and because of the uncertainties of the many factors involved, population projections beyond 1980 must be regarded as being of doubtful value.

Projections have been made relating population growth to the growth of government employment on the basis of broad assumptions that the Canberra population in twenty years time could be of the order of five hundred thousand people, with six hundred thousand by the end of the century.

  1. The National Capital Development Commission has at various times studied the wide range of water supply possibilities for the A.C.T. The studies are not in a form suitable for publication.
  2. Yes.

Northern Territory Legislative Council (Question No. 4232)

Mr Calder:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether the present allowance of $2,750 per annum causes most of the Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Council to carry out their public duties at a loss.
  2. Will he confer with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer with a view to increasing the salaries and allowances of Members to at least $7,000 per annum.
  3. Will he also give consideration to giving Members of the Council a telephone credit card similar to that supplied to Members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
  4. Will he have these matters referred to Mr Justice Kerr for concurrent consideration with the salaries and allowances of Members of the Commonwealth Parliament.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. No. (2), (3) and (4) The Government considers that these matters might best be considered after the report of the present enquiry into Parliamentary salaries and allowances by Mr Justice Kerr is received.

Sickness and Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 4242)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

Why are student children of recipients of sickness or unemployment benefits no longer regarded as dependent when they reach the age of 16 years.

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

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

When the unemployment and sickness benefits legislation was introduced in 1944 the Government of the day decided that the additional benefit for a child should cease at 16 years of age. Succesive Governments have confirmed this decision.

Electoral (Question No. 4249)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

How many electors were enrolled in each Electoral Division (a) at the time of the last redistribution in 1968 and (b) at the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Former Japanese Islands: Sovereignty (Question No. 42S8)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Which States are understood to have made unilateral declarations of sovereignty over (a) the Spratly Islands and (b) the Paracel Islands io which Japan renounced all right, title and claim in the Peace Treaty of 8th September 1951 (Hansard, 15th September 1971, page 1396, question No. 3670 and page 1398, question No. 4060).
  2. Which is the southernmost of the Kurile Islands to which Japan renounced all right, title and claim in the Peace Treaty (question No. 3670(3) ).
  3. Which of the islands mentioned in article 3 of the Peace Treaty and in the Okinawa Reversion Agreement of 17th June 1971 are claimed by the governments in Peking and Taipei (question No. 3670(4) ).
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The Governments which are believed to be or to have been claimants of sovereignty are: (a) Spratly Islands: People’s Republic of China, Republic of China, France, Philippines,

United Kingdom and Republic of VietNam.

  1. Paracel Islands: People’s Republic of China, Republic of China and Republic of Viet-Nam.

In providing this information, the Government takes no stand on the merits of or the current position in respect of any of the above claims.

  1. The individual islands in the Kurile chain to which Japan renounced all right, title and claim are not specified in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. There is a dispute between the USSR and Japan as to which islands constitute the Kurile chain. The Soviet Union is understood to have interpreted ‘Kurile Islands’ as including Etorofu, Kunashiri, Shikotan and the Habomais, the last being the most southerly. It has occupied all these islands. Japan claims Kunashiri and Etorofu as being the Southern Kuriles and historically and legally Japanese, and Shikotan and the Habomais to be part of Hokkaido, and hence all excluded from the scope of the San Francisco Treaty. Japan would accordingly regard the island of Urup as being the southernmost of the islands to which it renounced all right, title and claim.
  2. The Senkaku Islands are claimed by the Governments of the People’s Republic of China and of the Republic of China. These islands have been administered by the United States under Article 3 of the Peace Treaty as part of the Ryukyu group and are included within the geographical area which the United States has agreed to return to Japan under the terms of the Japan/United States Agreement concerning the Ryukyu and Daito Islands of 17th June 1971.

Shipping: Ports (Question No. 4264)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What were the names and portfolios of the Ministers who in Perth on 24th September 1971 held the meeting postponed from 4th February 1971 to consider recommendations of officials on future port development (Hansard, 13th May 1970, page 2117; 4th September 1970, page 1081; 20th April 1971, page 1744; and 24th August page 657).
  2. What requests or suggestions were made by the Ministers for legislative or administrative action by (a) the United Kingdom (Hansard, 26th August 1970, page 566), (b) the Commonwealth, (c) the Territories, and (d) the States.
  3. Did the Ministers discuss the simplification or co-ordination of tbe present administration of Australia’s ports by 33 different departments, authorities, boards and trusts and 3 different companies (Hansard, 16th November 1965, page 2798 and 15th May 1969, page 1932); if so, with what result.
  4. Which of the conventions listed in questions Nos 3268-71 which he answered on 6th May 1971 (Hansard, pages 2853-4) were considered at the meeting and with what result.
Mr Hunt:
CP

– As Acting Minister I supply the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Ministers who met in Perth on 24th September were:

The Honourable P. J. Nixon, M.P. (Chairman)

Minister for Shipping and Transport, Commonwealth of Australia

The Honourable Davis Hughes, M.L.A.,

Minister for Public Works, New South Wales

The Honourable M. Byrne, M.L.C.,

Minister of Public Works, Victoria

The Honourable N. T. E. Hewitt, M.M., M.L.A.,

Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs, Queensland

The Honourable J. D. Corcoran, M.H.A.,

Deputy Premier, Minister of Works and Minister of Marine, South Australia

The Honourable C. J. Jamieson, M.L.A.,

Minister for Works, Water Supplies and Electricity, Western Australia

The Honourable L. H. Bessell, M.H.A.,

Minister for Transport, Racing and Gaming and Mines, Tasmania.

  1. The meeting of Ministers was convened so that Commonwealth and State Ministers concerned wilh port development and marine affairs could discuss matters of common interest. Consideration was given to a number of recommendations which may result in legislative or administrative action.

Proceedings of the meeting are of a confidential nature. However, public information statements concerning the matters discussed by Ministers were made after the meeting. Items which may involve legislation and/or administrative action and on which public statements were made are as follows:

Formation of a Ministerial Council on port development and marine affairs.

A report on cellular container ships, roll-on roll-off and conventional ships.

Establishment of stockpiles of equipment and materials to combat oil pollution.

Implementation of the International Convention Relating to Intervention on High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969 - known as the Public Law Convention and the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 - known as the Private Law Convention.

Amendment of State Laws relating to oil pollution.

Penalties for discharge of oil into the sea and related offences.

The Ministerial Conference of the InterGovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation.

Establishment of a Marine Operations Centre.

  1. No.
  2. Of the Conventions listed in a previous question which I answered on 6th May 1971 (Hansard, pages 2853-4), consideration was given to (g) International Convention Relating to Intervention on High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties, 1969, and (h) International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969.

Ministers agreed that the Commonwealth alone would legislate in respect of (g) and that (h) also should be implemented by Commonwealth legislation, although State law might well continue to contain similar or even identical provisions.

Electoral (Question No. 4311)

Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

How many electors were enrolled in each electoral division in Tasmania in each of the years 1902. 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940. 1950. I960 and 1970.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Education: Science Laboratories and Libraries (Question No. 4318)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. To which schools in the Electoral Division of Kingston have Commonwealth funds been made available for the construction of (a) science laboratories and (b) libraries.
  2. What was the amount of Commonwealth money allocated in each case.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

The information sought is not available to my Department in the form requested by the honourable member. I refer him to my reply to question No. 3848 (Hansard 9th September 1971, page 1101). Information on specific allocations to government secondary schools should appropriate!)’ be sought from the State Minister for Education. If information is required on grants made to a particular non-government school under the Commonwealth Science Facilities or Library Programmes, I shall he happy to supply it.

Electoral (Question No. 4349)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What is the estimated additional cost to the Commonwealth when a member of the House of Representatives voluntarily resigns at a time other than at the expiry of the term for which he was elected and thereby causes a by-election to be held.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The cost of holding a by-election consequent upon the resignation of a member of the House of Representatives would range from $10,000 to $14,000. The actual cost would be governed by the number of persons enrolled for the Division, the area of the Division, the number of polling places and the number of alterations to the roll since the last print thereof.

River Murray Channel (Question No. 4352)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for

National Development, upon notice:

  1. Will he release the findings of the subcommittee, referred to in the annual report of the River Murray Commission, which was established to inquire into the extent and cost of the work required to make the channel of the River Murray suitable for carrying regulated flows between the Hume Dam and Yarrawonga.
  2. Will he examine the situation which existed in the River Murray in March 1970 when the River ran bank-full at 10,000 cusecs for 2 weeks.
  3. Can he say whether this situation would interfere with the anticipated operations of Dartmouth to help peak irrigation demands.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The report referred to is a technical report to the Commission and is unlikely to be published. It was on the basis of this report that provision has been made in the latest amendments to the River Murray Waters Agreement, to authorise the River Murray Commission to carry out river improvement works in the section of the River Murray between Hume Dam and Yarrawonga Weir.
  2. It is not clear what sort of examination is suggested. It is expected that when appropriate river improvement works have been carried out in terms of the Amending Agreement, flows of the order of 10,000 cusecs will be carried without any significant overbank flow.
  3. lt is not expected that the river channel capacity between Hume and Yarrawonga will interfere with operations associated with the Dartmouth storage.

Perth Airport (Question No. 4364)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister say whether the area to be resumed or purchased for the Perth Airport in Newburn was subjected to planning proposals by the Belmont Shire for rezoning as industrial development or residential development.
  2. If so, were these proposals rejected by planning authorities.
  3. Was the Department of Civil Aviation consulted by the planning authority on these proposals.
  4. Was the Department of Civil Aviation in any way party to the rejection of these planning proposals because of the possible extensions of Perth Airport.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. 1 am advised that tbe Belmont Shire Council did request consent to amend its town planning scheme to allow residential uses in part of Newburn during May 1962 and that the Council also sought consent to allow selected industrial uses in the area during the latter part of 1969.
  2. Yes, the area was zoned rural. There was no need of the land because of adequate other availability of urban land. As industrial land it was difficult to service and to provide suitable access and, in any case, other industrial land was already available.
  3. Yes, in relation to the 1969 talks which included discussions on the effect of airport noise and DCA’s ultimate interest in the area.
  4. No.

Social Services (Question No. 4371)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a person dismissed from or obliged to leave his place of employment due to ill-health and who receives a lump sum payment for long service to his employer, is unable to receive sickness benefit until such time as the furlough payment is exhausted at the normal weekly rate of pay.
  2. If so, in view of section 108 of the Social Services Act, what is the reason for this approach to a person who is temporarily incapacitated for work by reason of sickness and has thereby suffered a loss of wages.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Section 108 of the Social Services Act provides, inter alia, that to qualify for sickness benefit a person must establish that he is temporarily incapacitated for work by reason of sickness or accident and has thereby suffered a loss of salary, wages or other income. A person who receives a payment for long service leave or furlough at his normal weekly rate of pay either in a lump sum or by instalments, has not suffered a loss of salary or wages for the period represented by the amount of the payment.

Aviation: W.A. and N.T. (Question No. 4372)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: ((1) Will the Minister table, in the Parliament or the Library, copies of the Agreement between the Commonwealth and MacRobertson Miller Airline Services which expired on 30th September 1971.

  1. Has Trans-Australia Airlines applied for (a) a Perth-Darwin Licence since 18th December 1968 (Hansard 7.4.70, page 781) or (b) a SydneyAlice Springs-Port Hedland Licence (Hansard 4.6.70, page 2942), if so with what result.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. A copy of the Agreement between the Commonwealth and MacRobertson Miller Airline Services which expired on 30th September 1971 has been tabled in the Library. I would remind the Honourable Member that on 22nd May 1968 in my then capacity as Minister for Civil Aviation I made a copy of the Agreement available to him and received a polite acknowledgement from the Honourable Member.

By an exchange of correspondence in November 1968 the Agreement was varied so as to relieve the Commonwealth of its obligation to determine the overall subsidy, ‘having regard to the need to maintain a reasonable return on the capital invested in the company’ (Clause 5 (i) ), and in lieu of this obligation the Commonwealth agreed to subsidise agreed unprofitable developmental services approved by the Minister in accordance with the standard principles applied by the Commonwealth in respect of other unprofitable developmental services.

As I explained in the House on 30th September 1971, no subsidy has been paid on the major trunk route between Perth and Darwin since 1st

July 1968, and since January 1969, the only service in respect of which subsidy has been paid to MMA is the developmental air service operating in the Kimberleys.It is proposed to offer to MMA to extend the subsidy agreement to 30th June 1972 in respect of the Kimberley services only.

  1. (a) and (b) On 7th August 1969 TransAustralia Airlines applied for a licence authorising operations between Perth and Darwin with authoried stopping places at Mt Tom Price, Dampier, Port Hedland, Derby, and Kununurra. The Commission was advised on 26th September 1969 that the Government decision was that no action should be taken in this matter for the present and tbe application was refused.

On 8th April 1970, TAA submitted that approval should be given for TAA to operate to the North West area of Western Australia and into the Northern Territory but specific proposals were not made at this time.

On 26th January 1971, TAA proposed that it be authorised to supply capacity equivalent to ons F28 aircraft and commence operating services Perth-Port Hedland-Darwin-Gove with stops at Paraburdoo and Kununurra.

On 11th February 1971 TAA applied for a Perth-Port Hedland-Darwin licence. This application was renewed on 17th August 1971 and TAA has been advised that the matter is under active consideration by the Government.

Resources Exports: Japan (Question No. 4373)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has the Government noted that the JapanCanada ministerial committee agreed on 14 September 1971 to establish a sub-committee on resources and energy matters to be composed of senior government officials and to maintain continuous review of trade in copper, coal, iron, uranium and other mineral commodities and further processing in Canada for the international market.
  2. In view of conflicting views in Japan and Australia on the development and export of Australian minerals (Hansard, 28th September 1971, page 152S and 30th September 1971), has consideration been given to establishing a similar joint sub-committee for Australia.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. This question calls for a statement of policy which I do not propose to make at this time.

South Vietnam: Elections (Question No. 4402)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice:

  1. Can he say, whether, in certain areas of disenchantment with the Government, around 99 per cent of enrolled voters voted in the recent elections in South Viet-Nam.
  2. Can he also say whether accusations of ballot rigging by high officials have any substance.
  3. Have Australia’s allies in Viet-Nam rejected political settlement proposals of Communist spokesmen on the ground that the United States of America would not impose any government on the South Vietnamese people and therefore could not accept the exclusion of Thieu, Ky and Khiem.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. Elections were held throughout the Republic of Viet-Nam on 3rd October. The latest figures indicate that 6,327,631 people (87.9 per cent of the 7,192,660 registered voters) actually voted. Final figures will not be available until the Supreme Court has declared the poll. In accordance with the arrangements under which the elections were conducted, the declaration will be made some time before 26th October.
  2. The Australian Government would not wish to comment on allegations made in the context of elections held in another country.
  3. Both the Republic of Viet-Nam and the United States of America have indicated that proposals put forward so far by the Communists are not acceptable. This is because the proposals set two pre-conditions for negotiations: first, that all foreign troops assisting the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam be unilaterally withdrawn; and second, that a coalition government be formed in which the Communists would be given representation out of all proportion to their actual support.

Apartheid (Question No. 4403)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Can he supply details of the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal of Mr Sobukwe referred to in his predecessor’s reply to question No. 3308 (Hansard 6th May 1971, page 2848).

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

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

On 22nd June 1971, the Transvaal Supreme Court dismissed Mr Sobukwe’s action seeking to compel the Minister of Justice to lift the order restricting him to Kimberley. The court ruled that the banning order served on Mr Sobukwe was equivalent to a court order of imprisonment and therefore should take precedence over the privilege conferred by the exit permit.

An appeal against the Supreme Court’s decision has been set down for hearing on 9th November 1971.

Sport: Taiwan (Question No. 4410)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Cricket for Free China Committee which received $2,500 from his Department in 1969-70 towards costs of the visiting University Cricket Group of the Republic of China.
  2. What was the amount and nature of the costs incurred and the duration and nature of the activities undertaken by the visiting group.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The members of the Cricket for Free China Committee at the time of the visit in January 1970 by the University students’ cricket team were:

Mr E. D. Darby, M.L.A. (Chairman)

Mr Cho Ying Yang (ConsulGeneral of the Republic of China)

The Hon. W. C. Wentworth. M.P.

The Hon. J. L. Waddy, O.B.E.. D.F.C., M.L.A.

Mr M. Mackeller, M.P.

Mr F. L. O’Keefe, M.L.A.

The Hon. W. G. Keighley, M.L.C.

Mr R. O. Healey, M.L.A.

Mr R. C. A. Walton, M.L.A.

Alderman W. lles

Mr J. Huntington

Mr E G. McMillan (President. N.S.W. Cricket Association)

Mr J. F. Hodgson (President, ManlyWarringah Cricket Club)

Mr K. Gee (President, Australia-Free China Association)

Mr A. Anderson (Honorary SecretaryTreasurer, Cricket for Free China Committee)

Mr P. Campbell

Councillor D. S. Sainsbery

Mr J. Burke

Mr B. Cook

Mr M. Murray

Mr J. Ryan

Mr G. See

Mr S. Sismey

  1. The Commonwealth contributed $2,500 to meet a portion of the international air fares of the visiting team, i.e. the equivalent of 5 economy class return air fares, Taiwan-Australia. The total cost of the visit, according to the organisers, was $8,400. of which $5,900 was raised from private sources.

In addition to the balance of international air fares, the organisers met costs of travel within Australia and other incidental expenses associated with the visitors’ tour. Accommodation in private homes was provided in Sydney.

The visiting team arrived in Australia on 3rd January 1970, and returned to the Republic of China on 8th February 1970.

The team comprised students of physical education at the National Taiwan Normal University; as well as receiving coaching in cricket they undertook life saving training under the guidance of the Australian Surf Life Saving Association. Six members received the Association’s Bronze Medallion at the completion of their training.

The Chinese visitors met political figures in New South Wales, visited Parliament and local government institutions. A tour of the Snowy

Mountains and Canberra was also arranged for them.

Since their return to Taiwan a cricket association and surf life saving association have been formed there.

Refrigeration (Question No. 4185)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Edu cation and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is Australia a member of the Internationa! Institute of Refrigeration.
  2. If so, (a) when did it join, (b) what has it contributed and (c) has it been a member of the Executive Committee.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Australia is a member of the International Institute of Refrigeration.
  2. (a) Australia has been a member since before 1926. (b) Details of contributions for the past 10 years are given below:
  1. Australia is a member of the Executive Committee. international Labour Organisation Convention: Equal Remuneration (Question No. 3701)
Mr Whitlam:

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

Which countries have ratified International Labour Organisation Convention No. 100 - Equal Remuneration, 1951 but, according to the interpretation by theI.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (Hansard, 30th September 1970. page 1966), do not fully apply it.

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

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

In 1969. the l.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations directed Observations and/or Direct Requests for further information to 26 of the 45 members States which had ratified Convention No. 100 and which had reported on it. (See Report III (Part 4) for the Fifty-third Session of the International Labour Conference.) Observations and Direct Requests are made where the Committee considers that there are aspects of a member State’s law and practice which may not be in conformity with the ratified Convention as interpreted by the Committee.

In some instances, developments in particular countries since 1969 may have brought their law and practice into full conformity with the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value as interpreted by the Committee of Experts.

Education: Nation-wide Survey of Needs (Question No. 3592)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did his predecessor write to all the Premiers on 7th September 1970 asking for the reaction of their Governments to the Nation-Wide Survey of Educational Needs and for an indication of the extent to which, having regard to their other responsibilities, they would wish to give priority to the proposed programmes in education (Hansard 21st October 1970, page 2616).
  2. Did the Premiers of Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia reply on 12th October, 16th October, 5th November and 23rd December, respectively (Hansard, 31st March 1971, page 1283)
  3. Have the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria replied; if so, when.
  4. Has a further letter on the matter been sent to any of the Premiers other than the Premiers of Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. Yes, to all the Premiers.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Question No. 3605)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Since his attention has been drawn to the statement by a Victorian Minister on 16th December 1970 in which he quoted with approval from the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Hansard, 6th May 1971, page 2865), has he asked the Premier of Victoria whether his Government now agrees to the Commonwealth ratifying this covenant (Hansard, 29th May 1969, page 2557).
  2. Has he communicated with the Premier of Victoria about the circumstances of a case before the Prahran Court of Petty Sessions on 14th May 1971 in which eviction proceedings were taken against a tenant on the grounds that she was allowing a Kenyan nurse to stay with her.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. The quotation by the Victorian Minister from the Covenant with reference to Article 21 on the occasion of introducing a Summary Offences (Trespassers) Bill in the Victorian Parliament did not warrant such an inquiry.
  2. No.

Department of Labour and National Service (Question No. 3703)

Mr Whitlam:

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

On what joint Commonwealth-State committees, such as the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee (Hansard 17th February 1971, page 220 and question No. 3366), do officers of his Department serve.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

The Australian Apprenticeship Advisory Committee is the only other committee similar to the Departments of Labour Advisory Committee. Both committees are chaired by the Permanent Head of my Department.

Demonstrations and Protests (Question No. 3766)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Prime Minis ter, upon notice:

  1. Did the Commonwealth provide accommodation in recent weeks for police in Queensland.
  2. If so, what is the estimated saving to the Queensland Government.
  3. What is the estimated cost of publicity and other assistance provided by Australian governments to combat racism in 1971.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Yes. AsI announced in a statement of 15th July 1971, the provision of Commonwealth accommodation for Queensland police during the visit of the South African rugby union team to Brisbane was made in response to a request by the Queensland Government. The request was agreed to in the interests of public safety and following assurances by the Queensland Government that it could not provide the accommodation from within its own resources.
  2. The provision of this information is entirely a matter for the Queensland Government. A charge of $12,801.97 in respect of accommodation and food for the period involved has been made by the Army on the Queensland Police Department.
  3. Not ascertainable. Information in respect of the States would be a matter for State Governments. As I announced in a statement on 22nd March 1971 to mark the International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination, the Commonwealth made a specific grant of$12,000to assist the Australian Committee to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination with its programme in connection with the Year.

Tariffs (Question No. 3767)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Does a policy of protection to inefficient industries reduce export potential ofthose industries and of other industries carrying the cost of that protection.
  2. Will be investigate ways to offset or reduce those costs of production resulting from price support for other industries, but only to the extent of maintaining viability for efficient producers, so that those least in need will not as at present obtain the lion’s share of price support benefits.
Mr Anthony:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. Government policy is to accord reasonable protection against import competition !o industries, whether primary or secondary, which, after a full public inquiry and report by the Tariff Board are judged to be economic and efficient.
  2. lt would be contrary to this policy to reduce protective rates of duty without a prior inquiry and report by the Tariff Board. The Government is concerned that protective duties should be no higher than necessary to accord reasonable protection to economic and efficient industries and has initiated a progressive review of the Tariff by the Tariff Board. This review has started with the machinery section of the Tariff, to be followed in due course by references in the area of manufactures of metal. This sequence of reviews is as recommended by the Tariff Board.

Textiles (Question No. 3822)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has the committee which was set up to inquire into the textile industry in Australia completed its investigation.
  2. If so, will he make a statement to the house at the earliest opportunity on the future of the textile industry in Australia.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. and (2) I have not been able to identify any committee which has been set up to inquire into the textile industry in Australia. On the 7th September, however, I tabled Tariff Board reports dealing with the textile industry. These concerned woven shirts and knitted shirts and outergarments. When tabling the reports I made a statement in Parliament explaining the decisions the Government had made on tbe reports.

International Affairs (Question No. 3861)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did Australia. Belgium, Canada, Italy and Japan move in the United Nations for (a) reaffirmation of the principle that States shall refrain from use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (b) the fullest possible use by parties to a legal dispute of (i) the World Court, (ii) the good offices of tbe Secretary-General, (iii) improved methods of fact-finding and conciliation, (iv) Security Council subsidiary organs for settling specific disputes and restraining the flow or arms towards tension areas, (c) equitably financed peace-keeping procedures and (d) total disarmament.
  2. Is there a legal dispute between parties to the Indo-China war including Australia.
  3. What steps has Australia taken in regard to this war in conformity with each of the specified relevant parts of the resolution.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Broadly speaking. Yes; but the resolution on the Strengthening of International Security eventually adopted by the General Assembly in December 1970 was considerably different in its terms from the draft, originally co-sponsored by Australia and others, to which the Honourable Member refers.
  2. In its essence, the war in Indo-China is a classic case of individual and collective self-defence against aggression of North Vietnam. Different views about the applicable principles of international law are held by different parties to the conflict. But it would be wrong either to describe the war in Indo-China as a ‘legal dispute’ or to suppose that the war could be brought to an end by promoting an external decision on the legal issues that have been raised.
  3. The Australian Government has long maintained the view that peace cannot be restored in Indo-China except through a negotiated political settlement. Consistently with this view Australia has supported moves to bring the matter before the United Nations, which, however, were successfully opposed by the Soviet Union and other supporters of North Viet-Nam. For the same reason Australia has also supported the arrangements for talks in Paris. These talks have been referred to frequently by the communist side as a proper and adequate channel for negotiations; unfortunately the position of the communist side has been such as to prevent meaningful progress being achieved.

Social Services (Question No. 3912)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Social

Services, upon notice:

  1. What is the average period for which unemployment benefits are paid.
  2. What is tbe average period in (a) metropolitan and (b) non-metropolitan employment districts.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. Regular statistics of the period for which unemployment benefits are paid are not maintained. From a survey, of benefits current as at 29th May *1971, however, it is estimated that the average period for which the benefits current at that date had been in force was 9.7 weeks. Some 42 per cent of beneficiaries had been in receipt of benefits for less than one month, and only 8 per cent for more than six months.
  2. The information is not available. However, from information obtained from the above survey it is estimated that the average period for which unemployment benefits current at 29th May 1971 had been in force was 8.4 weeks for ‘metropolitan’ areas and 10.6 weeks for ‘non-metropolitan’ areas. For the purposes of the survey ‘metropolitan’ areas comprised areas served by State Headquarters Offices and associated metropolitan suboffices of the Social Services Department and non-metropolitan’ areas comprised areas served by the Regional Offices of the Department.

Education (Question No. 3934)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether the Victorian Government has instructed the Victorian Institute of Colleges that all future salary increases must be met by increasing student fees.
  2. If so, has the Commonwealth considered the implication of this instruction with reference to students from low and middle income families.
  3. Has the Commonwealth considered what financial assistance is needed if colleges affiliated with the Victorian Institute of Colleges are to perform the functions for which they, were established.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. As this question involves the Victorian Government I have referred the Honourable Member’s question to the Victorian Minister of Education.
  2. The level of tuition fees to be charged by colleges of advanced education in Victoria is a matter for the State to decide. However, I would point out that the Commonwealth is aware of the need to provide assistance for students from low and middle income families. As announced by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech the Commonwealth will increase the number of advanced education scholarships each year from 2,500 to 4,000 new awards from the begining of 1972. These scholarships, which are tenable in the institutions to which the Honourable Member refers, cover the cost of all compulsory fees and in addition students may receive, subject to a family means test, the benefit of a living allowance of up to $700 p.a. for students living at home or, up to $1100 p.a. for students who must live away from home to undertake their studies.
  3. The Commonwealth looks to its Advisory Committee on Advanced Education for advice on the Appropriate level of Commonwealth grants for colleges of advanced education in Australia. From the Commonwealth grants of nearly SI 00m to assist the States with the development of their colleges of advanced education in the current 1970-72 triennium, the grants to Victoria will total $35.54m.

Defence: Exercises Malaysia, Singapore (Question No. 3988)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

On what occasions did Australian Forces join in exercises with (a) Malaysian and (b) Singaporean Forces in 1970-71.

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

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

Elements of all 3 Services joined with forces from other 5 Power partners, including Malaysia and Singapore, in Exercise Bersatu Padu in July 1970.

Ships ot the Royal Australian Navy also exercised with units of the Malaysian and Singaporean navies in January, February and March 1971. Aircraft of the Royal Malaysian Airforce also participated in the February exercise.

The Royal Australian Air Force exercised with the Royal Malaysian Air Force in January and February 1971. Since February when the Commander of the Integrated Air Defence System was appointed, the RAAF has co-operated closely with the Malaysian and Singaporean airforces in working up the Integrated Air Defence System to operational status preparatory to it being inaugurated on September 1st, 1971. To give 3 examples only of the type of activities which have taken place during the working-up period:

since June 1971 RAAF Mirage aircraft have taken part in exercises with RMAF Sabre aircraft involving air combat tactics;

RAAF Mirages have participated in air defence exercises throughout the period during which numerous sorties were controlled by Malaysian controllers;

similar exercises have been held regularly involving Singaporean controllers and detachments of Mirage aircraft sent to Singapore each month.

With the formal inauguration of the Integrated Air Defence System on September 1st this year it may be expected that activities such as those instanced above will become part of the normal day to day activities of the RAAF in Malaysia and Singapore

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 October 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711026_reps_27_hor74/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant