House of Representatives
3 November 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

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

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

page 2891

PETITIONS

Suspension of Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That we express our deepest concern for our fellow men suffering in the refugee camps in India. While we recognise India’s outstanding contribution in providing, as far as possible, for the immediate needs, we consider that Ibis is a problem for all mankind to help solve, as there are nine million people, many of them helpless children affected.

We have matched our words by deeds with contributions to our own special appeal in the Diamond Valley, Victoria.

Now we ask the Government to:

  1. Suspend its aid to the Pakistan Government, immediately.
  2. Raise to $10,000,000 its aid to refugees now in India.
  3. Add its voice to those seeking the release of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
  4. Use its influence with its friends and allies to initiate action which will lead the Pakistan authorities to withdraw their troops from East Bengal and negotiate with the provisional Government of Bangla Desh.
  5. Move for the immediate initiation of a massive multi-national effort to underwrite the rehabilitation of the Bangla Desh people and their economy.
  6. Support all efforts to guarantee the fully autonomous development of the people of Bangla Desh.

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

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

Adelaide Airport

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That being concerned with the environment of Adelaide in the State of South Australia and the growing noise nuisance of the. Adelaide Airport the petitioners pray that no action will be taken whereby the Department of Civil Aviation will be permitted to extend runways at the Adelaide Airport at its existing location or over other adjacent land.

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

Petition received.

Child Care Centres

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives (of Australia) in Parliament assembled. This petition of citizens of the South Coast of New South Wales respectfully sheweth:

That it appears nothing has been done towards fulfillment of an important aspect of stated Government intention, namely, the establishment of child care centres of approved standard, and as a first step the provision of pre-school centres for children of working, or sick, mothers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take the necessary action to provide these urgently needed facilities.

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

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 citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine 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 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 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 three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, 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:

It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine 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 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 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 $S0m over three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

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:

It is obvious the. people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine 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 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 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 three years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr BROWN:

– I present the following petition:

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

That we express our deepest concern for our fellow men suffering in the refugee camps in India. While we recognise India’s outstanding contribution in providing, as far as possible, for their immediate needs, we consider that this is a problem for all mankind to help solve, as there are eight million people, many of them helpless children, affected.

We have matched our words by deeds with contributions to our own special appeal in the Diamond Valley, Victoria.

Now we ask the Government to:

Give immediate aid of at least $10,000,000 to help relieve the suffering.

Take the necessary diplomatic steps to seek a political solution.

Urge the United Nations to make a more effective effort to intervene on behalf of these stricken people.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 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 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 $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 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.

Social Services

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the follow ing petition:

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

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

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

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 humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Lake Pedder

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 27½ per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47½ per cent on some Contraceptive Devices.

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

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

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

Petition received and read.

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 27½ per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47½ per cent or. some Contraceptive Devices.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · 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 citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27½ per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47½ per cent on some contraceptive devices.

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

page 2894

QUESTION

SECURITY

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to direct a question to the Minister for Supply. The Minister may recall that the first question directed to him in this House on his assumption of the portfolio of Supply some time ago was asked by me about security at Woomera. I now ask: In seeking evidence for a recent court case in Adelaide concering the disappearance of film from Woomera did the Commonwealth Police recover film other than the lead-in piece which was handled to the magistrate; that is, did the Commonwealth Police recover film with images of rocket firing at Woomera? Why was the film with images not tendered to the magistrate in the court case? Was it because the Government was fearful that the confidence of the United States of America and of other countries using Woomera would be undermined insofar as security arrangements in this country are concerned? Was the security scandal at Woomera in fact a political trick on the part of the Government that misfired?

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

– The Commonwealth Police Force is not under my control and 1 have no responsibility for it. The film which is in the hands of the police and has been in the hands of officers of my Department is, firstly, a 5 feet lead strip, to which the honourable member has referred, showing only identification and classification on it; secondly, a black and white print and a negative of that print found at the home of the person who was charged and to whom the honourable member referred; thirdly, a copy of 18 inches of film of missile firing which was found at the home of the person accused; and, fourthly, certain copies of other film which was obtained from a South Australian newspaper and from the person accused. The only film available and held was that which was presented to the court. !As the honourable member knows, the magistrate dismissed the charge because he believed that there was insufficient evidence on which to make a conviction.

The honourable member would be aware, I am sure, of an article which appeared on one of the Sunday newspapers that referred to some of these matters. He seems to have obtained some information from it. That article contained a number of inaccuracies and misrepresentations. Perhaps he was encouraged to put this question today because it gave him the appropriate name for the occasion. Might I say that the United States authorities are not involved in this matter. The United Kingdom authorities have been kept acquainted df it. There is no cover up involved at all. The investigating authorities - my Department and the Commonwealth Police - have co-operated with one another. The charge which was laid and which was dismissed was a serious one for which the maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment. It was seriously intended and prosecuted. That is in brief a summary of the position.

page 2895

QUESTION

POLITICAL ASYLUM

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Has the Minister seen a report alleging that 2 Soviet citizens who sought political asylum in Australia were subsequently subjected to considerable psychological harassment in Sydney involving the Second Secretary of the Consular Section of the Soviet Embassy? Further, is it correct that one of the refugees was physically restrained from leaving the Soviet Embassy and was involved in a scuffle at the Canberra Airport while trying to board a plane for Sydney? Have officers of the Department interviewed Mr Strakhovsky? Is there any truth in the allegations? Finally, is it reasonable to assume that, like any other person in Australia, a person who has sought political asylum is entitled to the protection of our law against unlawful restraint?

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

-I am aware of the reports. I have not read the latest report but I have been informed of it. It is a fact that 2 Russians, a Dr Soloviev and a Mr Strakhovsky, did apply for residence in Australia. I should make it clear that they did not at any time apply for political asylum. They applied for residence and approval was given by the Minister for Immigration. Subsequently one of them. Dr Soloviev, changed his mind and decided to return to Russia. Mr Strakhovsky, on the other, hand, adhered to his decision to stay in Australia. I am informed that my departmental officers interviewed Dr So!0.viev. We are not aware of any reason to suppose that any improper pressure was brought to bear upon him or that the decision of either of them was other than a decision ultimately arrived at according to his own free choice. I am therefore not able to confirm or express a view on some of the matters which have been referred to by the honourable member. I have no information about whether there was a scuffle, at the airport. Of course, anyone iti Australia is entitled to the protection of our laws here, but he is : also entitled to free movement. If a man, reversing an earlier decision to stay here, makes a decision to return to his homeland, it is not in our province to prevent him from doing so.

page 2895

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN TROOPS

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: When did he first learn of the request which was received from the

American Embassy in Canberra by his Department on 30th September concerning Australian assistance in training Cambodian soldiers in Vietnam?

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

-I understood that a motion was to be moved on this subject. No doubt the facts will be gone into fully at that stage. However, I answer the question by saying that it came to my attention when the letter from the Minister for Defence to the Prime Minister was forwarded to me and I concurred in its being put to the Prime Minister. I think that was on the 26th of last month, shortly before the Prime Minister left Australia.

page 2896

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. As Sir Leslie Melville, the official Government arbiter on oil industry terms and conditions in relation to refiners, has ruled that 15. 25c a gallon ex refinery is a fair price to be paid for premium petrol by the independent marketers, may we assume that this is a fair price for the big oil companies to charge? The addition of the excise would bring this price to 32.55c. Does the retail price for premium petrol, which ranges between 48.1c and 49.8c a gallon, giving a margin of approximately 17c, seem unnecessarily high? Is the Government considering referring this matter to the Commissioner of Trade Practices or, better still, to a royal commission?

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

– The honourable member would know that anything relating to the restrictive trade practices administration comes within the responsibility of my colleague the Attorney-General who is represented in this place by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The general aspect of the honourable member’s question is a matter of Government policy, but I would like to make the following points: As I explained in an answer last week, I think, to the honourable member for Warringah, Sir Leslie Melville’s report was deliberately framed in a peculiar set of circumstances involving the dispute between the independent marketers and the refiners over a price to refine Bass Strait crude oil because of the Government’s indigenous oil policy which demands that crude oil found in Australia will be refined in Australia. So as Sir Leslie implies, or I think states specifically in his report, this is a special report about a special set of circumstances, and to that extent I do not know how reasonable is the assumption in the honourable member’s question that this is a fair price for the industry. However, proceeding from that and allowing for Sir Leslie’s price, adding to it the excise and storage and other costs, the price exrefinery would be 33c a gallon. Allowing a mark-up by the retailer - the corner garage - of about 8c, which I understand is about usual, that would mean that the price charged would be about 41c.

As the Minister for Customs and Excise, I am not competent to determine whether 8c is a fair and reasonable mark-up on the basic cost of the petrol refined plus duty. I have no method of determining the cost of distribution ex-refinery or advertising costs. I have no way of determining the difficulties of transport to country areas. Indeed, one would wonder how profitable refining is when one reads annual reports such as those from Boral Ltd or Ampol Petroleum Ltd who say they are having extreme difficulty in providing a reasonable return on shareholders’ funds. The honourable member should be commended for bringing to the House facts which are essentially correct, but it is a matter for his judgment and anyone else’s judgment, as to whether a fair and reasonable mark-up is being made in the circumstances.

page 2896

QUESTION

BATHURST ISLAND MISSION

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. Has an Aboriginal group at the Bathurst Island mission applied for a lease at Bathurst Island? Has this lease been approved by the Minister? Has his Department negotiated with a Japanese company or any other company concerning leases on Bathurst Island for the establishment of a wood chip industry? Does his Department intend granting leases on Bathurst Island for such purposes?

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

– An application for a lease has been received by the Department of the Interior from the Bathurst Islanders. Under the laws of the Northern Territory the Land Board has been set up to hear applications for such leases. There is an interest in wood chips on Bathurst Island. I will get the details on this application and supply the honourable member with them later.

page 2897

QUESTION

TOURISM

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question 10 the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts. Have many local government councils in Australia approached the Minister to provide financial assistance to regional tourist associations established in the various States? Acknowledging that tourism is a large foreign exchange earner, will the Minister consider financial support being given to these regional tourist associations to develop this industry further?

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

– The honourable member raised similar questions with me a few weeks ago, as to whether the Australian Tourist Commission was prepared to approve funds for regional development. I think I explained at the time that this was a matter that had to come through the State governments concerned. This position still applies and in this instance the matter would have to be one first for the State Government of New South Wales. If that Government approaches me in regard to this matter then the Commonwealth might have a look at it, but at the moment the Government of New South Wales prefers to handle such matters itself.

page 2897

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. What has prevented Australian advisers in Vietnam from training Vietnamese officers to the point where they could accept responsibility for the work for which Australians are to be retained in Vietnam? Does not the failure to have trained Vietnamese officers accept responsibility for jungle training reveal a serious flaw in the much vaunted Vietnamisation programme?

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

– I think there is no doubt whatsoever that the quality and strength of the Vietnamese Army has built up enormously during recent years and that this has been partly due to the excellent instruction it has had from the Australians. However, the Vietnamese Army is anxious to see that in small measure this training continues because I think it is true to say that there would be no equal in jungle warfare to the Australian instructors that we have had in Vietnam, and we are glad that we have been able to arrange for the instruction to be continued.

21368 71 - J? - £104)

page 2897

QUESTION

UNIFORM INDUSTRIAL LEGISLATION

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I draw the attention of the Minister to a recent statement by Mr Justice Gallagher to the effect that ‘. . . the availability of uniform legislation vo industrial authorities, State or Federal, exercising jurisdiction over employees generally could be of great advantage’. Bearing in mind that 40 per cent or so of the work force is under Federal awards could the Minister take measures to persuade the States along the course of introducing identical or similar legislation, to make easier the task of improving industrial relations in this area?

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

– This is an interesting proposition. Having some knowledge of the New South Wales law as well as the Commonwealth law on this subject I can say that I think there would be quite considerable problems in reaching a consensus with the States to achieve this uniformity. As to the steps to be taken to do it, as this would involve policy matters it would fall outside the province of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and it would be more a matter for the Minister for Labour and National Service in the Commonwealth sphere and for the State Ministers who in some States have the title of Minister for Labour and Industry. If it was designed as a matter of policy to achieve this uniformity then those Ministers would be the ones to speak together on it.

page 2897

QUESTION

SALE OF GOVERNMENT COTTAGES

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for the Interior. Is it a fact that some migrants purchasing Government cottages occupied by them since their arrival are being grossly exploited in the prices being charged, the high interest rates and the conditions of purchase set by the Department of the Interior? Did these houses originally cost less than $2,000. In the Australian Capital Territory is the tenure long term Crown lease? If so, why is $8,000 or $9,000 plus 6) per cent interest being charged for pine framed asbestos walled cottages which have a very limited life span? Can the Minister say why contracts are cancelled once a purchaser makes a lump sum payment and new contracts are written thereby reducing the payment period by nearly one-third? Finally, will the Minister tell the Parliament the financial return the Government hopes to obtain from the sale of these low cost houses and why tenant purchasers are not allowed some credit off the purchase price for rent previously paid and for improvements they have made to their homes over the years of occupancy?

Mr HUNT:
CP

– This is a very full and lengthy question involving considerable detail of considerable importance to the Parliament and to the people concerned. I will get the particulars in detail and supply them to the honourable member ‘ at the earliest opportunity.

page 2898

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in the belief that he is responsible for the authority which 1 will mention. As we have received reports from all statutory authorities except the Australian industries Development Corporation I am wondering when Parliament can expect the report from this authority. I ask this question because $25m initially was allocated to this Corporation and I notice that a further $12. 5m has been set aside in this year’s Budget.

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

– I will ascertain what information can be provided and will let the honourable member know immediately.

page 2898

QUESTION

VISIT BY EMPEROR OF JAPAN TO AUSTRALIA

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether an invitation has been extended on behalf of the Australian Government to the Emperor of Japan to visit Australia? If an invitation has not been extended, has it been discussed? Is an invitation to be extended by the Prime Minister on his proposed visit to Japan? Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs consider that this would be in the best interests pf Australian-Japanese relationships? Is the Minister aware that there is still a strong feeling among many Australians that the Emperor of Japan was the head of State of the former militarist government in Japan and is held partly reponsible for the atrocities inflicted on many Australians during the 1941-45 conflict?

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

-I am not aware of any invitation having been issued to the Emperor of Japan to visit Australia or such an invitation having been discussed. However, dealing rather with the latter part of the honourable member’s question, it is obvious that since the conclusion of the last World War the interests of Australia and Japan in the modern world have become quite close and, to some degree, complementary, particularly in the economic field and, to another degree, in regard to the security and stability of the area in which we have been working together. I would hope to see this co-operation continue.

Mr Uren:

– I agree with that, but answer the question.

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

– There was another part of the question about the Prime Minister. Will the honourable member repeat that portion of his question?

Mr Uren:

– Is an invitation to be extended by the Prime Minister during his proposed visit to Japan?

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

-I am not aware whether the Prime Minister will be extending an invitation. Coming to the latter part and the point of substance of the honourable member’s question, the policy of the Government is to have close co-operation with the Japanese. Recently, as honourable members know, the Government announced the establishment of a joint committee of Ministers. This will be meeting alternately in Japan and in Australia and consulting on our respective interests.

page 2898

QUESTION

RAILWAYS: TARCOOLA TO DARWIN

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I address a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport and refer to recent reports concerning the construction of a standard gauge rail link between Tarcoola and Darwin. As this link could pass through the important income earning mining area of Tennant Creek will the Minister and the Government give this matter urgent consideration?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– I have seen some interesting reports, which are somewhat speculative, on the possibility of the construction of a rail link between Port Augusta and Darwin, but they seemed to be a mixture of facts and speculation. The facts are, of course, that the Commonwealth Government has a commitment under the Northern Territory

Railway Extension Act and, I think, also under the South Australian Railways Standardisation Agreement, to construct a railway link between Port Augusta and Darwin. The fact also is that the Commonwealth is committed, in the present programme, to the construction of a line between Tarcoola and Alice Springs. At present, surveyors are making detailed study of that particular part of the route. This will be a major portion of the line. I am fully aware of the honourable member’s concern for there to be a proper transportation link between the mining town of Tennant Creek and Alice Springs and Darwin. I recognise the value he would see in a rail link from Alice Springs to Darwin. But in 1965 the Loder Committee said that there was no economic justification for the construction of the link at that time and that it did not see any economic justification for the proposal to build that link to be implemented in the foreseeable future. At the moment I am afraid that is where the matter stands. The Government has taken a decision on the Tarcoola to Alice Springs link. We will look at the other part of the line when developments occur.

page 2899

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS

Mr CONNOR:

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister, by referring to the recent judgment of the High Court of Australia in the concrete pipes case relative to trading and financial corporations on which the Government depends for the validity of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act and from which flows the necessary power for nationwide regulation of stock exchanges as advocated by him. Will he introduce or give his Party’s support to a Bill under the same powers to reduce the crushing burden of interest charges imposed on primary producers by hire purchase companies, pastoral companies and machinery firms? Will he similarly support the exercise to their limit of powers flowing from the same judgment in relation to general living costs in both city and country areas?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The honourable member for Cunningham asks many questions that involve Government policy, It is true that recently, when asked a question about what the Australian Country Party would think of controls on the stock exchanges and whether it thought they should be uniform across Australia, I gave an affirmative answer. I was speaking on behalf of the Country Party. I was fully aware of the fact that a Senate committee is examining the operations of the stock exchanges, and I think that before the Government considered what action it should take it would look at the report that will come forward from the Senate committee.

page 2899

QUESTION

TRAINING OF SINGAPORE FORCES

Mr GORTON:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Has the Minister seen a Press report in at least one of today’s newspapers to the effect that Australia is to pay the expenses of members of the Singapore forces trained in Australia should such training take place? Is that report accurate or is the Singapore Government itself to pay the cost of any such training?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– I am afraid I have not seen the actual report referred to but I will get it immediately. It was a clear understanding when the Singapore team came to Australia to look at various facilities that Singapore would pay for the facilities and training obtained down here and that it would pay a fair and agreed reasonable price.

page 2899

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr WHITLAM:

– Does the Treasurer recall the Prime Minister asserting at question time on Tuesday of last week that in recent weeks he had demonstrated his sensitivity to the state of the economy by making sure that there will be 3,000 fewer immigrant workers coming into Australia over the Christmas period than the Government budgeted for at Budget time? Those are the Prime Minister’s words. Does the honourable gentleman recall saying on ‘Monday Conference* this week that this postponement was an automatic outcome of an administrative decision which he himself took as the Minister for Immigration? Did he say: ‘It would have happened anyway’? Will he now tell the House whether the postponement entailed any specific action or decision on the part of the Prime Minister and, if not, in what way it can be accepted as exemplifying the right honourable gentleman’s sensitivity to the state of the economy?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I do not recall using such a term as ‘automatic outcome*. However, I do not challenge that. But if the honourable gentleman were to quote all that I said and not just the parts which he feels would suit the purposes of his question, he would know that I went on to say that it was essential as a policy objective not to have migrants arriving immediately prior to the Christmas close-down period in industry. So, while this is desirable at any time, it was translated from desirability into essentiality in the present circumstances or the anticipated circumstances at that time. Any suggestion that the honourable gentleman may make that the Prime Minister was wrong in saying that he has sensitivity to the problem is quite inaccurate. The fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister does have sensitivity to it, and so do I, and when I speak of unemployment I am speaking not just of economic loss but of the great social impact it has on people, unlike the Leader of the Opposition who seems to want unemployment for political advantage.

page 2900

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry and I refer him to statements by various responsible people suggesting, in view of the present wool situation, that a limitation on wool production may be imposed. In view of the nature of the production of wool, could he inform me what methods could be used to achieve such production limitations and whether any plans for such production limitations are being considered?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– 1 am not prepared at question time to speculate on the number of means that could be used to control the production of wool but I will supply the honourable member with a list of the number of alternative methods that have been speculated upon by people outside the Parliament as well as by people in this House. I have read with a great deal of interest some of the speculations. The wool industry itself is concerned with the situation relating to the price of wool, with the general circumstances relating to the consumption of wool and the effect all this is having on the price of wool. The Minister for Primary Industry has been having discusions with wool industry organisations about this matter. I can offer no other comment at this time.

page 2900

QUESTION

SHIPPING: FREIGHT RATES

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport is aware, as a result of the question directed to him yesterday by my colleague the honourable member for Braddon, that the freight levy imposed by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. on steel shipped to Tasmanian ports other than Hobart will have serious effects on the economy of northern Tasmania. Is he aware that the levy will seriously affect exports of steel products from northern Tasmanian ports and will increase the cost of railway works in Tasmania? Is the arbitrary use of monopoly power in this way a deterrent to an effective decentralisation policy for Australia? Will the Minister intercede with BHP to stop the freight levy or, alternatively, will he direct the Australian National Line to carry steel to all Tasmanian ports without discrimination in freight rates?

Mr NIXON:
CP

– I can understand the concern of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Braddon when a freight adjustment affects the northern part of Tasmania vis-a-vis Hobart. The facts are that there has been a freight adjustment by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd on its steel carried from Port Kembla and Newcastle to the northern ports of Tasmania. The reasons are that loadings to Hobart are greater, the steel is carried in bigger unit loads and the stevedoring charges are somewhat less. The situation that prevailed previously was that BHP had one landed price for steel for the whole of Tasmania and any freight adjustments which it made maintained that one price, thus giving the areas about which the honourable members are concerned an equal opportunity with Hobart. But the company is unable to justify this situation when there is a marked disparity in shipping costs to northern ports and costs to Hobart. It is a commercial judgment which has been taken by the company. On behalf of the honourable members I will ask the company whether anything can be done about the matter.

Yesterday after I was asked a question by the honourable member for Braddon I sought information from the Australian National Line and was told that it presently has no ship available which could service this trade.

page 2901

QUESTION

FRUIT FLY RESEARCH

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Science and is supplementary to a question that was asked by the honourable member for Denison last week. Can the Minister give the House any details of the study being carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on the problem of sterilisation of fruit against the outbreak of either Mediterranean or Queensland fruit fly infestation, the possible presence of which is keeping Australian fruit from the vast fresh and frozen fruit markets and the millions of people in Japan? What funds have been spent and how many qualified personnel are working on this project? Is a fully determined attack being made on this vexed problem, the solution of which would almost certainly mean greatly enlarged outlets for fruit growers on the mainland and in Tasmania?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Most of the work being undertaken on this matter is being done in co-operation with the States. This is quite a common approach to problems of this nature. I have not the total amount spent by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation but I will get this figure for the honourable member. Also I will see whether it is possible or whether the Organisation believes it might be desirable to increase the effort in this particular research. What is being done is fairly widespread. The Division of Food Research of the CSIRO is the responsible Division within the Organisation and the work is being undertaken in New South Wales in co-operation with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture at the Citrus Wastage Research Laboratory at Gosford. The Department operates the laboratory and the CSIRO supplies some personnel to help in the research. The present research is concerned with the disinfestation of fruit fly in bananas, tomatoes and capsicums and various methods have been tried. Research on fresh fruit disinfestation, in addition to the work undertaken by the CSIRO, is being undertaken in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia and is co-ordinated by the Fresh Fruit Disinfestation Committee which is serviced by the CSIRO Division of Food Research. Research on the Mediterranean fruit fly is carried out by the Department of Agriculture in Western Australia, which is the only State in which this fruit fly is found. Much of this research is directed towards trying to achieve appropriate access to the Japanese market. At the moment the Fresh Fruit Disinfestation Committee reports to the Commonwealth and State Horticultural Committee and it is meeting at the moment to consider proposals for future research. I will see what comes out of the meetings taking place this week and advise the honourable member accordingly.

page 2901

QUESTION

EXPORTS

Mr GRASSBY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether Sir John McEwen, as Minister for Trade and Industry, made a statement in the Parliament on 28th October 1970 on United Kingdom levies on imports of Australian agricultural commodities? Was a debate on this statement adjourned and is it still on the notice paper awaiting debate one year later? Did the Acting Prime Minister, while having no detailed information on the subject to give to the Parliament in answer to a question asked by me on 16th February, subsequently make a detailed statement outside the House on negotiations with the British Government? Will the Acting Prime Minister give this Parliament as a matter of urgency the opportunity to debate his statement and those of his predecessor on trade, particularly with the United Kingdom, and the implications for this country of the British decision to enter the European Economic Community, or does he intend to leave Australia’s interests, particularly with the EEC countries, to Mr Heath and his Government while denying the opportunity to this Parliament to debate in detail and at length this important matter to this nation?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– There is no desire on the part of the Government to avoid debate on this issue. I made a statement to the House upon ray return from discussions overseas and it is certainly the desire of the Government to have a debate on the statement. It is a matter of whether we can fit the debate in with the timetable and procedures of the House.

Mr Armitage:

– Do you think it is not important?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I certainly hope that the debate can be fitted in. There is a long programme. At the moment it is calculated that the session will continue until at least 9th December. We are presently debating the Estimates, but it is my desire and wish that we have a debate on the paper which I presented to the House.

page 2902

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr Whittorn having addressed a question to the Treasurer and the Treasurer having begun his answer.)

Mr SPEAKER:

-I uphold the point of order.

page 2902

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT, WESTERN AUSTRALIA- AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr BENNETT:

– Has the Acting Prime Minister received a communication from the Building Workers Union group in Perth, Western Australia, requesting him to send the Minister for Labour and National Service to Western Australia to investigate unemployment in that State, in particular in the building industry? Will he comply with this request? Further, can he inform the House what other action he intends to take to relieve the unemployment position in Western Australia? Was the Government further asked by the same group to make a special grant to Western Australia to bolster the building industry? Was this request refused? If so, why?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– There could have been a request made, but I have not seen it - probably because I have been pre-occupied with other things. If it has been made it would have come forward only in the last few days. I cannot give the honourable member any information about the request, not having seen it. I will ask my Department whether such a request has been received, and I will see whether I can comply with it in the way suggested by the honourable member.

While I am on my feet, I have a reply to the question asked by the honourable member for Balaclava as to when the report of the Australian Industries Development Corporation will be tabled. I have been informed now that the report is with the Government Printer and that it should be tabled in this House within the next 2 weeks.

page 2902

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SUPERANNUATION

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Services, ls it a fact that certain former Commonwealth employees who recently welcomed increases in Commonwealth superannuation payments have received reduced pensions and fringe benefits which can actually make them worse off than before? Will the Government allow such people the option of taking up such a percentage of the superannuation increase as will prevent this unhappy circumstance?

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

– I think that the facts as stated by the honourable member are correct, and I think that the suggestion he makes is a valuable one to which I will give consideration.

page 2902

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

- Mr Speaker, I ask leave to give notice of a motion.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr BARNARD:

– I give notice that at the next sitting I will move:

That the House has no confidence in the Minister for Defence because of the damaging and dangerous treatment of the request for assistance in training Cambodian and Laotian troops in Vietnam.

page 2903

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion (by Mr Swartz) - by leaver - agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of lack of confidence in the Minister for Defence of which he has given notice for the next day of sitting, and that such notice take precedence of all other business until disposed of.

page 2903

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR DEFENCE

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I move:

That the House has no confidence in the Minister for Defence because of the damaging and dangerous treatment of the request for assistance in training Cambodian and Laotian troops in Vietnam.

This motion arises from answers given by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) to questions in the House about the training of Cambodian soldiers by Australian training teams in Vietnam. An extraordinary sequence of events can be pieced together from the Minister’s answers and from subsequent Press and television interviews given by the Minister. It is evident from this material that even the most menial messenger boy at Russell Hill knew more of what was happening in the Department of Defence during the past month than the Minister for Defence.

Yesterday the Minister said that a request for Australian assistance was received from the American Ambassador by his Department on 1st October. In a personal explanation to the House later last night the Minister made a most important change in this causal sequence. He said that this request had been received from the American Embassy by the Department of Foreign Affairs on 30th September and had been transmitted to Defence on the following day. This initiated a process of what the Minister termed discussions between the departments of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Army on the extent to which this request for assistance could be met.

Apparently the Minister elaborated on this process of discussion at a Press conference he gave last night with his Permanent Head, Sir Arthur Tange. I have not been able to get a transcript of this conference, but I understand the Minister repeated much of the substance of it on the television programme ‘This Day Tonight’. According to the transcript of this interview the Minister described the incident as a ‘low key affair’. He said it was ‘low key’ because it was made verbally by an officer of the American Embassy to Foreign Affairs who passed it on to Defence. Presumably the discussions between officers of the three departments were also ‘low key’ because they did not reach the Minister for at least 3 weeks.

It seems the Minister learned of the request and the subsequent discussions on 25th October, that is, 2 days before the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) left for the United States. According to the Minister he sent a letter urgently to the Prime Minister but the Prime Minister either did not get it or did not open it before he left. Nor, it seems, did he open it on the plane to New York. At a Press conference before he left on 27th October, the Prime Minister was questioned about reports from Washington that President Nixon would ask him to send advisers to Cambodia - to train the Cambodian Army. According to the questioner, it has been reported that the Americans had secretly sounded out the Australian Government on this matter. The Prime Minister answered that to the best of his knowledge there had been no secret sounding out of the Australian Government. He went on to say: . and I believe I would have known as soon as anyone’. As it turned out the Prime Minister was the last to hear; a legion of public servants knew about this secret sounding out before the head of the Government. That in short is the sequence of events revealed by the Minister for Defence yesterday.

Looking in closer detail at some of the aspects of this chain of incidents, the most striking thing is the failure of this request to be passed through the regular channels to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. This request for assistance got to Cabinet by a most tortuous and circuitous route. The first request was received from the American Embassy by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The House knows the speed with which verbal messages can be transmitted through the Department of Foreign Affairs to the senior administration and the Minister. An example was the telephone message from the Japanese Embassy on a matter involving the Leader of the Opposition. This message was received after hours by a desk officer at the Department and conveyed to the Minister with the speed of light. He raised it in the House on the following day. However, a verbal message on a most important policy question did not pass through the system with the same celerity. Indeed it is doubtful whether it has yet reached the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who missed yesterday’s proceedings.

Instead this message with its request for assistance was shuffled over quickly to the Department of Defence. Verbal messages which the Government wants to use for political purposes get to the top quickly in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Important policy matters involving Australia’s presence in Indo-China do not. When the request from the Department of Foreign Affairs was received the Minister for Defence acknowledged that there had been a slip-up. He said that the Prime Minister should have been informed immediately the request was received. It is not clear whether the Minister is blaming the Department of Foreign Affairs or his own Department for this slip-up.

From my recollection of his answer at question time he said ‘the Department’ which can only be taken as Defence. However, this appears in Hansard as ‘a department’ so it is obscure where the Minister is sheeting home the blame. The Minister was rather more specific on ‘This Day Tonight’ where he said there had been a slip-up in his Department and he had acted to ensure that this did not happen again. In this interview he modified the answer he gave in the House in which he said that the Prime Minister, and by implication himself as the responsible Minister, should have been notified immediately the request was received.

In the television interview he said that it was normal procedure for such requests to be processed by the Department and then taken to the Minister. He indicated that the request for assistance should probably have been given a slightly higher priority but did not repeat his claim that it should have gone immediately to the Prime Minister. This was a marked reversal of his previous attitude. Obviously every piece of information, whether verbal or written, that is received by a department has to be assessed in some way. A Minister would be burdened with a mass of detail if everything was passed on to him immediately. The need for selectivity is even more important with what is passed on to the Prime Minister.

But in this case it is completely inexcusable that a major request of this sort should circulate through 3 departments, including the major policy departments of Defence and Foreign Affairs, without even a whisper getting to one of the responsible Ministers or to the Prime Minister. The action taken by the Minister when he finally got this request and presumably the recommendations on it by the 3 departments are just as farcical. The news was broken to the Minister on 25th October. He regarded it as a matter of some urgency on which the Prime Minister should be informed before he set out on his momentous journey. The Minister sent an urgent letter to the Prime Minister and apparently regarded his duty as done.

It seems that this letter did not get to the Prime Minister until some time after the reached New York. Certainly the Prime Minister had no impression whatsoever of the urgency of the request. This is completely the fault of the Minister for Defence. The Minister knew the request had been received. He knew that there had been intensive discussions on it in 3 departments. He had assessments and recommendations on the request.

He must have realised that it would be a major item at the discussions between the Prime Minister and President Nixon. Yet he did not lift a finger or telephone to convey the importance of the request for assistance to the Prime Minister. This was due to what the Minister ambiguously refers to as the difficulty that the Prime Minister had in the day or two before his departure. If the Minister did not try to impress the urgency of this matter on the Prime Minister, he cannot blame the Prime Minister’s staff for not bringing it to the Prime Minister’s attention.

It is impossible to believe that the Minister was too coy or bashful to approach the Prime Minister directly. It was just a matter of walking a few steps down a corridor or pressing the buzzer on his desk which gives senior Ministers direct access to the Prime Minister. The Minister has never been diffident in the past about asserting himself to Prime Ministers. The right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) who once got an important message from the Minister by telegram will vouch for this. Yet in an important matter of national policy the Minister could not bring himself to disturb the Prime Minister. This meant the Prime Minister was subjected to the highly humiliating experience of denying in Canberra and New York any knowledge of the request while a letter from the Minister for Defence setting it out in detail was in his office and in his brief case on the plane.

As the Acting Prime Minister admitted in the House yesterday, the Prime Minister told a questioner in New York that he had not seen the request. When the message finally got through to the Prime Minister his response was electrifying. In a matter of hours the Cabinet had been directed by the Prime Minister to consider the request urgently. This was essential if the Prims Minister were to discuss the request for assistance with President Nixon with any vestige of credibility.

In contrast with the sloth of the previous month there was a flurry of activity as Cabinet met and hastily conveyed its decisions to the Prime Minister so he could have last minute authority to put the view of the Australian Government. If the Prime Minister had learned of the request earlier he must have referred it immediately to Cabinet in view of his impending discussions with the President. This is evident in the panic action he took to clear the decks before he saw the President.

This is not the low key matter which the Minister for Defence tries to paint. It involves the disposition of Australian troops in lndo-China. It would mean extension of the Australian presence in Vietnam. It could mean that more support troops and training teams would have to go to Vietnam. Ultimately, it could embroil Australian troops directly in the wars in Cambodia and Laos. Yet this is the issue that the Minister for Defence described in this House and to the nation on the television programme ‘This Day Tonight’ as a low key issue, an issue involving Australian troops training Cambodians in South Vietnam. This Govern ment has never learned from the lesson of 1965 or, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, probably back in 1964.

Mr Uren:

– In 1962.

Mr BARNARD:

– In 1962. I have been corrected by the honourable member for Reid and I thank him for the information. Back in 1962 an announcement was made in the House of Representatives by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, that an Australian training team would be sent to South Vietnam. I have no doubt that the Minister describes that incident as a low key issue just as he describes this issue. This could escalate in the same way as when Australian troops became involved in 1962. A small training team of some 50 or 60 personnel sent as training advisers to the South Vietnamese forces of that day - the United States forces became involved on the basis of sending a training team to South Vietnam - grew to 3 battalions and all the ancillary forces that were required to maintain them in an active service role in South Vietnam. Despite the fact that this decision to increase Australia’s commitment was made back in 1965 we now have a Minister and a Government who are seriously considering involving this Government in a further conflict in IndoChina - the war that is now taking place in Cambodia. The Government apparently has never learned, despite the fact that it has acknowledged that the people of Australia objected to Australia’s involvement in Vietnam.

It is only a few months ago that we had the announcement by the Prime Minister that Australian forces would be withdrawn from Vietnam; yet now we are told that we are to increase the numbers in the training team in South Vietnam and that not only will we be responsible for the training of South Vietnamese but also that this training will be extended to include Cambodian forces. Obviously the Government felt that this might be unpopular; there is no question that the request initially contained a suggestion that Cambodian troops be trained in Australia, but because the Government undoubtedly felt that this would be unpopular it moved to provide only for the training of Cambodian troops by an Australian training team in South Vietnam. And so the Government has never learned.

I can only repeat to the House that this is the issue that the Minister for Defence has described to the nation as only a low key issue. It may be that the Minister did regard it as a low key issue because he ignored the Cabinet and he ignored the Prime Minister. One can only assume that there must be a great deal of discussion in other countries, particularly in the United States of America, of the fact that the Prime Minister should go to that country without being informed of a decision involving a commitment of further Australian troops in South Vietnam. I would like to hear the Minister give a full and frank explanation, not only to this Parliament but to the nation, why he believes that this must be considered a low key issue. The Minister is at fault. He has blundered, blundered seriously. As I pointed out only a few moments ago, when the Minister felt that he could bring about the downfall of the former Minister for Defence, the right honourable member for Higgins, he did not hesitate to send a telegram to the Prime Minister and he made sure that the Prime Minister received it without any delay.

But this issue involves this nation and involves a major decision on policy. Is there anyone in this House who does not believe that an issue which involves Australian forces overseas, whether in Vietnam or in any other part of the world, is not a matter of national importance arid one which certainly must be considered as an issue that must go directly to the top level of the Government? Yet we find that in this situation the Prime Minister was not informed. Apparently a very few senior members of the Department of Foreign Affairs knew a very little about the issue and either the Minister for Defence was just not interested or he did not care. Therefore I believe that the nation and the Parliament is entitled to hear from the Minister a frank admission in regard to the whole of the circumstances surrounding this decision and particularly why we should be asked to regard this as no more than a low key issue.

Certainly the Opposition has no confidence in Government assurances that Australian advisers and training teams will not be used in the field in Laos and Cambodia. How can we have such confidence? We were given this assurance in 1962 in relation to the training team in Vietnam. These are not low key issues; they are very grave issues and it can be said to the credit of the Prime Minister that he recognised their significance and acted when the request was finally laid before him. It is ironical that the Department of Defence is not represented among the legion of advisers the Prime Minister took with him. If the Prime Minister had known that this request would form such an integral part of his discussions with President Nixon he would have, given more emphasis to defence in the composition of his team. All sorts of efforts are now being made to attribute blame for this incident which came within inches of a major diplomatic disaster. In summary, the Opposition believes that it is unnecessary to look beyond the Minister for Defence in sheeting home the blame for this debacle. Whatever the bungling at the low levels of the Department of Defence, the Minister ultimately is responsible for the delay of almost a month in a major matter of defence policy reaching his desk.

Beyond this administrative shambles, the Minister for Defence has displayed gross incompetence in not conveying the request for assistance immediately to the Prime Minister and to Cabinet. It is beyond dispute that the Minister was fully informed of this matter on Monday, 25th October. In the event, Cabinet had to assemble hastily and rush through the authority which the Prime Minister should have had before he left Australia. This is incredibly sloppy and incompetent. The Minister for Defence is responsible for it and he warrants the censure of this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the motion seconded?

Mr Whitlam:

– I second the motion and reserve my right to speak to it.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · Farrer · LP

– First, let me make a couple of points. Firstly, I see that the motion refers to the treatment of the request for assistance in training Cambodian and Laotian troops in Vietnam. May I say that, to the best of my knowledge, there never has been any proposal to train Laotian troops in Vietnam? Secondly, I want to reply to the Deputy Leader of the

Opposition (Mr Barnard) who referred I constantly, almost ad nauseam, to what he said I had called a ‘low key issue’. Let me tell the House that I did not refer to this as a low key issue. I said that it was a low key approach from the American Embassy. It was a low key approach because it was one from the Embassy, not from the Ambassador, and it was one which was not in writing. It was intended to feel out what our situation would be in a field in which Australia was already active. This was really just an extension.

May I say that I am, and I am sure that all those associated with me are, extremely sorry that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was not advised earlier of this particular request. I regret any embarrassment that this has caused him. I certainly do not minimise my concern. As I said yesterday. I have taken whatever steps I can to see that this does not occur again, although one cannot, of course, guarantee 100 per cent that something might not occur again. But I have done everything that I can, and we are looking further into this question to see what further steps can be taken. However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked a question. He said that yesterday I had said that ‘a’ department should have informed the Prime Minister. In fact, he almost inferred that I had changed the Hansard record. I can assure him that I certainly did not. But I do make the point that the primary responsibility for transactions between an overseas country and the Australian Government is with the Department of Foreign Affairs. A tremendous number of these requests come in. The Department gets them and it makes a decision as to whether it believes it is a matter which should be referred to Ministers or to the Prime Minister or whether it is a matter which should be referred to departments as a great many are. Some of them, of course, come to nothing and are not heard of again.

Let me initially go through an outline of the facts so that the House will have the opportunity of seeing whether I have been damaging and dangerous in my treatment of this issue. The request was received from the American Embassy in Canberra on 30th September. It was an oral request from the Embassy and it was transmitted the Department of Defence on 1st October. As I said in my Press conference yesterday-

Mr Morrison:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has referred to a document. May I ask that the document be tabled?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– No, I have not referred to a document at all. I have said a request’. I said it was an oral request.

Mr Morrison:

– It would be incorporated in the record of conversation. I ask that that record of conversation be tabled.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– There is no document.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I am assured by the Minister that no document exists. Therefore it cannot be tabled.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I raise a . point of order. Is the Minister saying that no record of this request from an official of the American Embassy was made?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Chair cannot interpret what the Minister is conveying to the House.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– As 1 said, an oral request was received from the American Embassy, and this was transmitted to the Department of Defence by the officer on 1st October.

Mr Whitlam:

– Orally?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Does this matter? As I have previously pointed out at my Press conference, 1st October was a Friday, and a long weekend intervened before the request was received by my Department on Tuesday, 5th October. It was processed then through the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Army and the Chiefs of Staff. There were a number of issues which had to be resolved. First of all, was the Army in a position to be able to agree to this request? Did it have the people available? For one thing we know that the Cambodians are basically French speaking or that their second language is French. Matters like this had to be taken into account to see what could be done.

The draft letter was sent to me with a note from the Department late on the 25th. It was put on my desk, but from memory I do not think I saw it until early on the 26th. I immediately signed it and had it delivered personally by my secretary to the Prime Minister’s office with the verbal information that it was important. This was backed up by the First Assistant Secretary (Defence Planning), who rang the Prime Minister’s Department and also informed him that this letter had been placed there and that it was urgent. On 27th October my secretary visited the Prime Minister’s assistant secretary and stressed the urgency of this letter, and she made a second copy of the letter to take on the aeroplane with them.

It is unfortunate that, owing to the great pressure of business, this did not get to the Prime Minister before it did. It is all right for honourable members opposite, who never have been and never will be in the position of knowing what this pressure that builds up on the Prime Minister is like, to be critical. It will be recalled that the Prime Minister was under great pressure in the last few days before his departure for overseas. His trip had to be arranged at fairly short notice, and there was the China vote, the Pakistan statement and the statement on the arts. He also had to study briefs and to prepare some speeches to be made on the trip. As it happened, the letter which I had imagined would have got to him did not get to him until after he had seen the Press. I believe that this is the detail of the actions that were taken.

Let me make a few remarks on what went wrong. 1 have not sought to hide the fact that I believe that there was a slip-up. As 1 say, the initial decision as to whether a Prime Minister and Ministers should be informed is the decision of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Once a matter has come to my Department it is for departmental officials to decide whether I should be informed. Then, if I were informed, 1 would decide whether it should be passed on further. It is all very well for us to say that a wrong decision was made. I doubt the wisdom of this decision. These are judgments of the moment which have to be made frequently during every week by departments. It is very easy to say the Department did the wrong thing. As I said, I doubt the wisdom of the decision and 1 hope the action I have taken will see that this does not happen again.

There was nothing novel in this request. Let us face the fact that first of all we were training Cambodians. We had agreed to train Cambodians. As the Prime Minister has said and as has been said in the Defence Report’ of 1971 Australian military aid to the Khmer Republic will continue this year and will include an offer of a number of places for personnel of the Cambodian Army forces at training establishments in Australia. We have been in touch constantly with the Cambodians because we know the enormous demand they have for training their forces. They have suggested certain types of training which they would like to get in Australia. They have mentioned DC3 conversions. I hope that we are still in a position to assist them in this respect. They have mentioned initial flying training, going to the officer school at Portsea, tactical training and these sorts of things

As I said, there is no novelty in the fact that we are prepared to give instruction and assistance to the Cambodians We give them military assistance. We have given this year an amount of $>1.7m, and I think that some $200,000 of this will be used for this military training in Australia. We are training troops in Vietnam. Therefore it is not a question whether we should train the Cambodians but where we should train them. We have made it perfectly clear that we will not send military troops into Cambodia. Of course, the Americans too have been training Cambodians in Vietnam for at least the last 18 months. The Prime Minister announced in his statement of 18th August plans to retain in Vietnam some military training and advisory elements, for example instructors. In addition we have recently had the visit of the Foreign Minister from Cambodia, and he discussed a lot of these training proposals.

So we believe that the Cambodians should be helped. I think this is where perhaps we and the Opposition part company. Cambodia is a small nation which has been subjected to aggression. There is no doubt whatsoever that it has been subjected to aggression from the North Vietnamese. As was pointed out by Laird just recently in his statement in Washington, this is one war throughout South East Asia, with the North Vietnamese the aggressors. Even the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), who is not known for his right wing sympathies in this place, on his arrival back from Cambodia was obviously determined to try to change Australian Labor Party policy on Cambodia He said:

I know more now than I did at the Victorian ALP conference in June. The situation in Cambodia involves blatant clear-cut aggression.

So he went on. He had no doubt whatsoever that Cambodia was the subject of aggression and that Cambodia should be helped. How are we to help the Cambodians? Are we to sit at home and offer up a prayer, or are we to do something about it? Of course the answer is that we should do something about it. We supply arms, we supply money for the purchase of equipment and we supply training facilities. This is not an extension of previous plans that have been laid in this area. We have heard it said that this will lead to another Vietnam. Nothing really could be more ludicrous. First of all, I have made the point that there is no intention of having troops in Cambodia. The personnel would be strictly limited to instructors, training and advisory people in Vietnam, not in Cambodia. It is just as logical to talk about training Cambodians in Vietnam causing another war in Cambodia as it would be to say that the fact we are going to train some Singaporeans in Australia could lead us into involvement in war in Singapore. Really this is a complete non sequitur.

I have dealt with the question as to whether the request should have come from the Cambodians. I have not time in the short period left to list the number of times that the Cambodians have requested assistance. They have been in constant touch with us. On numerous occasions they have asked us for various sorts of aid. Even when I was in Saigon last December as the Australian observer at a meeting of the Asian Parliamentarians Union, my adviser and I received a number of requests from the Cambodian delegation. 1 might add that I speak French, so I was able to converse with members of the delegation, although my French is not of the highest order.

Let us come to the substance of this matter and see it in its true perspective. The events I have already detailed led to the Prime Minister being informed later than he should have been of this request being received. But the substance of the matter is: Are we right in holding discus sions to see whether we can assist the Cambodians in Vietnam by instruction and by advice? I am sure that we are right. We need to support our allies against what Laird described as ‘continued North Vietnamese pressure’. He emphasised the need for co-operation among the allies to meet this pressure. Cambodia has been a victim of naked aggression and I believe that we should do everything that we can to assist the Cambodians in their training.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Every Australian must feel ashamed and humiliated by the sequence of events which the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) has detailed. There have been 4 weeks of bumbling and bungling. It is just as well Australia is not faced with a mobilisation. At what rate would we move? It is just as well that Australia is threatened by nobody in the foreseeable future, as the previous Minister for Defence said. What faith could any ally, however great, have in an Australian government which contained a Minister like this? One makes all allowances for him being pedestrian and slow moving. At the very outset of his speech today he said that he wanted to clear up some things. He stated that there was a low key approach since it did not come through the United States Ambassador and that the primary channel of communications between governments was through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He was not very clear about this yesterday because in his first answer on this matter he stated:

A request was received from the American Ambassador by the Department of Defence on 1st October.

Everything he said in that sentence was wrong. He now says that it was a low key approach; that it was not the Ambassador. Yesterday he said that it was. He said thz primary channel is through the Department of Foreign Affairs. Yesterday he said the approach was made to the Department of Defence. Then he was a day out. But what does a day or a week matter. He took a month to bring it to the Cabinet or to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) or to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen).

Let me go over the sequence of how the Australian public learned of this, because before question time yesterday this had been in all the newspapers for some days.

It first came to the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ from the Prime Minister in America but the other newspapers soon got the message. Everybody knew that there would be questions on this yesterday and the Minister still got the 3 statements in his first sentence at question time wrong. Last Wednesday, 10 hours before he left Australia to have discussions with the President of the United States, the Prime Minister held a Press conference in Canberra. He was asked by the representative of the Melbourne ‘Herald’:

Can I bring up an important matter, Sir? 0U correspondent in Washington reports today that President Nixon will ask you to send Australian military advisers to Cambodia to train the Cambodian Army. He also says that the Americans have secretly sounded out the Australian Government on this matter. Could you tell me?

The Prime Minister replied:

To the best of my knowledge there has been no secret sounding out of the Australian Government, and I believe I would have known as soon as anyone. Secondly, I have not heard any suggestion that we would be asked to make a contribution of a .training team or instructors to Cambodia. It is hypothetical, and I can’t give answers to hypothetical questions.

The Prime Minister was right in one part of his answer, and one only. The correct part was his statement that he believed that if such a proposal had been made he would have known as soon as anyone. Of course the Prime Minister of this country was entitled to believe that if a serious and significant proposal of this nature had come from the United States, he would be the first to be informed.

We now know that such a proposal did come from the United States on 30th September. The Prime Minister left Australia 28 days later - 4 full weeks - in total ignorance of a proposal that would be put to him by Mr Melvin Laird a few days later and which would be raised in his discussions with President Nixon. The man responsible not just for this humiliation of a Prime Minister but for the humiliation of Australia is the Minister for Defence. It is his duty so to manage the administration of his Department that he is fully informed on proposals of such significance. It was his duty to keep the Prime Minister fully informed. He failed flagrantly in both, in a dereliction of duty almost beyond belief in so senior and experienced a Minister.

Yesterday, in a continuing series of revelations, the Minister gave version after conflicting version of the origins and nature of this proposal. Clearly he still had not properly informed himself of what his Department had been doing in Australia’s name. At question time he said the request was received from the American Ambassador on 1st October. This, on the face of it, was highly unlikely. This is not the way that any Ambassador, still less the present American Ambassador, would follow the dictates of protocol and propriety. At a special Press conference he held in his office at 5.30 the Minister said the request had come on 30th September through an American official whose status he would not identify.

Last night in the House he said the request had been received from the American Embassy. At question time he said the request had been received from’ the Ambassador by the Department pf Defence. Last night he said it had been sent to the Department of Defence by the Department of Foreign Affairs. At question time he said that he had written to the Prime Minister to inform him of the proposal a day or two before the Prime Minister’s departure for Washington. At his Press conference he said he had written to the Prime Minister on 26th October, the day before the Prime Minister’s departure. In this way are the affairs of our nation managed. In this way are significant decisions reached.

The Minister for Defence was asked last night by incredulous pressmen why he bad not informed the Prime Minister directly and personally of the contents of his letter. He replied:

I thought the Prime Minister would be too busy with his preparations and briefings for the important matters he would discuss during his overseas visit.

This is the Minister who refused to serve under the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) because, among other reasons, of his untidy administrative methods and his failure to have proper Cabinet consultations. This is the manner in which affairs are conducted by a Government whose present Leader pledged on the day he became Prime Minister that he was above all a ‘Cabinet man’. At question time today, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), who returned on 15th October, said that he did not learn of the matter until 26th October, when he discussed the letter from the Minister for Defence, which he proposed to send to the Prime Minister.

The distance from the Minister’s office to the Prime Minister’s suite is scarcely 100 yards. We are told that Ministers have a direct office inter-communication hookup with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself is not known to be averse to making telephone calls. Every Liberal fears when he will get a telephone call in his back. Yet the Minister for Defence tells us that he thought there were more pressing matters before the Prime Minister than a proposal involving the dispatch of Australian troops to Vietnam, a matter involving a switch in Australia’s declared intention to disengage by Christmas from Indo-China, a matter involving our international relations and a matter which he must have known would be at the forefront of any discussions the Prime Minister would have with the United States Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and maybe the President himself. But he thought the Prime Minister would be too busy. And, in any case, as he said yesterday, he thought the staff would bring it to the Prime Minister’s attention.

To justify this conduct both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence yesterday sought to downgrade the significance of the proposal. And well they might. This gaffe has blown the gaffe. Whatever decision is made, the Government could not now convince the Australian public that this was an inescapable obligation under ANZUS, that it was an obligation to any original protocol state under SEATO. They cannot now claim that the request came from Cambodia. A proposal which has been treated in so cavalier a fashion, a proposal about which the Prime Minister was kept in the dark until he left for the United States, is not one which we may fairly assume that even the Minister believes crucial to the defence of the free world. Today was the first time he has spoken without using that cliche since he became Minister for Defence, the third this year.

No, it is not in this context that the importance of the proposal lies. It is significant because it represents a new phase of involvement in the civil war in Indo China. It is significant because it represents a distinct back-tracking on the policy of disengagement by Christmas which the Australian people had been led to believe was the firm declared policy of this Government. It is a commitment of a new and dangerous kind to the Cambodian Government. Let it never be forgotten that our politically disastrous and militarily futile commitment of 8,000 troops began with a commitment of 30 instructors in 1962. Let us have no nonsense that the fact that the instruction would take place in Vietnam makes a difference of substance. After the very interview on Monday in which the United States Secretary of Defence officially raised with the Prime Minister in the United States the instruction proposal, Mr Laird was reported as saying that the United States regarded the conflict in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos as one and indivisible’.

On 24th May 1962 the then Minister for Defence, the late Athol Townley, announced that ‘at the invitation of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam Australia was sending a group of military instructors to that country’. That announcement constituted the beginning of our commitment to South Vietnam which is now ending after 9 years of political disaster and military futility. Any decision by the Government to enlarge the number of instructors retained in Vietnam to provide training for Cambodian forces is a commitment to the Government of Cambodia. It is scarcely to the point that Cambodian troops are to be trained in Vietnam rather than Cambodia itself. This is nonetheless a military commitment to assist the Government of Cambodia. What is the nature of this government to which Australia has thus committed herself? It is the government which has brought civil war to its people by the overthrow of its legitimate ruler, Prince Narodom Sihanouk.

Dr Mackay:

– That is a lie.

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

– Order! I suggest that the Minister for the Navy withdraw that remark.

Dr Mackay:

– I withdraw the expression.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Three weeks ago Marshal Lon Nol announced the final extinction of any pretence at democracy in Cambodia. He boasted: ‘Let us have done with this farce of liberal democracy’. He further said:

Should we vainly play the game of democracy and freedom which will lead us to complete defeat or should we curtail anarchic freedom in order to achieve victory?

The Cambodian Government may be right in believing that its survival is not compatible with any vestige of democracy in the circumstances in which it has plunged its country by destroying Prince Sihanouk. But let it at least be made clear that this new commitment is to a military regime which despises democracy. Let us have none of the absurd nonsense that was used for so many years to justify the Vietnam commitment - that we were fighting for the rights of a people to have a choice in the form of government it wished. I ask honourable gentlemen to read what the Prime Minister when Minister for Foreign Affairs moved on the principles applying to Cambodia in notice No. 2 on today’s notice paper at page 10350.

The Vietnam involvement for both the United States and Australia began with the provision of military instructors. Once that occurred it was inevitable that other obligations were incurred. The late Mr Townley in his statement stressed that Australia was not providing combat forces for South Vietnam, yet 3 years later we were. This happened inexorably because small obligations led to larger and larger obligations as the situation in South Vietnam deteriorated. Would anyone believe that the situation in Cambodia in 1971 is less likely to deteriorate than the situation of South Vietnam 9 years ago? And when it does, what honourable reply would this Government give to further requests for further assistance? It is unbelievable that this year, just when the Australian Government has announced the ending of its commitment to South Vietnam by Christmas, one should have to rehearse all the arguments used against the commitment, but applying them to Cambodia rather than to South Vietnam. The only thing this new commitment could achieve is to help prolong the war in Indo China. Small in itself, it is just another sign of the reluctance of the Australian Government to admit that it was tragically wrong in Vietnam and once again the Australian Government is helping to prolong a war which it has always refused to end.

Well might the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) yesterday seek the plainest possible assurance that before any Australians are involved in the training of any persons outside this country the most complete statement will be made to this House. At the very lowest, the Minister for Defence failed utterly to exercise proper control and authority over his department, in his duty to the Prime Minister, in his duty to the Cabinet and in his duty to the people of Australia. If this Parliament does not express its just sense of outrage at his conduct and if this Parliament does not assert its authority by condemning this Minister, we may as well say with Marshal Lon Nol: ‘Let us have no more of this farce of liberal democracy’.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond Minister for Trade and Industry · CP

– The Australian Labor Party is endeavouring to make a new issue out of the Indo China war. It is trying to say that Australia is becoming involved in an extension of that war. Yesterday I made it quite clear to this House on at least 3 occasions when answering questions that Australia has no military personnel involved in the war in Cambodia and has no intention of having any involved. The Labor Party apparently is looking for an issue to cover up some of its shattered affairs and its attempts to resolve issues amongst its members. It is nit-picking the Government to try to find an issue. For it to say that this is a substantial issue or that there could be a substantial charge against the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) warranting the suspension of Standing Orders and a censure motion, it must be hard put to find issues to raise against the Government.

I think it is important that we have clearly in our minds the real nature of the issues we are discussing. There are 3 issues. The first is the breakdown of communication during the processing of the inquiry and the Minister has admitted already that this slip-up should not have occurred and that action is being taken to try to avoid it in the future. The second issue, which is more important than the first, is the decision which will result from the discussions we propose to hold with our allies. The third issue, which is of far greater significance than either of the first 2, concerns the fundamental principles underlying the Government’s policy in relation to the defence of South East Asia and its understanding of the nature of its responsibilities to the people of South East Asia. As to the first issue, much has been said to the effect that the inquiry by the United States of America as to whether Australia would consider helping in the training of Cambodians, not Laotians, as mentioned in this motion before us - there has never been any suggestion that the Government would be involved in the training of Laot.ia.ns - has been treated in a low key manner.

The United States did approach us in a low key manner and there is nothing unusual in the way the approach was made. The manner of the approach certainly was low key. The inquiry was made at departmental level by an officer of the United States Embassy. There is nothing unusual in the way the matter was then considered by officials of the various departments likely to be concerned, lt was also normal and accepted procedure for this thorough-going departmental consideration to be carried out before the matter was considered by the Minister for Defence so that the Department of Defence, following consultation with other departments, would be able appropriately to advise the Minister for Defence on the matter. It would then be normal procedure, in a matter of this kind, for the Minister for Defence either to bring the matter before the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) or to bring it before Cabinet.

Because of the nature of the inquiry, 1 believe that the Prime Minister should have been aware of it sooner. But unfortunately he was not and, as has been explained by the Minister for Defence and myself, there was an unfortunate delay in the matter being brought to the Prime Minister’s attention before he left Australia. But, as the Minister for Defence said, the Prime Minister was under pressure, he had many things on his mind, and the message did not get through to him. But the Minister for Defence had done his job. He had forwarded the information to the Prime

Minister, and the information was taken by the Prime Minister and the officers accompanying him to America. This delay should not have occurred, and the Minister for Defence has explained that he intends to see that it does not happen again.

This matter, in my view, does not constitute grounds for the motion that the Australian Labor Party has brought before us. The Minister for Defence is an experienced and able Minister, and this is not a substantial charge which the Opposition has laid against him. His integrity is not involved. The Opposition makes an issue out of a relatively minor matter. But I think we should get closer to the more important principles involved in this matter. At the beginning this matter was treated in a low key manner because the matter, in itself, is merely an extension to a marginal degree of the existing and already stated proposal to help train Cambodians. But it had, and did, become the subject of higher level consideration because the principles involved represented a fundamental part of our view of our responsibilities. The matter became the subject of high level consideration not because it, in itself, is of great significance, but because it represents a real development and demonstration of our awareness of our responsibilities to our allies in South East Asia.

If we believe that the Cambodians should be trained to defend their country - and the Government does believe this - is it fair that we should stand aside and leave the responsibility to others? We have already agreed to train Cambodians in Australia. We are already giving material help to Cambodia. Can anyone really support a claim that there is some real difference between our training of Cambodians in Australia and training them in Vietnam. If the support offered for such a claim is that (his would represent the start of another Vietnam type involvement, I must repeat what I and the Minister for Defence said yesterday, that there are no Australians in Cambodia, and there is no intention to send any Australian military personnel to Cambodia. There is no intention to send Australian personnel to Cambodia to become involved in any of the operations there. This is an important point which must be made clear.

What we are proposing to discuss with our allies is simply a proposal marginally to extend our existing training and advisory team in South Vietnam - it is already there, and it is known that it is staying there - to enable it to help train Cambodians in South Vietnam in addition to training South Vietnamese themselves. If members of the Opposition say that we should not help train Cambodians to defend themselves, I must say that the only basis on which they can oppose this proposal is that they fear that it will involve us in another Vietnam type of war. I believe we must recognise that this fear also exists in the minds of the Australian people. It is because I recognise this that I emphasised yesterday, as I emphasise again now, that the Government has no intention whatever of entering into any commitment in Cambodia. This fear, if it exists, of another Vietnam type involvement can be further dispelled by the fact that the circumstances surrounding the present proposal are quite different from those which applied when we decided to send advisers to South Vietnam. In the present case the proposal to be discussed is for Cambodians to be trained outside their own country. This is a completely different situation from that in which our Vietnam involvement originated.

One cannot help feeling that the Opposition is using this debate not so much to oppose the proposal that Australia should help train the Cambodians, but to try to embarrass the Government on what is, as I have frankly admitted, a slight breakdown in communications in this matter. But what is the important point here? Is it a breakdown in procedures which gives the Opposition a chance to attack the Government, or is it a very important principle which should be viewed in the light of its own significance? In itself - and I emphasise those 2 words - the action which could result from the discussions we propose to hold, helping to train Cambodians in South Vietnam, is clearly not a matter of significance. Such an action would not represent any basic change in policy. It would not represent, in any sense, the beginning of a new line of policy. It would be only a marginal extension of our current training of South Vietnamese in South Vietnam and our existing proposals to train Cambodians in Australia. It would be an extension of our existing policy of providing material help to Cambodia. It would not be inconsistent with our withdrawal of combat forces from South Vietnam, but it would be entirely consistent with our view that withdrawal from combat should not mean a complete cessation of assistance to people who will continue to face a very difficult task in securing their freedom from aggression.

The Government believes that Australia should help Cambodia. No-one denies that Cambodia has been subjected to aggression. This is certainly not denied by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant). Is the Opposition suggesting that, Cambodia having suffered this aggression, we should completely turn away and ignore Cambodia’s plight? I know it is good politics for the Opposition to suggest by inference, by implication or even by direct claim that this is the first step towards a new war involvement by Australia. But as I and the Minister for Defence have stated, we have no intention of sending any military personnel to Cambodia itself. It is very significant that in all the points that were raised in questions yesterday there was only one suggestion - by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) - that the Government should not provide these advisers. Is that ALP policy? If so, the Australian people would like to know. But if the ALP’s policy is to ignore the aggression in Cambodia and to refuse any help, then a major difference exists between the Government and the Opposition.

On the questions that have been raised concerning the direct inquiry by the United States, I see nothing wrong. I see nothing undesirable or irregular in this. I can see no reason for attaching such significance to the argument whether or not there has been, or should have been, a direct request from Cambodia. There have been discussions with the Cambodians on the training of personnel in Australia. These discussions took place earlier this year when the Cambodian Minister for Foreign Affairs visited Australia. As I said yesterday, the request came from an official of the United States Embassy. What is the request? Is it to send advisers to a country to participate directly in the defence of that country? No, it is not. Is it to train troops in their own country where they are engaged in fighting?

No. Is it to commit forces to battle? No. Is it to do something radically different from what we are already doing? No.

For some 18 months the Americans have been training Cambodians in South Vietnam in a joint effort with the Cambodian and South Vietnamese authorities. The suggestion that Australian and New Zealand instructors should join with the American instructors seemed to me to be a perfectly reasonable and natural development. A request by the Americans that we should consider helping in this task seems to me to be a reasonable one and one which deserves very serious consideration. The fundamental issues which should be concerning us here are as follows: If we believe that there is aggression in Cambodia - and we do; if we believe the Cambodians should be trained to defend themselves - and we do; if we believe we have a responsibility to share in the task of training them - and we do and we have already said that we do, 1 am unable to see why we should in any way recoil from saying as firmly and as forthrightly as we can: These are matters that we believe in and that we stand by’. I repeat that the Government believes that it has a clear responsibility to accept our share of the burden in training Cambodians to defend themselves. We have already offered to do that in Australia. What is proposed from discussions now is simply a marginal extension of our existing policy and contains no element whatsoever of departure from that policy. I deplore the fact that this censure motion has been brought down upon the Minister for Defence.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– Anybody who was confused in any way prior to the speech of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) now must be completely and utterly confused as to just what is behind the matter we are discussing. It is not difficult to see, for instance, the utter confusion which has been created by the Government for itself on this occasion. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in Washington and the Acting Prime Minister in Canberra have made conflicting statements within 24 hours. In fact, the Acting Prime Minister made another one today. Yesterday the Acting Prime Minister said:

The main point that the Prime Minister will need to make in. discussions with American authorities is whether Australia agrees to have discus sions with the governments ot the United States, Cambodia, Vietnam and New Zealand on the possibility of training Cambodians in Vietnam.

I emphasise the words ‘whether Australia agrees to have discussions’. A few hours ago in Washington the Prime Minister said that the United States, New Zealand and Australia have already agreed in principle to set up a training programme for Cambodian forces. What has happened to the discussions the Acting Prime Minister claimed yesterday were a necessary preliminary to an agreement being reached? The Prime Minister said further that he did not know whether the Cambodians had asked for this type of assistance. That is totally different from what the Acting Prime Minister said today. Of course, the Acting Prime Minister said yesterday that the Cambodians would be included in any discussions about the matter.

We heard from the Acting Prime Minister today what I think was the understatement of the century. He said that there was a slight breakdown in communications. Here we have the Prime Minister - thi leader of this great nation, the man about whom a 3-page document was issued the other day telling of his administrative capacity and efficiency - on the very door step of the White House, with the President of the United States waiting to receive him and his own Cabinet has had a document for 30 days but nobody has bothered to tell him about it Mr Nixon will be delighted to know, will he not, that the man’ who seeks to tell him what this Government will do in the Pacific with the assistance of its great ally did not even know what was happening in his own Cabinet.

The Acting Prime Minister said that it was a low key job. There is no doubt about it being ‘low key’. From what I can see it did not even get into the door. Irrespective of whether the situation is low key, as the ‘Age’ reported today, Mr McMahon has taken it seriously and urgently enough to ask the Federal Cabinet to meet, discuss the request and make a decision on it before his meeting with the President. What is low key about that? What a humiliating situation for this great leader of men who leads the nation and who has colleagues in the Cabinet who like him so much to know that the Minister directly responsible for this matter had not brought it to his attention. The Acting Prime Minister spoke a few moments ago of the Cambodians request as a relatively minor matter. A relatively minor matter cost 500 men their lives in Vietnam and it inflicted upon 3,000 men wounds from which they may never fully recover. The conflict in Vietnam came out of a relatively minor commitment of 30 men. The statement today by the Acting Prime Minister indicates that the commitment into which this Government has entered may throw this nation into a conflict similar to the one in Vietnam about which the Australian people feel very seriously and for which they condemn this Government.

Let us have a look at how this matter has been handled and why the Opposition seeks the removal of the Minister for Defence. The Minister today reiterated the statement as it was given to the Government. He said that a request was received on 30th September from the United States Embassy. The Government operates in a funny way. There was no exchange of documents. It was just an oral request. A letter written in French which nobody could understand started our commitment to the war in Vietnam. The Minister for Defence said that the request was then forwarded to the Defence Committee on 1st October. But there happened to be a long weekend and, as this Government does not work much anyhow at any time, nobody dealt with it until after the 8-hour day holiday. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said, it would be a great thing if we were mobilising men for war and the Liberal-Country Party Government would not work between Saturday and Tuesday if a holiday intervened!

The Minister for Defence then said that the proposal went through the departments of Foreign Affairs and the Army and the Chiefs of Staff and that on 25th October it was sent to him by his Department. The Minister admitted quite frankly that he saw it on 26th October and that he then sent it to the Prime Minister marked ‘important’. Was it not good of him to note on the papers the word ‘important’? Mind you, that was about 3 weeks later. In fact, it was 26 days after a request had been made to commit Australian servicemen there. The Minister for Defence then went on to say that it was unfortunate that the request did not reach the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is only the man running the country. Is it not extraordinary that a request for the commitment of Australian forces was not brought to his attention? The Minister for Defence said that he did not hide the fact that a bit of a slip up occurred. It was a very important slip up, as no doubt the Prime Minister realised when, from the other side of the world, he called his Cabinet together on this issue.

The Minister for Defence said that it was not a novel request. There is no doubt that it was not a novel request; it was a request for the involvement of men in a conflict which could well start, as I said earlier, another Vietnam. This is a prime example of muddling at every level. Irrespective of whether the Minister for Defence is personally responsible, it is his duty to take the responsibility for the actions of his departmental officers in not bringing this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister. What kind of Government do we have which tolerates the handling of important events in this manner? How can we tolerate a Minister who will allow this state of affairs to continue? It is true, as honourable members know, that since the beginning of the year we have had 3 Ministers for Defence. Two of them have been sacked. And another one ought to be sacked - everybody in the Parliament knows that. That is why the Opposition has moved this motion.

Proof of the prime muddling of this Government in respect to defence is the fact that the Prime Minister did not know what was happening in regard to a request for the commitment of men to a war. All the glib talk of the Acting Prime Minister will not help the matter, either. He is in an unfortunate position. He is a young man whom I admire. He is the youngest man to occupy the post since Stanley Melbourne Bruce. But he has brought into a problem that he cannot handle. Nobody can sort out these Liberals. It is beyond the Acting Prime Minister or anybody else to sort them out. The Acting Prime Minister is now in a field of hatchets and knives that the Country Party, even in the wildest days of the Kelly gang, has never experienced. The Acting Prime Minister is out of his depth on this issue because he knows not what the Liberals are doing not just from day to day or hour to hour but minute to minute.

I would like to hear the views of, for instance, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) on this issue. Could he not tell us a lot? He knew nothing about this matter until it was mentioned yesterday, but he was not offended because even the Prime Minister was not told about it. So he could not be annoyed about what has happened. The right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) would be an interesting personality to hear on this issue. Let us hear from the right honourable member for Higgins about what he thinks of the present Minister for Defence. If he is fair dinkum today he should not vote with the Government on this issue. In his memoirs he said that the Minister for Defence could not in anyone’s imagination be thought to pose a competitive threat. He said: ‘He was well liked, painstaking’ - there is no doubt about that; it took him 30 days to tell the Prime Minister - ‘and basically honest.’ It is good to know that. He covered himself there. The right honourable member went on to say: ‘. . . but was so pedestrian’. That is a strange word, but we now know that he walks very slowly. He was ‘. . . conservative’. There is no doubt about that; he kept all the good news to himself. He was slow thinking’. The Minister realised that this was important and he did mark it, but it took him 30 days to do it. We can see that the right honourable member for Higgins summed up the Minister very well. The former Prime Minister said ‘it could never have seriously occurred to anyone, outside his domestic circle, to imagine he had the capacity to head a government. Nor was he an ambitious man.’

The Opposition does not ask the Minister to head the Government. It does not think that he is fitted for that. Quite frankly, honourable members on this side of the House are somewhat conservative: We do not think he is fitted even for the job he has. That is why this motion has been put to the Parliament today. That statement of the right honourable member for Higgins is a condemnation of the Minister from his own side of the Parliament. If any evidence were needed to bear out the substance of that statement it is the matter we are discussing today of the dilatory approach made to the Prime Minister on this great issue. I am in complete agreement with what the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) have said on this matter today. It is all very well to say that there have been slip-ups and a temporary breakdown of communications and that the matter just did not reach the Prime Minister. One would have thought that some of the men who march arm in arm with the Prime Minister, talking to him now and again on all issues and sitting in Cabinet with him, would have mentioned this matter to him.

The whole thing boils down to incompetence at the highest possible level. That is why the Opposition seeks the dismissal of the Minister for Defence on the ground of his incompetence. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked whether we should believe that the modest, conservative Minister was too coy or too shy to tell the Prime Minister about this matter. Are we to believe seriously that that is why he was not told? Are we to believe that the Minister was too bashful to speak to the Prime Minister on this matter? These excuses for not telling the Prime Minister about this matter are stupid. All the glib talk of the Acting Prime Minister and other honourable members on the Government side will not hide the fact that the Prime Minister was kept completely in the dark on this issue which everyone knows is exceedingly vital.

My time is limited and I do not want to dwell much longer on the incompetence of honourable members opposite. I just want to say that this was not a low key matter. It was not a matter that should have been kept from the Prime Minister of this country. It was not a matter of no importance, with a slip-up and a slight breakdown of communications. The Government’s proposals may well usher in another tragedy for this country. Thirty men committed in Vietnam ushered in that great conflict, as I mentioned earlier. That conflict divided nations all over the world. From 1962 onwards it has been a long, hard road for this country to follow, and a grim toll has been taken of the manpower of Australia. Thirty men initially and 8,000 men ultimately have gone into that country. Hundreds of them have been killed and thousands of them have been wounded. Into the bargain, the Government introduced conscription to maintain forces in a foreign country.

Has the Government not learnt anything about this matter? America did not even tell us when it was pulling out of Vietnam, and this Government is again committing troops. Has the Government not learnt one thing about this? It is on the edge of another volcano in committing men to Cambodia. This country should defend its own shores. Troops should not leave the country, as the Government wants them to do, to fight in foreign battles. Other nations are entitled to sort out their own affairs just as we are. This commitment that the Minister has entered into may well be the thin end of the wedge in respect to these matters. Let us ponder very seriously on this matter and on the motion that has been moved relating to the competence of the Minister for Defence. No doubt he is a nice man personally, but his competence to administer the affairs of this country as Minister for Defence is in doubt.

For how long can the Government tolerate a Prime Minister who does not know what is happening at the highest level in the ranks of his Cabinet? For how long can the Government tolerate departmental officials and others who take 26 or 30 days to see that these things reach the head of the department, whoever he might be? All in all this is an unfortunate and unsavoury state of affairs. The Government deserves to be condemned and the Minister particularly deserves to be condemned because of his incompetence in handling this matter. Therefore I suggest that if the Government is to retain its self respect, the Minister should resign before this motion is carried. I know the great tensions that must be building up in the minds of honourable members opposite as to whether they will cross the floor and vote with the Opposition. I can well understand how the honourable member for Moreton, the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) and others must be feeling. If they are sincere and vote as only Liberal members can vote, so we are told - as their conscience dictates; they are not tied to the Party line - there is no other course for them to adopt but to cross the floor and vote against the Minister.

After all is said and done, surely the right honourable member for Higgins does not love the honourable gentleman. We all know what he said about the Minister and why he is sitting on the back benches today. Honourable members who sit there must know that there must have been incompetence not only on this issue but also in other directions. I suggest to the Liberal members who believe in good government in this country and who believe in their Party’s approach to these things that they can vote as they like, that today is the opportunity for them to exercise that prerogative and to support the motion which is in the interests of this country.

The Prime Minister ought to get back to this country pretty quickly because, if he is here and does not know what is going on, Lord knows what will happen when he is away. If they will not tell him when they can see him, what will they do when they cannot see or hear him and he cannot get here? This is a serious matter which may well be committing the Government and this country to another Vietnam conflict. Regrettably I have to say that I believe the motion censuring the Minister for Defence is merited because he has failed to administer his Department competently on an issue that is vital to this country.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– It is always an experience to follow the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) in a debate, although usually he gives one more to speak about than he has this afternoon. The honourable member said that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) should hurry back because nobody tells him anything and what he is told he does not understand. Coming from the honourable member for Grayndler, that is really quite remarkable. It must be a habit that he has formed over the last couple of weeks, because it seems to me to be what he has mainly been saying about his own Leader. Furthermore, for the Opposition to move a censure motion of this type in respect of a matter which I will discuss in detail, in an endeavour to make it a great emotive issue, is quite hypocritical. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said how ashamed and humiliated Australia must be. I wonder whether he remembers his shame and humiliation, or whether he had any, when during the greatest Press conference in Australia he was propounding the policy of the Australian Labor Party and was repudiated by his Party within 24 hours. He had to pull his head in so that he looked like something out of a freak show.

Having listened to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) I wonder what he was propounding. I have come to the conclusion, in agreement with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), that this is a censure motion. The Opposition thinks that it can build an issue out of the training of Cambodians in Vietnam that will offset Hawke. I have never heard such rubbish in all my life. I believe that a Minister must take responsibility for mistakes that are made in his department. I feel that a mistake has been made in the Department. The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) has admitted this and has said that he will see that, to the best of his ability, it is not committed again. It has also been said that this was a low key matter and the low key was in the approach from the American Embassy to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I would have said that if it were to have been treated on a high key - as a matter on which the President of the United States would question the Prime Minister of Australia - the Ambassador himself would have contacted the Prime Minister or would have contacted directly the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen). But this was not done. lt was one of those approaches down the line in which someone said to somebody in the Department at a low level that this question could come up. I admit that the departmental officer should have spoken to the head of his department and somebody should have passed it on I admit the mistake; the Minister admits the mistake and the Acting Prime Minister admits the mistake. What shame and harm have been done to Australia? The Prime Minister sensibly rang the Cabinet, the Cabinet sent the Prime Minister a brief and he agreed to the commitment. It is not a major issue, even though the Labor Party wants to make out that this will mean another Vietnam. I have never heard such rubbish.

We are training foreign troops in Australia already. We have Indonesian officers at the Royal Military College. We have

Pakistanis and indians, Singaporeans are coming, and we have officers from Brunei, does this mean that every war in which they are involved will mean our involvement in them? What it means is that, as has already been announced and accepted by the Opposition and the Government, we have a training school in Vietnam and have agreed to maintain it. We have now agreed that the Cambodian Army should be given the use of the facility and be trained there. Because it is Labor Party policy never to help anybody but to expect everybody to help us are we now to say that we will help everybody except Cambodia? Does the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) no longer believe that there is direct aggression in Cambodia? He came back and said there was aggression. We believed him and the people believed him, but the Labor Party broke him. Is it now the policy of the Labor Party to help nobody but to take in large blandishments so it does not get too involved in election policy and can always answer either way with respect to anything? When it gets down to the issue, the Labor Party would not help a soul in this world but would expect everybody else to come to its aid.

I would like to read a letter I have because, when one listens to what the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition say, it wo llC seem that to train these Cambodian troops would be to prolong the war in IndoChina. 1 presume that if honourable members opposite did not want to prolong the war in Indo-China they would let the Communists come in and take it over. If they do not want to prolong the war, if they do not want to do anything, if they do not even want to give them the very basest of assistance because that would prolong the war, that means they repudiate them and are saying to them in effect: Go to hell. We are safe. You live under the Communists. We are pulling out’. That may be Labor Party policy but I will not accept that it is the policy of the Government or a policy that the people of Australia will support. Let me read the letter for the enlightenment of members of the Labor Party. It is dated Sunday, Sth July 1970, and it reads:

To the Prime Minister, Government and people of the Kingdom of Laos.

We the members of the Australian Parliamentary Mission to Indo-China, representing both Government and Opposition in the Australian Parliament, wish to express our gratitude and admiration for you and your people.

I leave out the next paragraph The letter continues:

We have been profoundly moved by the abundant evidence of your courage and determination to pursue a course seeking only the right to live at peace and in neutrality. We deeply deplore the open and evident aggression being committed against you by your more powerful neighbour North Vietnam.

We have noted that even now you do not seek military aid from our country, and that you are grateful for the assistance in civil projects we have been able to give.

This is where it gets really farcical:

On our return to our country we will do all in our power to alert our Parliament and alert our people to the vital and urgent need for world opinion to come to your aid in reactivating the International Control Commission and in bringing all the signatories to the 1962 Accords to honour their pledge to maintain your neutrality.

As a small nation ourselves-

This is heart rending - our hearts and minds will be with you in the fateful days ahead, and whatever help we can give you will come with our admiration and respect for your courage and steadfastness in the face of grievous losses and much provocation.

We leave you in the faith and the hope that one day the mighty Mekong will flow throughout its entire length through lands living in mutual peace and prosperity.

The signatories include R. M. Holten, Leader, Minister for Repatriation.

Mr Foster:

– Goodness, gracious!

Mr JESS:

– You can laugh harder at this one: They include Senator Reg Bishop, Senator for South Australia, Australian Labor Party. The next is Gordon Bryant, member for Wills, Australian Labor Party. Why is not your horse laugh coming out now, or are you stunned? Then we get Mr Harry Webb, member for Stirling, Australian Labor Party. Are these men hypocrites? Did they believe it when they wrote that letter? Did they believe it when they signed it and are they sitting back now listening to the debate not on the censure of the Minister but on whether or not Australia should play some part in helping the Cambodian people? There is no doubt at all that we have agreed to train Cambodians here. Should we exclude them? After what we have heard the Labor signatories agreed to, should we prohibit them? By sending them to an existing school in South Vietnam - not in Cambodia - are we entering into the Cambodian war? Because we have Pakistanis here at the Royal Military College are we entering into the threats of war between India and Paistan? Because we have Malaysians here are we entering into the threats of war with Malaysia? Or is the policy of the Labor Party now coming out clearly? If one reads the rules laid down at the Launceston Conference, one finds that they are covered in cotton wool. Members of the Opposition can answer anything to any query on any given subject and it still does not have to be the truth. But is this now the hard core of opinion in the Labor Party that is coming out?

The Labor Party is not prepared to play any part in helping our regional allies. It is not prepared to send one man to Malaysia or to any of the other countries in South East Asia under the 5-power agreement. Why do they not get up and say it, because this is in fact what they are proving to the nations of South East Asia? They are proving that when they talk they are doing so for the sake of impressing the Australian public and there is little veracity in what they say. As was said recently, how can any nation have any reliance on Australian foreign policy when the alternative government of this country has, on almost every point, made it clear that it is not prepared to do anything? As was said by one speaker this afternoon, we should protect only our own shores and we should not send anybody out of Australia no matter what the situation and no matter what is taking place. It does not matter who is suffering, the Labor Party will sit here and expect everybody else to accept the responsibility. But oh, brother, can they moan when we are about to be hit. I refer honourable members, as I did in the debate a fortnight ago, to what was said by Labor Party spokesmen in respect of defence in 1938 - what they would not do and what there was no need to do.

I think the people of Australia will realise that the Labor Party’s foreign policy is a farce and that this censure motion is purely a vehicle to try and get this across as an issue to the Australia people. I agree that the Department has been tardy, and I think somebody within it should be reprimanded.

The Minister must and did accept responsibility and will see this does not happen again. The words ‘damaging and dangerous’ appear in the censure motion. In what way is this damaging and dangerous? A mistake has been made. But, God help us, the Labor Party - the alternative government - has been committing mistakes for the last 20 years and has never got within a bull’s roar of government.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– What a miserable performance the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) put up. Let me make our policy quite clear. Young Australians are not for lease in other people’s wars. As far as I am concerned we will not send one overseas. I would not even send the young Liberals opposite, who are so keen on sending others. The honourable member for La Trobe managed to miss all the point of this debate. We are not reprimanding the Department today; we are reprimanding the Ministry, in particular the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn). The issues are clear. Australian troops are not going to be sent on overseas commitments any more. When the honourable member for La Trobe read what we had to say in Laos and Cambodia last year he overlooked the point we made about peace for the peoples there. As far as I was concerned, I repeated what I said in 1966, that as far as I could tell the forces of North Vietnam were committing aggression in Laos and subsequently, of course, in Cambodia. You will not get anywhere by trying to confuse issues in that way. My statements, views and attitudes about the people of Cambodia are quite clear and they are on record here. The honourable member for La Trobe is an interesting example of how miserable a Liberal can be. He has tears only for the people of South East Asia; silence about anything that happens in Pakistan or India; absolute silence about the troubles of the Middle East; absolute silence on anything that happens in Africa.

Now what are the issues? These are the issues as we have placed them before the House: First of all there is the people’s entitlement to know of any commitment which involves the national security and the forces of Australia. On this the Government has been evasive and the Minister for Defence has not even known.

Secondly, there is the concern that we have shown and everybody feels and the community is sharing with us on the confusion between the various departments. Thirdly, what are Australia’s objectives in South East Asia? Finally, how do we protect the innocent people of Laos and the Khmer Republic? What is so depressing about today’s exercise and the operations of departments and Ministers over the last few months is that in fact the Minister accepts no responsibility. For the last week he has been attempting to lay the blame upon his Department. These men who have been Ministers in this community for many years are the people who are on trial. I refer to the Foreign Minister (Mr N. H. Bowen), the Minister for Defence, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Government itself. So we have a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Defence.

There is no need to outline again what has happened - the confusion between the various departments, the failure of the Minister for Defence to talk directly to the Prime Minister. Apparently he has telephones only for plotting; he is not able to use them when some planning for the nation is referred to. Time and again we have heard, particularly from the Minister for Defence, evasion and secrecy when he is concerned with the affairs of Australia. One has only to see the answers he has given to questions about bases in Australia. What the Labor Party will not stand for .s secret commitments by this Government or any other. What we will not stand for is the commitment of young Australians overseas in other people’s wars. The question I want to ask is: Is the Minister for Defence a Minister of the Australian Parliament or is he an appendage of the American State Department? Has the Khmer Republic become another pawn in the inter-play between the United States State Department and our Foreign Ministry? Where did they come into it? What do we mean by all these arguments this afternoon?

We had a commitment to South Vietnam made in broken French in a broken down Vietnamese cafe and now we have a low key commitment. Just what do we mean by a ‘low key commitment’? How can we have a low key war? How can we have a small matter when we are talking about men’s lives and war? The issue is the right of the people to know. 1 am deeply regretful of what has happened in the Khmer Republic. The behaviour of the Government there has become undemocratic and 1 believe that the Australian Government ought to make it clear to the Khmer Republic that we do not like the abolition of the National Assembly. It is almost like the failure of the Queensland Government to have elections when vacancies occur in the Queensland Parliament. The issue then is Ministerial responsibility and today I want to examine what Australia’s response should be. The first reaction of this Government in any international situation has always been to reach for the sword. Those of us who have been here for 12 or 13 years remember the response to the Suez conflict. We know what we did about Malaysia. We know what happened in Vietnam. We always move towards military responses rather than diplomatic responses. The dreadful history of the Vietnamese situation has seeped through, perhaps, to the Deputy Prime Minister, but has it seeped through to the hawks of the Liberal Party? Let us look at an answer to a question by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) on 21st August 1962. It reads:

The Australian Government has made available 30 highly skilled officer and non-commissioned officer instructions … to … the Republic of Vietnam . . .

What has happened from there? We had 100 men in training teams. By the middle of 1964 the Royal Australian Air Force was committed. The 1st Battalion of the Australian Regular Army arrived in May 1965. A task force came in at the end of 1965. By 1967 we had committed RAAF bombers; our commitment had grown to 6,300. In late 1967 we sent in armour. By that time 8,000 troops had been committed. Now they are coming home. We are supposed to be scaling down but we have accepted a completely new commitment. What are the implications?

You cannot move into the fields of battle without facing the enevitable escalation of war. Having put in the first small team you end up with defence forces to protect them - 200 or perhaps 300 men. Then there is some major offensive and we rush in more troops to protect them. At the first sign of trouble will they be evacuated? Then you end up with an all-out war. The Acting Prime Minister suggests that this will not happen. It has been one of the inevitable lessons of history - and will we never learn? So what should be done? First of all we should replace forward defence with forward diplomacy. I believe that our great error has been to rely upon the sword, not upon Australia’s diplomatic initiatives. What alarms me and what amazes me is that no honourable member opposite has taken the trouble to see what the Prime Minister himself has on the notice paper. He has a motion to move:

That this House supports the principle of the guaranteed neutrality of Cambodia and the two fundamental principles of the . . .

non-interference in the affairs of other countries; and

the right of all countries to determine their own future.

Thirdly,-

This is the key to the issue as I see it and what I believe would be Labor. Party attitude - the House support the mutual and reciprocal withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cambodia with international supervision, particularly by the United Nations or the. Cambodian International Control Commission.

So what we should be doing is exchanging military response for diplomatic initiatives. Why? Because the situation has changed dramatically. We now have China in the United Nations. The United Nations has now become a forum in which all the people involved, except the North Vietnamese, have a voice. It seems to me that there are areas of diplomatic initiative available to us. There are extensive diplomatic possibilities for a country which does not commit its troops. There is no possibility of achieving diplomatic rapport with countries of South East Asia if we put troops on the ground. I regard that as one of the facts of life and I am sure that that is the way humanity reacts. If you put troops on the ground you have taken a commitment to one side or the other, you are not in the business of attempting to produce neutrality and most people will not talk to you seriously. Therefore we can directly negotiate perhaps on behalf of the combatants to try to get the war stopped. We can exercise influence on the others or we can try to take action through the United Nations. So what ought to be done? First of ail, it looks as though somewhere in the Department of Foreign Affairs there ought to be a special team set up whose job it is to locate the areas of action and inter-action in this, and get on with the job, and also to ensure that none of this failure to communicate between that Department and the Prime Minister’s Department will happen again. It is quite obvious that the departmental arrangements are in confusion. What are the other areas?

First of all the United States of America is committed. Something must be done to commit America’s diplomatic resources to the field. The Russians are in the field, not as soldiers but diplomatically, supplying resources. The Russians still have an embassy in Phnom Penh. The Russians have an embassy in Vientiane in Laos. The Russians have an embassy in Hanoi. The Russians are in Peking and therefore they are part of the key to the situation. We should be using all our influence upon the Russians to get them to exercise their influence. The British are in much the same position. The British have some kind of representation in Hanoi. They have an embassy in Peking. They have representation in Vientiane in Laos, in Saigon and in-

Mr Graham:

– And in Hanoi.

Mr BRYANT:

– In Hanoi and also in Phnom Penh. The point about the British is that they are on the ground in all the places that matter and somehow we ought to be encouraging them to use their good offices. Then, of course, there are our own resources which are rather extensive and in the hands of first class diplomats in Bangkok, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. What is the machinery? We are dealing with human beings. These are not strings of history. These are not pawns in a game - not pieces on a chess board. We are dealing with human beings, and they are all subject to influence. So we should be taking action in the United Nations General Assembly. Why has Australia not placed an item on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly? Ceylon has an item on the agenda relating to the Indian Ocean. Why has Australia not taken some initiative in this regard?

I do not believe that there is any solution to the problems of the people of the

Khmer Republic and the Royal Lao community, whatever its official title, or even of the 2 Vietnams by Australian military action, no matter how effective our troops. Ever since the end of the Second World War I have believed that, in the end, it is in diplomacy that we will find peace. I believe that this motion this afternoon is a motion of no confidence also in the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen). He is an incredible Minister for Foreign Affairs. I find it difficult to believe that a commonsense Australian would say some of the things that he has said. He was in the United States of America recently and he said:

Now you know this, and some of the things which United States has had to do recently, have had to be done in a way and in a style which I believe has given considerable impetus and comfort to this particular section of our political structure in Australia.

In other words he says that Nixon is campaigning for the Australian Labor Party. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) says that Chou En-lai is- campaigning for the Labor Party. Seemingly we have a most powerful ticket on our side. But, of course, all that this indicates is an incredible naivete. The man who is Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs should not say things like that. My other information - I cannot lay my hands on it - is that somewhere recently the Minister said that Australia is of no particular significance, or words to that effect. These are incredible statements by Australia’s Foreign Minister because I do not believe that in the field of diplomacy Australia is insignificant. I believe that the community of South East Asia is prepared to talk to Australia as partners and equals. Australia has a status which we should not ignore. This has nothing to do with our weight of battleships. No-one can deny that it is the kind of people who make up the diplomatic service - one of them graces this House - who are effective in the man to man relationships and the diplomacy of the 1970s.

What are our objectives? To stop the war. Will we stop the war with a training team? Of course not. Another objective is to try to find some machinery for protecting the people of the Khmer Republic and the country of Laos. We have to bring to them neutrality and peace and we have to convince the governments of Vietnam - North and South - that there is some other way.

I believe that the indictment levelled by the Opposition this afternoon has not been answered. There has been departmental confusion. Government supporters have admitted this. There has been Cabinet noncoordination. There has been an incorrect assessment of the situation in South East Asia and no recognition of the new role that China can play. There has been ministerial irresponsibility and there has been a complete policy reversal, I believe, fraught with danger for the future. The Prime Minister and his Ministers in general are indicted, particularly the Minister for Defence for the fumbling way in which he is handling one of the most important departments of State. (Quorum formed)

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– The motion before the House reads:

That the House has no confidence in the Minister for Defence, because of his damaging and dangerous treatment of the request for assistance in training Cambodian and Laotian troops in Vietnam.

In relation to the matter of substance, the Government’s policy can be expressed quickly and concisely. The Government’s policy is to assist Cambodia which, by wide consent, has been the victim of aggression. I have in my hands a statement dated Sunday, 5th July 1970, to the Prime Minister, Government and people of the Kingdom of Laos, which bears the signatures of the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten), as leader of the Australian Parliamentary Mission to Indo China, Senator Bishop, the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), the honourable member for Evans (Dr Mackay), the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) and Senator Young of South Australia. The document contains these words:

We have been profoundly moved by the abundant evidence of your courage and determination to pursue a course seeking only the right to live at peace and in neutrality. We deeply deplore the open and evident aggression being committed against you by your more powerful neighbour North Vietnam.

When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) opened the case for the Opposition he made criticisms of the learned and distinguished Secretary of the

Department of Defence and of the Minister for Defence, the Honourable David Fairbairn, D.F.C. He said that the processes of the request referred to in the motion had begun from the United States Embassy, proceeded through the Department of Foreign Affairs and thence to the Department of Defence, arriving there on 1st October, and that it was 3 weeks before the Minister for Defence, on 25th October, was in receipt of this important information. Basically the Deputy Leader’s case was an administrative criticism which has subsequently been admitted by the Minister for Defence, but no point was taken by the Deputy Leader - the alternative Minister for Defence in the shadow Cabinet - about the substance of the issue. Subsequent comments that have been made are a testimony to the depth to which the critics of the Government will sink in seeking to render aid and comfort to the aggressive enemy from North Vietnam.

The Minister for Defence accepted the criticism that such a politically sensitive issue should have been assessed by the Labor Party as of such importance and created an opportunity for members opposite to indulge in irresponsible histrionics, exaggerating trivia and wasting the time of this House. This is, in fact, lamentable. They dealt with matters of fact regarding Cambodia and the war in Indo-China and quoted all of these issues as though they were of no significance at all to the people of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) devoted his time to criticism of the Minister. He sought publicity to give him aid and comfort in helping the aggressors in Hanoi. He made, in particular, references to Prince Norodom Sihanouk, the former ruler of Cambodia, who worked for the Communists in Hanoi, gave them aid and comfort and made it possible for millions of dollars worth of supplies to be taken to the Vietcong through the apparently neutral area of Cambodia, so that ultimately people rose in revolt against his clandestine operations. He worked, as I said, for the Communists in Hanoi, and he subsequently was received and established in Peking as a government in exile after his regime was overthrown by patriots who were anxious to avoid the process of going through the Communist mincing machine. In using that phrase I quote from Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

The speech by the Leader of the Opposition this evening will be transmitted to Peking and Hanoi as a servile tribute ;o oriental Communist might because it has no integrity, is bereft of courage and is a pragmatic masterpiece of duplicity. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), in reviewing the confidence of the Government in the Minister for Defence, established 2 essential differences between the Opposition and the Government in this place. In the first place, the Government believes that Cambodia is being invaded and should be helped. On the other hand, the Labor Party is anxious to support Hanoi and Peking and therefore to curry favour even if it means sacrificing all the victims of Communist aggression within the whole of Indo-China. In the second place, the Government admits administrative inefficiency in 2 of the great departments of state in this country. The honourable and gallant member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) made a statement which could not be misunderstood and which must have indicated that the Minister for Defence has been carrying out some disciplinary action against those who let him down.

While that is the situation on our side of the Parliament, the Labor Party is hysterically and irresponsibly seeking political publicity in this matttr - publicity which is banal because of the servility that it pays to Communist might. When the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) rose in the debate with his customary humour he sought to maintain this mundane and irresponsible performance of his colleagues. He said: ‘Other nations can sort out their own affairs, as we should. No Australians should be involved in foreign wars.’ I recall that the honourable member for Wills, himself a man of some military experience, made the comment that Australia would not send any troops to help other people if Labor was in office. He admits that there was invasion of Cambodia from North Vietnam, but he takes the view that Australians ought not to be concerned.

Here stands clearly identified one quality that characterises the Australian Labor Party. There is no doubt that when Labor was in government in 1942 and its wartime Prime Minister, John Curtin, knew the terror of comprehension of a threat, made a most hysterical, emotional appeal for foreign troops to come and protect him and the ilk of those who sit on the other side of this House. He made an emotional and hysterical appeal which is on record and which can be read by every Australian schoolboy, schoolgirl and adult, urging over and above the considerations of the war in Europe and the might of Nazi Germany, characterised at that time as the No. 1 threat against the peace of the world, that Australia not be forgotten. Once we are in the position where the Labor Party feels the threat of terror there is no doubt that we have then identifiable clearly the streak that explains their constant predilection for Peking.

Having said that, I return to my own confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the Minister of State who is under attack. This Minister of State, I have the honour to inform this House, has a record in peace and war that will stand comp”ison with any of the great men who occupied their places in this House. Any man in this place would be proud to call him his personal friend. I have no doubt that, constant as the humour was from my friend from Grayndler, he made a particular point of referring to the fact that the Minister’s integrity was not under attack.

What is under attack? Is it some administrative efficiency? Is it an acceptance that here was an opportunity to take some political advantage because somebody in the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Department of Defence had failed to realise that here was a matter that could be blown up into some great political cause celebre? Was this the situation, or was it simply that the error having been made our friends in the Opposition saw their opportunity once again to strike a blow for those who they know are the enemies of Australia and whom they have been aiding and comforting for so long in the hope that they could secure some degree of political advantage to give them an opportunity to win votes at an election based upon the fact that they believe in their hearts that a significant number of voters are people bereft of courage, bereft of character and possessed only of the desire to avoid any threat to their own safety? If this is the assessment of the bulk of the people who live in this country, may the Lord have mercy upon us, for great shall be the need of those who live in this country in the future.

As I said earlier in this debate, there was a time when the leaders of the Labor Party - and many of the people who are sitting opposite are aware of this fact - were aware of the terror of government. Governments are in receipt of classified and secret information that Oppositions do not receive. When this information was available to Prime Minister Curtin his reaction was predictable. His reaction was one that members of the Labor Party ought to try to understand. They should read the speeches of that era. They should understand the judgments that led that man to the conclusions that he announced to the world. The seat that is occupied by the Minister for Supply (Mr Garland) is named in the honour of John Curtin. Although John Curtin admitted the terror that was in his heart, and although he announced the truth and the reality of what was deep in his own body causing him great concern, we recognise the great honour and privilege that he gave to this country in the work that he did for it. And that is why the Minister for Supply represents a seat that bears a very proud name. Notwithstanding that, it is fair and reasonable for me in criticism to say that this motion, in my judgment, is the type of motion that would certainly never have enjoyed the support of such a distinguished person as the late right honourable John Curtin.

In conclusion I repeat that I regard this motion as frivolous, designed to attract publicity, to give the media an opportunity to indulge in sensationalism. It is characterised by a reference that is totally inaccurate. There is no suggestion, for example, that there has been a request for assistance for the training of troops from Laos, yet so well was the homework done by members of the Opposition that, when the honourable and gallant gentlemen from the other side of this place who yearned with such depth of feeling to occupy the treasury bench spoke they could not even get their facts straight. AH I can say is that they deserve no respect, and this motion ought to see all members on the Government side showing their indignation and their dis respect for such stupidity by voting in support of the honour, integrity and the ability of the Minister for Defence.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– After the interlude provided by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) I think it is time we got back to the issues. The issue is not the issue that has been passed off by members of the Government as a low-key matter or a slight breakdown in communications. This is an example of appalling irresponsibility on the part of the Government. The approach may have been low key but most certainly the subject matter was not. In fact, this is a matter of life and death - the life and death of our soldiers. The will of the electorate has prevailed and the Government has had to bow to pressure to withdraw our forces from Vietnam, but what it is currently trying to do is to reverse the trend and to establish a continuing commitment in South Vietnam. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) challenged honourable members on this side of the House to demonstrate the difference between having forces trained in South Vietnam and in Australia. But he did not say why the Government was not prepared to accept training in Cambodia. The reason is very obvious: All the com.comitant dangers that attend training in foreign countries and particularly in foreign countries which are at war.

What happened in South Vietnam is that this Government said: ‘OK, we will go ahead and train the South Vietnamese’ but through a process of absolutely absurd planning it established a training base next to Nui Dat in an area which the Government now agrees is insecure and is not defensible and we have withdrawn to Vung Tau. So, the training facilities that cost the Australian taxpayer a great deal of money were abandoned and further training facilities have had to be- set up at Van Kiep But are we to leave our instructors and our trainers in Van Kiep or anywhere in South Vietnam unprotected? We send in 30 trainers and 50 instructors and the next step surely is that we send in forces to protect them and so, once again, we put our foot on the escalator that we have known so well in Vietnam.

I think it is significant that in a matter of great moment we did not receive the request from the Government of Cambodia; in fact, we received the request, as we received the request for our involvement in Vietnam, from the United States. The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) pleaded that he was sorry that he did not have time to comment on this episode. I was quite happy to give him an extension of time for the whole day so that we could hear his argument on this matter. However, he did not raise this issue and no other speaker from the Government side raised it. This has been another request from the United States. The so-called request for Australian involvement in Vietnam, when it was finally tabled in this House, was not a request at all but an offer.

Perhaps we should examine why we received this request from the United States. The United States Administration has been going through a process of disciplinary action by the elected representatives of the United States people - the United States Congress. The United States Congress has become sick and tired, as have the American people, of the flouting of responsibility by the representatives who govern the country. The same could be said of the Australian people regarding those who govern Australia. So, Congress has introduced a number of limitations on the activities of the United States Administration in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The American people are becoming sick and tired of paying out fantastic sums of money for secret wars, particularly in Laos. For instance, in 1971, $284.2m was spent by the United States in Laos, which compares with a total Laos budget for operations in this area of a mere $36.6m. It is because of this that a harness has been placed upon the United States military forces in Laos and Cambodia and, when the process of training comes up, who will be the sucker? Who has always been the sucker? None other than this Australian Government. So, the proposal was put forward. The United States said: We cannot do it because our Congress is holding us back. Come on chaps, you have stuck with us all this time. Admittedly, we have left you out on a bough time and again, but you are the suckers; you take over the training.’ This is precisely what is involved.

The Government will not train these forces in Cambodia. It has stated this. The Opposition has no objection to Australia training friendly forces in Australia. So, the Government has gone around the back door. It has bowed to what the Americans have told it to do or demanded that it do and will train these forces in Vietnam. What this Government is doing is circumventing the express wishes and desires of the elected representatives of the United States people - the United States Congress. We have been told today that this has nothing to do with what happened in Vietnam. The Government has said: ‘Oh, no, we will not commit forces.’ I should like to go back over the steps of Australian involvement because I think it is necessary to keep clearly in mind the lesson of Vietnam. One thing that this House must remember for the future is the lesson of Vietnam, so that we will never again become involved in what has happened in Vietnam. However, we are again starting the slow creeping involvement.

On 24th May 1962 there was an announcement by the then Minister for Defence. I shall read his statement because the words used are almost the same as those we have heard today. A report of the statement reads:

Mr Townley emphasised that Australia would not be providing combat forces, nor had she been asked by the Government of Vietnam to provide such forces. The role of the Australian Army instructors would be to assist in the training of the people of Vietnam and so help defeat the Vietcong Communists whose aim was to take over that country by organised terrorism.

We were to send training instructors. There was to be no combat. But what happened? The Australian people were not told of the changes that took place in the role of our advisory team.

However, in the Pentagon Papers it has been revealed that the Australian advisers, from 1964 onwards and, perhaps, back in 1963, began a process of training, advising and participating in the role and the activities of the South Vietnamese forces. However they were training not only ordinary South Vietnamese forces but also specialised South Vietnamese forces and these specialised forces were operating under a plan which was called 34a. This 34a operation was, in fact, a commando operation from South Vietnam into North Vietnam. This was before the Australian forces became involved in actual combat. A hint of this was given, but not until many years later, in a statement which was issued on 29th September 1968 by the then Minister for the Army, Mr Lynch, in which he revealed that in 1964 tie role of the Australian training team ‘became far more active’. He admitted that 20 members of the team were deployed from Da Nang in the north of South Vietnam to the demilitarised zone. It was in this precise area that the 34a operations under General Harkins took place. This is the sort of involvement in which we found ourselves. We have gone from instructors to advisers to participants to combatants and 8,000 Australian men have served in South Vietnam because of this one tiny step which was taken back in 1962.

I think it is incumbent upon all honourable members, both in the Government and in the Opposition, to ensure that we do not repeat the demonstrable errors of Vietnam. This is not a matter of low key; that is not a matter of administrative disorganisation; this is not even a matter for one Minister. This is a matter for this Parliament. I was delighted that the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) said in this House yesterday that before there was any commitment of Australian instructors to Cambodia, this House should have the opportunity to debate the matter. This is one of the reasons why the Opposition has brought on this debate. We are not prepared to let any Australian become embroiled again in this creeping involvement without its being fully debated in this House and without every issue being explained to the Australian people. This Government has a deplorable record of deceit and lies. The time has come when we on this side of the House are not prepared to let this continue. We will argue against and we will fight any movement to get Australia once again on the escalation of involvement. I believe that this Government owes this House a full and detailed record of what went on in this so-called low key approach. I challenge the Government to table the record of conversation of the United States official - formally the. United States Ambassador but downgraded for the purposes of the Government - with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Every conversation that takes place between a representative of a foreign government and the Department of Foreign Affairs is recorded in a record of conversation. The Opposition wants to see that record of conversation tabled in this House.

Yesterday in a debate the Acting Prime Minister indicated that he would be prepared to consider tabling the letter which passed between the Minister for Defence and the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). He maintained today that the Government had nothing to hide. If the Government had nothing to hide let it put that piece of paper on the table, and if the Minister says: ‘We are right, we have nothing to hide’, let him demonstrate it. However, I must say from my experience over 20 years with the Department of External Affairs and 2 years in this House that I just do not believe the Government until I see all the facts. This is what the Opposition wants to see today. So I challenge the Government to table, for the information not only of the Opposition but also of the people of Australia, evidence of this socalled low key approach. I am not worried about the Minister for Defence in his personal position but I am worried about what happens to the Australian people. It is a responsibility of the Government to keep the Australian people informed and to take them into its confidence because a government which cannot do that does not deserve to be a government.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– 1 will not delay the House long and will take but 2 minutes to make 2 points. It is my understanding that this issue is in the stage of consideration and not at the point of decision. When I asked the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) a question yesterday regarding the training of people outside this country, his reply to me was, among other things, that the consideration that is now being given is to training a limited number of Cambodian personnel in Vietnam. I want to make my position clear. That refers to a consideration, not to a decision, and it would be my expectation that should a decision be taken on this issue the decision will be announced to the Parliament. That is the first point I want to make. I excuse myself for a variety of reasons from indulging in any of the polemics as far as South East Asia is concerned. It has been a matter of grief to the world and I will not indulge in any argument on it.

The second point 1 want to make, however, [ believe to be of some importance. The most curious aspect of this issue to my mind is that the request to the Australian Government came not from Cambodia but, allegedly, from the United States Embassy. Beyond that, the request was not made by the United States Ambassador. I could conceive of the possibility that in certain extreme circumstances a United States Ambassador would go to the Department of Foreign Affairs and act vicariously but I submit that one’s imagination would be a little hard pressed to get to that point. I hope the House will not let go unnoticed the significance and solemnity which attaches to the practice of an undisclosed official from an embassy - be it the United States or any other embassy, and I do not want to reflect upon that generous power - going to a government, even though it may be at low key level. That does not in my opinion exonerate or exculpate the situation that has arisen and that is the focal point of my concern.

If the request had to be made it should have come from the Cambodian Embassy. If has been a practice recognised for centuries - since history has been recorded - that a nation if it is in difficulty can ask any other nation to help it. That principle of international law is inscribed in article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. It sets out that without regard to any regional agreements whatsoever a nation under attack is entitled to ask for aid. I accept the proposition which has been advanced that Cambodia is under attack, and plainly under attack, but that is an argument in favour of the Cambodian Government saying quite explicitly: ‘We want your aid’.

The Prime Minister, when he came back from that region earlier this year, said just that and the House indicated in a variety of ways its willingness to agree with that proposition. If we are to accept the view that we can conduct foreign affairs in this curious and vicarious fashion where do we finish? What if a power should come to Australia today and say: ‘Would you mind giving assistance to India because we want to clean up Pakistan and we want to be involved in the Middle East’? This may be absurd but is there any point of distinction between that circumstance and the one which we are considering?

I have observed that the United States of America has been and is a great and generous power whose people have been kicked in the shins all around the world. I can understand their attitude. But it is this sort of involvement which disturbs me more deeply. I will not reflect on the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) but 1 would describe what has happened administratively as a grand imperial display of bungling about which I hope something will be done. The honourable and gallant gentleman has said something will be done about it. It is no skin off anybody’s nose, if one makes a mistake, to say so. Ultimately, people respect it and the honourable gentleman, to his great credit, has made no effort to dissimulate or disguise what has happened. He has come forward in a quite forthright way. He said: ‘We have made a mistake and we are trying to do something about it’. My misgivings do not lie in that field. If I were in the Minister’s shoes there would be some people getting a tip-toe around the Department by the end of the week, I can assure you.

My point of distress is this strange and vicarious approach to the conduct of foreign affairs. If Cambodia asks us for assistance that is a request that can be considered, debated and decided on its merits. This country should not be placed in a position in which its capacity to assist can be enlisted and its independence can be affected by any person who may come along. Surely a sense of national pride still exists in this country. For my part, 1 believe that this country is now at the threshold where it must determine for itself a more emphatic national personality. It will not fashion that personality if it succumbs to the appeals, the blandishments or the requests of an unknown, unstated official of any embassy, be it the United States Embassy or the Embassy of Afghanistan.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– One of the things that is most disturbing about the activities of the Government in this matter has been the fact that what the Government is doing here is so much in contrast with the trends in international affairs. What the Government is doing is once again throwing Australia into a position where she can be involved in a re-escalation of the Vietnam conflict at the very time when the United States of America is de-escalating and when the Australian people want this Government to withdraw from the Vietnam war. That is the situation in which this decision to send advisers to train Cambodian troops in Vietnam has to be examined. Australia is withdrawing from Vietnam. New Zealand is withdrawing from Vietnam. The United States is withdrawing from Vietnam - slowly and tortuously, but she is going home.

If we look at the American policy towards China we see that a whole new era in international relations is being ushered in. That era of conflict and tension between the United States and China, which brought about the conflict in Vietnam, is coming slowly to an end. The United States now is in a position of being prepared to negotiate with the People’s Republic of China. A period of 22 years of conflict and tension between the United States and the People’s Republic of China is being brought slowly and gradually to an end. This is the meaning of Nixon’s intended visit to the People’s Republic of China. At the same time, there is obviously a desire among the majority of nations to end the cold war conflict, and that has been shown by the fact that after 22 years the People’s Republic of China has been welcomed into the United Nations by an overwhelming majority. What we are doing is in conflict not only with the trends of international relations but also with popular feeling within the United States itself, which is anti-war and pro-peace. This is what last week caused that dramatic move in which the American Congress rejected a policy of aid that had been pursued since 1945. It is that feeling among the American people which is now demanding an absolute withdrawal from Vietnam.

Where then did we come in? We came in once again in 1965 because we felt that the only way for Australia to survive in the world was to make increasingly large displays of subservience to the United States. We have no understanding of the world in which we live. We have no understanding of our region of the world. The only way in which Australia has been able to understand its world has been in terms of military means. We have inevitably and invariably subordinated diplomacy to defence. So when we speak about the situation in Vietnam we can think only in terms of what we can do with soldiers. Likewise, we can think only in terms of defence when we speak about Malaysia and Singapore. That is the Government’s mentality and attitude. If we look at what the Government has been doing and what Government spokesmen have been saying we see revealed beneath it all the humbug and hypocrisy of the Government’s policy. For example, we are now supposedly in a position where Vietnamisation has been so successful that we can withdraw from Vietnam. On the other hand, it obviously has been such a failure that only a few weeks ago large numbers of young Australians were killed in Vietnam. It obviously has been such a failure that Australians are now being forced by this Government to remain in Vietnam to train Vietnamese military forces.

Let us look to see what military methods have achieved in Cambodia. That war has dragged on for 18 months and all that it has succeeded in doing has been to get big and to involve greater casualties. The situation militarily has changed little. What are the risks in which we will become involved in training Cambodian troops? Let us have a look at the situation. The force that we will have in Vietnam to train Cambodians is not big enough to make a significant difference to the outcome of events in Cambodia - and it is not the Government’s intention that it should do so. Once again, we are not talking about realities; we are shadow boxing with symbols. On the other hand, the force that we will have in Vietnam will be big enough to provide the basis for re-escalation, and we would have the possible situation in which, if the United States were called back into Vietnam, we would have troops on the ground there who could again commit us, as they committed us between 1962 and 1965. Those troops that we have in South Vietnam are certainly numerous enough-

Motion (by Mr. Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 56

NOES: 51

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 51

NOES: 56

Majority 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 6.9 to 8 p.m.

page 2932

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES

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

– Pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961-1970 I present the tenth annual report of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral’s report on those statements.

page 2932

TARIFF BOARD - RESEARCH STAFF

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - On 7th October, during consideration of the estimates of the Department of Trade and Industry, I said that I would make a statement concerning certain dissenting views in the Tariff Board’s annual report for 1970- 71, after legal advice had been received from the Attorney-General’s Department. Much of the dissenting comment in the Board’s report concerns the use of research staff. I therefore inform the House at the outset - this is confirmed by the legal advice that has been given - that it is perfectly proper that the Tariff Board should have a research staff available to it at all stages of its work. I refer to the use both of permanent staff and of consultants. Such research services are part of the equipment that the Board is entitled to, and that the Government believes it should have, to assist it in carrying out the important functions vested in it by the Tariff Board Act.

Paragraph 133 of the Board’s annual report notes that on several occasions in recent years the Government has called for improvement in the quality of the Board’s reports, and goes on to mention that, during the year, an Industry Economics Branch was established to provide the more rigorous and comprhensive economic studies needed for this purpose. The functions of the Branch are described in the report as follows: 134. The branch will prepare papers (both before and after the public hearing) to assist the Board to identify and analyse key issues, particularly in major inquiries. Its work in advance of the public hearings will improve and augment preinquiry reports which have been compiled for members from a variety of sources for a number of years. After the public hearings it will, as directed by the Board, analyse and comment on important economic issues arising from the evidence submitted by witnesses.

It is hoped that the. first appointments to the new positions will be made early in 1972. The report notes, however, that there are few persons in Australia with the necessary professional qualifications and that it may take some time before the Branch is fully operational. The report states that, in the meantime, suitably qualified temporary staff have been engaged during university vacations for post-hearing analyses and that their brief is to examine, on the basis of the sworn evidence, specific economic issues regarded as important by the relevant divisions of the Board.

I am advised that the preparation of post-inquiry analyses as discussed in the Board’s report is fully consistent with the provisions of the Tariff Board Act. This is so whether the analyses are made by permanent staff or by consultants. The questions raised by the dissenting Board members regarding the use of consultants for this purpose are set out in paragraphs 1 39 to 142 and 147 to 149 of the Board’s report. I refer honourable members to those paragraphs and I shall not re-state them in any detail. One question raised is whether a post-inquiry analysis needs to be submitted in evidence. The answer is No. As stated in the report, the purpose of a post-inquiry analysis is limited to examining, on the basis of the sworn evidence, specific economic issues regarded as important by the relevant divisions of the Board. A further question is whether the use of persons from universities may induce belief that the Board’s recommendations were being influenced by specialists. This is a matter for the Board itself to take care of. The third question raised concerns not the ability of the Board to keep the confidences entrusted to it, but rather its ability to continue convincing witnesses and potential witnesses that it can do so. The dissenting opinions state that this in no way puts in an unfavourable light the good name and repute of those whom the Board might employ as consultants to prepare private studies.

Mr Speaker, it is not uncommon for government departments themselves to engage outside consultants and to do so in regard to matters of a confidential nature.

I do not believe that departments thereby give the appearance of not being able to maintain confidentiality. I see no reason why the Tariff Board, which has a high reputation in this respect, is likely to be in any different position. The Chairman of the Tariff Board has had discussions with the Attorney-General’s Department to ensure that the arrangements in this regard are adequate from the strictly legal point of view. The dissenting members have commented also on the system of preinquiry studies that the Board, in paragraph 136 of the report, states that it introduced in the past year on an experiemental basis. The information for the study referred to was obtained from published material, by way of questionnaires and to a minor extent from interviews with individual persons. The Board says that, in the case mentioned in paragraph 136, most of the material obtained through questionnaires was later submitted as sworn evidence at the public hearing and that copies of the study, excluding confidential information, were made available to all interested parties before the hearing. The dissenting members question the use of pre-inquiry studies and, as I understand, they do so whether the studies are made by permanent staff or by consultants. They suggest that it might well be that material collected by the research staff should be presented as evidence.

As to the use of published material in a pre-inquiry study, such material is part of the fund of general knowledge and as a genera] rule would not need to be formally presented at a public hearing. Commonwealth statistics provide an example. As to material obtained through questionnaires, the Board has pointed out that much of the materia] is, in fact, given in the form of evidence. As to the remainder, the legal advice is that, under current procedures, this ought also to be given in evidence, and that this could be done by the formal production of the study in evidence by an appropriate person. The Chairman of the Tariff Board has informed me that, following discussions with the Attorney-General’s Department, it is proposed to revise the procedures so as to confine the studies to consideration of published material and evidence received at a public hearing. The legal advice is that, if the studies are limited in this way, there would be no requirement for them to be formally pro duced in evidence. I believe that the other points raised in respect of pre-inquiry studies relate to matters that the Board can be expected to take account of, as it sees fit and proper.

I add that the discussions that have taken place have shown that, in regard to the engagement of consultants, appropriate procedures were not followed. Revised procedures for engagement have since been agreed upon with the Public Service Board and with the Attorney-General’s Department. What I have just said does not, of course, affect my earlier comments as to the propriety of engaging research staff tn either a permanent or a consultant capacity. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I emphasise 2 points. Firstly, as I said in the House on 28th April, and as the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) reaffirmed on 14th October, the Government believes that the Tariff Board should work independently and that the Government does nol want to interfere in its operations. Secondly, the Government considers that the Board should have expert research assistance available to it so that it can carry out its important functions under the Tariff Board Act in the best possible manner. It will be evident from what I have said to the House that the Government is concerned to see that the Board is appropriately equipped for the discharge of those responsibilities. I present the following paper:

Tariff Board - Use of Research StaffMinisterial Statement, 3 November 1971.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– by leaveIn respect of most of what the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has said I find no substantial disagreement, but I do find substantial disagreement in the general approach that he takes to the subject of tariffs. The Tariff Board has been required to turn to other than permanent staff and consultants in an endeavour to solve the problems that it faces because the Government itself for a long time has been unwilling to face up to the inadequacy of staff and means available to the Board. For at least 6 or 7 years in this House I have been making the point that in reality the Tariff Board is an amateur body, that through no fault of its members or those who work for it it is totally inadequate to do the job that the Government has required it to do.

The Government itself in recent times, as the Acting Prime Minister told us, has on several occasions called for improvement in the quality of the Board’s reports. The Government has called! The Government has power to bring about the necessary machinery that would result in an improvement in the Tariff Board’s reports. Surely the Government is not going to tell us that it has to call for an improvement. It is enough for we on this side of the House to have to call. It is enough for members of the public to have to call for changes, but when the Government joins in the calling I think that is asking this House and the public to accept too much. I suppose the Government will begin fasting before too long to bring about improvements in the Tariff Board, and as I see some Government supporters it would not do them any harm to fast. This problem has arisen because of the Government’s unwillingness to equip the Tariff Board adequately to do its job. Why? Because it will not face up to the problems that are involved in some examination of Australian industry to find whether there should or should not be changes in the tariffs. It wants 2 bob each way. That is about the level of wager the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who is laughing, would be concerned with.

The Government wants to give the impression that it is in favour of an independent Tariff Board making an objective examination of Australian industry perhaps to reduce tariffs, yet not to reduce tariffs. It wants a system of protection because it has a very strong Country Party component that wants for primary industry the same kind of protection that is afforded to secondary industry, the same handing out of subsidies without examination by anyone other than Country Party supporters. It does not want an efficient Tariff Board - I make that point basically at the beginning and that is why we have been treated to an example of words, platitudes and ambiguities on this question for so many years.

Looking at the Acting Prime Minister’s statement in detail, there is not a great deal that I can find fault with. I do not see why it should be illegal for the Tariff Board to seel, advice, whether it be from consultants or from members of temporary staff. I do not see how the question could ever seriously have arisen. It is perfectly proper, as the Acting Prime Minister says, for the Tariff Board to have a research staff. Is it not significant that one has to make that point? And I should think the Tariff Board could have a research staff that is either permanent or consultant.

What I have been trying to say in this House for a long time is that I want to see the Tariff Board with an adequate permanent research staff, thoroughly competent and equipped with all modern methods - computers and all the rest of it - to examine an industry to see whether it is efficient, to examine alternative means of employment, to put up propositions before it decides by experimental methods to demolish an industry and to decide what can be done with the resources that are employed in that industry. I have been saying this for 6 or 7 years. So the Tariff Board is now to be permitted, because it is legal, to have a research staff. That is very nice indeed. Certainly the improvement is needed. The Board is still in effect an amateur body and - it has to become a thoroughly competent professional body whether one calls it a board, or a commission of inquiry, or whether it is raised in status in relation to other sectors of the Public Service and private industry. I do not care what it is called as long as it has greater competence and greater ability to do its job.

The Board has to be able to make more inquiries. It has to be able to make them more quickly and it has to be able to consider more aspects of industry. It has to be able to consider wider questions than its rather narrow technocratic assumptions allow it to consider. It has to be able to develop a better general philosophy. Today the Tariff Board is part of the technocratic system. It is part of a system that worships efficiency. Efficiency is a very good thing but it is not something to worship. Efficiency is an important test to apply to industry but it is not the only one. The present tendency everywhere is towards greater efficiency.

We are living in a technocratic society. The appointment of the consultants who are available in the universities will only accentuate that technocratic society. I do not know an economist who is not a technocrat, including the Minister for Housing (Mr Kevin Cairns), who is on the front bench. I do not know a person who has ever gained an economics degree who has not emerged as a narrow technical, efficient person and we want something more than that. I am glad to see the Minister for Housing nodding his head and agreeing with that point. His agreement makes me reconsider the statement I have just made. I have heard him speak in this House time and time again as a purely technocratic person. If he is not I am very glad to know it, but speaking in this House as an economist r have never heard him say anything that is contrary to that.

The philosophy we need for the Tariff Board and for the making of tariffs in this country is one that needs more than efficiency as the test, that needs more than dedication to the technocratic society. We need a philosophy that has to appreciate that the standard that as a nation we have attempted to achieve is a standard that goes beyond technical efficiency. It is a standard that goes beyond what would be established in Australia if we were freely vulnerable to economic power expressed through international trade. We have tried to raise standards in Australia that have been above those in the past; we have succeeded and we must go on, dedicated to trying to maintain those standards not only for our own good but also for the good of people in other countries.

The modern Australia with a gross national product of over $30,000m, with nearly 13 million people, can buy vastly more from the underdeveloped world than an underdeveloped Australia would be able to buy. We do better for ourselves if we try to maintain i. standard which is above that which would be settled by free international competition. We do better for ourselves if we can do that and we do better for other countries if we can do that. So we must have a philosophy before the Tariff Board which is more than a philosophy of the most efficient industry. We must have a philosophy that will allow a place in this country for industries that are not efficient but which for other reasons should be maintained. We must have a standard which will keep some people in the country, like those in the electorate of the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), who are not efficient but who stay there because it is good to live in the country. We need to have people working in industries in Australia which may not be efficient because it is good for them to work in those industries in comparison to what else they might be doing if they were not working there. Efficiency is not the only test.

We must tell the Tariff Board pretty clearly that it has to take that into account too. This has not emerged so far. I am concerned that the consultants that the Tariff Board might be turning to are not the kind of consultants that are going to give any stress to that at all. I recently received a book written from the papers of a number of economists about the effective rate of tariffs and frankly I do not understand a line of it.

Mr Crean:

– Hear, hear.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– The honourable member for Melbourne Ports does not understand a line of it, nor do I.

Mr Irwin:

– They would not know themselves.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– -Perhaps that is right. I certainly think we can go too far with this sort of thing.

Mr Bryant:

– I think bankers are worse.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Not the retired ones. I consider there is nothing particularly wrong with the details of this statement. The need to turn to temporary and consultant people has come about because there are few people available who can do this, and I recognise this and admit it. I have no objection in principle to the Tariff Board turning to consultants and temporary people but I hope that the Board will turn to the right sort of temporary and consultant people, if they can be found. In regard to the post-inquiry analysis referred to by the Minister, I do not think that the post-inquiry analysis should have any semblance of secrecy. I do not think it should be different from any other aspects of the inquiry. I think it would be wrong to have a public inquiry and then to reach a postinquiry situation where something happens that appears to be in secret - and this can easily occur if we do not watch the situation.

The Minister spoke about what he said was his third question and that is the ability of the Board to keep the confidence entrusted to it. I do not see that the appointment of consultants or temporary people ought to interfere with this confidence. I do not see why those people should not be people who could be as freely entrusted with confidence as anybody else. I do not think that some of these questions that have been raised in the dissenting report of the Board carry too much weight.

Then there is the question of the preinquiry studies. There is the argument that if these studies are to be taken into account they should be presented at the public hearing, that they ought to be given in evidence. 1 think this depends on what kind of things the pre-inquiry aspects are. If it is simply a matter of statistics from the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics I do not see why they cannot be taken into account or reference cannot be made to them. But if it is any matter of argument or controversy then I think these studies ought to go into evidence so that their role in the inquiry can be seen and they can be questioned if anyone wants to do so.

I think one of the important things about the Tariff Board work here is to realise that the Board ought to be regarded as a part of a system of democratic government. It ought to be an organisation, as it were, in which people can participate in law making, in which people can put their argument for a higher tariff or a lower tariff, and also put their reasons. There should be nothing done to diminish that aspect. It is part of the system of government. It is not some secret or semi-secret or official or departmental organisation which owing to the conditions sets out to do certain things. It is part of the system of government in which we will get a better result if people really feel that they can participate in what is going on. I do not see why the Board should not be able to proceed further in these pre-inquiry studies but I think that care must be taken to ensure that anything which is likely to be misunderstood or misinterpreted or is in any way the subject of controversy should be completely made public. It would be very wrong if the Board in turning to these consultant and temporary people gave the impression that it was creating some private little preserve which was influencing its decisions considerably and which the people concerned did not know about or could not get access to. I think that in a sense is summing up the objections that have been made to this by the dissenting people on the Board. I would say that the people on the Board who have dissented have reason perhaps to believe that this is going to happen, and that is what worries me about the dissenting report and leads me to give weight to it beyond which, perhaps, the Minister has done.

I do not intend to take up much more time of the House at this stage except to say that we need in the form of a tariff board or whatever one calls it a much more efficient body than we now have, a body that is capable of making many more inquiries much more quickly than now. I do not need to go into the statistics on the wide range of Australian industry that has never been investigated since the year 1. I do not need to suggest to the House how many more years it will be, given the equipment of the Board, before any more than a small proportion of that industry will be investigated by the Board. No-one knows how long this general inquiry is going to take and under the present circumstances it can never be anything more than far from complete.

I want a philosophy in the Board which goes beyond the modern technocratic society which is choking us with pollution and is dedicated to a system of efficiency which is not going to solve most of the problems that worry people today. I think the Board has to have that kind of philosophy. I think the attitude to the making of tariff that was derived from people like Giblin and Copland, to some extent, was a much more comprehensive view than the modern economist is capable of and I hope that the Tariff Board will not fall too much under the influence of the modern economists.

Mr Buchanan:

– Mr Speaker, may I make an inquiry? Is this debate to go on? Is the paper to be noted? May I ask for leave to make a statement?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister has not moved that the paper be noted.

Mr Buchanan:

– It seems a shame that we should have an item of such terrific importance to everybody in Australia without an opportunity to debate it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member shall not debate the matter.

Mr Buchanan:

– May I have leave to make a statement?

Mr Anthony:

– No.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Leave is not granted.

Mr Bryant:

– How do we move that the paper be noted?

Mr Buchanan:

– Why cannot the paper be noted? The people of Australia are entitled to know what is going on.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The motion has not been moved by the responsible Minister and therefore the question is not before the Chair.

Mr Buchanan:

– May I move for the suspension of the Standing Orders or something equally ridiculous in an endeavour to sec that somebody is concerned with this matter which affects every person in Australia? There is no reason on earth why this should not be-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member Will resume his seat.

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

page 2937

AUSTRALIAN SCHOOL OF PACIFIC ADMINISTRATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · Mcpherson · CP

– I seek leave to make a statement on the new role for the Australian School of Pacific Administration.

Mr Uren:

– How long will you take?

Mr BARNES:

– Five minutes.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr BARNES:

– I wish to inform the House that the Government has made certain decisions affecting the future of the Australian School of Pacific Administration located at Mosman, Sydney. In essence, the decisions mean that instead of training Aus tralians - as it does today - the school will be developed as an important centre for training Papuans and New Guineans. As such it will have a key role in preparing Papua New Guinea for self-government and independence. These decisions will also enable the Papua New Guinea Public Service Board to carry forward its recently announced plans to accelerate training for localisation of the Papua New Guinea Public Service.

The basic decision is that the Australian School of Pacific Administration - ASOPA - should supplement training and undertake specially structured training which cannot be better or more conveniently provided in Papua New Guinea or elsewhere in Australia. Opportunities will also be provided in future for trainees from South Pacific countries to attend courses at ASOPA. In its new role ASOPA will concentrate on administrative and specialised training to prepare Papuan and New Guinean public servants for accelerated advancement within the Papua New Guinea Public Service. It will work very closely with the Papua New Guinea Administrative College.

The School will provide a range of courses. It will provide supporting segments of middle and advanced management training courses conducted by the Administrative College, additional sessions of the Papua New Guinea executive development scheme to qualify local officers for advancement to and within the Second Division of the Papua New Guinea Public Service - equivalent to Commonwealth Third Division - and specialised ad hoc courses. For example, a new course in industrial relations for Papuans and New Guineans will be commenced next year and the School will conduct a further session of local government practice courses for Papuans and New Guineans. The actual numbers of Papuans and New Guineans to undertake further education and training at ASOPA next year will depend on a number of factors, including especially the finding of suitable accommodation for them. My Department has already commenced inquiries amongst other Commonwealth departments and community organisations. Our aim is to build up to some 300 Papuans and New Guineans undertaking courses at ASOPA by 1973.

To enable the School to take on its new role of training Papuans and New Guineans, most of the existing training activities for both Papua New Guinea and the Northern Territory will be relocated as soon as practicable or phased out. In recent years the main role of the School has been in training teachers for service in Papua New Guinea and the Northern Territory. The Government will be making arrangements to continue the teacher training of Australians for service in Papua New Guinea and the Northern Territory now undertaken at ASOPA. During 1972 ASO PA will train only those teachers who will be undertaking the final year of their course of training. Arrangements are now in hand for new teacher trainees for Papua New Guinea to commence their training at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. In line with the new role for the School, the ASOPA Council will be reconstituted and its membership broadened. The Principal of the Administrative College of Papua New Guinea has been added to the Council. Dr S. S. Richardson, C.B.E., Principal of the Canberra College of Advanced Education, and Mr A. Tololo, Papua New Guinea Teaching Service Commissioner, have agreed to be appointed to the reconstituted Council.

ASOPA was established in 1946 and is constituted under the Papua and New Guinea Act. It has had a long and creditable history in the training of Australians for government service in Papua New Guinea and, of more recent years, for the Northern Territory. The Government’s decision to use the resources of ASOPA to supplement training which can be provided to Papua New Guinea is one which I am sure will commend itself to honourable members. Over the years the School has built up experience and specialisation in the affairs of Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific and I am sure that it will readily adapt to its new role. In the development of the programme I have just announced, I have had the advice of Mr W. J. Weeden, O.B.E., formerly Senior Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education and Science, who was for many years a member of the ASOPA Council. I have expressed appreciation to Mr Weeden for his efforts in preparing advice which has resulted in large part in the new programme of operations for ASOPA.

The presence of several hundred Papuans and New Guineans in Sydney for training at ASOPA together with increasing numbers coming to Australia for other education and training purposes will bring Australians into much closer contact with Papuans and New Guineans. I am sure that all Australians will do all they can to see that the experience Papuans and New Guineans gain through living, studying and training in the Australian community will not only improve their skills for the well being of Papua New Guinea, but will also develop the bonds of personal friendships between Papuans and New Guineans and Australians. I present the following paper.

New Role for the Australian School of Pacific Administration - Ministerial Statement. 3rd November 1971.

Motion (by Mr Chipp) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr Uren:

– Before moving that this debate be adjourned I point out that I asked the Minister how long it would take him to read the statement and he said 5 minutes. He handed me a copy of the statement which comprised 4 pages. I could see that the Minister would have to be faster than Tails to read it in 5 minutes. I now move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2938

LOAN (DEFENCE) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 October (vide page 2362). on motion by Mr Peacock:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition intends to oppose this Bill, the purport of which was outlined by the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peacock) in his second reading speech. He said:

This Bill seeks parliamentary approval to a borrowing by the Commonwealth of up to $US90m from the Export-Import Bank of the United States to assist in financing the purchase of general defence equipment in the United States, and approval for the execution of the loan agreement on behalf of the Commonwealth for this borrowing.

The Minister went on to indicate that this Bill was similar to other Acts under which borrowings had taken place in earlier times in the United States, some of which still have not been spent. Basically, we oppose this measure because, firstly, the sum involved is small in terms of Australia’s reserves of something like $2, 500m. We have been told that this is the aggregate of Australian reserves in sterling, dollars, gold, lines of credit with the International Monetary Fund and various other things. Therefore, the sum of S90m is quite small. Our second reason for opposing the measure is that defence should be a payasyougo job rather than something which is straddled out over a term of years. Defence is an expendable item and it should not be the basis of loan commitments. These are the initial reasons why we oppose the Bill - on financial grounds, if you like. Of course, the other great reason at the moment is that very little is said in the Bill as to what the money is to be spent upon in the United States. I know that it is easy enough these days to jest about the great financial fiasco of the Fill programme under which about $300m has been expended for an aircraft that we have not yet got and that is to serve a different purpose, if we ever get it, from that conceived at the time we ordered it. The transaction will cost very much more at the end than was envisaged at the beginning.

Much the same kind of thing applies to this measure. There is a very deliberate vagueness about what the sum is to be expended for. We are told that it is to cover orders to be placed during 1971-72. If anything can be said to characterise defence programming in recent years it has been a series of rolling plans that have been very indefinite in rotation to their ultimate end. We get arguments about whether we will have aircraft carriers, whether we will have new types of aircraft or whether we will have new types of naval vessels and so on. We also hear from behind the scenes about what are called offset orders and that if we buy so much from overseas countries they should be beginning to bestow some kind of counter-orders on Australian industry for components that are within the capacity of Australian industry to provide.

As we know from a debate that took place here today on the censure motion, there still seems to be a tendency to want to commit Australia to escapades in other countries which are influenced by American decisions. This seems to me to be what is involved at the moment in Laos and Cambodia - certain vague commitments that nobody in Australia is very sure about. 1 noted recently when the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) delivered his statement on his recent journey overseas and his discussions with international monetary authorities that he suggested that America was placing some pressures not only with regard to trade but with regard to defence commitments on countries such as Japan and Canada. He was careful to say that Australia was not involved in these sorts of arrangements, but I suggest that that statement made on Thursday night sounds a little hollow now after the events of the last few days. There seems to be some uncertainty between the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and other Ministers as to just what these commitments are, and one would not feel re-assured that the Prime Minister is not committing Australia to ventures that are as yet fairly indeterminate so far as military assistance is concerned.

For all those reasons it is suggested that this measure should be opposed, not to mention that one does not even know at this stage what parity of dollars these transactions are finally to encompass. The Australian Government is still very reluctant to indicate whether it wants to follow the American dollar downwards or the yen upwards. I hope that some definitive statement will soon be made by the Government about this. Reading between the lines in relation to what is taking place in the United States at the moment, with the Prime Minister over there, I suggest that at least there is a disposition to suggest that Australia is not to devalue in relation to either currencies; rather the tendency will be to follow the yen upwards. I hope that in terms of both aid and trade there will soon be a fairly definite statement about this.

For all these reasons we suggest that the measure before us now ought to be opposed. If 1 may recapitulate, in terms of the expenditure of about $9,000m this year on total Budget commitments the sum of $90m is fairly small; that it is small in relation to our reserves overseas; and that it is prudent that we should pay as we go rather than borrow unless it is inevitable that we have to borrow. No good reason seems to have been advanced as to why this payment could not be made as we go, particularly when it is related to defence expenditure, which does not build any assets that produce fruits in the future except a vague sort of idea that what we are buying overseas may help to frighten an enemy that the Government has been very careful not to define. Finally, we are borrowing in another currency at a time when there is no certainty as to what the parity will be when we repay. Because I know honourable members are anxious to get onto the Estimates, I do not want at this late stage to labour the matter any further except to say that we oppose this measure for reasons that i hope are understandable.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 49

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

page 2940

LOANS (QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED) BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 October (vide page 2036), on motion by Mr Peacock:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The Loan (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill seeks to ratify a loan which will, in the first instance be borrowed by the Government and then reallocated to Qantas. The loan of $11,310,400 is made up of $7,377,600 from the Export-Import Bank of the United States of America and 2 other loans of $3,106,300 and $826,500 from the Boeing Company. The purpose of this loan is to enable Qantas to purchase its fifth Boeing 747 aircraft. There are a few points with which I should like to deal before moving an amendment tothis Bill. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of a letter which was written by Qantas to the American Government giving details of this loan. The text of the letter was tabled in this House about a week ago by the Minister representing the Treasurer.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

LOANS (QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED) BILL (No. 2) 1971

Text of Letter to be given by Qantas on Use of Aircraft

I refer to the Loan Agreement dated as of . . . 1971 between the Commonwealth of Australia, The Boeing Company and Eximbank made for the purpose of enabling the Commonwealth to make available to Qantas amounts required by Qantas to assist in financing the purchase of one Boeing 747 aircraft, spare parts and related equipment and services, together called in the Loan Agreement ‘the Equipment’. lt is not the present intention of Qantas that any of the Equipment is either:

principally for use in, or sale or lease to, any Communist country as defined in Section 620 (0 of the Foreign Assistance Act 1961 as amended to the date hereof; or

principally for use by or in any nation engaged in armed conflict, declared or otherwise, with the Armed Forces of the United States.’

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I thank the House. One pleasing feature of this letter is that it eliminates an unsatisfactory clause in the schedule to which members of the Opposition have been objecting for some time and which, among other things, placed a decided limitation on the routes on which the aircraft could be used. Now that the clause has been deleted from the schedule after an exchange of letters between Qantas, the Boeing company and the Export-Import Bank of America the position has, in our opinion, been improved. At least the rights and responsibilities of the Commonwealth of Australia have been recognised instead of its being treated in a manner which we considered was unreasonable. I would like to have incorporated in Hansard a letter which I received from the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) on 26th October in reply to my request made during the second reading of the Bill. The letter sets out the noise level specification for engines to be installed in aircraft. I seek leave to have this letter incorporated in Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Minister for Civil Aviation Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 26 Oct. 1971

My dear Minister,

During the course of your second reading speech on the Loan (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill (No. 2) 1971, Mr Charles Jones, M.P., asked that there be provided to members of the Opposition, prior to the commencement of the second reading debate, details of the noise ‘ certification levels of the engines in the aircraft to which the Bill referred.

The noise level specified for the Boeing 747B is 108 EPNdB at the following three measuring points: -

For take-off- 3.5 nautical miles from the start of the take-off roll on the extended centreline of the runway;

For approach - one nautical mile from the threshold on the extended centreline of the runway; and

For the sideline - on a line parallel to and 0.35 nautical miles from the extended centreline of the runway, where the noise after lift-off is greatest.

Provision is made for trade-off which allows these noise levels to be exceeded at one or two of the measuring points if -

The sum of the exceedances is not greater than 5 EPNdB;

No exceedance is greater than 3 EPNdB; and

The exceedances are completely offset by reductions al other required measuring points.

I believe this information will satisfy the request by Mr Jones.

Yours sincerely, (Robert Cotton)

The Hon. A. S. Peacock, M.P., Minister Assisting the Treasurer, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– This letter is important because it places on record the noise level specifications for the engines of the Boeing 747B. This indicates that these engines should now conform to the International Civil Aviation Organisation standards agreed to early this year. These standards are most important because as a result of agitation, not only in Australia but also in every developed country, there is a greater awareness of aircraft noise and the problems it creates around airports. Honourable members have had sufficient discussion in this place of the problems associated with practically every major airport in Australia, with the possible exception of Tullamarine. Through agitation of this type in every country ICAO has drawn up now a new noise level that aircraft engines must not exceed and I am pleased to say that the Boeing 747 engines are below that level. What does concern me is that this standard was accepted by ICAO in or about February this year. To date to the best of my knowledge neither the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz), who represents the Minister for Civil Aviation in this House, nor the Minister for Civil Aviation in the Senate has made a statement reporting to Parliament just what has taken place so that honourable members would have the opportunity of debating it and at least being able to express some opinion. In all probability this is the first time there has been any indication by any Minister that an agreement has been reached by ICAO on the noise level of new aircraft engines. At least we have it on record now and I hope the Ministers will take note of what I have said and make statements so that a debate can take place in which the opinions of honourable members on the noise level can be expressed.

When a Bill was brought into this place early this year seeking approval to borrow money on behalf of Qantas, the Treasury gave us a table which set out the amount of money that had been borrowed by Qantas over the years, the amount of money that had been repaid and the amount that was outstanding. As a matter of common courtesy honourable members should be given this information. This is not a secret society. When large amounts of money are borrowed by the Government on behalf of companies such as Qantas honourable members should be given every possible information and I hope in the future when the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), or whichever Minister it may be, introduces a Bill of this type we will be given as much information as possible about the state of borrowings by Qantas. The Opposition is most dissatisfied with the state of affairs of Qantas today and it is for this reason that I move the following amendment:

That alt words after ‘That’ be omitted wilh a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: this House is of the opinion that the passage of this Bill should be delayed until (1) firm arrangements are made for substantial co* production procedures for imported aircraft and (2) a select committee is appointed to inquire into and report upon the effectiveness of Qantas management in relation to crew retrenchment, migrant carriage contracts, charters, and fares.

In support of the amendment and dealing with the first part of it which concerns substantial co-production procedures, might I say that the Australian aircraft industry today is in a serious state! For example, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation 12 months ago had an employment level of 2,550 men. At this moment that level is down to 2,050 men and 300 men have been laid off since March this year. To give a comparison, not of war time years but of recent years, in 1967-68 the Corporation’s peak level of employment was 3,500 and this was at the time of the building of the Macchi trainer. So since 1967-68 the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation has laid off almost 1,500 men. As at January this year the Government Aircraft Factory had 2,090 on its books but at the moment it has 1,960. The last lay off was of 30 men during September and no new employees are being taken on. The Factory’s employment peak during the construction of the Mirage between 1966 and 1967 was 2.800. De Havillands, the other large aircraft construction establish.lishment, has not been replacing any labour over recent years. Whenever an employee left he was not replaced.

The Opposition is concerned mat Qantas as well as the domestic airlines, Trans Australia Airlines, Ansett Airlines of Australia and East-West Airlines Ltd are all entering into negotiations with overseas airlines and making no effort whatever to make co production arrangements whereby work would be provided in Australia on the aircraft they are buying. Very quickly 1 want to place on record what aircraft have been purchased in the last 10 years. For example, Qantas has purchased 7 Boeing 707 138A series aircraft at a cost of $30m. There was a conversion to 138B series aircraft at a cost of S9.4m. lt has also purchased 6 Boeing 707 138B series aircraft at a cost of $28.3m, 21 Boeing 707 338c series at a cost of $ 147.3 m and 4 Boeing 747B aircraft at a cost of §120m. It has now on order an additional Boeing 747B at a cost in round figures of $25m - the subject of this Bill - making a total of $360m worth of aircraft purchased by Qantas in the last 10 years. TAA and Ansett in the same period have purchased S175m worth of aircraft and at present Qantas has options over 6 Concorde aircraft. Nobody knows what their price will be; I do not think even the manufacturers know. But at least it has an option on these 6 aircraft at the moment.

I am concerned that although approximately 5 years ago Qantas was making a decision as to how many 747 jumbo jets it would purchase for use in its service, no attempt has been made by the Government or Qantas since then to arrange offset payments or co-production procedures. lt could have approached Boeing and said: We are going to purchase four 747s at a cost of $120m and will in all probability purchase additional aircraft costing an extra $50m. What can be done for the Australian aircraft industry?’ I have advocated this approach time and time again in the Parliament and I will continue doing so. Other governments have insisted that their national airlines when buying aircraft should say to the manufacturers of the aircraft: What can you do for our industry? What are you prepared to place at the disposal of our industry for construction?’ This was done with Alitalia as well as other airlines throughout the world. When I visited the Fokker establishment in the Netherlands I was told that they were prepared to give work to any country which was prepared to purchase a specified number of Fokker Friendship aircraft. Australia purchased 46 Fokker Friendships but did not put one bolt in them. This is the way in which the Government has fallen down and neglected the Australian aircraft industry.

At the present time decisions have to be made about Project N, but what is the position so far as the Royal Australian Air Force, the Royal Australian Navy and the Army are concerned? They cannot make up their minds what they will do about Project N. They are not prepared to say: Yes, we are prepared to make do with this aircraft and we require this particular number’, so that at least the Government Aircraft Factories could get on with the job of building this aircraft. Everyone in the aircraft industry has told me that the Project N aircraft built at the Government Aircraft Factories is a good aircraft It may not meet the requirements of the Services 100 per cent, but it will go a substantial way towards meeting them. We are not at war at this stage, and there does not appear to be any chance of Australia becoming involved in a war in the immediate future. But the Government is still playing around with Project N, and it is allowing the Services also to play around with the project. The Services are just as bad as Qantas. TAA, Ansett and all the other airline operators in Australia who have no regard for the Australian aircraft industry. These airline operators should be making decisions on the purchase of nev/ aircraft.

At the present time the Royal Australian Air Force has made a decision on an advanced trainer, the Hawker Siddeley 1182, which should be a replacement for the Macchi trainer which will go out of service some time late in the 1970s. The Royal Australian Air Force and the Australian aircraft industry have been negotiating with the British in an endeavour to come to an arrangement regarding the building of these aircraft in Australia. At the present time the RAF will require 175 of these aircraft and it is possible that the RAAF will require about 75 of them, making a production run of 250, and in addition the aircraft could be sold to other countries. But just as the Government will not make a decision on Project N, it will not make a decision on the advanced trainer and so give the Australian aircraft industry an opportunity to enter this field and to gain the necessary knowledge. The Mirage and Macchi aircraft were built entirely in Australia with parts, in the case of the Macchi, coming from Italy and, in the case of the Mirage, from France. Here is an opportunity for us to make an arrangement between the Royal Australian Air Force and Hawker Siddeley so that these aircraft can be built two-thirds in England and one-third in Australia. This would provide a production line and continuity of employment. The Australian aircraft industry would become much more knowledgeable in the field of building aircraft. It would give the industry an opportunity to amortise the tooling set-up for the construction of these aircraft. We would be able to build at least 250 of these aircraft. In the case of the Mirage we built only about 110. There would also be better understanding within the industry. But the important point is that the men working in the industry would become more knowledgeable. This would result in a greater turnover in production and a better production run. These things have to be taken into consideration.

There are many other points with which I will have to deal in speaking to this Bill, so I will not refer any more to the failure of this Government to do something to assist the Australian aircraft industry. When the Australian Labor Party is elected to power at the end of next year - if the present Parliament lasts that long - we will do something about the industry. We will force the Australian airline industry to come to terms with the manufacturers of the aircraft they buy. We must remember that with every aircraft that has been purchased, Qantas, TAA, Ansett and the other airline operators have had to make lot_g range decisions. Qantas had to make a decision 5 years ago to buy Boeing 747 type aircraft. It is at that stage that an understanding has to be reached along these lines: ‘We will buy aircraft on the condition that you do certain things.’ The amount of work that has been made available to the Australian aircraft industry is deplorable, and this Government should forever hang its head in shame for this state of affairs. From the production not only of defence aircraft but also of civil aircraft, the Government Aircraft Factories have received $160,000. the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation has received $300,000 and de Havilland Aircraft Pty Ltd has received $3. 3m. If one can call that offset payments one is very easily pleased.

I should now like to deal with the other matter raised in my amendment, ‘the effectiveness of Qantas management in relation to crew retrenchment, migrant carriage contracts, charters, and fares’. As regards the employment of labour, it is ironical that this debate is taking place tonight, because at 5 p.m. today the services of all Qantas pilots and cadet pilots who were under suspension were terminated. The services of all these men who have spent years with Qantas have been terminated. Many of them left good jobs to take up positions with Qantas. I want very quickly to touch on this point and to give honourable members some examples of men who have been employed in this industry for years, not necessarily by Qantas but by the airline industry and its associated industries and in the RAAF. I refer to the case of a man who first applied-

Mr Graham:

– Can you not restrict this debate to Qantas and not try to fit Qantas with all these troubles?

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– When you want to say something, get on your feet and say it. In the meantime, shut up.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Firstly, 1 suggest that the honourable member for North Sydney might read the amendment and, secondly, I would ask the honourable member for Newcastle not to use the words that he has just used. They are not unparliamentary, but they are highly undesirable.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– They are most descriptive in telling him what to do.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member does not use those words again.

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– The first case that I refer to concerns a man who was in the RAAF and earning $8,000 a year. He became a Qantas pilot. He first applied to join Qantas on 7th March 1967. On 5th September 1 967 he was told that a vacancy would be available in August or October 1968. Finally, because of the short time available to me, I come to the point where this man was finally accepted for employment on 18th August 1970, to become operative from 28th October 1970. That man received his dismissal notice, together with the other men who have been dismissed, in April of this year, and he finished up his employment with Qantas at 5 p.m. this afternoon. He left a job with the RAAF, for which he was receiving in excess of $8,000 a year, to start in a position with Qantas for $4,277 a year because he wanted to make a career with Qantas.

Another case concerns a man who was a captain with East-West Airlines. He left that airline and 5 weeks after accepting employment with Qantas he was given his dismissal notice. Another case concerns a young man who received a distinction in his third year of medicine at the University of Sydney. He switched over and was dux of a cadet pilot course with Qantas. He also finished up his employment with Qantas this afternoon. Another case concerns an airways surveyor from the Department of Civil Aviation. He was employed by that Department on a salary of $12,500 a year. Because of the campaign by Qantas to recruit pilots, he left DCA and joined Qantas. He likewise finished up his employment with Qantas this afternoon. The other 96 second officers, the 42 cadets and the 17 engineers will finish up their employment with Qantas when they have exhausted their surplus annual leave.

I want very quickly to refer to an article in the ‘Australian’ of 6th February of this year. It refers to a demand by the Australian Federation of Airline Pilots that all pilot vacancies in Qantas be filled from within Australia. The Federation’s move stemmed mainly from suggestions that Qantas may recruit overseas some of the 44 pilots it needed this year. That was on 6th February 1971. In April 1971, 96 second officers and 42 cadets received their dismissal notices. The engineers have campaigned everywhere to try to obtain other employment. The cadets have signed a bond. They had to enter into an agreement which provided that unless they worked with Qantas for 5 years after they finished their cadetship they were liable to pay a bond of $2,000. Yet these young men, who have made a career with Qantas, finished their employment with Qantas at 5 p.m. today. In my mind all this stems from bad management by Qantas. In February of this year Qantas was chasing labour overseas, which was likely to lead to a dispute with the union. In April of this year all these men were told that they would be laid off.

Qantas is claiming that it is in dire financial circumstances. This was one of the points made by Qantas in its conference with the Federation. Qantas stated that it accepted no responsibility for pilots’ retrenchment and that further retrenchments were possible but not inevitable. It also stated that the company’s financial position is worse now than it was 6 months ago. Even if Qantas was in a buoyant financial situation, there is no certainty that it would continue to employ these pilots. In fact, Qantas went further today. It suggested that an additional 60 pilots will be laid off in the very near future. Captain Richie, the General Manager of Qantas, recently made the statement in a conference that there is a possibility that Qantas could finish up a regional airline.

In May of this year the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) in another place made a statement to the effect that Qantas was in a very sound financial position. In a conference before an arbitration tribunal recently an officer of Qantas said that the Minister did not know what he was talking about. So this is the state of affairs that exists with Qantas. I want to know what is happening to this airline. I have in front of me some figures on the percentage of trade held by Qantas from Australia to Europe, Japan and South Africa. Qantas’ share of the number of passengers carried in 1961 between Australia and those countries was 56.2 per cent; in 1967 it was 46.7 per cent; by 1970 it had fallen to 42.5 per cent. In other words, in 9 years Qantas’ percentage dropped from 56.2 to 42.5. In 1966 Qantas carried 66 per cent of the freight to and from those countries. In 1967 it carried 51 per cent; in 1970 it carried 45 per cent. I turn now to the mail figures. In 1961 Qantas carried 47 per cent of the mail; in 1967 it carried 57 per cent; in 1970 it carried 40.1 per cent. On the Australia to the United States and Oceania route, Qantas’ share of the passengers carried was 65 per cent in 1961; in 1967 it was 52.5 per cent; in 1970 it dropped to 46.5 per cent. In 1961 Qantas carried 56.5 per cent of the freight between those countries. In 1967 it carried 51.5 per cent; in 1970 it carried 54.8 per cent. The figures for mail show a spectacular decrease. In 1961 Qantas carried 71 per cent of the mail; in 1967 it carried 27 per cent; in 1970 it carried 26.5 per cent.

There has been no downward movement in the number of people travelling into and out of Australia. Let us examine the figures of the total number of passengers arriving in and departing from Australia. In February of this year there was an increase of 21.5 per cent over the figure for that month in the previous year; in March there was an increase of 13.4 per cent; in April there was an increase of 13 per cent; and in May there was an increase of 29.2 per cent. May was the month in which a big Rotary convention was held in Australia. In June there was an increase of 20.7 per cent; in July there was an increase of 16.4 per cent and in August there was an increase of 14.7 per cent. I believe that between October and March there has been an upturn in the Pacific trade of approximately 18 per cent. The Government has to come up with some answers as to why Qantas is in its present position. An examination of the figures of the percentage of people that Qantas carries in comparison with total traffic will show that there has been a drop since 1962. In that year it was 52.1 per cent of the total trade; by 1970-71 it had dropped to 43 per cent.

Qantas is trying to give the impression that there has been a downturn in the number of people travelling throughout the world. This is not so. If one were to take into consideration the number of people who are travelling by charter as well as the number of people who are travelling on scheduled aircraft one would find that there has been a 23 per cent increase in the last 12 months. I am not asking honourable members to accept my figures. All I am asking honourable members to do is to accept the figures published periodically by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. That is what those figures disclose. 1 believe that price fixing by the International Air Transport Association is doomed. Recently there was an increase of between 3 per cent and Ti per cent in the fares on the Pacific route, despite the fact that there is a shocking over-capacity on that route. Some time ago in a debate on another Bill I quoted some figures on this aspect. It appears that only 1,330 of the 3,166 seats which are available on that run are filled, leaving an excess of 2,036 seats. There is a shocking over-capacity on the Australia to America run at the present time. The airlines should be reducing the frequency of flights instead of increasing them, which is what the recent standover tactics of the American Civil Aeronautics Board has forced Australia to accept. A reduction in the number of frequencies would have allowed the airlines to reduce their fares instead of increase them - an increase is to take effect very shortly. There has been a bust-up in IATA over the Atlantic run. Agreement cannot be reached on it. Now Mr Ralph Nader has filed a suit in the US challenging the right of the Civil Aeronautics Board to agree to IATA price fixing. Those honourable members who are aware of the situation in America will know that it is almost a stone living certainty that his injunction will be upheld and that the American airlines operating internationally will not be able to participate in the price fixing arrangements which are carried out by IATA.

Qantas is just as dependent on price fixing arrangements as are the Americans and everyone else in the airline industry. Qantas is going to be in a hellish position, if I may say so, in the very near future because it has been sheltering under these arrangements for far too long and has not been prepared to get out and do the job of looking for trade. Qantas should have been doing what the British Overseas Airways Corporation has done. I believe BOAC is going to operate a system under its non-IATA company whereby people will be carried from England to Singapore, Kuala Lumpur or Bangkok under a 2- ticket arrangement. One ticket will take them that far by way of a charter flight and then they will use their other ticket to travel on the same aircraft to Australia as a scheduled flight under ICAO arrangements. Qantas should have moved into this field several years ago when all the other airlines became awake up to this practice. Lufthansa has been operating in the charter field for a considerable period of time. The result is it has control of specific charter routes at the present time. The non-IATA BOAC company has arranged landing rights in certain countries. If Qantas does not take action soon it will find itself out in the dark with nowhere to go. It will find that all of its customers have been taken away from it. Just as Captain Ritchie warned recently, there is a distinct possibility that Qantas will finish up a regional airline.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Hurford:

– Yes, I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak, Mr Speaker.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– I rise in this extremely important debate this evening conscious of the fact that the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) is the Opposition’s expert in the field of transport. I have listened to him on many occasions in this Parliament addressing himself to the many problems facing Australia in the development of its systems of transport in the air and on the land and the sea. I am conscious of the fact that he brings a great deal of dedication to a study of these particular problems. This evening we have been confronted by a most fascinating performance. The Bill introduced by the Minister for the Army and Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peacock) seeks the approval of the Parliament to a borrowing by the Commonwealth of SUS 11,310,400 from the Export-Import Bank of the United States and the Boeing Company and to an appropriation of the Loan Fund of an amount not exceeding SA1 3, 150,000 to assist Qantas Airways Ltd in financing the purchase of not more than 2 Boeing 747 aircraft and related equipment, spare parts and services.

The honourable member for Newcastle has moved an amendment that the Bill should be delayed until firm arrangements are made for substantial co-production procedures for imported aircraft and until a select committee is appointed to inquire into and report upon the effectiveness of Qantas management in relation to crew retrenchment, migrant carriage contracts, charters and fares. With great respect to my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle, I think there is very little in common between the amendment and the Bill before this House. I hold the view that the honourable member for Newcastle is indicating in a widespread manner his dissatisfaction and the dissatisfaction of the Opposition with the general situation in the aviation industry in Australia. The reference to co-production procedures for imported aircraft relates, as he said, to the Australian industry engaged in manufacturing aircraft in this country. This has nothing to do with the management or the board of directors of Qantas Airways Ltd.

With all the best intentions on this earth, there is nothing that those gentlemen could do in the sense of an exercise of their responsibilities to impress their views upon the Government in such a way as to make it mandatory for the Government to be cognisant of them and to act in accordance with them. The second part of the amendment is obviously an implication that the Qantas management has not been able, to the satisfaction of the honourable member for Newcastle and his colleagues, to manage effectively that great company in relation to air crews, the passage of migrants, charters and fares throughout the world. Great as is my respect for the honourable member for Newcastle, I suggest in all humility that the gentlemen in charge of Qantas are a little more experienced in these affairs than he and his honourable and gallant colleagues on that side of the Parliament.

I propose therefore, as this challenge has been thrown down, to talk about the problems that face Qantas and the need for this Bill, in the first place the Government, which is making these arrangements for a vast sum of money to be made available to Qantas to purchase these aircraft, does so with the customary ill grace that all governments in British Commonwealth countries provide funds for any reason. They do not willingly make such vast sums of money available. The Government is doing so because it believes that it is in the best interests of the company and of the Commonwealth. I hope tonight to convince this House that there is not much argument about that proposition. Qantas Airways Ltd is a company engaged in the international civil aviation industry, competing in what is the most highly competitive field on this earth, in which profits are marginal having regard to all the circumstances associated with technological advancement over recent years and those doubtful, difficult to define problems like national image. Because of all of these factors civil aviation has become more and more competitive.

Among the emerging countries it has been vital to have a flag carrier. If one finishes up with some gentleman who wa3 in the Luftwaffe in 1945 and another who was in the Royal Air Force in 1945, it matters not. One may find them sitting side by side in a large aircraft from the United States of America which has been acquired under some lend lease arrangement or hire purchase arrangement, doing the best they can to represent some very insignificant country with a small population situated in the centre of a vast continent like Africa. In these circumstances the rest of the world is provided with an enormous problem. There are hundreds and hundreds of highly expensive seats, in terms of the cost of research and development, floating around this world. They are magnificent seats. They are well appointed. As so many honourable members, including my’ gallant and honourable friend from Newcastle, know, the only significant thing about this situation economically speaking is that those seats must be filled. The seats are empty, and this is why Qantas is in trouble.

It has been said that Qantas should have gone out into the market. This is the type of thing that is provided for in the Bill. Qantas is going into the market by acquiring modern equipment to compete with other companies throughout the world which are also acquiring modern equipment. I would have thought that the honourable member for Newcastle would have addressed himself to some of the fundamental problems that have confronted this great Australian company. We all accept the fact that Qantas is a great Australian company. Those of us who served in the Royal Australian Air Force in the Second World War can testify from personal experience to the great work that Qantas did during that world war. I propose to say something about its defence significance in relation to the future of Australia and to relate Qantas to the problems of world civil aviation today. All honourable members are familiar with the fact that motor cars in this developing economy are being churned out at the rate of almost one different type a year. There is competition in that prosperous industry in which a newer model must be secured by the families in the suburbs.

The same type of malaise has been striking at the aviation industry. In 1944 governments got together, cognisant of the fact that there was a real need for some rational, sensible arrangement. Governments had to understand that if these great ships of the air were to be launched around the world with people in them there had to be some sense of order, regulation and control. Nations had to agree how this should best be done. This they did. Lured by the attractiveness of this modern, new method of travel they have poured hundreds of millions of dollars, in terms of infrastructure, into edifices on the ground, such as the buildings at Tullamarine and Sydney Airports. Examples in the rest of the world which have cost the taxpayers enormous sums of money are beyond description in a short speech in this House. This is the background against which we must see the whole problem. Governments have been providing vast sums of money. Our competitor - Qantas is Australia - carries the flag of which I know all honourable members are extremely proud. Qantas has to take its place in the world market. The sky up there is an international market place.

Let us look at the percentage distribution on the basis of what the flying people in their extraordinary jargon - we do have some odd expressions in this place so I am sure that honourable members will forgive the aviation people for their odd expressions - call passenger kilometers performed in 1970. The regular public transport operators in the United States performed 55.08 per cent. Then we move down with a sickening rush to the United Kingdom with 4.97 per cent, Canada with 3.88 per cent, Japan with 3.69 per cent and France with 3.53 per cent. That is the total of the big five in world aviation. These are the people who are finding hundreds of millions of dollars to buy aeroplanes such as the Boeing 747, the Boeing 707 that preceded it, and the VC10. Governments are supporting Swissair, Sabena, Lufthansa, Air France and BOAC.

The taxpayers’ money is being employed and therefore it is mandatory upon these gifted, dedicated men who have served this country with great honour and integrity and who today head Qantas to maintain a standard comparable to that maintained by similar people throughout the world. They are competing against their own types throughout the world and, believe me, competition is tough when you live at a pedal extremity of Asia where the civil aviation environment has to be measured in thousands of people and thousands of flights per annum. When you think of the odd remarks by the honourable member for Newcastle about Lufthansa, which sits in the middle of Europe and an economic community of 500 million people, you need an abacus because you would need to consider the facts in relation to potential markets. If you consider the number of flights that are made from the north American continent to the continent of Europe and look at the picture that can be seen in the reports of the International Air Transport Association and the reports of Qantas, you see the enormous problem this poses for Qantas which gets 23 per cent of its revenue from the Pacific route whereas the United States, which holds 55 per cent of world operations, gets only 3 per cent.

A serious consideration of this matter makes it mandatory that this Bill be agreed to tonight. It would be an insult to the board, to the directors, to the people who run this great Australian airline to prevent them from having the financial support that this Government, with all the reluctance which characterises governments, has unwillingly provided for them. As I said, the big five have 71.15 per cent of all traffic throughout the world and Australia has 2.32 per cent. This is what we are talking about. We are a small country in this field. Why does the Opposition imagine that great companies with international reputations such as Rolls Royce which are known in almost every home in Australia are in financial trouble? Why does the Opposition think that in Seattle, on the northwest coast of the United States, there is an unemployment level of 1 24 per cent? Why is the Boeing company in trouble?

Mr Cohen:

– Bad management.

Mr GRAHAM:

– it is so simple. 1 find with great delight that my honourable colleague from Robertson says: ‘Bad management’. It is a fair enough comment to make, but I wonder whether we could find within the Opposition better management than we can in Qantas itself. I find the humour of this almost macabre. This company needs the financial support of this Parliament and it will not survive in the jungle inhabited by the regular public transport operators throughout the world unless it gets that support.

Somewhere today people said to me: Would it not be good if they were all good, honest IATA members?’ Is there such a thing on this earth? If there is such a thing I would like to hear about it. 1 hold the view that in this marginal business it is almost an essential that the operators will do the best they can to get these seats filled in all circumstances. Hundreds of people have been leaving Australia and flying to Singapore in the economy seats of Qantas, climbing out of those seats, getting into sub-standard chartered aircraft and flying to the United Kingdom for one-quarter of the price. IATA will not survive and the regular public transport operators in this world will not survive until those people who move around the fringes of the international civil aviation industry are removed. It is an extremely difficult thing for one like myself - what one might call a tory in terms of commerce - to make such a remark but I predict that the time will come when the vast millions that have been poured into the infrastructure of civil aviation will make it necessary for govern ments to do some heavy thinking about whether this vast investment is to be sacrificed or whether there is to be a complete understanding of the position of the regular . international public transport operators in civil aviation and, in particular, of that vast jig-saw puzzle that has seen our small company with its particular problems.

I hold the view that the operations of Qantas have been magnificent. I could talk to honourable members about it for another half an hour. I could go through the details of the benefits that Qantas bestows on the economy. I will say this, and I will say it from my heart: If this Parliament believes that it is reasonable to pay attention to this most involved and complicated amendment, then I will be ashamed of the Parliament. The proper thing to do is to follow the motion that the Bill be read a second time and to support the Bill. It is the least we can do to help these people because I have never known a captain of the quality, the standard and the character of those to whom I refer who derived any pleasure from putting a young man out of a job. That they would do so I find to be a monstrous and dreadful suggestion. The facts are that the people who are in control of this great company are doin* the best they can and from the advice I have, although some of those who have been retrenched have had to find other forms of employment, a very small percentage of them are in receipt of unemployment benefit. I very much doubt whether honourable members opposite would be able to provide detailed information to disprove that statement.

I have not had an opportunity to put Qantas in its proper position in the Australian economy. I say now that over the years about $15m has been paid by that company in taxation to the Australian Government. That process will go on if we support the company. We need the faith, the courage and the belief that Qantas will succeed. Let me tell honourable members that if this was the German parliament and I was suggesting that Lufthansa would fail I would be thrown out of the door. If it was the Chamber of Deputies and I was suggesting that Air France should be allowed to fail I would be ejected from the chamber. Therefore, in the last moments, I remind the House that we are committed to Qantas and by the mass committed we shall stay.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– The speech to which we have just listened was a brave effort by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) and I am sure those of us who heard it enjoyed it. But I would hate to be given the task of summarising what was constructive in the speech, if I may say so, the reason being that there was so little that was constructive. The honourable member for North Sydney was full of drawing a wide and colourful picture about the aviation industry, telling us of the great problems that are ahead of us, then having some mysterical faith in the board of Qantas to be able to overcome these problems and, indeed, seeming rather indignant that the Opposition should have the audacity to question some of the opinions expressed on the basis of the information that is before it.

For a start I would say that this Bill is not properly explained to this Parliament. 1 myself would have been ashamed if I had read the second reading speech to the Parliament. In short it tells us that the Government is acting as a clearing house for the collection of funds from abroad in order to appropriate those funds on behalf of Qantas. We are told that these funds, if I have understood the second reading speech correctly, are coming from 3 sources. An amount of $US7,377,600 is coming from the Export-Import Bank at 6 per cent. That is not a bad rate of interest but there is a nasty charge over and above that of i per cent. This is what I would call a procurement fee. Then from the Boeing Co. a further $US3,932,800 is borrowed at 6i per cent. Those amounts have been borrowed in the United States. I hope I have understood this correctly, although I believe that the second reading speech requires 2 or 3 readings before one understands this correctly. If we convert into Australian currency the $US 11,310,400 that is to be borrowed from the United States we get a figure of $A10.1m. We have to do that because we must now continue in Australian currency to learn what is needed from borrowing from a bond issue of $13. 15m made by the Commonwealth in Europe.

I am taking the trouble to outline this so that the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peacock), who I believe will later speak in this debate, may correct me if I am incorrect. This is the only way I have of finding out whether I have correctly interpreted the second reading speech. The total borrowings will, I believe, be $A23.25m. This amount of money is to be spent on 2 Boeing 747 jets which Qantas Airways Ltd requires for its fleet. The first of these jets will, I believe, cost $A25.7m and the second $A25.4m. The total expenditure on the 2 jets will be $A51.1m. I would have liked to know, if this House is to be properly informed, just why Qantas has looked to this Government for the $A23.25m. Perhaps it would be of interest for this House to know what is expected to be the cash flow budget of Qantas for the next few years or indeed what its funds are now. I have the annual report of Qantas to turn back to and I can see that Qantas made a profit of $5,343,000 for the financial year ended 30th June 1971. That figure was down from a profit of $8,166,000 for the previous financial year. From my reading of the annual report I have been unable to obtain in the detail that I would have liked, for a proper scrutiny of these affairs, why this particular sum of money is being sought from this Government in order to make ends meet and enable Qantas to buy these two 747s.

This is not the only reason why the Opposition has moved an amendment to this Bill. In fact this is a minor reason. The fact is that the Opposition is expressing in this amendment a general uneasy feeling, a feeling that is shared by everybody who is interested in civil aviation in this country, about the future of our national airline. Before I become critical let me explain that I am normally, when it comes to travel anyway, a great supporter of our national airline. In the short time that I have been in this Parliament I have been fortunate enough to travel with a parliamentary delegation around the world and on that tour I was able to test many airlines. But earlier in my career and during the time when I was a student I also travelled by the world’s airlines. I would say that our own international airline, Qantas, is second to none. It has always been a pleasure to me to board Qantas aircraft in various parts of the world. In no way do I want to criticise the services of Qantas. I think that all Australians have reason to be proud of their airline.

But an uneasy feeling arises in such a situation as we have had recently, when there has been a decline in the growth of world traffic in terms of the number of airline seats taken up by passengers. In this situation our own international airline has been the last to move - or so it would seem to me from the little I have been able to find out - or certainly has been slow to move into the charter field. This is something which makes me feel extremely uneasy. 1 am only referring to this as something which the honourable member for Newcastle has not covered in his speech. I know that he did mention the charter field but he concentrated for the greater part of his speech on the other opportunities which could be taken at a time such as this when we are paying out $A51.Im to Boeing for the purchase of 2 jets and Qantas has had to come to this Parliament to raise these funds for the purchase of these aircraft.

Mr McLeay:

– Who is paying the money?

Mr HURFORD:

– Qantas will be paying this money but it has had to come to this Parliament to be able to borrow the funds. I think the honourable member will agree that that is correct. I apologise if I expressed it badly a few moments ago and f thank the honourable member for correcting me.

Mr Charles Jones:

– And Qantas gets much more favourable terms than it could get it on the open market.

Mr HURFORD:

– As the honourable member for Newcastle said, Qantas has come to this Parliament in order to get these favourable terms to assist in the purchase of the aircraft. These favourable terms are so necessary in these hard trading times if Qantaas is to make ends meet in the forthcoming years. The point is that we on the Opposition side have a duty at this time to spell out the deficiencies in the field of civil aviation and that is why we have moved this amendment. As the honourable member for Newcastle said, the amendment refers to the state of the aircraft industry in this country. It is nothing new to use a bargaining point such as this in order to help our own industries in this country. If it is possible, to use the words used in this amendment, ‘to bring about substantial co-production procedures relating to our imported aircraft’, then we have a duty to do so. At the present time the case goes by default inasmuch as we have not heard any explanation from this Government as to why it has not driven a bargain such as this when indeed a bargain is so badly needed with the state that our aircraft industry is in.

The second part of the amendment moved by the Opposition refers to a proposal for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into and report upon the effectiveness of the Qantas management. The Opposition has limited its remarks about the ineffectiveness of the Qantas management. We have limited them by relating this criticism only to the crew retrenchments - and as the honourable member for Newcastle said, this is something which is very much in our minds today when final notices have been served on a number of Qantas pilots - the migrant carriage contracts at a time when the migration programme is being tailed off and, as I mentioned earlier, charters and fares. I would like to add to what the honourable member for Newcastle said about the timeliness of this Bill coming before the Parliament today. Many honourable members will have noted the ‘Australian Financial Review’ front page headlines “Fatal blow” to some airlines’ in yesterday’s issue in which the news was given that a meeting held at Lausanne in Switzerland was the third effort by members of the International Air Transport Association to resolve what the airlines regard as a dangerous situation, namely, a lack of agreement when it comes to fares.

There is an uneasy feeling amongst members of the Opposition who take an interest in these affairs that we are coming to the time in this whole field of civil aviation when our own Qantas management will be behind some other airline managements in the world. It is not so long since there was a big shake up in the employees of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. It seems to me, as an independent observer of these affairs, that that shake up of BOAC has led to that airline now being far ahead of Australia’s own airline, lt certainly led to BOAC being in the charter field before our own airline announced chat it would be in the charter field.

At the risk of repeating myself, 1 must refer to a document which was brought out by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots which examined various aspects of Qantas Airways Ltd, including future prospects concerning retrenchments and the world market. It summed up the difficulties that are ahead as, firstly, the failure of the market to expand at the predicted rate; secondly, the increased competition on world routes - we all know that an increasing number of airlines are entering the field all the time, and that there was the unfortunate situation of the Malaysian and Singapore airlines dividing only the other day; and, thirdly, the incursions of charter carriers into traditional markets. In this document the Australian Federation of Air Pilots says:

The only possible remedy is to compete. While a passenger who is not committed to fixed date travel can obtain, by answering an advertisement in a newspaper, a $464 discount on the Qantas return fare to the United Kingdom, he will not travel on Qantas.

Many people of our own acquaintance these days travel on the normal air routes only as far as Singapore and then take charter flights at least as far as Brussels and sometimes into Gatwick or even into Heath Row if they are going to the United Kingdom. The fourth difficulty mentioned by the Federation concerned the increase in seat capacity. It is terrible that in this technological world in which we live we must compete. We must keep up with the Joneses. Because other countries have Boeing 747 aircraft it is absolutely necessary that Australia should have them with their greater seating capacity at a time when the market is not growing commensurately.

I have mentioned the cutback in migrant services. I have not mentioned, so far, the increases in air navigation charges and, at this particular time, with the Government economies, the drop in the number of Government employees travelling by air, nor the other cost increases which have been brought about by a lack of proper economic planning and a policy of price control from which we are suffering under the present Government. For all these reasons the Opposition is extremely uneasy about the whole field of civil aviation, particularly as it affects overseas travel. As a Parliament we are being asked to sanction the borrowing of a lot of money in order to buy these Boeing 747 aircraft. Now is the time to stop and consider what is the future for Qantas and to make an assessment of the management of Qantas. I do not pretend that in the world that I live in - having only libraries and the written word to call upon for the most part for the information that I need - I can come up with constructive ideas as to the way Qantas should go in future. I believe that it is a function of this Parliament to set up a select committee to which expert witnesses can be called so that necessary information can be made available. I strongly support the Opposition’s amendment and hope that, if not on this occasion, such a committee will be set up shortly.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

- Mr Deputy Speaker, before making my contribution to this debate may I express my satisfaction, and I am sure the satisfaction of most members of the House, that you are occupying the chair? We sincerely hope you will remain there for the rest of the evening. I have a particular and sentimental interest in this debate because my home town is Cloncurry where the idea of Qantas was conceived. Let me make this perfectly clear. Actually Qantas was founded in Winton. It was born there but a part of the conception, at least, took place in Cloncurry and it enjoyed its adolescence in Longreach. The inaugural flight of Qantas took place, if I remember rightly, on 2nd November 1922 from Charleville to Cloncurry via Longreach. I immediately call to mind some of the great names associated with Qantas - Eric Donaldson, Arthur Affleck, Lester Brain and, of course, the greatest of them all, I suppose, when one thinks of the foundation of Qantas, Hudson Fysh. With a good deal of nostalgia I recollect my first flight in an aeroplane with Hudson Fysh when I was a very small boy. I mention all this to indicate that I have a sentimental attachment to this great airline. Its performance and its growth represent a great tribute to all those who have been associated with it. I think that it, probably above all other factors, has spread the name of Australia with honour throughout the world.

I well remember visiting a little restaurant in the mid-west of the United States of America. It was in an area far removed from the normal airline routes. The restaurant had a calendar issued by Qantas Airways Ltd on display and with a burst of, I suppose, brash enthusiasm I said: ‘My father was one of the small group of men who got together and kicked this airline off’. The proprietor looked at me and said: Are you some sort of nut? That fellow cooking out in the kitchen is Lyndon B. Johnson’. He did not believe me but here was an example of the name of Qantas being seen right away from the major air routes of the world.

Having said this, I am about to make some comments which 1 hope will be interpreted as constructive, as they are intended to be. I make these remarks because I believe that in the final analysis the profitability of any organisation depends on how the consumer - the man who buys the ticket and travels with an airline - reacts not only to the service he receives in the air but also to the service he receives on the ground. It is my opinion that Qantas has been so concerned with achieving what has been a magnificent record of safety in the air that some of what might be interpreted as the less important things have been neglected. An impression is gained, as one moves around the world, that the people who are in the offices of Qantas and who come in contact with the travellers, do not project the image of Australia as it is accepted in normal circumstances. This may be due to the fact that Qantas employs people of the countries in which its offices are located. In my opinion there is an air of detachment - there is not an air of real concern about the comfort and arrangements of the traveller. This is a serious matter.

Recently we heard in this House a speech by the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) which made a profound impression. It could probably be regarded as a classic of its kind. The House was debating the Wool (Deficiency Payments) Bill and he referred to the woollen product. He pointed out how difficult it is to find an ordinary woollen garment on display and for sale in the various retail stores throughout Australia. This point made quite an impact because I suppose that most honourable members consider that it does not matter how much one indulges in grand and expensive public relations operations and it does not matter how much one gives forth on the efficiency of an organisation, in the final analysis it is a matter of direct contact with the public.

In all sincerity. 1 feel that there r a lot to be desired in the operation of this magnificent airline. I am not mentioning this just to be critical. I hope my criticism is constructive. 1 might relate my own experience which I have discussed with other people as I have moved around the world. They have agreed that the circumstances I have experienced do exist. Last year I travelled to the United States to attend the United Nations, and my bookings were entirely in the hands of Qantas. I can say that almost invariably the record remained very consistent; I do not think that one of those arrangements was intact. The rather classic example was that the hotel I had supposedly been booked into in Stockholm was in fact 500 kilometers from Stockholm. Having arrived in New York I wen: to the Qantas office and related to the manager, whom I knew personally, that these bookings had somehow or other gone haywire. He said: ‘Yes. We are having some trouble with the people handling these matters. It will not happen again’.

After the meeting of the General Assembly I was to break my journey home in Nevada, mainly for business reasons. The New York manager of Qantas said: Your booking now is absolutely 100 per cent’. He booked me into a little shack known as Caesar’s Palace. When I arrived there I said: ‘My name is Bob Katter. You have a booking here for me’. They said: Yes, sir’. They looked up their books and there was no record of it. So I thought: ‘I am going to see this ons right through’. I saw the fellow in charge of the bookings and he traced it right back to New York, and no booking had been made.

Being exhausted after my business there I broke my journey at Honolulu on the way back. While I was there I discovered that I had not booked a car in Sydney. I am only a boy from the bush, and I asked Qantas representatives whether they could help me out. They said: ‘Yes. We will send a telex message to Sydney. We are in touch with our Sydney office continuously. We will get in touch with the Commonwealth car pool’. When I arrived in. Sydney the Commonwealth car pool had never heard any such message. These are only little things. I am giving my own personal experience. Other people have told me that their bookings and all their arrangements en route were absolutely 100 per cent. But I do not think there should be any exception. I think that everything else is of little importance if that human reaction is missing.

Another thing about Qantas is that it employs mainly stewards rather than air hostesses. I brought this matter up recently and was given various reasons as to why this is necessary. I think that male travellers - 1 think if the women are honest they will agree - much prefer to be. ministered to by an air hostess rather than a male steward. An air hostess seems to have a better understanding. They create an almost exotic, domestic atmosphere in the aircraft, and there is something that does not ring true when you have a steward looking after you. These are little human things that I think are terribly important.

I suppose that perhaps with the exception of politicians no-one discusses anything critically more than he does the airlines and the various companies and the service they give and the way they look after you. When a person is abroad he is almost entirely in the hands of the airline with which he is flying. The average person when he is abroad has a feeling of being very much abroad, if I may put it that way, and he becomes entirely dependent on the arrangements that have been made for him by the airline with which he is travelling. My colleague, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham), pointed out that Qantas is a flag carrier. Hence if Qantas is criticised for these perhaps minor but terribly important things Australia is criticised.

To conclude this theme, I think that Qantas would do well to examine the staff training that is apparently undertaken by Trans-Australia Airlines, because it is generally agreed that the staff of TAA are just wonderful. They seem to have a concern for the most human things that we require and demand when we are travelling. As I say, my first loyalty till the day I die will be to Qantas. When I was a child I lived in the area where Qantas was born. This is why I rather hope that the very important grass roots service we expect will be looked into far more closely. I think that if this happens we will be pretty near perfection.

The profitability of Qantas is guaranteed, in effect, by the Government. This bill is concerned with the raising of a loan for $ 10.1m for the purchase of Boeing 747 aircraft. As we are talking about profitability may I deviate for one moment. Not only the profitability of Qantas but the profitability of the 2 domestic airlines is guranteed by the Government because of the protection these airlines receive. The very sad and very disastrous deterioriation of country airlines just recently should bring to our minds the fact that the profitability of these airlines is guaranteed by this government, by heck, I think that in return they should underwrite the provision of country air services so that we do not see happening what has happened over the last few weeks when towns have been deprived completely of air services.

Let me get back to my theme. In conclusion. I point out that if you examine the record of Qantas you will find that, possibly with the exception of these perhaps less important matters upon which 1 have based my comments tonight, that record is impeccable. We can proudly claim that with the exception of the

United States we record more passenger miles per head of population than does any other country. The United States has a figure of 570; we have a figure of 362. I think this in itself is a tremendous achievement. Qantas is virtually a government company, and one always regards these with suspicion; but of course our airline operates under a separate commission and 1 suppose this is a perfect set-up. As Qantas points out in its annual report, its profitability since the war, although consistent, has always been marginal in relation to revenue. Unfortunately recently we have seen a deterioration in this situation.

As my colleague from North Sydney pointed out, not one person associated with Qantas would want to stand down one pilot or one pilot trainee. I suppose the acme of the ambition of any young man who wants to be a commercial pilot is to become a trainee pilot with Qantas. But what a dreadful thing it is for that young man when he suddenly finds that he has been stood down. Do honourable members think that any person would derive any consolation from that? Not at all. However this is the situation throughout the world, and our friends in the > Opposition realise this. They cannot believe in what they are saying, because if they were to examine the records of any country at the moment they would see that there is this disastrous situation where airlines are facing up to extreme losses.

I think that the profit record of Qantas which shows for various years profits of $2m, $5m, $7m. $20m and $33m, even though these figures as a percentage of revenue may be low, is still a tremendous achievement. Hence I have very much pleasure in supporting the Bill. 1 do not think the amendment can possibly be supported or that the Opposition can convince Government supporters that it should be supported.

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

– At the outset, I would like to say that all honourable members must support the amendment because what is involved is the future of Qantas Airways Ltd. Parliament meets this evening in an atmosphere where there have been substantial retrenchments and there will be even more retrenchments. Honourable members would not be acting in the interests of the Aus tralian airline industry if they did not say that something should be done to prevent the industry from going into a further decline.

However, the substantial matter before the House is the Loan (Qantas Airways Ltd) Bill. Nobody will query the fact that Qantas needs this aircraft which is available from the Boeing company, but let us examine what happened on the last occasion this matter was debated. It was on 3rd May this year. The speeches on the second reading were concluded and the Bill was passed that evening and there was no reply from the Minister in charge of the Bill. One of the matters 1 raised was that in that previous agreement Australia had entered into a covenant with the United States and that we regarded ourselves as being under, of all things, an Act called the Foreign Assistance Act. According to that covenant, we would abide by section 620 (f) of the Foreign Assistance Act which would mean that Qantas could not use these aircraft in any country defined as Communist by the United States. At the time, I asked: Does this not mean that Qantas will be prevented from flying to many countries throughout the world that the United States considers to be Communist?’ I am pleased to note that in a fashion this offensive covenant has now been removed from the agreement.

However, let us be practical about this. The Minister then tabled a letter and said: While we are not to have the covenant, we have given the appropriate United States authorities a letter in which we undertake that we will not use the aircraft or the equipment in any Communist country as denned in section 620 (f) of the American Foreign Assistance Act’. I should like to make the point that Australia is not getting any foreign assistance. We are buying the aircraft, which is of substantial benefit to the economy of the Boeing company in the United States and we are paying top interest on the loan. There is no foreign assistance involved.

As my colleague, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) mentioned, the great tragedy is that Australia is not allowed to produce any portion of the aircraft in Australia. This is just what we should be doing. If one visited the

De Havilland aircraft factory, one would find that the only thing it is making is a small wooden cabinet that fits under the spiral staircase of the aircraft. This is a most inconsequential item. Nevertheless. Australia designed that cabinet; the Americans bad not thought of it, but we did. That is our sole contribution yet Qantas is paying millions of dollars to buy this aircraft. If one listened to Sir Hudson Fysh and others who have appeared on television, one would find that they have said that it is about time the Australian aircraft industry received its fair share of the ability to produce in Australia parts of aircraft which are virtually designed overseas. It can be done and it should be done. As the honourable member for Newcastle said, the number of people in the Australian aircraft industry is declining. There is no research; there is no effective training; there is no incentive and yet we are spending millions of dollars to buy these aircraft in what is becoming a very competitive industry.

I should like to return to what is in my view an offensive section in the agreement in which in one breath the Government has said that this limitation will not be included and the next minute has provided the United States with a letter undertaking to abide by this limitation. I think that this is a very supine, servile attitude for any government to take. The tragedy is that this indicates, as the debate has shown, that we have no real national identity. Australia seems to do whatever anybody else whistles us up to do. We are like a dog in this arrangement. We are told to bark when we must bark; we are told to obey orders and the Government has agreed that Qantas will not fly its aircraft in certain countries.

What are the countries involved? Under the 1962 Foreign Assistance Act - there is no foreign assistance for Australia but a lot of the countries were receiving assistance - the Americans define the following countries as Communist: Albania, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, North Korea, North Vietnam, Outer Mongolia, the Polish Peoples Republic, Rumania, Tibet, Yugoslavia, Cuba and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Australia cannot fly to any of those countries which come under this definition. We have agreed to abide by it. This list can be expanded - the Americans always seem to have a little trouble in confining their international difficultiesbecame every year that Act has been amended and every year an additional country has been added to the list. Cuba was added, as was the United Arab Republic. It then included any country trading with North Vietnam and a later amendment included any country that might be considered to be acting in a fashion that the President of the United States deemed to be Communist. One does not have to define that. Under the definition of this Act in the final analysis it included any country which is acting in a fashion that might be causing damage to any property or people of the United States.

Australia has accepted the principle that it will not fly these aircraft in any of those countries. Do the Americans put the same embargo on every other country which flies American aircraft? I submit that they do not. I understand that the Assistant Minister is to follow me in the debate and I should like to have his reply as to whether this condition is imposed, because my research shows that a number of other airlines throughout the world use United States aircraft. These airlines are Air Canada, which flies from Montreal to Moscow and uses Douglas DC8s; Air France, which flies from Paris to Prague, Budapest, Warsaw, Belgrade, Bucharest and Moscow, using Boeing 727s; Air India which lies from Bombay to London with alternative routes through Prague or Moscow, using Boeing 707s; Alitalia, which flies from Rome to Moscow, using DC8s; El Al, which flies from Tel Aviv to Bucharest, using 707s; Finnair which flies from Helsinki to Leningrad and Moscow, using Convair 440s; Lufthansa, which flies from Munich to Zagreb, Budapest, Belgrade and Bucharest, using 727s; Pakistan International Airlines which flies from Dacca to Canton and Shanghai, using Boeing 720s and 707s; Pan Am, which flies from New York to Moscow via Scandinavia and New York to Belgrade via Prague using 707s; the Scandinavian line, SAS, which flies from Stockholm to Djakarta over Soviet Central Asia calling at Moscow and Tashkent, using DC8s.

How is it that any responsible government could enter into an agreement which stipulates that it will not use these aircraft in any of these countries? The Americans have sold aircraft to these other airline operators who are using them in those countries. Why is it that this Government has never been able to stand on its own feet for Australia and say: ‘We are buying these aircraft; they are of benefit to you and they are of benefit to us. There will be no restrictions and no embargo’? Why is it that the Government has been so ridiculous as to give a letter in relation to this covenant? It makes no difference in law. If we give an undertaking, we are bound by it and we will virtually not use these aircraft in nominated countries. Yet every other country that I have mentioned is flying its aircraft to those countries.

Is it any wonder that the pilots approach the Government and say: ‘Why is it that we have been sacked? What is wrong with the management of Qantas? Is there not too much government control?’ Could they be right? One of the questions they have asked is: ‘Why do you not give us autonomy so that we can operate the airline like other airlines are operated and not be so far behind the rest of the world?* Australia has missed the bus in the field of aircraft charter operations. The incredible situation relating to charter flights means that many people operating these flights often do not own one aircraft and yet have made substantial profits.

According to the pilots, we have been messed around for some time. They maintain that they were not able to get Qantas actively involved because there was the dead hand of government. I have a letter which was written by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) recently in which he deplores the difficulties which are being experienced by Qantas. The letter was written to me on behalf of a pilot constituent of mine who said: ‘I have been given a notice of retrenchment. What will happen to me?’ The answer given to him was: There is no future for you, my boy. You are a top grade aviator but there is no future for you here in Australia.’ Australia has established every major air route in the world with men like Kingsford-Smith and Ulm. We flew every ocean before anybody else; we had the ability and the initiative to do it. Yet we are running along like a mangy dog saying: ‘We will not fly in these countries because somebody will not let us’. Where is our national pride? What will the Government tell these young Australians who ask: ‘What is our future? Why are we being let down?’ What can the Government say? ‘You have the wrong Government’. That is the only thing to tell them. From that point of view let us look at this letter.

Mr Hurford:

– Who wrote the letter?

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

– The Prime Minister wrote it. He says he is very worried about the fact that throughout the world there is a great depression. He said:

The depressed state of the industry stems partly from a slow down in the growth of international traffic, due principally to worrying economic conditions in a number of countries, and partly because of steeply rising airline costs.

That is not necessarily the position because, as we know, air traffic is going to boom as a result of charter flights and this is where the real defect is. We are not in that race yet and we are getting into it too late. We have missed a lot of the opportunities that many have got. The Prime Minister goes on to say:

It is a matter of considerable regret to the Government and Qantas that the cost reduction programmes inevitably had to be extended to include some retrenchments in staff, including technical aircrew, and to the discontinuance of the Cadet Training Scheme.

Some retrenchments - 130-odd men already and another 60 to get the axe and there is no future plan. This is the point. Where are the future pilots coming from? What about the men who are there now? What do they think about it being a stabilised industry? It is one in which their own future could well be affected if the Government continues to look at the airline in the way it has. Perhaps in the next 12 months there will be further notices given. In the letter the Prime Minister says:

You refer to Qantas not getting its share of the traffic market. While it is true that in recent years Qantas’ share of the market has declined slightly, it must be realised that the Australian airline is now facing increased competition from foreign airlines which have introduced services to Australia’ over the past year or so . . .

They have been able to do this and apparently have been getting a much better deal than we give ourselves. Many of them which come here are also flying American aircraft to so-called Communist countries and are pretty versatile and viable because they are able to spread their service throughout the world. We are not able to do this and the Prime Minister admits that one of the problems is the increased services from foreign airlines. In his letter he says that he is hopeful now that the new charter arrangements will give the company a viability which will make a significant contribution and perhaps increase revenue. Is it not a little late when we are now debating this matter in a climate in which men are already being dismissed and further retrenchments are in the offing? As an Opposition we want to raise the greatest possible protest. Perhaps the proper thing would be to reorganise the board of Qantas and give it autonomy. Maybe Sir Roland Wilson is a brilliant man but he has so many things to do and is involved in so many companies that one wonders whether he can devote maximum attention to this company.

Why not put some of the pilots on the board, even in an advisory or consultative capacity, because they are well aware of the competition from all the other airlines and the charter flights? They would be very anxious to sustain this industry and could well give valuable advice. They might not have it in the position in which we have it now. The Prime Minister rejects the suggestion that the board should be re-organised. He says quite forcibly that from his point of view the Qantas board has almost unfettered authority. Nevertheless, it is to remain under the direction of the Minister for Civil Aviation and no change in this policy is contemplated. That means that the dead hand remains because while it is run by Government officials who have no personal responsibility for any issue and have no personal interest in the airline we will get this delay, this retarded reaction to any crisis with the result that a company which has made substantial profits and given substantial contributions to the airline industry in Australia is now faced with a deficit, retrenchments and all the problems that lead to a major disaster.

What we need now is a select committee, as envisaged in the amendment, because it would not take long for a select committee to get evidence to support what the Opposition is saying now. Those pilots who can give evidence would be able to put submissions before the committee setting out how we can make it a much more viable airline which would guarantee their future and the future of many other Australians who want to become interested in aviation. It is important to realise, as was said by the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), that we are spending millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on airports and are providing facilities for every other airline except our own. Other international airlines are coming in at an increasing rate. I know this because at occurs within my electorate. They are disgorging passengers by the hundreds. Research and statistics show that this will increase tenfold within the next decade. But what are we planning? Most of the increase will, of course, come through the charter buniness, not necessarily through the old method of having a particular airline to carry passengers. It puts us in the position as a national Parliament of having to look at the millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money we are now spending in order to get the best possible return. In the past we have had the worst possible returns. We have had a government which is not actively interested in the problems of aviation and in the problems of competition. The fact that it has signed agreements in the past which have restricted the airline is to be deplored. So let us for once carry an amendment which has been moved so that we might have some opportunity to look impartially at the factors involved. I should like the Assistant Minister to tell me why it is that we undertook to comply with section 620(f) of the Foreign Assistance Act when all these other services in other countries are not operating under such a hindrance.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby · LP

– I was interested to listen to the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). I did not really expect that in the first contribution I would make in this House since returning from overseas I would have to speak about Communists and Communist countries but apparently he chose to bring it up. The honourable gentleman is quite incorrect in his references to the agreement and the letter from which he quoted. I have a copy of the letter with me and the relevant clause reads:

It is not the present intention of Qantas that any of the equipment is either principally for use in … or principally for use by any other nation engaged in armed conflict with the armed forces of the United States.

There is no preclusion whatever of the use of Boeing aircraft in or out of a Communist country. I think the honourable gentleman mentioned the United Arab Republic and it is on public record that Qantas now goes into Cairo with Boeing aircraft. In fact, I had a rather unpleasant experience over Moscow airport when the wheels of the Soviet aircraft in which I was flying would not come down. My wife said to me: ‘That will make good headlines back in Australia - “Reds get McLeay”’. Really what the honourable gentleman is saying is inaccurate for we are not precluded from doing these things. In point of fact we travelled in Japanese piloted but Russian owned aircraft from Moscow to Tokyo and I believe that at some point of time within the next 12 months the Japanese will be flying their own aircraft from Moscow to Tokyo and return and these will be Boeing aircraft.

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

– That is what I am saying - the Japanese can do it.

Mr McLEAY:

– Anybody can do it. We can do it. This is the point I wish to make but I have not too much time. Reference was made to pilots and flying experience in the company. Captain Ritchie, the General Manager of Qantas, to my knowledge flew aircraft before the war, during the war and after the war and must have logged thousands of hours. I thought the speech of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) was a very good contribution to the debate. It was his second speech today and in my view they were both first class speeches and showed a good understanding of the issues. I congratulate him on what he had to say. He dealt with many of the points with which I will not have time to deal. The speech of the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who has in his electorate the Mount Isa area, was something of an interesting Fitzpatrick travelogue. I enjoyed it as did other honourable members but I would point out to him that his impressions were not necessarily universal. He complained about the quality of overseas employees of Qantas. I have not had the experience that he has had, nor has the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford), but it is not impossible that one would have that sort of experience because Qantas employs indigenous people in other countries and there is no way in the world that one can make a Japanese or Chinese look and sound like an Australian. That is the simple answer to that complaint of the honourable member.

He also referred at length to hotel bookings. This is a problem we all have when we travel overseas. I had the same experience. I would point out to him that bookings are made on an agency basis. Hotel bookings in Britain are made by BOAC, but not one of the bookings that I made was confirmed when I got there. We cannot blame Qantas for this.

Mr Dobie:

– This also happens in the United States.

Mr McLEAY:

– The same thing happens with the agency system in the United States. The honourable member referred to the profitability of Qantas, and I think that I should put the record straight in this regard. He said that Qantas’ profitability is guaranteed by the Government, and he referred to the protection which Qantas receives. I think I should remind the honourable member and the House that Qantas receives protection only from other Australian companies. Qantas has to compete in international aviation with approximately 20 other very tough operators. So there is really no comparison to be made there.

I must confess that I had some trouble in following the remarks of my very good friend the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford). As I recollect, he sought from me some information about interest rates. Of course, the point is that the average interest rate applying to these loans is slightly in excess of 7 per cent. I am sure that the honourable member will know from experience in his profession, as I do from my business experience, that one cannot raise money in Australia at an interest rate of 7 per cent. I was rather surprised that he went on to say that it was a very favourable rate, which rather nullified his criticism in that regard. He said that he was mystified and had an uneasy feeling. He said that he did not understand the clauses covering interest rates, but in the same breath he said that it was a very favourable rate.

Mr Hurford:

– 1 was not criticising the interest rates.

Mr McLEAY:

– As 1 said, 1 had some difficulty in following what the honourable gentleman had to say. I think that the contribution made by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) was meaty, and I would like to have the time to deal with all of the points that he made. He commenced by expressing extreme dissatisfaction with Qantas, and I think he will agree that he spent most of his speech in dealing with historical matters, in dealing with the past. In the first part of his speech, at any rate, he dealt with the Australian aircraft manufacturing industry.

Mr Charles Jones:

– There are 2 points to the amendment.

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes, but we are talking about Qantas, and I am saying that the honourable gentleman spent most of his time talking about the manufacturing industry and referring to retrenchments in that industry as well as in Qantas and layoffs generally. Once again I would say that this position is by no means confined to Qantas; it is universal. I had an opportunity to visit the BAC factory in the south of England and also the Fokker factory in Amsterdam. As I recollect, there was only one completed aircraft at the BAC factory, and I think there were 3 or 4 completed aircraft at the Fokker factory. The lay-offs at those 2 manufacturing plants have been absolutely immense in number. This point should be considered in relation to what the honourable member for Newcastle had to say. He also said that there were no co-production arrangements, as I think he described them. I would take issue with him on that point because it is simply not correct. He will remember that the Australian defence industries mission and an interdepartmental committee visited the United States in 1970. Without going into too much detail, I can tell the honourable member, if he does not already know, that Boeing has established a flow of offset work into Australia, the value of which is currently approximately $3.8m, and it is proposing substantial additional orders. The Bell Helicopter Company and Hawker Siddeley Aviation have also agreed to place some offset work in Australia. But the problem is that many of these proposals have been rejected because there are unacceptable financial penalties involved; the proposals are just not profitable.

I also recognised the good old socialist dogma coming out when the honourable member for Newcastle said: ‘We will force the Australian airline industry to come to terms with the manufacturing industry’. I think this is where there is a very big point of difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Opposition will force people to do things. The honourable gentleman, as did other honourable members, made a point about the London South East Asia arrangements which have been made by BOAC. I think it is unfair criticism to say that we should have got into that business years ago. It is a tough business, and negotiating with these people is very tough work, as the honourable member for Newcastle certainly will know. In this regard I would refer honourable members to last year’s annual report by Qantas, which was mentioned by the honourable member for Adelaide. It indicates that the company has been well aware of this problem and that it has been trying to crack that route for some time. I will briefly read into Hansard the relevant paragraph in the report dealing with this question. It states:

Of increasing concern is the competition being experienced west of Singapore and Hong Kong from non-scheduled charter operators. These operations have greatly affected our Kangaroo route revenue. It is expected that the introduction of ‘Group 40’ fares from 1 April 1971 will help to win back some of this traffic. There is, however, a definite need for a low-priced individual excursion fare for travel between Australia and the United Kingdom and Continental Europe, ft is proposed to press for a new class of fare of this type, for travellers who meet certain requirements, when the IATA traffic conferences meet in September this year to negotiate fares to be applied from 1 April 1972.

I mention that to indicate that the company is well aware of the problem, and I am quite sure that the Government and its negotiators are well aware of it and have been doing everything possible to overcome it. The question of retrenchment has been fairly heavily canvassed. One of the problems in this regard is the way this matter has been reported in various places. Reports have referred to the retrenchment of 138 pilots. There are 138 people involved, but they are not all pilots. There are 96 pilots and 42 cadets. It is true that the services of the 42 cadets have been terminated, but these cadets have completed their training. They have a licence which indicates that they have reached the minimum commercial flying standards. I point out that 31 of these cadets have been offered positions with Qantas in the air control section. I forget whether the honourable member for Newcastle went through the list of pilots who have been retrenched, but I point out that 5 of them have gone to the Department of Civil Aviation, 10 to the Services, 5 to other airline companies and 10 have volunteered to become stewards in order to stay with the company. Two are in the cargo section and another 35 have gone into the general aviation field and are receiving various rates of pay, 3 are undergoing national service and we are not sure what has happened to the other 13; they have not been in touch with anybody. Nobody is more concerned about this matter than Government members. Only today there came to my attention the case of a war widow in my electorate whose son is one of the cadets who have been retrenched. There will be rather a helpless feeling until such time as we can have this cadet placed elsewhere.

On this question of Qantas losses and retrenchments, I think it should be made known that it is Qantas’ problem, not ours, but the problem is confronting other international airlines. I have 3 examples of this. Pan American World Airways flies a greater number of aircraft than are flown by all the European countries combined. Last year it incurred a loss of $46m and made 5,000 retrenchments. Trans World Airlines Pty Ltd had a loss of $64m and made 3,000 retrenchments. American Airlines Inc. incurred a loss of $26m and made 1,000 retrenchments. We are not sure yet whether Qantas has reached the loss level but I think that the company is acting responsibly.

I think it is very important for responsible members of this Parliament to realise that in attacking or appearing to be attacking the Government over the operations of Qantas they are in fact attacking the nation’s flag carrier because the 2 are synonymous. The Australian public does not make any distinction between the two. In answer to the question as to who should run Qantas I say that Qantas should be left alone to run Qantas. It has operated profitably since 1935 with the exception of one year. I do not think anybody has mentioned in the debate that the purchase of Qantas was made by Mr Chifley as the head of a Labor government which was in office. Let us not knock the principle of Qantas. Its shares are wholly owned by the Commonwealth, but Qantas operates as a separate entity. J think it should be left alone to operate under its existing management. The Government takes a part in its affairs only when it comes to such matters as negotiating loans, arranging agreements, making charter arrangements and so on.

It is rather difficult to understand the Opposition’s attitude in criticising Qantas because it is not making a profit or it may not make a profit. I wonder what has happened to the old Socialist philosophy of the Opposition. I thought ‘profit’ was a dirty word to the Opposition. Perhaps it is worth quoting a couple of figures in this regard. In 1935 the paid up capital of Qantas was less than a quarter of a million dollars. It is now almost $40m. The operating profit in 1935 was $22,000; last year it was $13m. The net profit in 1935 was $17,000; last year it was $8m. Who can say that a company which operates on such a basis is not soundly managed and run? It is ridiculous to suggest that. Just to draw a comparison, although comparisons are odious, I would point out that last year the British Overseas Airways Corporation made a net profit of only a few hundred thousand dollars more than Qantas.

I would have liked to take up the question of defence which was raised by the honourable member for North Sydney, but time does not permit me to do so in detail. However, I would point out that Qantas has at its own expense purchased 21 Boeing 707 aircraft which can be converted in 2 hours to defence capability aircraft, that is, aircraft capable of carrying tanks, guns and men. The Qantas workshops and hangars are the most modern in the southern hemisphere and perhaps more modern than any in Europe. With the possible exception of the United States, they are the most modern in the world. I am quite sure that when the Fill aircraft finally comes to Australia a lot of the technological abilities of the Qantas staff will be useful for servicing parts of that aircraft.

Getting back to the financial situation, I point out that the assets of Qantas when the Government took the company over totalled $5m. Today the assets are $245m. Surely no-one will say that the people operating this company are not doing it properly and well. The question of fares is relevant to a discussion of this Bill. In 1950 the Qantas economy fare between Sydney and London was $585. This year it will be $652 after the increase. The fare in 1950 represented 34 weeks of the average male rate of salary. Today a person can go to London for 9 weeks of the average male salary.

Mr King:

– That is a big reduction.

Mr McLEAY:

– In the teeth of all the increases, yes. Qantas has paid $23m in taxes to the Commonwealth since its inception. The dividend to the Commonwealth - because it is wholly owned by the Commonwealth - is somewhere around $30m.

Mr Hurford:

– We socialists are very proud of it.

Mr McLEAY:

– Yes but honourable members opposite are doing their very best to destroy confidence in Qantas at a time when it needs confidence and public support more than anything. Qantas has operated without any subsidy over these years. It has been a tremendous earner of foreign exchange. Last year it earned $140m. If one were to take a statistical summary one would find that Qantas is ninth in the list of industries earning overseas income for Australia. There are many other points which could be made. For example, Qantas spends over $8m in overseas countries advertising Australia. It advertises itself, too, but it advertises Australia as well. It is the nation’s flag carrier. Obviously if it did not spend that money someone else would have to spend it. 1 imagine that that would be the Australian Tourist Commission. In my view Qantas has a tremendous story to tell.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! The Assistant Minister’s time has expired.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I rise to support the amendment, which sets out 2 ways in which the problems facing the airline industry in Australia should be approached by the Government, namely, by the making of firm arrangements for substantial co-production procedures for imported aircraft and the setting up of a select committee to inquire into and report upon the effectiveness of the management of Qantas Airways Ltd. I was interested m the statement by the Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr McLeay) that not all of the people who are being retrenched from Qantas are pilots. He said that in fact 96 of the persons who are being retrenched are pilots and the bulk of the rest are cadets who have certificates. I think that is a pretty fine distinction to make.

I was somewhat surprised to hear the Assistant Minister speak so eloquently in defence of a socialist industry. That is something which I do not think many honourable members on this side of the House would have expected to hear. I congratulate him for his defence of an example which could be well followed by the Government. Unfortunately other successful industries which were government owned when this .Government came into office have been dissipated over the years.

Mr McLeay:

– It is not a socialist industry; it operates under severe competition.

Mr SCHOLES:

– It is a socialist industry in any terms in which one would like to describe such an industry. It is wholly government owned and operated.

Dr Patterson:

– The Assistant Minister does not even know the theory of socialism.

Mr SCHOLES:

– As a matter of fact, according to the public relations people of one major firm in the United States of America, Australia is not one of the 4 countries in the world which that firm considers to be non-Communist or not under Communist control. I think we should consider, and consider very seriously, the first part of the amendment, which relates to arrangements being made for coproduction procedures for imported aircraft. Australia has been and still is one of the best customers of the United States for both civilian and military aircraft, yet of all the United States aircraft which have been brought into this country in recent years only the Sabre has been manufactured in Australia. Aircraft from other countries - the Mirage is a notable example - have been manufactured in Australia and I think the capacity of the Australian aircraft industry is beyond doubt. When it was put to the test it was able to manufacture aircraft equal to and at rates comparable with any country in the world. The Government has seemed to wish to discourage any entry by government aircraft factories into the field of aircraft manufacture, particularly civil aircraft. It is fairly well known that when it was mooted that Fokker Friendship aircraft would be put on Australian routes the Department of Civil Aviation or some sections of the Department wanted production lines set up so that assemblies could take place in Australia. It is also reasonably well known that this proposition was vetoed at government level.

The number of Fokker Friendship aircraft which came into Australia and the number of aircraft which at that stage the Department of Civil Aviation or certain sections of it were aware would come into Australia made the setting up of production lines a viable proposition, but this was rejected by the Government at that time. So the opportunity for the Australian aircraft industry to participate in the civil aircraft market providing for Australia’s own needs was lost. Similarly, offset orders have been minimal in most of the aircraft produced in Australia. We have spent very substantial sums of money in the purchasing of American aircraft, some of which we have paid for but we have yet to receive. If the figures stated by the Assistant Minister are right, we have received offset orders to the value of $3. 8m. It does not sound much when one thinks of at: least one order which is costing us $300m and when one considers that in the last 10 years we have most likely spent at least another S200m on American aircraft.

Mr Charles Jones:

– We have spent $560m in the last 10 years.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I was not far out. We are borrowing money and paying interest on it in order to provide United States industries with the wherewithal to keep going. At least one of the aircraft for which a lot of money was paid - for more than it is worth - was ordered from a firm because of the political connotations of placing an order in that particular State at that lime. But Australian industry does not seem to rate the same consideration by the Australian Government. No real efforts to evolve our own aircraft industry and to maintain it at satisfactory levels have taken place. So we are now in a situation in which there is extreme unrest among employees in Australia’s aircraft industries, including those employed at the Government Aircraft Factories, one of those other socialist industries in this country.

The employees do not know what their future is. I accept the fact that the Minister cannot tell them because he does not know either. Yet again we have before this House propositions to borrow money outside Australia on what appear to be restricted terms, although it is interesting to note that the interest rates stated are lower than the interest rates available to Australian industry. We are faced with this proposition without any effort being made by the Government to obtain realistic offset orders. I think that this is the real crux of the matter. The Government does not appear to give any serious consideration to the need to develop and maintain our own industries. The Government Aircraft Factories have developed an aircraft which as yet is unnamed and which, I am led to believe, is the best of its type in respect of price and performance. Yet the manufacturers have no advance orders from military or government sources so that they can set up a production line and become competitive.

A similar situation does not exist in the United States or in other manufacturing countries because they are concerned to support their native and basic industries and the skills in their countries. We hear from the Government side hours of highminded debate on Australia’s need to be prepared to defend itself. Yet in fields which would be absolutely vital to Australia’s future, such as our capacity to manufacture and to maintain our aircraft in the isolated situation in which we exist, we hear nothing. The Government shows little or no concern for a proposition of the type that I have mentioned. I believe that the amendment expresses a sentiment which the House should express and a sentiment that Australia should demand from those who are benefiting from our purchases, in exchange for the very substantial amounts that it spends on the purchase of aircraft, much greater levels of Australian participation in the construction and manufacture of the aircraft. It seems to me to be an unreal proposition that we should accept without question a situation which very few other countries would be prepared to accept.

I make one other point. In his closing remarks the previous speaker, the Assistant Minister, mentioned the profitability of Qantas and compared that airline with a number of other airlines. He mentioned Pan American World Airways as one of the airlines which was not doing very well. I think he could have gone on to say that one of the reasons why it is not doing very well is the political activities of the United States Government. That Government has chosen to take away Pan Am’s virtual monopoly of international air traffic, which it enjoyed. That Government has chosen to grant licences to people who are prepared to give the necessary financial support to the party in power at the particular time; so that unreal competition on international air routes has been created, to the detriment not only of Pan Am but also of Qantas. The licences have been granted not because of any necessity to develop the competition - there is plenty of international competition - but in order to satisfy the political requirements of the immediate situation. I think that should be plainly understood. Pan Am’s problems in the airline industry are as much inflicted by the political activities of the President of the United States as they are by the limited volume of international air traffic. I think some of the problems facing Qantas stem from exactly the same source - political activities for political purposes of persons in high office.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Political remunerations, too.

Mr SCHOLES:

– -Donations to campaign funds in the United States are quite often more important than realistic policy. I believe that the House should support the amendment. I believe that there is a need for the Parliament, which is basically responsible as the custodian of the people’s money and assets - Qantas is one of the people’s assets - to inquire into and ascertain why such errors in judgment have been made in the planning and operations of this airline that it has to dismiss about 130 pilots from its staff. It seems to me that somewhere along the line there has been a serious lack of planning. I find it difficult to accept the proposition of the Assistant Minister that the terms of the American Foreign Assistance Act do not apply to this loan. The second reading speech of the Minister states that the loan will be subject to a satisfactory undertaking on behalf of the Government or the airline not to utilise the aircraft in contravention of that Act. Either the loan is granted on the basis that the Agreement is upheld or the clause should not be in the Agreement at all. If, as the Assistant Minister said, the clause is non-operative because of the terms of the letter which has been provided then why is the clause required at all? It seems ridiculous to put a non-operative clause in a Bill. If the clause is operative then the letter which has been read is not worth the paper it is printed on. If (he clause is operative then we’ are placing the airline in the. situation where it cannot fully utilise its aircraft or it must utilise them in defiance of an agreement which it has made.

I suggest that in summing up the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation should explain to the House whether or not the terms under which the loan has been negotiated require Australia to comply with the terms of the United States Foreign Assistance Act or whether that clause is merely so much window dressing in order to satisfy someone’s political requirements and that it means nothing. If the Jailer is the case, then the Minister should inform the House of the reason why that clause should not be deleted from the Bill.

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

– In closing this debate I do so on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), but because amendments generally concern civil aviation I feel that I should make some brief reference to them. I will certainly keep my remarks fairly brief on this occasion. I must say it is a little like old times being with my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle (MrCharles Jones) again dealing with aviation matters. I fully acknowledge that in his capacity as the shadow Minister in this field he has every opportunity, and certainly takes advantage of it, to deal with matters of this nature. He has, of course, a perfect right to move amendments of the type we are discussing. But the Government does not accept the amendment which has been proposed. I think that generally the matters that have been referred to have been clearly answered by the previous speakers on the Government side, more particularly by the Assistant Minister (Mr McLeay), who assists the Minister for Civil Aviation and who is now in the House. He covered in some detail a number of matters that have been raised and indicated quite clearly, I think, the reason why the amendment could not be accepted.

I will refer very briefly to one or two of them just to supplement some of the points he made. First of all I would like lo refute any misunderstanding that may have emerged from the debate as to the status and standing of the Department of Civil Aviation and also the management of Qantas Airways Ltd. Having had some experience for a number of years in close association with the Department of Civil Aviation, the present Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), the Assistant Minister, the Director-General, the senior staff, indeed the whole of the staff throughout Australia and in other parts of the world, I can say that they have established a reputation for aviation of which Australia should be duly proud. I am sure this is acknowledged by the Opposition. The same thing could be said, I think, for the Qantas organisation. Some criticism of the Qantas management has been made in the amendment moved by the Opposition. That is criticism of the organisation as a whole. I pay a tribute not only to the Qantas board of management but to the whole of the organisation because of the high standing it has achieved and its high world standard which is recognised. Whilst problems of a commercial and industrial nature may arise from time to time within any organisation, I think it has been acknowledged that the standard of operation, services and reliability of Qantas is without betterment by any other international airline operator in the world today. So the Loans (Qantas Airways Ltd) Bill (No. 2), which is related to providing additional loans to extend the equipment of our international airline operator, should be given an accelerated passage through the House.

Certainly, associated with this is the slowing down of the ordering of some of the additional Boeing 747 equipment. I have had the opportunity of travelling on the new Qantas Boeing 747B aircraft. Having had the opportunity to compare travel on this aircraft with that on other Boeing 747 aircraft operating in the world today, I would say that the Qantas aircraft are outstanding not only in the service that is provided but also in the standard of the equipment that is provided. So I would like to start on this premise: We have an airline of which we are proud. We have an organisation which is carrying out, and from the results that have been achieved over the years has carried out, its task in a successful way. It has been pointed out during this debate that there are some problems facing Qantas at the present time. This has been indicated clearly by the figures which have been cited. There is a lower rate of profitability in the airline industry at the present time than there has been in some previous years.

The situation is that other major airlines in the world are suffering the problem to a far greater extent than is Qantas. I think it has been quoted already, for example, that Pan American World Airways has reported losses to the extent of $US46m, Trans World Airlines Pty Ltd $US64m and American Airlines Inc. $US26m. These are actual losses, not profits. They were sustained during the past year. There has been a marked downward trend in traffic growth so far in 1971. This has resulted in both the cancellation of services and the deferment of aircraft orders by these world operators. In the first 7 months of this year, Pan Am has reported a loss of $US23m, Trans World Airlines $US17m and American Airlines $US13m. Whilst we have been talking about a slight decline in profit recorded by Qantas and perhaps being critical of it for this, we must compare its performance with the downturn in air traffic growth and the consequent enormous losses by some of its major competitors in the world today. So I can only say that the Qantas operation, showing a profit as it is in these circumstances, must be one of efficiency. It is also a tribute to the whole staff of Qantas from the management and flying staff to the ground and office staffs.

Reference has been made during this debate to charter services. There is no suggestion that Qantas has not been willing to participate wholeheartedly in the charter field. It has, in fact, been very active this year in this field and has performed over 650 charter flights, carrying nearly 100,000 passengers on those flights. As honourable members will be aware, the Minister for Civil Aviation and Qantas have announced that the charter operation will be extended and that a nonInternational Air Transport Association subsidiary company will be able to operate a special low fare charter service between Australia and Europe outside of the IATA framework. This indicates very clearly the intention of Qantas to proceed further in this particular field. It is very interesting to know that Qantas is still getting and is maintaining a substantial share of the traffic market. At the same time it is interesting to know that this share, whilst perhaps it is a smaller share than it was in the previous year, is increasing in volume. There is a greater volume of traffic for Qantas and this trend can be expected to continue in the future. But whilst there have been some perhaps pessimistic forecasts in relation to Qantas’ profitability in the future I am completely confident, knowing the efficiency of its operations in the past, that it can overcome the difficulties associated with the present situation and that Qantas will continue in a situation of profit in the future which will be in marked contrast to many of its major competitors throughout the world.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Will Qantas lay off 60 more pilots?

Mr SWARTZ:

– -I was just going to refer to that situation because it is referred to in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Newcastle, supported by the Opposition, but, as I, have already said, rejected by the Government. The position at the moment was explained in detail by the Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr McLeay) and I will just refer to this by quoting one or two figures. Of the retrenchments, which include 42 cadets, 67 of the 96 pilots under retrenchment have found alternative employment. The position of 16 pilots at the present time is not known. Only 13 of the 96 were or are currently working as second officers. Of the 42 cadets 27 were offered employment with the Department of Civil Avia tion as air traffic controllers but none has yet accepted. I merely indicate the present situation to show not only that Qantas is aware of the situation and trying to assist these people but also that the Department of Civil Aviation is doing its best in this field to assist in a situation where some personnel in the Qantas flying staff have had to be retrenched.

As is indicated by these figures the offer made by Department of Civil Aviation is apparently still under consideration and has not yet been taken up by a number of cadets who have had the opportunity to take this alternative employment. I can assure the House that the Government is fully aware of this problem and whilst it is a problem affecting our own international airline it is not on the same scale as that affecting the major competitors, particularly those in the United States. We are perhaps more fortunate because we are still maintaining a substantial share of the traffic here. We are still maintaining a basis of profitability and whilst there have been some retrenchments alternative offers of employment have been made for quite a number of the personnel concerned and everything possible will be done through the Department of Civil Aviation and Qantas to assist the others in these fields.

The last point I want to refer to as far as the amendment is concerned relates to the offsetting arrangements. This criticism was replied to by the Minister assisting the Minister . for Civil Aviation when he indicated quite clearly - and I refer to this because the Offsetting arrangements were initiated at a time when I was the Minister for Civil Aviation - that these arrangements were made in conjunction with the Department of Defence and, as has been indicated, the Australian defence industries mission which visited the United States has had some substantial success in this field. Although the figure of $3. 8m has been quoted as direct evidence of offset orders which have been received there are other opportunities available and everything possible is being done in this field to ensure that advantage will be taken of offset business in the aviation industry I am sure that as a result of the activities that have been initiated, in future we will see far more done in this field In view of the time factor I will merely conclude on that note, again saying that the amendments proposed by the Opposition are not acceptable to the Government for the reasons that have been set out by speakers from the Government side and by paying a further tribute not only to the Department of Civil Aviation but also to Australia’s international carrier, Qantas, for the high standard of efficiency which they have maintained in the past and which we know they will maintain in the future.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Charles Jones’ amendment) stand part of the question.

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 48

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

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

Sitting suspended from 11.35 p.m. to 12.5 a.m. (Thursday).

Thursday, 4 November 1971

page 2967

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 2nd November (vide page 2876).

Second Schedule.

Department of the Interior

Proposed expenditure, $118,648,000.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I think nothing is more stupid in parliamentary procedure than to debate at this hour of the night the expenditure of large sums of money. Any government that insists on debates of this kind at this hour of the night deserves to be condemned by the Australian people. It is a fantasy and it is farcical. 1 can see no reason why, with roughly a couple of months of the year to go, we should debate at this hour of the night expenditure on the national capital which is of most vital importance to the Australian people. Tonight I register my protest at having to debate in this Parliament at a time when most members are not in a state to absorb the. wisdom that I will give forth matters relating to the national capital.

Why should the Government not debate these matters in the ordinary hours of the day? What reason is there for us to sit at this hour of the night to debate these estimates? What is wrong with sitting and debating these matters in hours when people can understand and know what they are ail about. What is the rush to push through the estimates for expenditure on the Australian Capital Territory? Has the Government something to bc afraid of? Does it fear a repetition of the kinds of errors that are affecting the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in the field of international affairs in relation to Cambodia and other places? Why should we make jokes of Parliament, ourselves and the people by being here at this hour of the night to debate these estimates? I do not intend to spend a lot of time on them tonight because, speaking quite honestly and frankly, I do not think very many honourable members listening to me are very interested. I am certain that no members of the public are interested and I am very certain that whatever I say will not be reported throughout the length and breadth of this country.

Therefore tonight let me express my condemnation of what again exemplifies the cussedness of the Government and its contempt for the public generally and particularly for the people of Canberra when it brings on for debate after midnight matters affecting the national capital of Australia, a great capital and one of vital interest at least to the 140,000 or so people who live here. I ask at this stage also whether the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) is still in the precincts of the Parliament. I do not notice him around. This matter is important. I have to stay up and honourable members on this side of the Parliament still have to be here. I hope that the Minister will come from his reverie, wherever he may be, and participate in this debate because I have a few things to say to him in respect of matters of interest to us.

I want to speak on a matter that now seems to have become my sole domain on this side of the Parliament and that is the question of electoral matters. On 1st April 1971 I introduced into this Parliament a measure dealing with electoral reform. On that date I introduced the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1971 (No. 2), and stated, amongst other things, that we would introduce first past the post voting and a number of other major electoral reforms. The Government has not seen fit since that date to bring that Bill before this Parliament for discussion. I will tell the Parliament why. The Government - particularly the Country Party - is in great trouble in respect of electoral reform. For instance, in Queensland there is the question of whether the Country Party is gerrymandering the electorate in that State so it will be returned irrespective of the will of the electorate.

I would like the Minister, who has now come into the chamber, to know why the Government has not brought forward order of the day No. 7 under General Business on the notice paper, which I introduced on 1st April. It is a most important Bill and one that should be discussed.

Looking further down the list of orders of the day under Government Business I direct attention to items- 29, 30 and 31 which deal respectively with the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1971, the Senate Elections Bill 1971 and the Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Bill 1971. The debate on each of these Bills has been adjourned. They have not been brought forward for debate. The Government has given no indication as to when they may be brought before the Parliament for debate. Incorporated in these measures are a number of what the Minister for the Interior said were vital reforms in the field of electoral matters.

We on this side of the Parliament are particularly interested in the remarks of the former Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), who said when he was Prime Minister that 18-year-olds would have the right to vote at the next Federal election. We wonder whether this proposal is to be put aside because of the dissension which is evident in the ranks of the Government with respect to electoral reform generally. I would like the Minister for the Interior to say why wc have not debated these matters. When all is said and done, an election for the House of Representatives will be held some time next year. In some Australian States 18-year-olds are entitled to vote now. The amazing situation exists that people in electorates in some States who have the right to vote in State elections are denied that right with respect to Commonwealth elections.

That may not be the only question involved. Possibly the Government desires to postpone the consideration of these measures until the complications in Queensland are sorted out. I realise that the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland desires to have electoral reform. It cannot win unless there is a gerrymander. So, why should it not bc interested in electoral reform? I can understand my friend at the table, who is a member of the Country Party, being a little sympathetic to the Queensland Government. There is no reason to postpone the consideration cf great issues in the national Parliament. There is no reason why we should not debate the issues here. I can say quite honestly that my speech has been prepared for some months. Unless the Minister brings these matters forward for debate, that speech may well be stillborn. It is a really good speech; I can tell you that. I know that: I prepared it. I ask the Minister why he does not bring on for debate orders of the day 29, 30 and 31. Why not proceed to debate the measure that 1 introduced on 1st April 1970? Let us proceed to discuss the question of electoral reform in this country because all of the matters related to it are vital to the Australian people. I mention this matter quickly as my time is limited. I have not much time to deal with the full ramifications of these matters.

To summarise this aspect of the matter I point out that the Australian Labor Party looks at the question of electoral reform as a matter of great urgency. We desire to have these matters discussed because how a government is elected is vital to the Australian people, lt is important that our electoral system should be the best that it is possible to achieve. This is the aim of the legislation that we have brought forward. Probably the Minister wishes to continue to postpone debate on these matters because the Country Party wishes to gain some electoral advantage in Queensland or in other States. This is something that I do not think should stand in the way of the discussion of these matters in the Parliament.

Having said so much on that subject, let me say something more or less in sympathy with the Minister. I do not like to get offside with a Minister any more than any other member does. Earlier in the year some statements were made in this Parliament in regard to the Minister’s seeking to obtain a house in the Australian Capital Territory. I am one who believes that something in the nature of a lodge should bc provided for the Minister for the Interior in the Australian Capital Territory. When all is said and done, the Minister for the Interior has not only his responsibilities as Minister but also the responsibilities of a lord mayor in this city. Any government worth ils salt should build for its Minister for the Interior a house, not lavish or extravagant in any way but suitable for a person who has to carry out the responsibilities entailed in administering the Interior portfolio. I am one who believes that this should be done. I urge the Minister to see that it is done.

Earlier in the year the Minister was to purchase a home here. Some people took exception to this proposal because of certain matters associated with it. Let me say quite sincerely without any reflection on anybody that it was unfortunate that they picked on the Minister for the Interior because other Ministers had done similar things and escaped any criticism whatsoever. In view of the prevailing circumstances those Ministers were entitled to do what they did as was the present Minister. I personally cast no reflection on him for having taken advantage of something that was available to other Ministers. Certain consideration has been given wilh respect to houses even to members on this side of the Parliament. This happened in relation to members holding high positions on this side of the Parliament. Nobody took exception to it.

I congratulate the Minister on what I consider to be his high standard of personal integrity in subsequently abandoning his intention to take possession of the cottage which was to be made available to him in the same way as similar accommodation had been made available to other members on that side of the Parliament occupying high positions and to some members on this side of the Parliament, in a similar way but not in relation to purchase. T urge him to make arrangements to provide suitable accommodation for the Minister for the Interior so that he may escape the criticism - ill advised, in many cases - which was offered in this instance. I hope that will be done. I think that this is important because the Minister for the Interior is, after all, the lord mayor, the Minister, and all that goes to represent Canberra and he should be able to have suitable accommodation which is in keeping with that position. I make that comment and regret that it is not possible at this late hour for me to discuss at much greater length matters of importance to the Australian Capital Territory which the Government does not think are worthy of discussion except at this hour of the night.

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– In discussing the Estimates for the Department of the Interior, I notice that this Department is to spend on State-type functions $9 1.087m, which is an increase of $10.2m over the previous year. Of course, this figure does not include division 925, subdivision 4, item 01 of the civil works programme on account of the Department of Education and Science for an amount of $6. 2m, nor does it include division 925, subdivision 4, item 02 on account of the Department of Health or various other items under the same grouping for a soils testing laboratory in Alice Springs, improvements to materials testing laboratories in Darwin and Katherine and stores in Katherine. However, T commend the Government for continuing to spend an increased amount of money on the development of the Northern Territory and with regard to this I mention division 925, subdivision 5, item 01 which more or less wraps up current expenditure totalling $17. 88m on the sealing of various roads which are now called developmental roads but which were at one time called beef roads. This work extends to Timber Creek, Auvergne and Newry to the Western Australian border over towards Kununurra where, of course, the Ord River dam is being constructed. With the completion of the road on the east of the main highway from Mataranka to Roper Bar, the entire $30m programme of beef roads will be completed at the end of 1972. I notice that the Government has decided to seal the road south from Alice Springs to Erldunda near the South Australian border, a distance of 120 miles. As both land and sea transport is so essential to the development of the Northern Territory, I again draw attention to the plans of the Government to upgrade the Stuart and Barclay highways over a period of 5 years. So, the Government is conscious of the great importance that these forms of transport play and is making a real and genuine effort to bring the transport systems up to date. In this regard, although, of course, it is not contained in these estimates, I mention the $23m which is to be spent on improving Darwin’s port facilities.

Another great achievement was the raising of the maximum tonnage per bogie axle of transport vehicles operating on Northern Territory roads. For some time it was set at 13 tons per bogie axle as recommended by the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The previous Minister for the Interior, and the Cabinet, saw the wisdom of increasing the permissible loads on these vehicles. This should tend to keep transport costs down in the Northern Territory. I commend the previous Minister for his sterling efforts in this regard. I also commend the present Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) because I think the job was completed when he took over this portfolio.

I notice that an amount of almost $3.2m has been allocated for the maintenance of Aborigines at Government settlements and that an increased amount of $4. 12m is set aside for assistance to missions. Although that represents an increase on the amount allocated last year it is not what the missions thought they would receive. Because of this some vital programmes have been halted. One is the very urgently needed hospital at Santa Teresa Mission only 45 miles south east of Alice Springs. This is a vital project because the hospital at the mission is about the oldest and smallest in the Territory. It is carried on only by the sheer faith and ability of the nuns and the staff there who are working under very primitive conditions. I urge the Government to consider carefully the advisability of taking over the medical side of the settlements in the Northern Territory, staffing them, stocking them, and putting them under the management of the Department of Health. This would mean that there would be one authority over the trained personnel on the settlements. I think it would tend to build up an esprit de corps among the nursing staff and doctors operating at missions and settlements throughout the Territory.

This would mean that they could be stationed at Haasts Bluff, at Bamyili or at Nhulunbuy, and they would get a very good look at the whole of. the Northern Territory and not feel that they were posted out to what some people might think is a God forsaken hole. Of course the people who live in those places do not think that at all. These officers could have a break by the sea up at Rainbow Beach or they could be at Yuendumu. I urge the Government to give careful consideration to this suggestion. Division 368.4.07 of the Estimates refers to the subsidy on the transport of stud stock to the Northern Territory. The subsidy has been cut back this year. A tremendous amount of improvement and developmental work is going on in the Top End of the Northern Territory. People are improving their herds and are spending a lot of money on property improvement. It is a detrimental step to chop back this subsidy because the cuttle numbers will be increasing and people will be requiring more and more first class stock. After all, the aim is to increase the quality of the stock on properties in the Top End.

Referring now to the Tourist Board, 1 see that the subsidy has been increased by $33,000. An evaluation has been made of the tourist potential of central Australia, particularly the Ayers Rock and Mount Olga areas. There are 2 publications on this subject and they are lengthy and comprehensive. I urge the Government to consider tourism in the Territory because the number of tourists, especially from overseas, will increase year by year. I think there were 73,000 tourists in the area in 1969-70 and that figure will rise this year. Concerning social reforms, I remind the Government of the planning committee originally established to bring about greater responsibility for the Northern Territory Legislative Council.

It was stated that there would be a meeting of officials of the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, the

Attorney-General’s Department, the Public Service Board, and the Treasury with an equal number of elected members of the Legislative Council. I believe that this will take place now that the Legislative Council has been re-elected. I might add that its Country Party membership has increased by one.

Dr Klugman:

– How did the Labor Party fare?

Mr CALDER:

– Despite your efforts the Labor Party did very badly. I mention finally the Northern Territory Reserves Board subsidy under division 368.4.30 for which $380,000 is allocated: This is a board which does a very good job in the Northern Territory. I urge the Government to look very hard at the northern area national park, which is- a fabulous area. There are some mining interests in the area.

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

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Government has been in office for 22 years now and there is still no public or publicised plan for the political advancement or development of the Northern Territory. We have seen in this period repeated conferences between members or delegates of the Legislative Council and the Government. There have been some advances but on the whole one can say that there have been only ad hoc, uncoordinated, stop-go political policies which are not in the best interests of the Northern Territory. In Papua New Guinea Australia has done a lot. It should do more. But in the field of political development we have done very little in the Northern Territory compared with what we have achieved in Papua New Guinea. What is needed, of course, is a progressive step by step plan; this is a pre-requisite to political development in the Northern Territory.

One of the basic objectives, and certainly one which is followed by the Australian Labor Party, should be to provide a fully elected Legislative Council. This would entail the gradual replacement of the official members of the Council. One can postulate what should be the number, but from experience possibly 15, 16 or 17 would be a fair number at present. This would mean the virtual full replacement of the official members but this would be advisable. The last 2 to go would be the Crown Law officer of the Northern Territory and an Assistant Administrator, who would have a broad knowledge of and links with the Northern Territory Administration.

This would gradually lead- to the appointment in the Northern Territory of Council Ministers. Some call them political secretaries or some other type of secretaries. There are 3 broad categories of administration for which they could administer and be responsible. Firstly, there are the branches which could be categorised as local branches, and these would include, for example, the police and prisons. Secondly, there would be the statutory boards with which we are familiar and which would have responsibility for water, power, sewerage, fisheries, residential lands, motor vehicles, cold stores, wildlife, etc. They would be statutory boards which the Legislative Council would be fully competent to administer. The third category is a dicey one - the Treasury. It could be broken into 2 parts, one dealing with the collection of revenue from the Northern Territory and one embracing the first 2 categories I mentioned, namely, local branches and statutory boards. I think that this would be a step in the right direction and one which could be achieved. When it came to the broader field of policy which involves the Commonwealth and direct participation by Canberra for the time being, then there would have to be a Treasury in a 2-tier structure. One tier of the structure would deal with Northern Territory revenue and the disbursement of funds, the legal branches and the statutory boards, and the other would deal with the Commonwealth itself.

Mr Hunt:

– Mining and lands.

Dr PATTERSON:

– Yes. Of course, there would have to be a Cabinet in the Northern Territory - as we have here - which would be responsible to the Legislative Council. The other arm would work directly in liaison with Canberra through the Administrator. This would be the governor type of function. I believe that this is the situation we should aim for. This should be the plan. Ancillary to this situation would be the gradual transfer to the Northern Territory of the Commonwealth public servants and the State-type functions as opposed to the Canberra-type functions. I am not professing to put this forward as a new proposition. It is well known to the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) and to the previous Minister. I believe that something progressive has to be done to let the people of the Northern Territory know that the Government intends to act or think in this way, because it is needed. I think it is really a scandal that the people of the Northern Territory do not have the right to participate in referenda or Senate elections, particularly when we realise - this is from memory - that prior to 1911 they had these rights. The people of the Northern Territory are fully entitled to these rights.

The other aspect on which I want to touch is in relation to freights. It is quite obvious that the increasing level of freight rates is fast becoming one of the most important influences inhibiting the rate of growth in country areas, particularly in northern Australia. Tonight we are speaking of the Northern Territory. In the north we see the location of capital cities such as Brisbane and Darwin. Centres of population a long way from the capital cities are affected most because’ the Commonwealth has one of the most iniquitous policies imaginable, namely, charging sales tax on freights. The further a person lives from the Australian capital cities the more he has to pay for his goods. One of the factors causing this situation is that the Government allows sales tax to be levied on the cost of freight. This is absurd and harsh. I shall give an illustration in relation to my State of Queensland. I doubt whether most honourable members know that Melbourne is closer to Brisbane than is Cairns. One can see how sales tax on freight rates affects the total cost when the tax is taken into account. This increase in freights is becoming a major problem in northern Australia, particularly in relation to primary products and minerals. We see this situation happening all the time. Five years ago the Loder Committee published a report in which it recommended alleviating the freight problems of people in northern Australia, particularly those living a long way from capital cities. Recommendations were made, but this Government has not bothered to act on them.

A most important point - unfortunately we have not sufficient time to talk about it - is what is to happen to the State Shipping Service between Western Australia and Darwin? This matter will be a major problem in the immediate future. If there is not to be a continuation of the shipping service to Darwin, either it will have to receive its goods by road transport or air transport, or it will import goods. When one considers that the total exports from Western Australia to Darwin are worth approximately $7m, one can see the ramifications of the amount of goods and services involved. Admittedly, in the last financial year the State Shipping Service operated at a loss of $4.8m, and this Government has decided that it will not help the Western Australian Government in regard to this Shipping Service. But more importantly, as far as this debate is concerned, this Government decided that it will not help the people of Darwin, because it has turned down a request for the provision of approximately S470,000 to subsidise, in part, the Western Australian State Shipping Service to allow its ships to go on to Darwin, and it has also turned down a request to build a new ship, which would have cost approximately S2.5m.

In this debate we are concentrating particularly on the Northern Territory, but all these matters are extremely important to the people of Darwin who are entitled to know what will happen to them in the future as far as importing goods from Western Australia is concerned, because that is their main source of commodities. At the present time they know that the State Shipping Service will not provide ships for the Darwin run, which is important to them. I hope that tonight the Minister for the Interior can throw some light on this subject. Although he may say, legitimately, that this matter comes within the province of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon), I believe that he must recognise that indirectly this matter is of paramount importance to the people of the Northern, Territory, and particularly to the people of Darwin, because the cost of goods and services is most important in this area.

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I speak at this time because it is possibly the last opportunity I will have as a member of the Opposition to discuss the estimates for the Department of the Interior. It is important that we should level constructive criticism when it is necessary, and tonight I want to level some constructive criticism. I have great pride in Canberra - such pride that my party wants to duplicate Canberra not only throughout the length and breadth of Australia but also on the fringes of existing country towns and regional areas. Of course, our plan has been well outlined. I also have great pride in the achievements of the National Capital Development Commission, the Department of the Interior and also the Parks and Gardens Branch of the Department of the Interior. 1 think that all 3 of these bodies have done a very fine job in Canberra.

Tonight I do not want to deal with all the aspects of my criticism of Canberra, just with a few. ] suppose that one could talk about the transport system in Canberra. It would be an understatement to say that the public transport system in Canberra is inadequate. But I want to deal with what would be probably the most successful venture, or what I consider to be the most impressive venture undertaken in Canberra, and that is the landscaping and tree planting carried out by the Parks and Gardens Branch. Tonight I want to level my criticism at the tree planting and, in particular, at the planting of conifers in Canberra. I think that this is an area in which the Parks and Gardens Branch has been inadequate in its planning generally. I want to deal specifically with Kings Avenue and Commonwealth Avenue.

At present, cedrus deodara and cedrus atlanticus are growing on the centre nature strips in these avenues. The planners made a great error in the first place. They should never have planted on the centre nature strips in those avenues cedrus deodara which, at maturity, have a horizontal span of the branches at the base of SO to 60 ft. If one wants to get an idea of the size to which cedrus deodara grow one only has to go to parks in Bathurst or at Mount Wilson. Whoever had the lack of wisdom to plant those trees on the centre strip knows that in time they will have to be butchered. I hate to see conifer limbs being cut off at their base as is now being done. When a conifer is butchered at its base it is like cutting the limbs off a beautiful woman, if I may use that terminology. A tree is like a beautiful woman. The way that the conifers are being butchered indicates that the authorities in Canberra are not very enlightened in regard to these matters. Of course, it is being done because of the almighty motor car. Therefore the motor car is the problem that we have to meet. It would be better if the nature strip were planted with shrubs of low growth.

I want to deal also with King George Terrace which runs along in front of Parliament House. One sees that the cedrus arizonicus that are planted along King George Terrace are also being butchered some 8 feet to 10 feet from the base. If one wants to see how cedrus arizonicus should grow one can examine near the Canberra Hotel a specimen the branches of which extend right down and weep on to the ground, lt is a thing of great beauty. One has to examine the planting of trees from a scientific approach. One has to have an understanding and a feeling for trees so that they will add character and strength to the city of which we are so very proud. So I level those criticisms at the Department.

Another example of faulty planting is the positioning of the sequoia gigautea which, of course, is commonly known as the California redwood. These trees can be seen around Canberra but many people may not know what they are. The 2 specimens planted on either side of the Hotel Kurrajong entrance are dying. The habitat required by the sequoia gigantea is deep rich soil and the fog coming in from the Pacific Ocean which enables them to breathe and grow to maturity - they reach a height of over 300 feet - instead of struggling for life as they do in Canberra. It is an error to plant them here. I am making this criticism of the Department now so that it may examine its position and start looking for conifers that may be more suitable to this area and this atmosphere. I do not pretend to be an expert on these matters. I respect the scientists employed by the Parks and Gardens Branch of the Department of the Interior in Canberra. I think that such trees as cypress torelosas or cypress lawsoniana, or even the pinus patula that can be seen growing at present on City Hill, could be considered. These are some of the things that have to be examined.

Before I move on from that aspect, I want to speak briefly about parks. There is a tendency in Canberra to think that parks have to be looked at but not lived in. I make this criticism, Mr Chairman, and I hope that the Minister takes steps in this regard in the next 12 months, if the Government is still in office for that length of time. There are not many parks in Canberra in which people really live. Telopea Park is a park in which people participate in various activities. They have picnics; they have a lunch time meal, and children play in it. Most parks in Canberra are open spaces at which people look but in which they do not involve themselves. This is what we want to encourage them to do.

The last matter to which I wish to refer is something for which I have great admiration. About 6 weeks ago 1 spent a weekend in Canberra. During that weekend I went to the Botanic Gardens and had a look at the natural flora which has been planted there. I also had a look at the great mass of mannifera maculosa at the foot of Black Mountain. As an Australian, I am indeed proud of the lovely natural flora which is growing in the botanic gardens in Canberra. It makes one feel good about being in Australia. Trees of all nations and of all places have been planted in Canberra. They blend together and add beauty to the surroundings. 1 think that we should duplicate this practice in other parts of Australia. As I have said, a Commonwealth Labor government would duplicate the town planning of Canberra in other areas. It would also attempt to duplicate in those areas the beauty, serenity and tranquillity which are to be found in Canberra. I believe that all Australians are entitled to live in the manner in which the people of Canberra live. In the meantime, I hope that the Department of the Interior will take heed of my criticism and give some deep thought to the planting of conifers in Canberra.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– We have departed a long way in this chamber from the traditional purpose of estimates debates. As I understand it, the’ original intention was to provide a means for scrutinising departmental accounts in detail, and yet I know that one lakes the risk of being regarded as an eccentric if one uses debates such as this for just that purpose. Nonetheless, I take that risk for the particular purpose of directing the attention of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) to the costly neglect of a valuable property which is under his control. I refer to the former Taxation Branch offices in Perth. On 6th September the Minister for the Interior provided an answer to question No. 3813 on the notice paper, which was in the following terms:

  1. What is the floor space and estimated value of the former Taxation Department offices at the corner of Murray and Barrack streets, Perth?
  2. Has this building been unoccupied for some time; if so, why and for what period has it been unoccupied?
  3. What use is planned for the building, and when will these plans be implemented?

I received the following answer from the Minister for the Interior:

  1. The estimated valuation of the site and building of approximately 54,000 square feet of floor space is $475,000.
  2. Yes. The building, originally a warehouse, was vacated by the Taxation Branch in July 1970 after being occupied by it for some 30 years. It cannot be converted economically for further long term use by the Commonwealth.
  3. The site is centrally located and because of its potential for future redevelopment by the Commonwealth is to be retained. In the meantime consideration is being given to alternative use of the building.

The point I wish to raise is: If the building was vacated in July 1970 the move must have been expected a year earlier at the very least. It has remained unoccupied now for 17 months. That means it is about 24 years since it was known that it would become vacant. If the Government has no immediate use for the building itself the question which arises is: Why has the Government forgone the very considerable income which could have been obtained from even a short term lease? I do not raise for comparison the office rents of $4 to $6 a square foot per annum which are applicable within only 2 blocks distance of the site in question. Admittedly this building is old and is not to be looked at on that basis. But, as the Minister’s reply itself indicates, the building is central - indeed, it is in the very heart of the city - and it is inconceivable that its commercial and warehouse facilities and potential should have no value at all. Conservatively speaking, even granting the limitations imposed by a reluctance to grant a lengthy lease, it would very likely be worth S2 a square foot or over 5100,000 per annum. But even if it is worth only $1 a square foot - it certainly would not be less than that - it would be capable of producing $50,000 per annum or almost $70,000 in the period during which it has been vacant.

Can anyone visualise a site of this kind and location being left unproductive for such a period if it were owned by anyone other than a government? As it happens, the apparent neglect of this property is irresponsible in a civic sense, because it stultifies development and depresses activity in an important and central area of Perth. It would be wrong for that reason alone. But from the Commonwealth’s own viewpoint it gives every appearance of poor and lax management at a time when every other section of the community is being exhorted to greater efficiency and productivity. It is an example, it seems, of don’t do as I do, but do as I say’.

If this were an isolated instance one might let it pass, but my impression is that it is far from atypical. The problem, perhaps, is that when one measures possible savings or apparent extravagances in public administration it is too easy to compare them with a total budget of about $9,000m and conclude that the proportion of the whole is so small as to be hardly worth pursuing. The degeneration in terms in our method of dealing with the Estimates encourages just such a process. Yet why should we allow so many things to go unquestioned where economy in public expenditure is involved? Why should the $50,000 or $100,000 potential rent from the building to which I have referred be forgone? When we have the annual report of the Director-General of Social Services before us, why do we not seek the reason for the fact that over a period when social services payments increased 6 times, social services administrative costs have increased 84 times? There may be a perfectly good reason for that disparity, but on the .other hand there may not.

J invite honourable members to consider the report relating to the distribution and pricing of parliamentary publications. At page 7 of the report we are told that a new printing machine costing $755,000 would save its own cost in 2 years and in every 2 years thereafter. The daily Hansard alone would cost 52.4 per cent less. What are we waiting for? Would any private printing firm hesitate for a moment if funds were available to it? On what basis could it do so, and on what possible rational basis do we hesitate? At page 12 of the report we find that the Journals of the Senate and the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives cost about $8,000 per annum and are of such great value, interest and worth that of the 700 daily copies all except 21 have to be distributed free. Frankly, the only thing that intrigues me in this situation is that there are as many as 21 subscribers who consider them worth paying “for. How long is it since we have paused to consider whether these traditional publications are worth printing at all? What real purpose do they serve?

This laxity, this thoughtlessness for economy in government management, seems to me to permeate the whole system. Examples can be multiplied. I have given already in a few moments one example involving a potential saving of $350,000 per annum, another example of a potential income of $50,000 to $100,000 per annum forgone, and another example of potential saving of $8,000 per annum available without any detriment to the workings of the Parliament. This sort of thing goes right down through the system to a very basic level which I risk having criticised as petty. We know that correspondence from Ministers comes in 2 copies. There are good reasons for that. But have we ever stopped to wonder why correspondence from the Postmaster-General’s Department comes in 4 copies? What possible reason can there be for having 4 copies of correspondence from that Department?

These, as I have said, are examples taken helter skelter from the Estimates. Admittedly they are not only in relation io the Department at present under review, but, as I have said, they are examples which can be multiplied. However, I do not want to digress further from the specific question that 1 have put to the Minister related to the specific building to which I have referred. I conclude by expressing the hope that he will provide a specific answer to it. It is important to remember that every instance of waste or neglected economy is reflected directly in unnecessarily high taxation or in desirable expenditure being forgone. We should be wary at all points to ensure that this sort of situation does not needlessly arise and certainly that it is not needlessly permitted to continue.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like to preface my remarks on the estimates of the Department of the Interior by saying that I shall be dealing basically with the Northern Territory because I have recently been there. What I am saying is a criticism of the neglect of the Northern Territory over many years is not necessarily a reflection on the work of the present Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) because I think that at least he has his heart in the right place; he is trying to do something far the Northern Territory. When I was there some 2 or 3 weeks ago for the election campaign for the Legislative Council present also were the Minister for the Interior, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) and any other Australian Country Party Minister who could get on a VIP plane, to see what they could do to try to save the seat for the Country Party in the long run. The Minister for Trade and Industry was quoted at the time as saying that in the future the Northern Territory would become a separate State and that he was confident it would become a Country Party State.

The reason he gave for its becoming a Country Party State was that there was an absence of industrial unionism, an absence of affluence and an absence of education. I am not surprised that he put those 3 things together to suggest that they make up a perfect recipe for a Country Party State. To my mind, all kinds of rackets are going on in the Northern Territory. It is already being run as a Country Party State. For example the airline which recently changed its name to Connair Pty Ltd has been granted a subsidy this year of $838,620, which is nearly a 100 per cent increase. This subsidy is 5i times as much as the subsidy granted to Ansett Airlines of Australia for the whole of Australia. It is a Liberal Party organisation, as honourable members may know, while Connair is a Country Party organisation. No tenders are called for the services provided by Connair. Mr Eddie Connellan, the managing director of Connair, is described as having been a member and a strong supporter of the Country Party for many years. .

Sir John McEwen, the former Leader of the Country Party, is quoted as having said in Darwin in 1969: T will resist any moves which may bring competition to Mr Con.nellan’s airline’. He made it clear that he would use all of his influence to block any attempts to have the service open to tender. This is a Country Party airline. We do not want anybody else coming in here. So it costs the taxpayers $838,620 this year. Sir John McEwen said that Mr Connellan was a wonderful man whose airline made only a pittance out of the subsidised operation. I am sure that Mr Connellan, apart from supplying free transport for Country Party candidates in all kinds of local elections in the Northern Territory, also kicks in substantially to the Country Party kitty. But the objectionable thing as far as I am concerned is that no tender is called and that public money is being used to subsidise a political party.

On Tuesday, 26th October last, 1 spoke on the estimates of the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. I made the point that I have visited the Northern Territory and that I have seen Aborigines who were living like animals at Papunya. People accused me of trying to make political capital out of this. Let mc quote what Dr Goff Letts, a Country Party candidate at the recent Legislative Council election, said. I am quoting from the ‘Sunday Australian’ of 17th October. The heading is ‘Aboriginal graduates live in kennels’. The report states:

Young Aboriginals educated at Darwin’s highly rated Kormilda College are living in ‘insanitary kennels’ at a welfare settlement without job opportunities, a doctor claimed this week.

The doctor was not I. The report continues:

Humpies would be too complimentary a term for the primitive unsanitary kennels in which people live’, said Dr Goff Letts, a Country Party candidate in the Northern Territory’s Legislative Council election.

The settlement is at Hooker Creek, 480 miles south west of Darwin. Dr Letts said the people at Hooker Creek dad asked for better housing and were prepared to work on their own home building projects - but nothing ha’d been done. “The most depressing side of it is the presence of a number of young Aboriginals who attended Kormilda College only to return to conditions of wretchedness without useful work or means to practise what they have learned.’

And he warned that unless action was taken to give employment opportunity at Hooker Creek an area of bitterness and trouble’ would develop.

The report then gives a description of Dr Letts background. The story was followed up in the Northern Territory ‘News’ of 30th October. There is a picture of the Hooker Creek settlement. Referring to Dr Letts, that reports states:

One of the terrible things about the situation is that these people are living only 100 yards from the staff quarters,’ he said.

The staff quarters are generally of a pretty fair to good standard - some brick and some demountable and generally air-conditioned. Every time the people living in these kennels look up they see the staff houses. The type of housing provided for the staff at Hooker Creek should be provided for everyone there.

The report then describes what happens to those who attended Kormilda College. Dr Letts said that the situation at Hooker Creek was completely unnecessary. At that stage Dr Letts was a Country Party candidate. He is now a Country Party member of the Legislative Council, having defeated an independent member. He is an addition to the Country Party strength in the Legislative Council to which the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) referred earlier. The reason why he was elected to the Legislative Council was that he attacked the County Party administration of the Northern Territory; Good luck to him if he keeps it up. The position there is quite shocking.

I refer briefly to the Northern Territory Development Notes for the 1971 Budget. On page 20 there is a comparison table of activity of proposed expenditure for the last 2 years. Honourable members will note that while Aboriginal advancement expenditure is proposed to be increased by 13 per cent this year the increased expenditure on police has risen by 16 per cent. Last week the Northern Territory ‘News’ carried stories by a Sister Helen Wagner who had recently resigned from the Department of the Interior. I will try to read into the record some of the points that she makes, but the important point that she is making is the confusion in the Northern Territory. Different government departments are running services which should be run by one government department. Sisters are employed at bush hospitals run by the Welfare Division of the Department of the Interior. The doctors are employed by the Department of Health. The sisters are not under the direction of doctors. They have contact with doctors by radio. They are visited by doctors, but they are in different departments. This is a ridiculous proposition.

Both the sisters and the doctors, on my visit, agreed that there should be some joint control. The reason for the separate control no doubt is empire building on the part of one or other of the departments. I do not know which one it is, and I do not particularly care. If this has lead to the situation in which infant mortality in Central Australia has risen to over 200 per 1,000 as compared with 80 per 1,000 2 or 3 years ago, obviously the position must be changed. I do not care whose corns one treads on, the important thing is that the position must be changed as quickly as possible. We have a description by Sister Wagner of the sort of things that apparently were going on, according to her, when she first went there in 1967 and the sort of things that she implies tend to go on now and are the reason for this increase in infant mortality. My time has almost expired and I am therefore unable to read this report into the record. But there are some shocking allegations made in this report. I agree with the Northern Territory ‘News’ that there is complete justification for the appointment of some sort of committee of inquiry to investigate, not to allot blame because I do not think this is the important thing in this case. This should not be the aim of such an inquiry but it should try to find out what would be a reasonable method of improving the set-up there because I think it is important that it is improved.

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

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I hope my contribution to this debate will be worth while. I endorse the remarks of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr

Klugman) about the infant mortality rate in the Northern Territory. The Public Works Committee, on which I serve, visits the Northern Territory frequently. I think the credit for exposing this infant mortality rate must go principally to the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) who, by cross-examination of several witnesses at a Public Works Committee inquiry in Alice Springs, elicited this information for public knowledge for the first time. That showed the shocking infant mortality rate at Alice Springs and what was occurring at the Alice Springs hospital. The Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) is undoubtedly aware of the expensive and justifiable alterations that are about to be made to the Alice Springs hospital. These are being made because the increasing infant mortality rate was chiefly attributable to overcrowding and cross-infection in the children’s ward at the hospital.

My principal submission in this debate concerns the Minister’s responsibility to administer the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. I believe, as I think every honourable member does, that it is the duty of every country which exchanges diplomatic relations with other countries to give full protection to the embassies and the embassy staff of those countries. Twice daily when Parliament is sitting I pass the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I understand that the Minister is responsible for 2 police officers being stationed outside that embassy for 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I am not suggesting that those guards should be withdrawn, but I am suggesting that they should be provided with some comfort during the cold winter nights. As we know, the night temperature in Canberra drops to 16 or 18 degrees. The 2 police officers still have to perform their duties diligently because they would virtually suffer dismissal if another bombing attack occurred on the Soviet Embassy when they were on duty and the perpetrators escaped. The reputations and the jobs of the police officers are in jeopardy. Whilst to a bystander this might look like a simple job, for those young constables it is a job that carries a heavy responsibility, especially should anything happen and the evil-doers get away.

I do not know whether the Minister has any alternatives in mind or whether the Commissioner of Police has suggested any to him as to how long this protection of foreign embassies is to continue. I believe that the Soviet Embassy was bombed on 4 or 5 occasions. I say this in all seriousness: It is to the everlasting disgrace of our judicial system that the perpetrators of this bombing of the Embassy on the last occasion were given a minor sentence of 18 months gaol. A first offender, commonly referred to as a clean skin, usually receives 3 months remission of a 12 month sentence. Then he invariably receives a good conduct remission on top of that, and an early parole period. So I venture to say that these 2 young hooligans who had motored across from Western Australia will probably be released from gaol after 8 to 10 months. If ever an insult was thrown in the face of a major world power it was thrown by our judicial system here in Canberra.

Mr Irwin:

– I rise to order. The judiciary is being attacked.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not mentioned any member of the judiciary by name. I will use the term ‘penal system’ if that will save embarrassment to anyone. Apparently, my remarks are stinging the honourable member. If a bomb was thrown into Kings Hall and extensive damage was done to this building would honourable members think that an 18 months gaol sentence, the same as that which was imposed on these 2 hooligans who threw the bomb into the Soviet Embassy, would be an appropriate penalty? lt should be within the knowledge of every responsible citizen that a gaol sentence is imposed for 3 principal reasons: Firstly, for the punishment of the individual for the seriousness of his crime; secondly, to protect society against him, and thirdly, and equally as important as the other 2 reasons, as a deterrent to others. A judge usually asks the responsible police officer before sentencing any person: ‘Is this crime prevalent?’ If it is prevalent the penalty imposed is usually more severe. I ask: Was this crime perpetrated against the Soviet Embassy prevalent? It was approxi mately the fourth occasion on which a bomb had been thrown over the fence. I think the sentence was a disgraceful insult by this nation to the Soviet Government. What would we think if a bomb was thrown into the front of the Australian Embassy in Moscow? What would we hope that the perpetrator’s sentence would be? I think that every fair minded Australian would say that it should not be less than 5 years, probably with a parole period of 3 years. Many of the police officers in Canberra were disappointed when they learned of the gaol sentences imposed on these 2 Western Australians who, prior to going to gaol after they were sentenced, stated that when they are released they intend to do it again. I believe that the Minister should use his good offices to prevent this sort of thing happening to the Soviet Embassy or any other foreign embassy in this country. Persons convicted of a similar crime should be punished with the utmost vigour of the law. I hope that the Minister will use his position as Minister for the Interior to bring about the installation of pill boxes to give greater comfort to police officers when they are performing this responsible and arduous guard duty outside the Soviet Embassy in Canberra.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) expressed some concern that we had not brought before the House a Bill to amend the Electoral Act. I am sure he would realise that we will need some considerable time to debate and discuss the very important issues which arise each time such a Bill is brought before the House. I would not like to see such a Bill rushed through during this session. I assure the honourable member that we will give due consideration to it in the autumn session.

I appreciate the points which were raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) concerning the political advancement of the Northern Territory. In accordance with an early agreement by the Government, senior officials of the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Treasury, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and the Public

Service Board held a series of meetings with an equal number of representatives of the Northern Territory Legislative Council. This led to a submission to the Government, and the Government has resolved to have a further meeting at the ministerial level with the Legislative Council should the elected members desire a meeting after the Council reconvenes.

If it were the wish of the people of the Territory, the Government would not stand in the way of an extension of further executive responsibility, provided there was an acceptance of matching financial responsibility by the Legislative Council. I want to make the point that responsible government requires the balancing of executive powers with the onus of raising a fair part of the revenue to execute that responsibility. I note that the honourable member for Dawson accepted that in transferring any additional powers - State-like powers - to the Northern Territory at this point of time we would have to exclude such areas of policy as land and mining. Already the Government has moved to establish local government in the Northern Territory. For example, in Darwin the Darwin City Corporation was established in 1957 and has exercised responsibility with considerable distinction. I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the work of the first Mayor of Darwin, Alderman Richardson, who has just resigned. He is a very sick man. Darwin - and 1 believe the Northern Territory - owes a tremendous debt to this pioneer of local government in the Northern Territory.

This year Alice Springs accepted the responsibility for municipal government and a former member of this House, Mr Jock Nelson, is the first Mayor of Alice Springs. He is already doing an excellent job. We are currently looking at proposals for local government at Tennant Creek and Katherine. There is a whole range of local statutory boards and authorities in the Northern Territory. These include a port authority, a tourist board, a reserves board, a museums board and a host of advisory boards such as land boards, building boards and the like, to give people their rightful role in decision making.

In regard to the high freight costs to Darwin which were referred to by the honourable member for Dawson, I think we must accept the fact that one of the biggest handicaps in the development of the Northern Territory is distance, communications and the high freight costs. It was regrettable that recent shipping freight increases by the Australian National Line were necessary but the truth of the matter is that the problem has been exacerbated by a long period of industrial unrest on the Darwin waterfront. This has seriously affected the economics of the ANL operations. Darwin port is notorious for the long delays in turnround which have added to the high freight cost problem. In spite of this gloomy picture the Government still intends to spend S23m on a new port in Darwin in the hope that reason will prevail amongst those who are engaged on the waterfront there. The Western Australian State Shipping Service will be ceasing its operations at the end of the year. This service has been running at a great loss - §4.8m last year - and the Government has not seen fit at this stage to be able to subsidise that service as requested by the Western Australian Government. On the other hand it is fair to say (hat the Government has spent a considerable sum in trying to improve the general transport system in the Northern Territory. For instance, it has spent $30m on beef roads and has improved the relative economics of road and rail transport. This programme is still proceeding.

I should like to thank the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) for the praise (hat he extended to the National Capital Development Commission. I am sure that my Department will take note of his views regarding the various varieties of shrubs and trees that he has recommended should be planted in the nature strips in Canberra. 1 know that the honourable member is a great tree lover and a great authority on the subject. The honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) commented on a building which the Government has vacated in Perth. This building was vacated by the Taxation Department when it transferred to Commonwealth offices in July 1970. I understand that the building is very old. A report recently received from the Department of Works indicates that probably it would be uneconomic to renovate and modify the building for use as modern offices. It would be equally uneconomic to carry out renovations to make the building useful for short term occupancy. Considerable expenditure would be necessary to comply with building regulations before the building could be leased. I understand that the question of the usefulness of the site in the overall future requirement for Commonwealth office buildings in Perth is still being considered. I have taken a full note of the points that the honourable member raised and of his concern for the general economics of the question.

The honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) raised the question of providing some facilities for police guards at the embassies in Canberra. Proposals are now in hand to provide small shelters with suitable heating at all premises under police guard in the Australian Capital Territory. I am sure that the honourable member will be pleased to hear this. The points he raised were very important for members of the police force in the Australian Capital Territory who do a tremendous job in preserving the peace of Canberra. I was disappointed that the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) referred to one of the great pioneers of aviation in the Northern Territory, Mr Eddie Connellan, in the way that he did. This man pioneered the air services in the Territory and certainly played a great part in its development. I have checked and I can say that Eddie Connellan is not a member of the Australian Country Party and that Connair Pty Ltd did not supply free travel during the recent election. Although he is a great friend of certain members of the Country Party I think it is quite unfair to say that he has received any preferential treatment. Eddie Connellan undoubtedly has been a great territorian.

The honourable member for Prospect raised the question of the administration of the health facilities for Aborigines in the Northern Territory. This matter, of course, has been the subject of some concern and it is the subject of discussions between my Department and the Department of Health at present. The Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and I have had discussions about the very serious problem of Aboriginal health in the Territory.

I would like to say something about the whole question of Aboriginal advancement in the Northern Territory because more questions are being asked today than ever before about what the Government is doing for the Aborigines. This interest is a very welcome sign that the community generally is becoming more aware of our responsibility to assist Aborigines to overcome the disadvantages they suffer in comparison with the general community. The closer interest shown by people in the situation of Aborigines is reflected in the increasing expenditures allocated specifically for the advancement of Aborigines.

Honourable members will notice that the estimates of my Department for the Northern Territory this year provide for a total expenditure of $16m on Aboriginal welfare which is an increase of 13.7 per cent on the estimates for the previous year. The works programme for this year also includes a number of significant projects which will assist Aborigines. The largest of these is the proposed residential college for Alice Springs which is estimated to cost nearly $3m. Also, provision has been made for increased accommodation on settlements for staff essential to provide the various services for Aboriginal communities. An amount of $.92m has been allocated for the first phase of stage 4 of the education programme for special schools conducted by my Department. Provision also has been made for other projects which provide essential services at various places. I refer here to projects such as those concerned with the supply of water - for which $.73m has been allocated - and those concerned with electricity.

I believe that I should say something about the dimension of the problem of Aboriginal welfare because it is only when there is a real appreciation in this regard that there will be an awareness of what has to be done in the future and the time scale to which this can reasonably be related. More than 22,000 full-blood Aborigines are living in the Territory. Most of these Aborigines live permanently on government settlements and on mission stations but a significant number of about 4,000 continue to reside on pastoral properties. We have a great problem in formulating positive action to help those Aborigines on pastoral properties to live more productive lives at a reasonable standard. My predecessor in this portfolio, who is now the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon), appointed a committee to look at the situation of Aborigines on pastoral properties to see what might be done to improve their social and economic standards. This committee, which is known as the Gibb Committee, includes as members Professor Gibb, Dr Coombs, Mr Taylor, who is a well known anthropologist, and Mr Clancy Roberts who is an Aboriginal of some considerable standing in the Territory. I am told that I may expect the Committee’s report at the end of the year. The report should give the Government a better understanding of the problems faced by these isolated communities. It should point to the ways in which these problems, including those related to employment, may be tackled.

The pastoral industry, of course, has been the main avenue of employment for these people. There are, however, a large number of unemployable people and pensioners who, with their families, live on pastoral properties at standards which are not satisfactory. The Government always pays allowances to pastoralists for the maintenance of these people, but can this arrangement continue indefinitely? One thing is certain: There is no easy answer to this problem. Whatever action is taken, it will take time to achieve worthwhile benefits. We will need to accept a long term programme to achieve the sort of worthwhile results that we should set out to achieve.

People often comment that the Government has established settlements for Aborigines in places where there is little opportunity for the sort of economic development necessary to sustain a permanent community. On my first visit to the Northern Territory I was inclined to think that this was so, but I have come to realise that we must acknowledge that sites for settlements were not chosen at random. In many cases a settlement is located at a particular place because there were large numbers of Aborigines residing permanently in the general area. With traditional associations, the settlement site has been dictated by this fact, and of course water has been an essential requirement in many of our settlements in arid areas. The result of this is that some of the population on the settlements and mission stations will have to seek future opportunities outside the settlements or missions. I do not want to suggest any time when this sort of development might take place, but I put it forward as a problem about which we must be thinking.

For some years at least the main work of social, educational and economic advancement of Aborigines will necessarily have to be done within existing settlements and missions. At this stage there is no real desire from most of the adult people to move to places where there are better opportunities. But we face a problem because we are today educating the young Aboriginal people. Seventy-five per cent of the Aboriginal children of eligible age are attending pre-school. Over 90 per cent of eligible age Aboriginal children are attending primary school. Of course with this kind of stimulus many of. these young people will desire better opportunities than their fathers and mothers sought and they will seek the opportunities in the wider Australian society.

To conclude, I just want to mention one problem referring to the situation of Aborigines who live on the fringes of towns such as Katherine and Alice Springs. Plans for the future include the development of a community area at Katherine which will provide essential facilities for those people who camp there permanently but who lack the skills to obtain permanent employment and the sophistication to take tenancy of a housing commission home. My officers hope to have discussions at Alice Springs this month with various local organisations including the Alice Springs Council on the development of a similar area there. Many Aborigines visit Alice Springs, and in the absence of any suitable facilities camp at various places. This raises very serious health and social problems which cannot be solved until something positive is done by way of providing essential facilities.

Given unlimited funds and unlimited physical resources a great deal more could no doubt be done to improve the living standards of Aborigines. But more money is not the sole answer, as I am sure the honourable member for Prospect would agree. We do not want the Aborigines to become permanent mendicants; the Aboriginal people do not want this either. The real solution seems to be the provision pf balanced programmes of assistance which will give a real opportunity to Aborigines to exercise the same responsibilities in personal matters as is accepted by the general community. I would like to thank those who have made their contribution to the debate on the estimates for the Department of the Interior.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Department of National Development

Proposed expenditure, S39,680;000.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

- Mr Deputy Chairman, the Government proposes to commence consideration of the estimates of the Department of National Development at 25 minutes to 2. The proposed appropriation for this Department is in excess of $39. 5m. In this debate 15 speakers are listed. If each took his allotted time a debate lasting 2i hours would ensue which means that we would be sitting after 4 a.m. As a protest against the lack of consideration, the gall and the audacity of the Government in commencing the consideration of these estimates at this time, 1 move:

That progress be reported.

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr J. Corbett)

AYES: 34

NOES: 43

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative. ‘

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

During recent years much has been said about financial assistance to the States and co-operation with the States on developmental projects, most of which have been in the mining industry or in the conservation of water. But there are other areas of industrial agricultural enterprise which I feel could be investigated by the Department of National Development for the benefit of a community and a State and in the national interest. We also hear a lot of talk about decentralisation which in my opinion plays a vital part in planned development. To achieve this end land made readily available must be used sensibly and long term planning must be undertaken.

One such industry to which I think more attention should be paid is forestry. It always has amazed me that here in Australia we can grow all the types of timber we can possibly need yet our forests have been allowed to be cut without any replanting programme being introduced. I am afraid that I was one of the people who did this. We now have reached the stage where we are relying more and more on imported timbers. It is true that in the last few years more attention has been paid to this important matter of reafforestation but still not enough to guarantee supplies for future generations. This is why I class it high on my list of priorities in national development.

For instance, lack of finance has restricted the planting programme in Queensland alone to 10,000 acres annually, and that is for softwoods only. This to me borders on the ridiculous. About 3 years ago I submitted a softwood planting programme to the Department of National Development for implementation in the Ingham district where seasonal conditions are such that softwoods could mature in a peiod of from 10 to 12 years. The head of the Department at that time assured me and the then Minister for National Development that the scheme was feasible and would be economically sound. At a planting rate of 5,000 acres a year we could have developed a plantation of 100,000 acres in some of the best softwood country in Australia. The State Government at that time claimed that it could not handle such a project without financial assistance. Because of its importance to the timber industry and to our economy I firmly believe that the Commonwealth Government could consider this as a national development project and grant it the necessary financial assistance. I will agree with the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) that it is necessary to hobble some Government spending but I do not agree that we should hobble important long term development projects which would be of decided benefit to the nation in years to come.

I am informed that this reafforestation plan which I submitted, and which would create employment and certainly assist the economic development of the Ingham district, will be implemented one day. My query is when? We have lost another year now and in terms of timber production years of growth matter. A timber nursery is situated not far from Ingham and we have experienced foresters in the area. Therefore it is not a case of the project being held up for lack of skilled labour or free seedlings; it is plainly a case of a decision by the Commonwealth being needed to assist the State in this development. It would be another project aimed at decentralisation, the maintenance of an industry and the development of an area. Sound economic planning for the future would be under way.

Again talking of long term planning or long range benefits to an industry, we should have learned one very important lesson from the recent period of drought which would have a major effect on the cattle industry if we experience drought conditions again in the future. There is nobody I know of or have read of who predicted the length of time that our cattle and sheep industries would suffer from these drought conditions, especially in the north and north west of Queensland. Twelve years of drought is a long time. We saw the shocking spectacle of many of our breeding stock dying and now we are experiencing the problem of restocking. 1 would say that the cattle industry did not suffer as severely as the wool industry and that it is recovering from the effects of the drought far more quickly. But surely the lesson is there for all to learn. In the event of severe drought In the future we must commence to protect our breeding stock in the early stages.

The Commonwealth’s scheme of financing the construction of the beef roads system in the north certainly assisted considerably in the quick movement of stock from one area to another in an attempt to save them. The Government is to be commended for the implementation of this beef roads system. There is one small problem. If it is recognised by the Department of National Development and overcome, this could go a long way towards saving stock when necessary in the future.

While this beef roads system is of tremendous assistance, nearly all the roads on the eastern area of the system run north and south. There is virtually no link between the western plains and what is known as the wet belt on the eastern coast. If there were a road linkage from the beef roads system to the high rainfall area where there is excellent grazing and water all the year round, the problem of saving our breeding stock would be overcome without any difficulty. A road link from the Ingham area and another from the Tully area to connect with the nearest north south beef road would open up hundreds of thousands of acres of grazing land which could have a carrying capacity expressed as beasts to the acre rather than acres to the beast.

If these link roads were constructed stock could be transported from the furthest point in the Gulf country and the western plains to the lush grazing areas in a matter of 3 to 4 days. Our breeding stock would be preserved and upon the cessation of drought conditions the stock could be returned to their original properties and so eliminate the problem of having to restock. Apart from being of tremendous value to ensure the maintenance of the cattle industry during a drought period, these roads would open up a lot more valuable country and could be used also as tourist roads to allow our visitors to see something of the wonderful country and tremendous wealth potential west of the Great Dividing Range. The construction of these link roads would be of decided benefit in the national interest. I ask the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) who is now at the table to give this matter his earnest consideration when the next allocation of finance for beef roads construction is made.

Mr WALLIS:
Grey

– In rising to speak on the estimates for the Department of National Development, I would like to confine my remarks to a particular point, this being the refusal of the Federal Government to consider favourably the request of the South Australian Government for financial assistance to complete the Lock-Kimba pipeline on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. The Prime Minister in 1969 announced a scheme to provide $100m to assist in water resources projects throughout Australia. The money to be allocated was to be recommended by the National Water Resources Council. At that time the South Australian Government was involved in a scheme to build a pipeline from Lock on Eyre Peninsula to Kimba, but due to the shortage of finance, the scheme could be financed only by spreading the cost over a number of years. However, when the Federal Government made the announcement concerning the $100m to be made available for water resources programmes, the South Australian Government submitted an application in January 1970 to the Federal Government for assistance under this scheme.

In the report that was submitted to the Commonwealth Government, it was pointed out that the Lock-Kimba scheme is to provide a reticulated water supply for approximately 1,000 square miles of farm land and 10 provide an assured supply of water for the township of Kimba. Thus, it is a large distribution system to serve the needs of the district and of the farming community, and qualified for consideration under the Si 00m scheme. In the report submitted by the South Australian Government it was shown that the Lock-Kimba scheme was to serve an area which lacks water in quantities adequate to allow its rural industry to develop; that the scheme would serve an area which has sufficient rainfall to assure the growth of rural industry if water for stock purposes could be provided; that there is water of sufficient quantity and quality in the Polda underground basin to meet the demands of the area to be served; that the scheme is soundly based and designed and would lead to an increase in the gross national product; that the scheme estimated to cost $5,050,000, is an economically sound proposition; and that the South Australian Government has experienced difficulty in the past in financing the construction of the scheme from its own financial resources and has had to postpone the construction programme on one occasion already because of this.

If the South Australian Government is to finance the construction of the whole scheme from its own resources, the work will take a further 21 years to complete, but if the scheme is financed from the national water resources programme, much earlier completion of the work will result. This earlier completion of the scheme will bring forward the increase in the gross national product expected from the scheme. The report further says that the most economical scheme in terms of a cost/benefit study is the one in which the construction programme is accelerated by the provision of funds under the national water resources programme. In the reply given to me and to the Premier of South Australia by the Minister it was stated that the Commonwealth was not considering giving South Australia financial assistance to expedite the scheme. It was stated that it was deemed inappropriate to provide special assistance under the national water resources development programme to support an expansion in the sheep industry in one area at the same time as the Government was involved in measures to alleviate economic problems in the industry generally.

I submit that the Government came to its decision by looking solely at the sheep industry in this area and that it ignored other potential rural activities. The area is at present served by the use of local depressions which are able to catch run-off water in catchments, but unfortunately it receives intermittent and unreliable rainfall. This creates problems in stock carrying capacity in bad rainfall years. It has also been a wheat producing area but with the advent of the troubles within the wheat industry and the introduction of wheat quotas the farmers have felt the pinch, as have many other wheat producing districts. The lack of surface water restricts the farmers’ ability to diversify into more productive branches of rural production.

Practically every year the farmers of this district have to involve themselves in the very costly and time consuming business of carting water considerable distances. The State Government comes to the assistance of the township of Kimba, providing finance to assist in the carting of water to the township during the summer months. It has been doing this for a number of years. Despite these handicaps many farmers in the area have been able to increase their stock numbers to a large degree, particularly of cattle and pigs. An examination of the figures for the last few years certainly indicates this. To illustrate this situation I shall quote the number of pigs and cattle for the County of Buxton, which covers most of the area that will be affected by this scheme. In 1967-68 the county carried 1,497 cattle. In 1971 it is carrying 5.358 cattle. In 1967 it carried 1,528 pigs and this year it is carrying 5,492 pigs. It will be noted that the greatest percentage increases of stock have been in cattle and pigs, despite the problems associated with a lack of surface water. With the problems associated with wool and wheat the big hope of this area is to diversify into the more viable rural activities such as cattle. It is for this reason that it is strongly felt by everybody in the district that the Government made a very bad error of judgment in basing its rejection of the submission on the basis of the problems of the wool industry.

It is beyond the resources of the South Australian Government to finance this project. This will mean that although the Lock-Kimba pipeline will eventually be finished it will be many years before this is so. Therefore I call on the Federal Government to reassess its attitude to this project. Many honourable members on the Government side have told us what they are doing to assist the rural industries which are in trouble. Here we have a rural area which has everything to make it viable but it will be held back by a decision of the Government which was based on a wrong assessment, that is, that the project was not supported because of the problems in the wool industry. This scheme has been the subject of a deputation to the Minister by State Liberal members within my area and by a South Australian Liberal senator, and I know that they received certain information from the Minister. I hope that we will be able to change the decision of the Government. Given the water that this scheme can provide, the rural industries can diversify. In conclusion I ask the Government to reconsider its decision and to provide financial assistance to the South Australian Government to enable it to complete the Lock-Kimba pipeline ina reasonable time and, by so doing, to give a new lease of life to this part of South Australia.

Progress reported.

page 2986

ADJOURNMENT

Weapons Research Establishment - Teacher Education in Australia

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– During the course of the afternoon I directed a question to the Minister for Supply (Mr Garland). I want to state the following in regard to that matter: Some time ago a man went to see the ‘Advertiser’ with a request for payment in return for a story about film in his possession of a secret rocket firing at Womera. The ‘Advertiser’ representatives assigned to interview the man were incredulous, so they asked to see the film. The man produced, for inspection, approximately 40 feet of film with images of a rocket firing on the film and claimed that he had 1 ,200 feet of film showing a complete rocket firing sequence, which he said was in Melbourne.

The ‘Advertiser’ ran the film which he had given them through a projector and froze several frames from which they made photographs and then, in order to verify that the film was in fact of a Woomera rocket firing, approached Dr Woods, the head of the Weapons Research Establishment, with the photographs. Dr Woods denied that the photographs necessarily had anything to do with Woomera but he advised the ‘Advertiser’ representatives that although they had legally brought the photographs on to WRE property it would be illegal for them to remove the photographs from WRE property, in effect, Dr Woods compulsorily confiscated the photographs.

As far as the ‘Advertiser’ representatives were concerned, this action on the part of Dr Woods confirmed that the film in their possession was in fact from Woomera and they rang the Minister for Supply, who admitted that film of a rocket firing was missing from Woomera. The man who had given the film to the ‘Advertiser’ was interviewed again, but most of what he said was considered by the Advertiser’ to be untrue because, they believed, he was trying to protect his contacts. The ‘Advertiser’ representatives assigned to the case were advised, after the photographs which they had shown to Dr Woods had been seized, that if they continued with the story they were likely to have search warrants issued against executives of the ‘Advertiser’ and searches instituted for the recovery of the film in their possession, with possible maximum penalties of up to 7 years imprisonment. Accordingly, the strip of film which had been given to them was voluntarily surrendered to Dr Woods after photographs had been made of some frames for later reproduction.

When the ‘Advertiser’ yielded the film to Dr Woods the editor of that newspaper, Mr Des Colquhoun, informed him that the story would be used. Dr Woods was infuriated and showed his anger. As a result, Mr Colquhoun agreed to ring the Minister a second time. At the time the Minister was in flight between Perth and Canberra but a message was left at Melbourne where the Minister was to touch down. When Dr Woods was informed that the ‘Advertiser’ would ring the Minister he asked for a message to be conveyed from him to the Minister. The message went something like this: ‘The matter you want to know about will take place tonight’.

Colquhoun made contact with the Minister in Melbourne and told him that the story would be used. The Minister was asked the meaning of the cryptic message which had been relayed to him and he advised Colquhoun that it meant that the Commonwealth Police expected to arrest a man that night in connection with the film missing from Woomera. In the meantime the ‘Advertiser’ had decided to run its exclusive story the next day. It has been reliably reported to me that the sum of $100 was paid to the man who had given the story and film to the Advertiser’.

That night the Commonwealth Police arrested a man, later named as Trevor Wayne Kotz of Parkside, and charged him with receiving film belonging to the Weapons Research Establishment, knowing it to have been stolen. Prior to his arrest, Kotz had voluntarily made contact with the Commonwealth Police, offering them information as to who had the 1,200 feet of film in return for the sum of $600, not $300 as reported in the ‘Review’. Initially the Commonwealth Police were given authority to pay him the money as requested; this is not unusual in matters of this nature. However, before any money was paid the Commonwealth Government had a change of heart and the AttorneyGeneral’s Department decided to authorise the arrest and prosecution of Kotz. This was rather odd in view of the fact that during several days before his arrest Kotz had rendezvoused with the police voluntarily on a number of occasions.

On the night Kotz was arrested Commonwealth police went to his Parkside home with a search warrant and conducted a full scale search. In the search they recovered a couple of pieces of film which contained images of a rocket firing similar to that on the film which a man had earlier shown the ‘Advertiser’. Prior to his arrest Kotz had voluntarily given to the Commonwealth Police - in order to whet their collective appetities - a piece of film which was naked except for a series of code numbers and code names. This was the lead runner of the film of a secret rocket firing.

When the case against Kotz entered court the prosecution produced to Mr D. F. Wilson, CSM, the magistrate hearing the charge, only the film containing the code numbers and code names. The prosecution did not produce any evidence of the 2 pieces of film with images of a rocket firing which had been recovered from the home of the defendant during the search, although there can be no doubt that had this film been produced a conviction would have been obtained. It is believed that this film was held by the Commonwealth prosecution in court but was not produced in evidence.

During the investigations the Commonwealth Police were under instructions from the Government to worry only about recovering the 1,200 feet of film and not to worry about securing a successful prosecution. The Commonwealth Government did not want a conviction in this case because it feared the publicity which would accompany a prosecution and subsequent conviction. The Government feared that such a conviction could lead to the Americans and others using Woomera, becoming aware about the total inadequacy of Australia’s security precautions. Unfortunately, for the Government the defendant, Kotz, pleaded guilty and it was then necessary for the prosecution to run dead in this case in order to secure his acquittal with the minimum of fuss. During their investigations Commonwealth Police inquiries revealed a major loop hole in security at Woomera. In any rocket firing at Woomera six prints of a film are made for distribution to designated groups, such as the National Aeronautics Space Administration of the United States and the manufacturers of the rocket, etc. The Commonwealth Police traced all prints but one of this particular rocket firing and the missing one was found to be the one allocated to Woomera.

Police inquiries revealed that up until the Kotz case no record was ever kept of who took out film of a particular secret rocket firing for inspection and there was no enforced return of film which had been taken out. Needless to say, I understand that such records are now kept. During their inquiries in the Kotz case the Commonwealth Police repeatedly found themselves beating their heads against a series of brick walls created by security at Woomera, the Weapons Research Establishment and the Department of Supply, all of whom were seeking only to cover up a major scandal for fear of upsetting the United States Government. I understand that this is not an isolated case of the Commonwealth Police being deliberately frustrated in their efforts to prosecute breaches of security.

As a result of the Kotz case the Commonwealth Police Commissioner sent a top level inspector from Canberra to investigate and report on security at Woomera. The inspector has submitted his report which was intensely critical, but the Commissioner has returned it to him with an instruction that he make it hotter still. It is clear that the Commonwealth Government at ministerial or high sub-ministerial level has caused a crisis of confidence amongst the Commonwealth Police Force. It is clear that the Commonwealth Police are being deliberately denied the opportunity of performing their task with efficiency by a Government which is concerned only to cover up our inadequate security arrangements for fear of upsetting the Americans.

The answer given by the Minister for Supply to my question regarding the prosecution of a man in connection with the disappearance of secret rocket firings film from Woomera clearly indicates that the Government in general and the Minister in particular are concerned only with covering up serious breaches in Australia’s security arrangements. In his reply to my question, the Minister on the one hand admitted in part that in fact film with images of a secret rocket firing film at Woomera was recovered by the Commonwealth Police from the home of a man charged in Adelaide Magistrates Court. On the other hand the Minister claimed that the only film available to and held by the prosecution in this matter was the naked film which contained only code names and numbers and which was actually presented in court.

It is clear, therefore, from the Ministers answer that my claim that the Government did not want a successful prosecution in this matter is true. It is obvious that this Government is pursuing a double standard with regard to Australia’s security in general and at Woomera in particular. I now call upon the Government to do two things in respect of this particular matter. Firstly, I ask it to table in the House of Representatives the report of a senior Commonwealth Police Inspector to his Commissioner regarding security at Woomera. Secondly, I challenge the Government to establish a select parliamentary committee into the arrangements which are made at the present time to guarantee Australia’s security.

I want to say in conclusion that the information I have is from a source which is absolutely impeccable and absolutely true. The Minister is sitting there hand on cheek tonight not knowing what to do because he is under instruction to cover up this particular allegation from go to whoa. I suggest to the Minister that he should give some very serious thought to what has been said in this chamber in regard to this matter, what has been said to newspaper reporters, and in particular what has been said by other Ministers in this House when questions are asked on installations in Australia. They say that we on this side of the House are traitors. Who are the real traitors so far as the security of Australia is conconcerned when the security forces of this country are sabotaged by high level departmental officers and ex-Ministers? I believe that to be honestly true. The only way I will be convinced that it is not true is by the tabling in this House of the documents to which I have referred and by the tabling in this House of the report of the person responsible to the Commissioner in carrying out such an investigation. I look forward, of course, to the clearing of the air in regard to this matter during the course of the remainder of the sittings of this House this week.

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– I shall be very brief. I have received no instructions from anybody on this matter. I want to be very clear about that. I have spent some time looking into this matter, which involves security considerations. I have found nothing improper of any kind. I see no reason to respond in detail to what the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) has said - in particular, to the article which he read, which I read some days ago and which I said this afternoon at question time contained many errors and misrepresentations. On those grounds, I see no cause to take any further action.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

I wish to raise some matters concerning teachers colleges in country areas in Victoria. I am concerned about the display of crude mentality which has concentrated government services in the metropolis in Victoria. In particlar, I want to call upon the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to intervene and rectify the imbalance which has occurred in the way in which Commonwealth money is being distributed to the teachers colleges in Victoria, In a nutshell my case is that almost $15m in Commonwealth money will be allocated in Victoria between 1967 and 1973. It is my belief that not one cent of that money will bc allocated to teachers colleges in country areas - in particular, the three teachers colleges at Ballarat, Geelong and Bendigo. I think that is a very serious situation indeed. I have taken it very seriously. I am very concerned about it.

Between 1967 and 1973 a total of $14,850,000 in Commonwealth money will be allocated for capital expenditure on teachers colleges. That includes 85,350.000 for the 1967-1970 triennium and $9,500,000 for the 1970-1973 triennium. That is Victoria’s share of a total allocation of $54m by the Commonwealth for teachers colleges. I have taken those figures from the pages 4 and 5 of the Senate Hansard of 6th September of the Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, which is now investigating teacher education. An examination of a breakdown of the figures over the period of the 2 trienniums shows that the Commonwealth money is being misused for the concentration of services in the metropolis. I am not by any means saying that there is not a problem in the metropolis. What I am worried about is the disproportion in the distribution between the metropolis and country areas.

Between 1967 and 1973 in Melbourne the Technical Teachers College will receive $ 1.95m; the Secondary Teachers College will receive $2.5m; Coburg

Teachers College will receive Sim; Burwood Teachers College will receive SI. 6m; Monash Teachers College will receive $1.9m; Melbourne Teachers College will receive S2.35m and Frankston Teachers College will receive SI. 5m. There is also a contingency that Latrobe Teachers College may receive SI. 5m, but I understand that there is some uncertainty about that. An amount of $550,000 has been set aside for one of the 3 teachers colleges in Bendigo, Ballarat or Geelong. My understanding is that the plan for the provincial teachers college has been scrapped, in other words, the metropolitan teachers colleges have been allocated $14,300,000 or 96 per cent of all the Commonwealth funds while the amount set aside for the country teachers colleges, which I do not believe will be used, is only $550,000 or less than 4 per cent of all the Commonwealth funds allocated between 1967 and 1973. Yet probably 230 per cent of all primary studentship holders in Victoria are in country colleges. It is still a fact that in Victoria, despite the centralist policies of the Victorian Government, 1 in every 3 people lives outside the metropolitan area. Yet we have this tremendous imbalance in the allocation of Commonwealth funds. I am strongly opposed to this because I do not believe that Commonwealth money should be used for the over-concentration of services in the metropolitan areas; I believe that it should be used with the distinct objective of building up country centres.

Mr Grassby:

– That is a wonderful objective.

Mr KENNEDY:

– lt is, but it is not practiced. What will be the effects on the 3 country colleges in Victoria to which I have referred? If we consider the Bendigo Teachers College we will be aware of the effect that lack of Commonwealth money will have on overcrowding. That college was established towards the end of the 1950s to cater for a student population of 300. This year it has 430 students, next year it is likely to have about 540 students, and according to a report in the local Bendigo ‘Advertiser’ the Victorian Minister for Education indicated recently that ultimately the objective is a population of 1,600 or more students. Obviously while either Commonwealth Government or State Government money is not being spent for this purpose the Bendigo Teachers College will suffer some very serious overcrowding. But there is more involved than this.

The problem affecting the 3 country colleges is that science and library facilities at present are little better than those in the average government high school, and indeed they are inferior to those in some private schools which have benefited from the largesse of this Government. In place of lecture rooms these colleges are still relying principally on classrooms. Members of the staff are crowded into an already overcrowded working space, and buildings are rambling single storey bungalows. Obviously the premises were designed for short term use, as is the custom so often in Victoria. About all that the Victorian Government can offer at present is the threat that some temporary accommodation will be brought into use at Bendigo to cater for the increase in the student population.

What we have is a situation where the teachers colleges are expected in the eyes of the community and the Education Department to be more and more tertiary institutions, yet their facilities do not meet the requirements of those institutions. What this will mean in the long run will be even more serious because when the teachers colleges in Victoria finally break away from the Education Department and are given some measure of autonomy, which is inevitable ultimately, they will be in the position where they are not only competing, one with the other, but also with colleges of advanced education and universities.

Mr Grassby:

– They might be part of universities.

Mr KENNEDY:

– That may be, but at present one does not know. The staff and the students will be attracted to those colleges and institutions which have the best facilities. It is obvious that unless this imbalance is rectified the teachers colleges in the country areas of Victoria will be in a second best position by comparison with other tertiary institutions in Victoria. Obviously people who have the qualifications to lecture at tertiary institutions, whether they are colleges of advanced education, teachers colleges or universities, will be attracted to those institutions where they have the best facilities for professional satisfaction. Those conditions will not br provided in country teachers colleges unless the Commonwealth Government intervenes and sends the Victorian Minister for Education or the Victorian Premier back to the planning room and back to the drawing board with a direction to produce a blueprint for teachers college education in Victoria which will eliminate this blatant discrimination against country areas. But of course there is more to it than just that. There is more to it than the educational effect this situation has on students in provincial areas. The teachers college is a fundamental government service. It is essential that those government services provided in provincial areas should be at least equal to those provided in metropolitan areas. A variety of reasons has been given for what I believe to be discrimination against provincial teachers colleges. One is that the Fourth University Committee has not yet reported in Victoria. However, this to me is a specious argument. If the Fourth University Committee is to report in a way that will affect teachers colleges this will affect metropolitan teachers colleges too. They have had plans for very substantial increases in their buildings and facilities.

The peculiar thing is that the only colleges apparently to be affected by this unknown university report are the country colleges. Furthermore, the discrimination is not something new. It is something that has applied in the 1967-70 triennium as well. In the case of Bendigo there is also the question of the adequacy of the size of the college grounds at Bendigo Teachers College. I believe that these are quite adequate. They are certainly more adequate than the grounds at teachers colleges which are receiving substantial Commonwealth money. Finally I repeat that I believe this to be a blatant case of discrimination against provincial teachers colleges. I call for Government action to rectify this imbalance.

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

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned all 2.21 a.m. (Thursday)

page 2992

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Aboriginals: Victoria River Downs and Wave Hill Stations (Question No. 3213)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Does his Department inspect the standard of food and living conditions of Aborigines employed at Victoria River Downs and Wave Hill Stations.
  2. If so, have the conditions and food been found to be satisfactory.
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Arbitration Inspectors of my Department have a responsibility for securing observance of the Cattle Station Industry (Northern Territory) Award which covers most classes of employees in the industry but only applies to employees who belong to the North Australian Workers’ Union. The Award requires the employer to provide such employees with accommodation and food at specified standards. The Award also covers the family needs of an employee in such matters.
  2. I am informed that Victoria River Downs and Wave Hill Stations have been visited by Inspectors of my Department within the last 12 months. I am informed that when an Inspector visited Wave Hill he was satisfied that workers’ accommodation complied with the Award. Provision of food at both stations and accommodation at Victoria River Downs are under examination by the Inspectorate. The results of this examination will be available shortly and I shall then supply further information to the honourable member.

Coal and Bauxite Exporters (Question No. 3769)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Can he say what is the percentage of ultimate ownership by individual Australians of firms exporting Australian (a) coal and (b) bauxite and Its component derivatives.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

A tabulation has been made by my Department of the ownership by Australian interests of firms engaged in the export of (a) coal and (b) bauxite, alumina and primary aluminium. It has been based solely on published information. Full details of overseas portfolio investment in Australian companies are not always available and the accuracy of the figures quoted is subject to this qualification:

Jervis Bay Steelworks (Question No. 3776)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Can he state in what way the ArmcoKaiser.ThyssenHuette consortium investigating the possibility of a steelworks at Jervis Bay is connected with Interarmco and other organisations trading extensively in armaments without regard to the ultimate destination of those armaments.
  2. Can he say what conditions have been imposed by Australian authorities on this consortium with regard to patent royalties, export franchises, increasing acquisition of equity by Australians and increasing participation in planning and policy by their proposed Australian employees.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. I am not aware of any such connections.
  2. The Commonwealth Government has not imposed any conditions on the consortium involved; however in relation to ventures of this nature the Government has made it clear that it would expect that Australians be given the opportunity to participate in the equity of the company and that Australian citizens also participate in its management.

National Service (Question No. 3926)

Mr Uren:

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

  1. What is the purpose of national service now that the Government is committed to the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam.
  2. Why does the Government continue with the conscription of young Australians in view of a recent statement by the former Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Hon. J. G. Gorton) that he anticipates no foreseeable danger to Australian shores within the next 10 years.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The national service scheme has been and continues to be a significant element of the effort expended to ensure the maintenance of an effective defence capability in this country. Its purpose is not to meet a particular threat of aggression and it was not introduced because of Vietnam. My speech in connection with the Second Reading of the National Service Bill, 1971 provides a detailed exposition of the Government’s policy in this regard.

Australian Workers Union Elections (Question No. 4149)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State of Queensland will this year conduct an election for certain positions in The Australian Workers’ Union and that some of these positions, namely, Delegates to Annual Convention, are to be elected on the basis of one delegate for each 4,000 members or part thereof, of the organisation in the Queensland branch of that organisation.
  2. If so, is it also a fact that the membership register of the Queensland branch of The Australian Workers’ Union, a federal organisation, includes the names of persons who belong to the State registered union, The Australian Workers’ Union of Employees, Queensland, and that many thousands of these are employed in industries or callings not covered by the Constitution and rules of The Australian Workers’ Union;if not, does each of the organisations keep a separate register of its members.
  3. If there is no separate membership register for each of these two organisations, how will the Electoral Officer determine the number of Delegates which the Queensland Branch will be entitled to elect to the Annual Convention of The Australian Workers’ Union, and how will he ensure that only those persons who qualify for membership in The Australian Workers’ Union, and who are, in fact, financial members of that organisation, are supplied with ballot papers in the election for positions in the organisation.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. On 14th April, 1971, the Industrial Registrar decided that a request from the Executive Council of The Australian Workers Union that the election for Queensland Branch delegates to the 1972 Convention of the Organisation be conducted under section 170 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act had been duly made. The Registrar arranged for the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State of Queensland to conduct the election. Rule 35 of the Constitution and General Rules of the organisation provides, inter alia, that each branch shall be entitled to one delegate for any number of financial members up to 4,000, and an additional delegate for every 4,000 financial members or part thereof. The rule further provides that the number of delegates required shall be computed on the membership of the Branch as shown by the annual balance sheet of the previous May. Persons entitled to membership are those engaged in industries or callings set out in rule 6 of the Constitution and General Rules of the Organisation.
  2. I am advised that the Queensland Branch of The Australian Workers Union keeps only one register of members of the Branch and of The Australian Workers Union of Employees. Queensland.
  3. I am advised that the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the State of Queensland as the officer conducting the election has examined the information available to him and has given certain directions under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to enable him to conduct the ballot. In response to a direction the Queensland Branch Secretary of The Australian Workers Union informed the Commonwealth Electoral Officer that the number of financial members engaged in industries or callings which fall within the ambit of Rule 6 of the Constitution and General Rules of The Australian Workers Union, as at 31 May. 1971 was 39,179, thus enabling the Commonwealth Electoral Officer to determine pursuant to Rule 35 (b) of the abovementioned rules, the number of delegates to annual convention to be elected to represent the Branch. I am further advised that the Commonwealth Electoral Officer as a result of a direction to the Branch Secretary of the Union is receiving ticket butts covering current membership which are endorsed where applicable to show that the member named is in an industry or calling covered by rule 6 of the rules of the organisation. Ballot papers will only be issued to those financial members of the union as shownby endorsement on the ticket butt to be covered by rule 6.

Navy: Construction Programme (Question No. 4243)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. What vessels are currently on order for the Royal Australian Navy?
  2. Where are each of these vessels being built?

  3. What is the:

    1. estimated delivery date; and
    2. approximate cost of each vessel?
Dr Mackay:
LP

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

A hydrographic vessel is under construction at Williamstown Naval Dockyard at an estimated cost of $3, 186m for construction and outfitting. It is expected to complete in January 1973.

A contract has been awarded in the past few days for construction in the United Kingdom of two additional Oberon Class submarines at an estimated cost of $38,68 lm for construction and outfitting. Delivery of the first vessel is planned for early 1975 and the second for late 1975.

Twenty-one Flat Top Lighters are being built by Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Co. Pty Ltd in Sydney at an estimated cost of $ 1.003m. Fifteen No. have been delivered and the project is expected to complete by November 1971.

Three Crane/Stores Lighters are being built by Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Co. Pty Ltd in Sydney at an estimated cost of $1.570m. The first of these Lighters is scheduled for delivery in May 1972; the remaining 2 for delivery in August 1972 and September 1972 respectively.

Two small harbour tugs are being built in Brisbane by Perrin Engineering Co. at an estimated cost of $.180m. The first of these should be delivered later this year and the second in early 1972.

Nine Concrete Ammunition Lighters are being built by E. M. Moore in Sydney at an estimated cost of $735,500. The first of these lighters is scheduled for delivery in May 1972 and the remainder by June 1973.

Unemployment: Registrations at Leichhardt and Newtown (Question No. 4300)

Mr Daly:

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

  1. How many persons are registered as unemployed at

    1. Leichhardt and
    2. Newtown employment offices.

  2. Of those registered how many are

    1. males and
    2. females and how many are
    1. adults and
    2. minors in each case.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) At end-September 1971, the number of persons registered as unemployed at Leichhardt and Newtown District Enjoyment Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service are shown in the table below:

It should be noted that an unemployed person registered at the Newtown or Leichhardt District Office is not necessarily limited to employment opportunities in that area only. Care should be taken therefore in interpreting the above figures.

Immigrants: Professional Qualifications (Question No. 4304)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Is a record kept of the numbers of persons with professional qualifications who have migrated to Australia since the commencement of the immigration scheme.
  2. If so, will he provide the number in each profession who have settled in Australia to this date.
Mr Lynch:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. A record has been kept of permanent and long-term professional, technical and related workers arriving in Australia from 1946. Longterm arrivals are visitors intending to stay for a year or more and residents returning after an absence of a year or more.

A record has been kept of professional, technical and related workers arriving in Australia as settlers since 1961.

With few exceptions, classifications within the professional, technical and related workers category were altered after 1960.

  1. Recorded arrivals of professional, technical and related workers are:

National Service (Question No. 4328)

Dr Klugman:

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

What was the cost of advertising information relating to national service registration in:

foreign language newspapers; and

foreign language radio programmes during 1970-71.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. During the year 1970-71 the cost of national service advertisements in foreign language newspapers was $6,189.
  2. Each announcement of the liability to register is broadcast on a bilingual basis, that is in English and repeated in a foreign language. It is estimated that approximately half of the time of broadcasting of national service obligations would be taken up by the foreign language sections and on this basis together with production costs the expenditure during 1970-71 would have been approximately SI 1,000.

Deportations (Question No. 4472)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

Were any Australian citizens by naturalisation or registration among the 743 persons deported during 1970-71 as listed in ‘Migration Facts and Figures’ circulated by him in September 1971; if so, what was the reason in each case.

Mr Lynch:
LP

– The Acting Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

page 2995

No

Drugs: Research and Prevention (Question No. 4434)

Mr Armitage:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What funds were allocated by the Commonwealth to each of the States for drug research and prevention.
  2. In what manner are the funds being used by each State.
  3. ls he satisfied that each State is using the funds to the maximum advantage.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

  1. The matter of drug research is primarily one for my colleague the Minister for Health. At this stage no funds are specifically available to the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence to finance drug research.

I understand, however, that on the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council, funds for drug research are made available by the Government for approved research projects. In such cases each application for research funds is examined on its merits. Specific amounts are not set aside for research into drug abuse.

The Commonwealth does not allocate funds to the States for financing specific drug prevention activities. However, for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 the Commonwealth has made available a total of one million dollars for use in programmes designed to educate all sectors of the community on the dangers of drug abuse. The greater proportion of this money has been allocated for approved drug education activities being undertaken by the States.

  1. The fund is being used to finance such drug education activities as seminars, conferences and training and in the purchase of equipment such as projectors, recorders and materials for use in connection with these activities.

Oil) To ensure that the funds are being used in the best possible way, an education committee has been established to integrate, co-ordinate, encourage and advise on education activities on drug abuse. This committee is made up of experts in drug education and other fields who can advise on activities of this kind.

Australian Council of Social Service Proposals (Question No. 4091)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. On what date did the Australian Council of Social Service give him the statement of aspects of social service benefits which merited attention in the 1971 Budget.
  2. What would be the estimated cost of implementing each proposal in the statement which was not adopted in the Budget and fully implementing each proposal which was partly adopted
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. The submission made by the Australian Council of Social Service was received on 6th May 1971.

  2. The proposals submitted by the Australian Council of Social Service involving specific changes in social service benefits are shown below, together with the estimated cost of implementing each proposal whch was not adopted in the 1971 Budget and each proposal which was partly adopted.

    1. That the rates of Social Service benefits be based on factors such as family responsibility and need, irrespective of causes of need and be as follows:

Based on the present number of age, invalid and widows’ pensions current and on the average weekly number of unemployment and sickness benefits current during 1970-71, the estimated additional annual cost of the proposal is $178m made up as follows:

  1. $165m ($167m if special benefit included) (ii)$9m (includes the cost of extending eligibility for the wife’s allowance to all non-pensioner wives of age pensioners)

    1. $4m
    2. The rate of additional pension for the children of pensioners is now $4.50 per week for each child.

  2. That the rates of Social Service benefits be raised automatically according to objective criteria, for example, average weekly earnings, in order to ensure that rates are geared to changing standards of living in the community.

In order to estimate the cost of this proposal it would be necessary to know firstly what precise objective criteria would be used to measure changing standards of living in the community, e.g., consumer price index, Commonwealth minimum wage, average weekly earnings, and secondly, the actual movement in the selected statistical series that will occur during the next financial year. In the absence of this information it is not possible to estimate the cost of the proposal.

  1. That the rates of Child Endowment be increased to $1 for the first child, $1.50 for the second child, $3.50 for the third child and $4.50 for the fourth and subsequent children.

The estimated additional cost of the proposal is $160m per annum.

  1. That the rate of Child Endowment for children in institutions be reviewed and that the rate be, at least, $2.50 per week.

The estimated additional cost of the proposal if the rate is increased to $2.50 per week is $500,000 per annum.

  1. That Supplementary Assistance be raised to, at least, $4 per week.

The estimated additional cost of increasing supplementary assistance to $4 per week is $20m per annum.

  1. That Supplementary Assistance be extended to married couples.

The estimated additional cost of the proposal is $3.6m per annum.

  1. That there be no waiting period for either unemployment or sickness benefit and that the payment of benefit be for the whole period of disability.

Under the existing provisions of the Social Services Act, unemployment benefit commences to be paid from the seventh day after the date of lodgment of a claim for benefit, or after the date unemployment commences, whichever is later. Sickness benefit commences from the seventh day after the date of incapacity provided a claim is lodged within 13 weeks of that date.

To estimate the cost of the proposal, based on the situation during the last 12 months, it would be necessary to know the number of persons unemployed or incapacitated for less than 7 deys, their income and the number of their dependents. This information is not available and consequently it is not possible to estimate the cost of the proposal.

  1. That the rates of Unemployment and Sickness Benefits for minors be the same as those for adults.

Based on the average number of unemployment and sickness beneficiaries in 1970-71, the estimated cost of paying minors the proposed adult rate of benefit of $19 per week is $4m per annum. This cost has been included in the estimated additional cost of proposal (a) (i) above.

Visitto China by Qantas Representatives (Question No. 4517)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Did the Minister for External Affairs advise against the visit which Messrs C. O. Turner, C. E. Oliver and N. R. Moon proposed to make to China on behalf of Qantas in 1965.

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

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

It would not be in accordance with practice to disclose, in answer to a Parliamentary question, the advice given by an individual Minister on a matter of Government policy.

A us tralian National Gallery: Director (Question No. 2087)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. On what date did the Interim Council of the Australian National Gallery recommend the appointment of a director of the Gallery.
  2. Did the then Prime Minister say on 5th May 1970 (Hansard, page 1634) that it was hoped that an appointment would be made shortly.
  3. When is it now hoped to make an appointment.
Mr Howson:
LP

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

  1. 25th July 1969.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Prime Minister announced in a statement to the House on 26th October 1971 that die Government proposes to appoint Mr James Mollison to the post.

Public Service (Question No. 3568)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What are the names of (a) First Division officers and (b) Second Division officers who have held their present positions of authority for more than 10 years.

Mr Anthony:
CP

– The Public Service Board has provided me as Acting Prime Minister the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. First Division officers: Sir Donald Anderson (Department of Civil Aviation since 1st January 1956); Major-General Sir William Refshauge (Department of Health since 1st September 1960); Mr A. G. Turner (Department of the House of Representatives since 1st January 1959) and Mr B. White (Department of the Army since 30th April 1958).
  2. Second Division officers: As at 30th June 1971, there were 30 Second Division officers who had occupied substantially the same position of authority for more than 10 years. Their names and designations are listed below.

South African Sporting Teams: Commonwealth Expenditure (Question No. 3820)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What was the total Commonwealth expenditure associated with the recent tour of Australia by the South- African rugby team.
  2. Have estimates been made of the Commonwealth’s costs associated with the proposed visit to Australia of the South African cricket team.
  3. If so, under what heading do these estimates appear in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. Approximately $65,300 of which amount a claim for $12,801.97 has been made by the Department of the Army against the Queensland Police Department for repayment for rations and accommodation provided by Northern Command for the Queensland Police.
  2. No.
  3. Not applicable.

Public Service: Special Qualifications {Question No. 3835)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What professional, technical or other courses offered by the Canberra College of Advanced Education are not recognised for qualification purposes by certain Government Departments and instrumentalities such as the Bureau of Mineral Resources.
  2. Which Departments do not recognise these qualifications and what is the reason for this.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. and (2) Section 37 of the Public Service Act provides that -

Where the Board is of the opinion that persons appointed to offices in the Second or Third Division should possess professional, technical or other special qualifications, a person shall not be appointed to such an office unless he possesses such qualifications . . . ‘.

There are similar provisions in Section 53 of the Act relating to the transfer or promotion of officers. The Board’s requirements under these provisions have general application throughout the Service.

I am advised by the Public Service Board that courses at the Canberra College of Advanced Education relevant to these requirements, from which students will graduate in 1971, have been recognised for those purposes; courses from which students will not be graduating before the end of 1972 or later, have not been recognised at this stage by the Board.

These latter courses are being examined as they are developed and decisions on their acceptability will be taken after discussion with employing Departments and appropriate educational authorities.

Fruit Marketing Authority (Question No. 4344)

Mr Sherry:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: (!) On what date (a) did he receive a letter from the Premier of Tasmania asking the Commonwealth Government to establish a single national fruit marketing authority and (b) was the letter referred to the Minister for Primary Industry.

  1. Has the Premier been advised of the action taken; if so, when.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. (a) On 27th August 1971 a letter was received from the Premier of Tasmania proposing several alternatives of a marketing authority for apples and pears. (b) Yes.
  2. The Premier was not advised that his letter was referred to the Minister for Primary Industry, as it is not usual to advise Premiers - or any other correspondents - of the administrative processes that must be taken in the evaluation of matters of this kind.

Commonwealth Employees Furlough (Question No. 4412)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What steps have been taken by the Government to have the Commonwealth Employees’ Furlough Act amended to provide for eligibility for pro rata furlough after 10 years service in place of the present provision which allows pro rata furlough after 15 years service, other than when retirement is due to age or ill-health.

Mr Anthony:
CP

– In answer to a similar question raised by the honourable member, the Prime Minister replied on 6th May 1971 that the Public Service Board had the matter of the minimum standards of furlough entitlement under review.

I am informed that the Public Service Board has not yet completed its investigations as the question of the basic qualifying period for furlough is one of a number of furlough issues which are under examination.

When the Public Service Board has made its recommendations, the matter you have raised will be considered by the Government.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 3 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711103_reps_27_hor74/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant