House of Representatives
23 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 p.m.. and read prayers.

page 3447

PETITIONS

National Service Act

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To (he Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble peititon of the electors of the Division of Hindmarsh respectfully sheweth:

That the determination as to which young men are required to undergo compulsory military service under the National Service Act 1951-1968 is arrived at by a ballot system based upon arbitrary grounds as to their date of birth.

And that this procedure providing for selection by a method of chance is an unfair and arbitrary imposition on the human rights of a minority and discriminates against certain of the young male persons in the community in favour of others solely by reason of their respective dates of birth.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Section Twenty-six of the National Service Act 195 1-1968 be repealed.

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

Petition received.

Lake Pedder

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble 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 are of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideraation.

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 wildneress area.

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Education Authority

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Education Authority

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

Aid for India and East Pakistan

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, 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 Australia respectively 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 $1Om 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 India and East Pakistan

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 respectively 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 willing ness 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.

Aboriginal Welfare

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That there is a crisis in Aboriginal welfare in the South West Land Division of Western Australia resulting from a population explosion, poor housing and hygiene and unemployment and unemployability.

That there is a need to phase out native reserves in the South West Land Division of Western Australia over the next three years.

That town housing must be provided for all Aboriginal families where the bread winner has permanent employment or an age or invalid pension entitlement.

That such housing must be supported by the appointment of permanent ‘home-maker’ assistance in the ratio of one home-maker to every eight houses or part thereof.

That incentives of housing, ‘home-maker’ services and training facilities must be created in centres of potential employment and for those who are currently unemployed or unemployable.

That insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements.

That adequate finance to meet these requirements ean only be provided by the Commonwealth government.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration to this most vital matter.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BENNETT:

– 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 271 per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 471 per cent on some contraceptive devices.

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Sales Tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sale.- 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.

Aid to Pakistani Refugees

Dr SOLOMON:

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of Tasmania respectfully showeth: That they are deeply concerned about the plight of the East Pakistani refugees in India.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will immediately increase aid by $10 million and take the strongest possible diplomatic action through the United Nations and other channels to relieve the human tragedy nf Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr ENDERBY:

– T present the following petition:

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

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

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

That present Government aid to the refugees in India is meagre and shameful for a country of Australia’s position and wealth. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, should:

Increase monetary aid for the refugees in India to at least 510,000,000 immediately and make provision for a further and extra grant for the victims of the famine in East Pakistan.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That due to higher living costs, including increasing charges for health services, most aged persons living on fixed incomes are suffering acute distress.

That Australia is the only English-speaking country in the world to retain a means test for aged pensioners and that a number of European countries also have no means test.

That today’s aged persons have paid at least 7i per cent of their taxable incomes towards social services since the absorption of Special Social Services Taxation in Income Tax and continue to make such payments. (71 per cent of all taxable incomes for 1966-67 amounted to $783,082,150 and this year will produce more than $800,000,000, more than sufficient to abolish the means test immediately.)

That the middle income group, the most heavily-taxed sector of the community, subsidises the tax commitment of the upper income bracket through the amount of social services contributions collected by the government and not spent on the purposes for which they were imposed.

That the abolition of the means test will give a boost to the economy by -

additional tax revenue from pensions

swelling of the work force, and

increased spending by pensioners.

That it is considered just and right to allow people who have been frugal, have lived their lives with dignity and have been anything but an encumbrance on the nation, to maintain that dignity to the end of their lives free from fear of penury.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to abolish the means lest for all people who have reached retiring age or who otherwise qualify for social service benefits or pensions.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

Aid for India and East Pakistan

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia respectively 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.

page 3450

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I wish to inform the House that the Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Anthony, left Australia on 20th November to attend a meeting of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Geneva. He is expected to return to Australia on 27th November. During his absence the Minister for Repatriation, Mr Holten, is Acting Minister for Trade and Industry. I also inform the House that the Minister for External Territories, Mr Barnes, will be in Papua New Guinea this week.

page 3450

QUESTION

PREMIERS CONFERENCE

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. A fortnight ago the Acting Prime Minister told the House that he had received a letter from the Premier of New South Wales requesting a special Premiers Conference to discuss unemployment and inflation, as sought by a unanimous vote of the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, and seeking a decision as soon as possible after the Prime Minister’s return from overseas. Since it is impossible to implement any prices and incomes policy in Australia without the co-operation of the States, whose fiscal policies can have a marked effect on prices and whose constitutional powers to supervise- prices are much greater than the Commonwealth’s, I ask the right honourable gentleman whether he has agreedto call a special Premiers Conference.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I should first of all point out that that part of the honourable gentleman’s question that relates to the fiscal policies of the States having an impact on prices is hardly relevant to today’s conditions in which cost inflation here is almost entirely due to the impact of increased wages both inside and outside the arbitration system. Let this be absolutely certain. The second great force that is driving up the prices in Australia is the industrial disputes in regard to which neither Mr Hawke nor the Leader of the

Opposition is taking any worthwhile part to see that they are reduced. I have yet to find out from the Leader of the Opposition that he is willing to play any part in trying to reduce industrial unrest in this country. As to the substance of the honourable gentleman’s question, I have this morning read the letter from the Premier to myself which was received during my absence. The letter is now in the hands of the Department of the Treasury and other relevant departments and I hope that they will be able to give me advice or recommendations during the course of the next few days. When that has been done and I have made up my mind I will announce to the House what the Government intends to do.

page 3451

QUESTION

OIL AND MINERALS EXPLORATION

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. Is the Minister aware that exploration for minerals and oil, particularly oil, is decreasing alarmingly? Is this serious condition due to the withdrawal by the Government of certain incentives which had inspired the expenditure of considerable risk capital in this country and produced such worthwhile results in recent years? Will the Minister closely examine the unfortunate position which is developing and recommend to the Government action which will give encouragement to promote renewed interest in our mining and oil potential?

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

– Exploration for minerals and oil in Australia is a matter with which we keep in constant touch. I know the honourable member has always shown a personal interest in this matter and also has taken an interest through the various committees with which he is associated. The latest figures which I have indicate that although some major exploration companies in the mineral field have made some adjustment to their expenditure for this year we anticipate the total expenditure for mineral exploration in Australia to be much higher for this financial year than for the previous financial year. When it comes to the question of oil exploration we anticipate that the reverse situation will be a fact in that there will be less expenditure on oil exploration during this year than during the past year. Of course, we have had this matter under close examination. There is quite a big variation between the amount that is being expended on off-shore and on-shore exploration. The amount expended on off-shore exploration will perhaps be slightly down but the amount spent on on-shore exploration will be down to a reasonably substantial degree.

I think this can be attributed to a number of reasons. One has some relation to the incentives that were and are still being provided in substantial amounts by the Government. The second has some relation to the problem relating to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries that arose just some months ago and the third relates to the fact that we have not had a substantial discovery of liquid petroleum in Australia for some years. But the position is being carefully examined by the Government at the present time. In fact, an inter-departmental committee has been studying the situation for some months. We have received submissions, principally from the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association and from individual members of that association, and those submissions are being studied by the inter-departmental committee at the present time. After the committee has concluded its study in relation to the provision of incentives by the Commonwealth and whether the present situation should be changed or whether some other recommendations should be made to the Government for consideration, a report will be made on a ministerial basis and will then be considered by the Government.

page 3451

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. He will be aware that the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts said in answer to a question on Aboriginal land rights addressed to him on 9th November by the honourable member for Prospect that the matter was one for an announcement by the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister therefore say whether the council of Ministers he established in May to inquire into land rights reached a decision on this matter some weeks ago? Has any recommendation of the council been considered by Cabinet, and if so, with what result?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– There have been many meetings of a ministerial kind to discuss and make decisions about the problems of Aborigines as a whole and I think we have now got to the position where with one exception, and that is associated with land rights, all outstanding problems have been decided and I believe they have been decided to the satisfaction of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs. Yesterday I received a report from the Commonwealth Solicitor-General dealing with this problem of land rights. As yet I have not been able to read it but at least I have been able today to give a direction that it be distributed to all the members of the ministerial committee. As soon as I feel that they have had sufficient time to read it and to be able to digest it I will call the committee together and we will then be able, 1 hope, to make a final decision.

page 3452

QUESTION

EDUCATION: EXPENDITURE

Dr SOLOMON:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and Science. Has the Minister seen a newspaper report of his meeting last Saturday with the Council for the Defence of Government Schools in Tasmania which represents him as saying that the amount of indirect aid to non-State schools is not fully known? Is this report correct?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I can understand how that impression’ might have been gained by the delegation but it is not in fact correct. We were talking at the time, I think, about the total expenditure by governments on education and I was pointing out that one of the factors that underwrote the Australian figures was that a little over 20 per cent of Australian children are educated in independent schools, and that the total expenditures by private people on independent education was a matter about which Government statistics were not as complete as might be desirable. I said that if we had full knowledge of the cost of education in the independent area this cost would increase the percentage of the gross national product spent throughout Australia on education. So far as the Commonwealth is concerned, we certainly know what we spend in support of non-Government schools and I believe that what the States spend by way of direct or indirect support of independent schools is also fully known. But the element of doubt that I was referring to in the figures available to the Government is in the total expenditure by private sources on independent education.

page 3452

QUESTION

FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Was he aware when he made his statement on the National Film and Television Training School of the existence of the letter from the Chairman of the Interim Council to the Minister for the Environment setting out the Council’s dissatisfaction with the report of P.A. Management Consultants Pty Ltd? If so, why did he refer to the report of P.A. Management Consultants but not to the reservations of the Council on its conclusions? Will he agree that by failing to mention the Chairman’s letter he created a misleading impression of the availability of jobs for film and television school graduates?. Will he now make a further statement setting this matter in its proper perspective?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition relating to the Film and Television Training School and I replied to it. I tabled all the documents that had been received by the Government up to the date on which the Leader of the Opposition asked the question. As to the second part, or the substantial part, of the honourable member’s question, I am nol the responsible Minister and naturally I could not be expected to know about the receipt of every single letter that is received, and I did not know of the receipt of this letter. But I understand that the Acting Prime Minister has agreed that there shall be a debate on this matter, and the honourable member will then have every opportunity to raise this subject. But I think he will be in for a considerable number of surprises.

page 3452

QUESTION

TARIFF POLICY

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, concerns a matter common to a number of queries raised by constituents who write to me expressing concern at Government tariff policy. I ask: As trade union success in obtaining wage increases outside the arbitration system is most pronounced in those areas where employers bask in considerable tariff protection, would the Prime Minister give consideration to the introduction of a system of automatic tariff reductions for the products of those manufacturers who do not resist arbitral pressure for wags increases? Will he consider also whether such a system would give pause to union leaders in that it would threaten security of employment in those areas of activity endeavouring to take advantage of our outdated tariff structure? Could this not be a major instrument of control over inflationary pressure now rampant in the Australian economy?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I have naturally enough in the past had a good look at this problem of unused tariffs, and I have frequently heard it said that the method proposed by the honourable gentleman might be used in order to ensure that employers do not too readily give in to demands for increased wages. The problem is one which 1 think is worthy of attention. I will find out from the relevant department, whether it is the Department of Trade and Industry or the Treasury, whether anything can be done about it and I will let the honourable member know. As to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I think I should say that I have very grave doubts as to whether this would have a significantly big impact upon costs and therefore upon inflationary tendencies. As I said a few moments ago, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the 2 major influences arise in the wage field, particularly in the area of award rates and the wages drift, and in the area of industrial discipline and the fear that this creates in the mind of employers.

page 3453

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Did he see any pleasant surprise in the unemployment figures recently released which show an increase of 20,000 over the same period last year and a decline of over 11,000 in the number of unfilled vacancies? Does he agree with the Treasurer that there will be still higher unemployment in early 1972, and is he aware that the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has revised downwards its forecasts of the growth in the total number of employees consequent upon the last Budget and anticipates unemployment at an average level of 100,000 continuing into 1972-73? Does Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, which yesterday announced its third major cutback in steel production in a month, intend to lay off a further 2,000 employees before Christmas? Will he before Christmas increase the level of unemployment benefit to that of other pensions and also, as an act of social justice as well as a stimulus to demand, increase social service payments generally?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, what I said related to the figures for October, and I think there was a pleasant surprise. If the honourable gentleman was not pleasantly surprised because there was a neutral position then I am afraid he is past the stage when he can have satisfaction one way or the other. As to the balance of the honourable gentleman’s question, I think I should give 2 answers. The first one is that I believe in the principle of ministerial responsibility. We have on the front bench of the Government a man fully capable and able to answer these questions if they are directed to him. That is the Treasurer.

Mr Foster:

– The whole lot of them are blushing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind the honourable member for Sturt that interjections are out of order.

Mr McMAHON:

– I do not think that could happen to any member of the Opposition. The second point I make is that it must be obvious that the so-called question or speech by the honourable gentleman could not be answered by anyone in a question and answer session in this House. If he wants to get a question or a series of questions of this kind answered he should put it on the no-ce paper or, if he wishes, write direct to the Treasurer and ask to be given an answer.

page 3453

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Postmaster-General state how the amount of funds provided to the Postmaster-General’s Department by the Treasury since federation, namely $2,484,331,130 was arrived at? Does this amount include losses made since the Postmaster-General’s Department was established in 1901 or does it represent the assets taken over by the Post Office- when it became a business undertaking? Does it include the 5 years loss of revenue paid to the States from 1901 to 1906?

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

– I am afraid this is a somewhat difficult question to answer in detail during a period of questions without notice. However, I will answer briefly to the effect that early in 1959 the Government set up a committee of 5 people to investigate the capital structure of the Australian Post Office and that committee made a recommendation as to a commencement point in terms of capital at that particular point of time. It was not necessarily the amount of money that had been advanced from the Treasury, less any profits which had been made or money which had been repaid to the Treasury up to that time. It was a new commencement point and, since then, advances by the Treasurer have been shown as part of the capital of the Post Office and any payments that have been made - that is, in terms of profits made - have been deductions from that particular amount, so that the figure which the honourable member first mentioned, which I believe to be approximately correct if not completely correct, would represent the summation of these figures from the time of that independent committee.

page 3454

QUESTION

TRAINING OF CAMBODIAN TROOPS

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– 1 ‘ ask the Prime Minister a question. He will be aware of the confusion which has been created in his absence by answers which the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence have given on the training of Cambodian troops. At a Press conference immediately prior to his departure was he asked:

Our correspondent in Washington reports today . . that the Americans have secretly sounded out the Australian Government on this matter. Could you tell, me?

And did he reply:

To the best of my knowledge there has been no secret sounding out of the Australian Government, and I believe that 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 of instructors to Cambodia.

Is he aware that on 10th November the Acting Prime Minister told the Leader of the Opposition:

In April this year there was a request from the American Embassy that we help train Cambodians in Cambodia . . . The Prime Minister was notified of the discussions that had taken place and the refusal by Australia to participate in that type of operation.

Will the Prime Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is giving a lot of information in this question. The question is not in conformity with the Standing Orders and I ask the honourable member to conclude his question.

Mr BARNARD:

– 1 will conclude the question now, Mr Speaker. Will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that these statements are utterly incompatible? Will he say which statement is untrue?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I can understand the Opposition wishing to create false issues and to divert attention from its own problems and this, of course, is one of the ways in which this is done. However, I believe that the honourable gentleman was guilty of complete misrepresentation in that he did not quote in full the question I was asked, but left out the main portion of it. So, let me tell him what it was. The question asked by Mr Vincent Matthews of the Melbourne ‘Herald’ was:

Can I bring up an important matter, sir? Our 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.

I then gave an answer which I ended by saying:

It is hypothetical and I cannot give answers to hypothetical questions.

The fact is that the President did not ask me about sending people to train troops in Cambodia and, during the course of our discussion overseas, it was never raised. The simple fact was that this question related to President Nixon’s meeting with me immediately after I had arrived in Washington. Therefore, no issue arose, and there has been a total misunderstanding of this matter ever since the day I left Austraia. Then when I arrived at the airport in New York I was asked: ‘What is your Government’s feeling about President

Nixon’s request that Australia send military advisers to Cambodia?’ I said: ‘He has not asked for any’. He had not, and he never did.

What I did do when I met President Nixon was to point out what our position was with regard to the training of South Vietnamese in South Vietnam and with regard to the training of Cambodians in Australia. I said that in principle we were willing, providing it was practicable and our allies were agreeable, to train Cambodians in South Vietnam at an American training school. But I went on to point out in my Blair House statement that the President had not asked me about training troops in Cambodia. So the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has raised a completely false issue.

I should like to clear this matter up because the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question relates to a totally different question from that asked by Mr Matthews. Mr Matthews had been good enough to point out that the question he asked me only related to the purported report that President Nixon would ask me in Washington to send Australian military advisers to Cambodia to train the Cambodian Army, and that the Americans had secretly sounded out the Government on the matter to find out what my answer would be.

In regard to giving a full answer to the balance of the question, I can add nothing to what my colleague the Acting Prime Minister said or what was said by the Minister for Defence. In fact, I think that the answers given by the Acting Prime Minister were perfect. But on this matter I will now make a positive statement: Long ago I was asked whether we would be prepared to send training personnel to Cambodia, and I immediately gave the answer no. Consequently, that became a decision and was confirmed and accepted by the Government. We have never been prepared to send training personnel to Cambodia. We are not prepared to send them, and we are not prepared to permit Australian fighting troops to go to either South Vietnam or Cambodia.

page 3455

QUESTION

GOLD SUBSIDY

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. Has it been estimated that early cessation of gold produc tion in Western Australia will cause a population drop of at least 25 per cent over the area concerned? Has the Prime Minister recently received numerous requests to increase the assistance to the gold mining industry to ensure its continuation and to prevent the large scale unemployment which must otherwise occur? Have the local authorities of both Kalgoorlie and Boulder informed the Prime Minister that they will fly a deputation to Canberra to present to him and his Ministers their reasons why an increase in the gold subsidy is required so urgently? Is the Prime Minister aware that the cost of sending that deputation would be approximately $2,000? Finally, docs the Prime Minster now fully recognise the grave concern with which the councils and the people view the situation? If so, can he now tell the House what his intentions are regarding the matter? He will recall that some 3 months ago he told the House that in view of the changing circumstances in the nickel industry . he would reconsider the question of providing further assistance.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before I call the Prime Minister I should like to draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that this afternoon we have had a number of questions which have been extremely long. I think that honourable members will have to give closer attention to the spirit of the Standing Orders than they have done this afternoon. I have asked repeatedly that questions be short, but this afternoon honourable members have excelled themselves. Questions are growing longer and longer and I suggest that honourable members co-operate with the Chair in this matter.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Earlier in the afternoon I drew attention to the fact that under standing order 142 it was appropriate that questions should be directed to the Minister responsible for that part of the administration of government to which the question related. Therefore, this question should have been directed to my colleague the Treasurer or to the Minister for National Development. If the honourable member cares to put the question on the notice paper I will direct it to the attention of the responsible Minister.

Mr Collard:

– I rise to order. Some time ago, Mr Speaker, you ruled that a question should be answered by the appropriate

Minister. If that is so, my question should have been answered by the appropriate Minister, perhaps the Treasurer, if the Prime Minister was unable to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call upon the Treasurer to answer it.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable gentleman asked me a question in very similar terms during the last sitting week. I then told him that the matter was being reviewed in the light of changed circumstances. We are now in the course of that review. 1 have received letters from honourable senators of my own Party from Western Australia, the honourable gentleman and a gentleman named Mr Brodie Hall who. if my recollection is correct, is Chairman of the Chamber of Mines in Kalgoorlie. I have also had a letter from the Town Clerk of Kalgoorlie, but please do not hold me precisely to the names of the people who have written the letters.

Mr Morrison:

– Yes, carry on.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– I am glad that I can answer this question in such a happy atmosphere. However, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie does not regard it in quite that way. I understand full . well his concern and will proceed with the examination. When I get the opportunity to complete il. I will take it to the Government and will then inform all parties who have made requests to me of the outcome.

page 3456

QUESTION

SURVEY OF ROADS

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport: Has a further Australian road survey on which to base the next Commonwealth aid roads scheme been commenced or is one contemplated? Will the Minister endeavour to ensure that the tolerable standards of engineering and road speeds laid down for this survey are not used to cause erosion of funds available for rural roads?

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

– I am able to inform the honourable member that a survey of roads by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads is taking place in all States. The honourable member will know that for the last Commonwealth aid roads programme some SI, 252m was allocated of which some S580m was to be spent on rural and nonurban arterial roads. The honourable member’s concern is that an increase in road standards may lower the volume of money made available to local government He has to keep in mind the problems that we have with road safety; the current survey will have regard to those problems and will take into account the standards of road engineering for the new programme. I will keep in mind the honourable member’s concern and endeavour to see that the volume of money made available to local government is not affected by that consideration.

page 3456

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TRADE

Dr PATTERSON:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister, in view of the reports that he achieved important gains in the United Slates with regard to the alleviation of the added United States surcharge on wool and also in Britain in securing more favourable conditions for the export of primary products, particularly sugar, to the United Kingdom during the transitional period for the entry of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community, when will the Prime Minister inform the industries concerned of the good news? Or are the real facts exactly as they were before he left Australia, that is, that the United States will not reduce the added surcharge and that the European Economic Community will carry out a systematic study of sensitive Australian exports, industry by industry, as was announced 6 months ago, under the EEC safeguard clause, which is of little benefit to Australia when viewed in the overall Australian context?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, 2 subjects were discussed with me when I was in the United States. They were the question of what could be done to help the Australian wool industry and the willingness of the United States Government to look at the matter. The United States Government did not mention the normal import duty on wool. Mr Starts, the Secretary of Commerce, will be out here early in January and the matter can be discussed with him then. What I can say is that there is a real willingness on the part of the United States Government to help us if they can. So the honourable gentleman’s question, as usual, is provocative and does not touch the real point at issue at all.

As to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I did have long discussions with Mr Rippon about the conditions of entry of the British into the European Economic Community. He, and Mr Heath also, gave - me 3 assurances. These have been written in to help Australia. These gentlemen wish now that they had set them out at the time of entry in a more closely defined way than they did. The first one was that if there was any Australian agricultural industry that was threatened with or was suffering serious injury, the matter could be taken up either by the Australian Government or by the United Kingdom Government, or by both together, or by the industry concerned. When I issued my Press statement on this matter I went on to say that only that day discussions about the sugar industry had commenced in the United Kingdom. So, there was a positive assurance of a desire to help if they can be helpful.

Mr Speaker, as to the remainder of the question, I will be dealing with this matter in full in the statement that I will make in the House tonight. I do not want to preempt my answer to the other 2 parts of the question. The honourable gentleman will hear the answer tonight and if he wishes to raise the matter he will be able to do so then.

page 3457

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr IRWIN:

– Is the Minister for Housing aware that a great number of returned servicemen on hearing in the Budget Speech that the war service homes allocation was to be extended to $9,000 entered into housing contracts on that basis? Many are being threatened now with losing their deposits. Can the Minister tell me whether this legislation can be expedited through this House and through the Senate?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The War Service Homes Bill which is currently before the House is to be debated later this week. I can assure the honourable member that when the Bill is passed in this House and, when it is passed, we hope, in the Senate, every opportunity will be taken to see that the applications for maximum advances or other advances will be expedited as quickly as possible.

page 3457

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Mr James proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister) -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The conduct of any honourable gentleman of this House is not subject to question at question time. The question is therefore out of order. I call the honourable member for Maranoa.

Mr James:

– I have not concluded my question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member’s question is out of order. I call the honourable member for Maranoa.

Mr James:

– Well, I ask-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have already ruled the honourable gentleman’s question out of order. I call the honourable member for Maranoa.

Mr James:

– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr James:

– But, Mr Speaker, this is terribly unfair. I did not think you were capable of it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Maranoa.

Mr Barnard:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Hunter rose to ask a question. He concluded with a point of order. I think that, in all fairness, he is entitled at least to have his point of order heard.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I had already asked the honourable member on 2 occasions to resume his seat. This he did not do. I have called the honourable member for Maranoa on this occasion. On several occasions in this House when I have ruled a question asked by an honourable member out of order, the honourable member concerned has then put his question in correct form and I have considered it. If the honourable member does this, I will consider his question.

Mr James:

– I am prepared now.

page 3457

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that prominent mining executives, bankers, industrialists as well as leaders of rural industry now advocate a devaluation of the

Australian dollar? Have the advantages of devaluation and its assistance to export industry now in urgent need of this assistance been fully considered by the Government in relation to the present economic policy of the United States of America?

Mr Cope:

– 1 rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, you have ruled that these are matters of policy which should not be answered by the responsible Ministers.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair has never ruled that they are matters of policy because (he Chair is not in a position to realise that they are matters of policy. That is a matter for the individual Minister himself to announce to the House.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– 1 think the House will remember that some time ago 1 made a general statement relating to our policy in connection with the changes in international parities of exchange. In this statement, which was made before I left for overseas, I said that the main decisions in this problem of the realignment of parities and the withdrawal of the American surcharge on imports and similar matters’ would first of all have to be resolved within the group of 10 before we, as a Government, would be able to make a final decision.

That still is the position today. In fact, it would be foolhardy for us to try to make up our minds not knowing where the exchange rates in other countries might go. I should add in relation to this problem that this is one of the matters that 1 will be speaking about in my statement to the House tonight. I think that the honourable gentleman will have to wait until then to get the balance of the answer.

page 3458

QUESTION

OVERSEAS VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER

Mr JAMES:

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: Was he correctly reported as saying at a White House dinner on 2nd November that the right honourable member for Higgins ‘has become a bigger nuisance outside the Cabinet than in it’, and, if so, were his comments made privately or in public? Also, was he correctly reported as saying publicly on 3rd November that comments on Vietnam attributed to the leading contender for the Democratic Party presidential nomination constituted ‘one of those occasions when 1 am driven to despair’, and that Senator Muskie was less well informed on Vietnam than his Republican opponents? Must all Ministers travelling overseas now prosecute domestic Australian political disputes and intervene in the domestic political disputes of their hosts?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– As a former policeman the honourable gentleman would know that it is not wise to rely on hearsay evidence. The next point that I make is that when speaking about my colleague, the right honourable member for Higgins, I exert the maximum punctiliousness in any comment I make. What I am not prepared to do in any circumstances is to reply to the worst type of gossip, even though it might come from the honourable gentleman who has just asked the question.

As to the second part of the honourable member’s question, it must seem strange that Senator Muskie himself has stated that he is not at all concerned with a question I was asked at the National Press Club in Washington and the answer I gave and that he intended to take no action whatsoever about it. I would like to make this comment: 1 do not for one moment think that what I said was a breach of protocol in any shape or form. I was asked a question at the National Press Club and ft was the President himself who asked the question that was submitted to him on a piece of paper. I was entitled to rely upon him as to the accuracy of what he had stated. I gave an answer to the question which was really non-controversial and was so trivial in nature that 1 am unable to understand how any news agency could have gone to the trouble of cabling it. Certainly no-one took any notice of it in the United States.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 remind the House that there are many honourable members, particularly on my left, who desire to ask questions during this week and the remaining weeks of this session. If honourable members in one section of the House are going to conduct themselves humorously, as they have done this afternoon, fewer questions will be able to bs asked. I suggest that honourable members should endeavour to conduct themselves in the correct and proper manner and that decorum be maintained.

Mr McMAHON:

– It is my wish that 1 should make the maximum contribution that I can to the dignity and the status of this Parliament, but if questions are asked like that just asked by the honourable gentleman, based upon gossip, it is difficult for anyone, including you, Sir, to have that kind of dignity and status sustained. At least I can state on behalf of my side of the House that we want the Parliament to act in a responsible manner. I certainly will not respond to the kind of gossip peddled by the honourable gentleman.

page 3459

QUESTION

RUSSIAN PRESENCE IN INDIAN OCEAN

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Navy. I preface it by pointing out that there has been some dispute, particularly by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, about the number of Russian warships in the Indian Ocean. In view of the importance of the subject, can the Minister make an estimate of their present strength?

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

– In listening to the Opposition on this subject of defence I find that what one needs apparently is a bad memory and a short memory. About a month ago the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made certain statements in terms of the defence of Australia. He stated that our defence posture should be that of defending the Australian mainland, air space, coastline and the territorial waters. At the same time as this limitation on our naval activities is designated, he tells the public that he sees no menace, no problem, and indeed he excuses the presence of a Russian fleet in the Indian Ocean. To me these statements are quite incompatible. He went further and said that if we are to go beyond our own territorial limits we can do so only if the United Nations invites us to do so.

Mr Kennedy:

– Mr Speaker, make him answer the question.

Dr MACKAY:

– I will do so in one moment. I want to put it in its correct setting. I remind the House that Russia - and China, very shortly - will be able to veto such invitations given to this nation. So the Russians with impunity will be able to sail within a short distance of our shores and we will not be entitled to surveillance and reconnaissance activities in our adjacent oceans.

Mr Kennedy:

– Who said that?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Bendigo. I would suggest that, as I understand the question delivered by the honourable member for Isaacs, although the matter that the Minister is referring to is somewhat relevant to the question, the Minister has not attempted to answer the main portion of that question. I ask the Minister to come to the point.

Dr MACKAY:

– During the course of the discourse to which I have just referred the Deputy Leader of the Opposition accused me of having misled the House and of having made a statement-

Mr Uren:

– The Minister should sit down. Mr Speaker is on his feet.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not need any assistance. If the Minister for the Navy wants to make a statement after question time is over I am sure it can be done. But if in relation to this question he is going to refer to something which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition may or may not have done he will be out of order. As I understand the way in which the question was framed, the main portion of it -elated to the number of ships belonging to the Russian fleet that were in the Indian Ocean.

Dr MACKAY:

– With respect, Mr Speaker, the question asked: Was there a divergence of opinion between the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and myself on the subject of the numbers? I have just said that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition accused me of saying falsely that there were 20 Russian surface ships and an unknown number of submarines in the Indian Ocean.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Will the honourable member please resume his seat. For the moment I am listening to the Minister for the Navy.

Dr MACKAY:

– The question that the honourable member for Isaacs asked is a plain question of fact as to whether I had misled the House in saying there were some 20 ships in the Indian Ocean and an unknown number of submarines.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I am speaking only from memory. I would like to have a look at a copy of the question before I rule further.

Dr MACKAY:

– I will ask for leave to make a personal explanation at the end of question time.

page 3460

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– Mr Speaker. I claim to have been misrepresented. On 17th November the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) made certain statements which appeared in the Australian Press ascribing the estimate of 20 Russian warships to me personally. He said:

The justification for this claim of at least 20 Russian surface warships has never been given, lt is a claim which cannot be substantiated

That statement was widely printed in the Press and later taken up in the ‘Sunday Australian’ of 21st November. The honourable member apparently referred to an answer to a question that I gave on 14th October which is fully reported in Hansard. In that reply 1 stated:

Undoubtedly, there is world concern at the Russian presence m the lr.d:an Ocean. This is evidenced perhaps by what ‘Jane’s Fighting Ships’ said in ils foreword, namely, that 5 years ago there were no Russian warships in this ocean but today there are more than a score of surface warships and an unknown number, of submarines.

I now table that foreword. It does indeed give the entire substance of the statement I made. I will read one paragraph from the foreword to tha House. It is as follows:

Again. 5 years ago the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.–, hair no warships in the Indian Ocean, but today there are a score of surface ships alone, and these is no telling how many Soviet submarines are in the area. The Soviet Navy is believed In he completing nuclear-powered submarines at the rale nf one every long month. lt continues:

The United States is very worried about the growth of the Soviet Navy’s mounting strength in the Mediterranean. along North Africa and in the Indian Ocean. 1 table that quotation to justify the statement I made.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– Mr

Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Yesterday’s Press reported me as having said in relation to the States that I did not agree with the statement that care for the aged was mainly the Commonwealth’s responsibility. What I did say was that care for the aged was not entirely the Commonwealth’s responsibility.

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

– I claim to have been misrepresented by the Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’ in an article by Mr Jim Quirk on 15th November alleging that I was believed to be an associate member of a ginger group working within my Party against the Prime Minister. 1 would have thought that my record stands for itself as far as loyalty to my Party and its Leader is concerned. The allegation is baseless.

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I also claim to have been misrepresented by the Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’ in an article written by Mr Jim Quirk on 15th November alleging that I was believed to be an associate member of a group working within my Party against the Prime Minister. No man or newspaper makes my decisions for me, and like my friend, the Minister for Customs and Excise, I resent the allegation in the article and claim it to be completely untrue.

page 3460

WOOL INDUSTRY ACI

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– Pursuant to section 84 of the Wool Industry Act 1962- 1970, I present the annual report of the Australian Wool Board for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

An interim report of the Board was presented to the House on 5th October 1971.

page 3460

FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACT

Mr NIXON:
Minister f-ir Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Reseatch Act 1969, I present the second annual report on the operation of the Act during the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 3460

FISHING INDUSTRY ACT

Mr NIXON:
Minister lor Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956, I present the fifteenth annual report on the operation of the Act during the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 3461

STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES) ACT

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the States Grants (Pre-school Teachers Colleges) Act 1968- 1971, I present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the year ended 30th June 1971 and projects in relation to which the payments have been authorised.

page 3461

TARIFF BOARD REPORT

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present a Tariff Board report on shot and grit of chilled cast iron (Dumping and Subsidies Act) dated 30th September 1971.

page 3461

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · Gwydir · CP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Police for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 3461

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Income Tax Bill 1971.

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) 1971.

Loans (Qantas Airways Limited) Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Matrimonial Causes Bill 1971.

Sulphuric Acid Bounty Bill 1971.

Pyrites Bounty Bill 1971.

Western Australia (South-west Region Water Supplies) Agreement Bill 1971.

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Bill (No. 2) 1971.

Northern Territory Supreme Court Bill 1971.

Stevedoring Industry Bill 1971.

Railway Agreement (Tasmania) Bill 1971.

page 3461

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE

Report of Australian Delegation

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I ask for leave of the House to present the report of the Australian branch delegation to the Seventeenth Commonwealth Parliamentary Asso ciation Conference held at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, during September 1971 and to make a statement in connection with it.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr LUCOCK:

– I present the report. Mr Speaker, in presenting this report to the House I count it a privilege to be able to do so and also to have been a member of the delegation that attended the Seventeenth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference. I sometimes feel that when such reports are presented to the House and tabled, and perhaps 2 or 3 of those who attended the particular conference make speeches saying what the conference was about, and various other things, there perhaps is not a full realisation of the real value of these conferences. I think that this applies with even more force today particularly with the United Kingdom entering into the European Economic Community, and it is even more applicable in Australia’s present position because of the various circumstances that have been developing in recent years.

This Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is an old association. It is old in years; it is old in experience. Its real value lies in the fact that it is an association of parliamentarians who, irrespective of race, religion or culture, are united by a community of interest. They have a respect for the rule of law and for the rights of the individual citizen. I believe that in these days these matters are of vital importance not only to Australia and not only to the Commonwealth, but also to the contribution that the Commonwealth can make to the world situation today. The Association exists and has existed to promote an understanding and an appreciation of the parliamentary institution. While there may be occasions when we are critical, while there may be occasions when we feel the parliamentary institution as we know it today has some defects, I believe that if we are to be honest with ourselves we must admit that in our particular sphere of activity in our Association the parliamentary institution is the hope of the world. By that I believe that we also must have some appreciation and understanding of the situation in countries that do not have the parliamentary institution.

I think perhaps there is a danger that we may try to force this parliamentary institution, this system, upon countries when they are not ready for it. Perhaps by trying to have it established too soon in their history we will find that it will be detrimental not only to them but to the parliamentary institution itself. So I believe we have to be extremely careful in the way in which we endeavour to establish our parliamentary way of life in other countries. This does not mean that I disagree with the view that the end and aim should be the establishment of parliamentary democracies in all these countries, because I believe this should be so.

Briefly, to give some detail, there are 90-odd branches of our Association, and included in this are 2 associated groups, the United States of America and the Republic of Ireland. Each branch consists of members of parliaments or legislatures ot the respective Commonwealth countries. The total membership would be of the order of 8,000. The management of the Association as a whole is vested in the General Council, which is representative of the branches, with headquarters in London. The secretariat, as all members of the Association know, is headed by Mr Robin Vanderfelt, the Secretary-General. An important part of the organisation is a relatively small Executive Committee which has management functions under authority delegated to it by the General Council. Since the Second World Watthere have been 17 plenary conferences, the last 2 being in Canberra in 1970 and in Kuala Lumpur in 1971. Malaysia was the host for the 17th conference. Australia was represented, as usual, by 6 delegates from the Commonwealth of Australia Branch and by a delegate from each of the 6 Australian States. The Commonwealth ot Australia Branch delegation consisted of Senator Wright, who was the leader of the delegation, Senator Bishop, Mr Les Johnson, myself, Senator Sim and Mr Wallis. The number present in Kuala Lumpur, including secretaries, was 237, representative of 71 branches of the General Council. They are only figures but behind those figures are those individuals who represented their various countries and parliaments, and of course the countries themselves.

As everyone knows, prior to the conference delegates and secretaries are able to visit many interesting parts in the host country, in this instance Malaysia, and have ample opportunity to meet the people of the country. 1 believe this too is an important part of the conferences. I notice that sometimes it is felt that parliamentarians who go to a conference in another country have an extremely in joyable time and are able . to go round and visit quite a number of places. But this is an important part of attending the conferences. First of all the delegates get to know the people of the country in which the conference is being held, then they get to know the other delegates and they ;jet to know and appreciate their point of view before the conference itself, with its statistics and debates, gets into action. As I say, I think this is extremely important.

I think that a brief mention of some of the heads of debate will show the value of this conference. They included ‘The Commonwealth and Problems of World Security’, ‘Problems of the Environment’, ‘Challenges to Parliamentary Democracy’ and Economic Development’. These were broken up into sub-heads which allowed delegates to discuss particular and varying matters of concern to each one of them. There is a practice in the Association which I think is valuable. We have discussion but no resolutions. As I say, I think this is of extreme value because it allows complete and open discussion without, as it were, the matters being brought to a divisive stage with votes being taken. The report which I have tabled is one which I think all members of this House and all those who read it will find interesting. I am sure that those of us who had the privilege to attend this conference returned to Australia with a greater awareness of the value of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in promoting the best interests of the Parliaments of the British Commonwealth and of the members of those Parliaments. I am sure that every one of us, particularly those who have had the privilege of attending more than one of these conferences, feels that this is a contribution that has been made, that can be made and that will be made in the future.

It is impossible to name all those who contributed so much to the conference and to the visit, but, so that it will be in the records of this House, I should like to make special reference to Tun Haji Abdul Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tun Tan Siew Sin, the Minister of Finance in Malaysia who was Chairman of the General Council; Enche Mohamed Khir Johari, Minister for Commerce and Industry, who ably assisted in the conduct of the meeting; and the secretary of the Malaysia branch, Enche Ahmad bin Abdullah. Their competence and friendly approach were outstanding and too high a tribute to these people cannot be paid.

One major point is that the conference was opened by His Majesty, the King of Malaysia. He was supported by the Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak. In the course of an interesting and enlightening speech, the Prime Minister dealt comprehensively with the parliamentary system of government in Malaysia and the current concept of democracy which had evolved. The Secretary-General, Mr Robin Vanderfelt, and his staff again were most competent and I think that the congratulations of all those who attended the conference would be given freely to those people who played an important part in the success of the conference. I am sure that all those who had the privilege of attending this conference hope that the holding of conferences of this kind will long continue, because they are unique in enabling parliamentarians - the elected representatives of the people - to get together and, with mutual advantage, discuss significant matters which affect not only the Commonwealth of Nations but also the world as a whole. With the world situation as it is today, 1 believe that this matter is of vital importance and one in which the Australian Parliament can continue to play an increasingly important part.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Speaker, 1 seek leave to make a short statement on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 thank the House. I will not keep the House for long because I find myself in complete compliance with the remarks oof the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock). As he indicated, it was a profound and highly beneficial experience for each of the dele gates to have the opportunity to participate in such a conference, lt is always a great experience when the representatives of 71 nations are thrown together: As the honourable member mentioned from a parliamentary standpoint, 237 different personalities were at the conference. Of course, together with those parliamentarians were members of parliamentary entourages from different countries. They included eminent public servants, Clerks of the House and the like.

I regarded this conference as most impressive. Australia seemed to be recognised as a country which was expected to give a great lead in connection with a number of matters. The honourable member for Lyne instanced some of the topics which were debated at this conference and these included Britain’s entry into the Common Market. I think it was significant that such a large number of members from the Australian delegation - I do not mean only the Commonwealth parliamentary delegation; I include those from the States as well - participated and put the Australian viewpoint. Recently the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has been talking about this matter and indicating that there is a need for Australia to be effective in places other than Australia House. He is talking about businessmen and others going into the Common Market countries to put our views. This purpose was very effectively served by the members of the Australian delegation to the 17th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference.

Similarly, there was a very great need for Australian delegates to be present when there arose the subject - the precise name of which I cannot recall offhand - which involved consideration of the question of apartheid. There is no question that Australia was under attack in this respect, and it was very necessary for us to put the Australian viewpoint. Even those of us who felt that there have been governmental indiscretions in the area of apartheid, such as in approving the recent Springbok tour of Australia, put to advantage Australia’s general point of view on this matter. 1 was privileged to lead one of the discussions which dealt with the question of challenges to parliamentary democracy.

That part of the discussion involved consideration of the question of parliament versus the executive, or the role of parliament in relation to the executive. It was valuable to observe the interest in the matter. It was significant that we were meeting at a time when the situation in Pakistan was such that the Parliament of that country was not officially represented at the Conference. Of course, this resulted from the fact that parliamentary democracy in Pakistan, a Commonwealth country, has been suspended. During the course of the proceedings there was considerable play on the fact that even in the host country of Malaysia there has been suspension of parliamentary practices to some considerable degree as a result of a minority party winning provincial elections. There was the notorious day in Malaysia’s history when a great massacre took place. There were processions and other forms of disruption which resulted in the suspension of parliamentary democracy.

During the course of the debate on this question of parliamentary democracy I took the opportunity to indicate my view that it was time that consideration was given to laying down the criteria for Commonwealth countries regarding such things as the acceptable voting systems. This matter was taken up, so a very valuable debate ensued. I hope that as a result of the consideration afforded to the matter in Kuala Lumpur the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will consider giving the highest possible priority to it at the 18th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, because as events are developing around the world it is becoming increasingly : apparent that if the Commonwealth is to stand for anything at all, basic traditions and principles will have to be properly identified. Otherwise we will find that more countries will go the way that Pakistan has gone. Pakistan, a Commonwealth country, has deprived the people under its jurisdiction of the ordinary democratic rights to which people in Commonwealth countries ordinarily are accustomed.

Certain personalities who have accompanied Australian delegations to Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences over the years are highly regarded in an international sense at these conferences. One such person is the Clerk of this

House, Mr Alan Turner, who again distinguished himself. Of course, he attended the Conference as an aide to the Australian delegation, but he was accepted as being one who could be relied on in regard to procedural matters generally, and many delegates - if not the Conference as a whole - accepted him as one of the guiding hands at the Conference. As I understand it, the Conference at Kuala Lumpur may have been the last occasion on which Mi Turner will have the opportunity to participate in these conferences, and as I have had the pleasure of being in previous delegations with him, I understand his value at the conferences, and I should like to pay a tribute to the service he has given in this regard.

I think it goes without saying that Sir Alister McMullin, the former President of the Senate, can be similarly regarded. I say it goes without saying’ because Sir Alister, a former parliamentarian, was invited as a special guest to the Conference in Kuala Lumpur, and he was the only special guest invited. Of course, he has had experience extending, I think, over decades, and his name is very much to the fore as one who has helped to make the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association what it is today. So we Australian parliamentarians were fortunate in having had the benefit of the guiding hand of both Mr Turner and Sir Alister McMullin.

There are only two other matters to which I want to refer. Firstly, the hospitality extended by the Malaysian branch was of a very high order and was appreciated by all the delegates who attended. Secondly, I believe that the Australian delegation probably was disadvantaged in some measure by the fact that we were not accompanied by our own Hansard staff. It is an established fact that the Australian accent is regarded by international Hansard people as the most difficult of all to comprehend and that Australian speeches are very difficult to report. It was significant that the problems experienced in this regard were common to both Government and Opposition members of the Australian delegation. Some of us found it very difficult to identify our speeches when we read the Hansard account of them - such is the Australian accent. If this state of affairs is to continue, I believe that there could be a great deal of merit in arranging for future Australian delegations to take their own Hansard reporters with them. I would hate to tell the House of the way in which my own speeches were misinterpreted or misreported, but 1 can assure the House that this matter caused considerable embarrassment to a number of Australian delegates. Indeed it resulted in incorrect emphasis being given to parrs of the speeches that we made.

I am pleased to report that all members of the Australian delegation at the 17th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference worked together very harmoniously, and I believe that we put the Australian parliamentary scene in a very significant way before the Commonwealth parliamentarians assembled. I should like to conclude by saying that the Opposition members in the delegation took the opportunity to visit neighbouring countries, and I believe that this is one of the beneficial by-products of Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences. For example, Senator Bishop, who was one of the Opposition members in the delegation, went to Japan to study economic matters there. The honourable member for Grey (“Mr Wallis), who is presently in the chamber, undertook a trip to Vietnam. His visit happened to coincide with the period preceding the elections in Vietnam, and this proved to be very valuable because he was one of the very few Australian observers of the elections in that country. For my own part, as some honourable members know. I was able to extend my trip from Kuala Lumpur to India, to participate in the international conference on Bangla Desh and to visit the refugee camps. I think that all these discussions and visits add up to a very beneficial total product of participation by honourable members in Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences.

page 3465

SELECT COMMITTEE ON WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

Interim Report

Mr FOX:
Henty

– On behalf of the Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation I bring up an interim report on the conservation and commercial exploitation of kangaroos. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FOX:

– The Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation, when established in May 1970, was given full and comprehensive terms of reference covering all aspects of wildlife conservation. The interim report which I have just presented relates only to the exploitation and conservation of kangaroos. It is hoped that a final report covering all terms of reference will be tabled early next year. The decision by the Committee to present the interim report was prompted by a number of factors. I think it is true to say that much of the impetus for the present interest in wildlife conservation has been generated by concern about the status of kangaroos, particularly those species which are commercially exploited for their skins and meat.

Early in the Committee’s inquiry it became clear that much greater emphasis was being given to kangaroos than to other matters within the terms of reference and in fact there was a tendency in some quarters to identify the Committee solely with the kangaroo issue. A great deal of emphasis was given by witnesses to the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate remedial action. The Committee was also anxious that its final report would be a full and substantial one and felt that once the most emotive area of the Committee’s inquiry had been reported on, the way would be open for more dispassionate discussion of the Committee’s remaining terms of reference. We were also conscious of the time required to prepare a final report and felt the first priority must be to reach some conclusions and provide recommendations on the kangaroo issue.

Some ecologists and others have advised us that it is undesirable to look at any particular group of animals in isolation from overall wildlife conservation matters. The Committee, however, took the view that to most people conservation of kangaroos was by far the most contentious and to many people the only wildlife conservation issue of immediate importance. The Committee has taken a substantial amount of evidence and travelled extensively throughout Australia to obtain first hand information. 1 believe I can speak for all the Committee members when I say that the Committee found that field inspections -and discussions with people on the spot were of the utmost importance in the formulation of the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations.

There is no doubt that widespread public concern expressed for the kangaroos’ survival has arisen as the direct result of killing kangaroos for skin and, more particularly, for meat. Moral objections to feeding native fauna to pets have been made but the principal concern is that harvesting of kangaroos in large numbers must inevitably lead to their extinction. Evidence in support of this contention was that it is now rare to see kangaroos in the wild and that tourists report having travelled widely throughout Australia without seeing kangaroos. Many people, by submission to the Committee and by petitions to Parliament, have advocated the immediate cessation of harvesting and a total ban on the export of all kangaroo products.

In seeking factual information about kangaroos and the possible threat to their continued existence that the kangaroo skin and meat industry may be having, the Committee was confronted with a great deal of contradictory evidence, much of which could not be described as objective. Perhaps the most disquieting feature to emerge was that even among expert witnesses insufficient detailed knowledge of kangaroo ecology existed. One eminent scientist in fact told the Committee:

If any of the scientists have told you that they are dealing with scientific facts in this whole confused kangaroo situation they are wrong, because nobody knows the facts.

Probably the most significant conclusion that the Committee reached was that none of the larger kangaroo species, and they are the ones that are commercially harvested, is under immediate threat of extinction. The evidence clearly showed that the development of pastoral and grazing activities and the associated land clearing and provision of water points have led to the creation of much greater areas suitable to the larger kangaroo species than existed before settlement and have, in fact, led to an overall increase in kangaroo numbers. However, this same development has led to the probable or threatened extinction of many smaller species.

The overall situation is extremely complex. The position varies from State to

State and from one part of a State to another and from one time of the year to another. The Committee believes that more of the attention of the well meaning conservationists should be diverted away from the larger species and concentrated on these smaller species about which to date little public concern has been expressed. The Committee accepts that at some times and in some places kangaroo numbers do reach unacceptably high numbers and represent an unfair burden to graziers. It is clear that at certain times culling of excess numbers’ is required. If the commercial harvesting of kangaroos were to be halted, culling would still be necessary but would have to be carried out at public expense and would also represent the wastage of a resource.

The Committee. having established that kangaroos are not under immediate threat, naturally wished to make recommendations to ensure that they never will be. The Committee is strongly in favour of firm Government control over commercial h ar:vesting activities and would certainly not support the concept of the kangaroo industry determining its needs and .carrying out the harvest on this basis. It also recognises the symbolic importance of the kangaroo to wildlife conservation in Australia and also believes that publicity regarding the killing of kangaroos affects the tourist industry adversely. The Committee believes very strongly that the public will not accept the mere assurance that large kangaroos are not under threat and that a clear indication should be given of Australia’s interest in, and concern with, wildlife matters. The Committee has therefore made recommendations regarding the establishment of large kangaroo reserves. Wildlife conservation matters in the States are, of course, the responsibility of the respective State governments and as a result legislation concerning kangaroos varies quite widely. The Committee has recommended that the Commonwealth approach the States with a view to establishing a more uniform approach.

I would like at this point to record the Committee’s appreciation to the State Premiers for the assistance given the Committee by officers of relevant State department. The Committee in its report has recorded its appreciation of the help it has received from the Australian Conservation

Foundation which provided its Deputy Director, Dr J. G. Mosely, as an adviser to the Committee, and to the late Dr F. N. Ratcliffe, who provided invaluable assistance in the earlier stages of the inquiry. At this stage it is fitting that I should place on record the Committee’s appreciation of the work and’ intense interest shown in the inquiry by the officers of the Committee section who served this Committee so ably. Mr Gale, Mr Richmond and Mr Dee. It would also like to record its appreciation of the assistance given the Committee by the Hansard reporting staff, particularly Mr B. Harris. Finally, the Committee would like to thank Mr Lin Barlin, Senior Parliamentary Officer, Bills and Papers Office, for his help and guidance in the early stages of the Committee inquiries. The foundation which he laid ensured the success of our undertaking.

The Committee found that widely divergent views were held by the various groups concerned with kangaroos, ranging from those who advocated complete protection of kangaroos to those supporting uncontrolled harvesting. The Committee recognises that it is impossible to make recommendations fully satisfactory to all groups. The demands of pastoralists and graziers, wildlife scientists, State fauna departments, the tourist industry, conservation groups and the kangaroo industry itself are obviously at times in conflict. However, I believe that the Committee’s report, based as it is on a thorough assessment of all the major issues involved, represents a realistic view of the actual position, and providing its recommendations are implemented ensures the long term conservation of the larger kangaroo species. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin

– by leave- Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Opposition members of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation I wish merely to reinforce the remarks made by the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) with regard to the work of this Committee. Speaking on behalf of the Opposition, I wish to state that I was most impressed with the energy and the dedication of all members of the Parliamentary staff connected with this Committee. The subject of this interim report was a very difficult and emotive problem, but because of the increasing public awareness of this problem and of our unique wildlife, this subject deserves the fullest attention not only of this Parliament but also of all Australians.

This Committee was, I believe, a splendid example of the Parliament and not parties working for the good of the nation as a whole. It worked for the common good of our environment. The continuing existence of our environment is an integral part of our society. As a member of this Committee, may I say that the dedication of all members and the harmony amongst them were to me very gratifying. I support the remarks of the honourable member for Henty.

page 3467

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 October (vide page 2688), on motion by Mr Chipp:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill, the Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 1), the Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 2), the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) and the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 3), as they are associated measures. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, that you permit the subject matter of the 5 Bills to be discussed in this debate.

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

– Order! Is it the wish of the House to follow the suggestion of the Minister? There being no objection, I will allow that practice to be followed.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition intends to oppose the measures as they apply to recent Budget announcements concerning increases in excise on petrol and tobacco products. The House is debating several cognate Bills. We certainly do not intend to oppose laboriously each of the Bills separately at the second reading stage. To indicate our opposition, we will oppose the Excise Tariff Bill 1971 which proposes an Act relating to duties of excise because this Bill is principally the one by which additional revenue on tobacco in its various forms, including cigarettes and cigars, and on petrol in its various forms, whether it be used for motor cars or for aircraft, is collected. There are some other measures in the Bills relating to customs which impose duties on particular commodities of relatively small significance. We do not intend to oppose those Bills. Basically, our main attack is on the Budget proposals.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that at page 5 of the statements attached to the Budget Speech a table appears setting out statistics in relation to customs and excise duties. The increase of 2c a gallon on petroleum products will yield in this financial year an additional $43,200,000 or, if operative for a full year, $54,100,000. Certain other increases achieved by the removal of by-law exemptions will yield $1,300,000 in 1971-72 and, if operative for a full year, will yield $1,500,000. The increase of 50c per lb on cigarettes and cigars and 25c per lb on manufactured tobacco will yield on tobacco products for the remainder of this financial year $21m and, if operative for a full year, $31,700,000. So, this financial year, these measures will yield approximately $65m or an anticipated $87m if operative for a full year.

In introducing the Budget last August, the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) speaking on the economy stated:

Even more than usually the Government has this year found it necessary, to shape its Budget to serve an overriding economic purpose. Australia is in the grip of inflationary pressures. The rate of increase in costs and prices is already fast and has tended to become faster. This is a serious condition. If allowed to develop unchecked it will cause increasing economic and social hardship to many people, add to the burdens of . rural industries already depressed, disrupt developmental plans of great promise and undermine the rich possibilities of growth which our future unquestionably holds. So far as lies in our power as a government we are determined to combat this pernicious trend, slow it down and hobble it.

They may have been noble aspirations when uttered in August. They have been described since as the Budget strategy. But events have moved very fast since then. Most of the events that have moved have not been disturbed greatly as yet by the impact of this Budget. In many respects, the ills that seem to have accumulated flow rather from the last Budget than from the Budget which introduces these new duties. The additional duties on petrol and tobacco products, which we are contemplating now, operated virtually from 18th August. They became operative overnight. One of my colleagues will say something later on in this debate about some people who forestalled, as it were, the expected rise in petrol duties and were able to avoid - one hesitates to use the word evade’.-

Mr Chipp:

– I did not.

Mr CREAN:

– To use my term, they avoided approximately $7m in respect of the increased duty as it operates on petrol products.

One finds it rather hard in the Australian context to study the full impact of measures of this sort. I refer to pages 38 and 39 of the appendices attached to the Budget Speech. It is estimated that this financial year customs duty will yield $533m and that excise duty will yield $1,1 82m. Between them, these 2 forms of revenue raising will account for $1,7 15m of Commonwealth revenue. The estimated receipts of $1,1 82m will be derived from nearly $400m from excise on beer, $306m from excise on tobacco products, $37 lm from excise on motor spirit and $105m from excise on other dutiable items.

I suppose, if we set aside briefly the purpose of the duty on tobacco, we might think that the increase had been imposed because the Government had become impressed by the great dangers to which cigarette smoking exposes those who still indulge in it. One could digress a little about that aspect, but that is not the purpose of my exercise today. There is not any doubt that the. additional duty on tobacco has been imposed for the purpose of getting revenue. At least the Government assumes that there, will be no fall in the aggregate consumption of tobacco and cigarettes. In fact, the notes that are attached to the Budget Speech state that, even without the alteration in the rate of duty, there would be increases. Of course, with this increase and also the increased rate of duty, the increased yield which I have already detailed will follow.

One can say that there is no need to smoke and that people can avoid the tax altogether by not indulging in this luxury of smoking. Nevertheless, it is accepted, and regarded as one of the marks of an affluent society, that people indulge in the consumption of tobacco products. In Australia this year people will pay something like 5306m by way of excise duty on these products. A cynical kind of observation, I suppose, that one can make about the Government’s intention to increase the duty is that if, as anticipated, there is an increased yield because of the higher rate of tax, it will mean simply that the purchasing power of consumers is reduced in some other direction. The more money that is spent on tobacco at higher prices and, the less incomes are adjusted by some other process, the less is there for other items. Increasing the prices of items chat one knows people will use almost amounts to reducing the consumption of other articles. This seems to me to be a rather cynical kind of way to help to reduce the impact, if that is what the Government is doing, of inflation in the economy. The Government’s proposal will mean that the man of the house will spend more on his tobacco than previously and the rest of the household will consume less of other items.

Somewhat different arguments apply when one comes to consider the impact of the increases- of duty on petrol products. Again, I suppose one could say that if a person did not have a motor car he would not pay the tax. However, as in the case of tobacco products, the possession of a motor car is one of the accepted ways of life in Australia. In respect of the number of motor cars to total population Australia ranks third in the world. Only the United Slates and Canada are ahead of us. The motor car, for purposes of family transport and weekend pleasure, is an acknowledged part of our way of life. Also, because of the size of our continent, transport is one of the biggest items of cost in the economy generally. In respect, of the increased duties that are to be imposed on petrol no Une is drawn between whether the product is used for business or for pleasure. This seems to me to contradict the thesis that was expressed by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech that the strategy of the Budget is designed to halt inflation and the evils of it.

There cannot be any doubt that charging those who use motor vehicles for business purposes more for petrol must add to the cost of the distribution of goods and services. To describe this increased duty as anti-inflationary is, to say the least, curious in many respects. This feeling is fortified by the answers which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) gave to many of the questions without notice today. It seems that he and the Treasurer are the last 2 persons left in Australia who believe that the Budget strategy is correct. All around us we can see signs of economic deterioration as far as total activity of the economy is concerned. But the Treasurer and the Prime Minister still assure us that they have their fingers on the turn of events, as it were, and that they will act when they have to do so.

Again, one can be excused for thinking that they are not as well apprised of the realities of things as are some groups in the community. There is hardly anyone else today who will describe the functioning of the economy as satisfactory or who will view the future with optimism. All around us we see a general decline in confidence and this is reflected in what I suppose is the most basic of our industries, the steel producing industry, which has announced 3 cut-backs in the course of a month. Of course, this action will affect other parts of the economy as well. The Opposition’s view is that it is still not too late for the Government to acknowledge that what it described as its strategy was incorrect. One of the ways in which the Government could quickly give some relief in respect of the total tax burden and to most sections of the community - certainly in regard to costs; - is to abandon these measures. Today is the last act, as it were, in making legal the additional charge of 2c a gallon on petrol and SOc per lb on tobacco products. If the Government had a second thought in both cases and said that rather than enact these measures it would simply leave the duties as they were, this would have the effect of immediately restoring confidence generally. It would be a sign of intention On the Government to acknowledge that the problems within the economy were quite serious. This would be a place in which the Government could act.

One could talk at great length about taxation generally but what we are concerned with here are those taxes that apply on tobacco products and motor spirit in its various forms. I notice some rather curious figures in the Schedule to the Excise Tariff Bill. This Bill, which is one of five we are now discussing, sets out that the duty per gallon on petrol is $0,173 or 17.3c. The previous duty was 15.3c. The Schedule also shows the rather odd looking figures which belong to the pre-decimal era - the old rates that were quoted in pence per gallon and were simply converted to the equivalent of 1.2 pence to the cent. This is the reason why there is this rather curious array of figures in the Schedule. I do not know what will happen when we convert measurements to the metric system and we measure petrol in litres rather than gallons. But at least the increases that are contemplated are a matter of simple arithmetic - 2c a gallon on petrol and 50 per lb on tobacco products.

For those sorts of reasons the Opposition hopes that some honourable members on the other side of the House will be persuaded to see the folly of the Budget strategy and also to see the logic of the kinds of arguments that I am propounding. If, as a rebuke to the Government, they say ‘We do not think these increases ought to take place’ the simple course which is open is to vote with us in opposition to the first of these Bills, the Excise Tariff Bill 1971 which for the most part encompasses the duties on petrol and tobacco. I leave it at that. One could say more, but I think that a couple of my colleagues want to say something about this measure. I seriously ask the House to use this as an exercise to get the Government to revise what was described as the overriding economic purpose when the Government brought down the Budget not much more than 3 months ago. One way to begin to act is to oppose the measures that are now before us. I ask honourable members on the other side to give serious consideration to supporting my pleas in this matter.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– This is a queer kind of debate. We have arranged to have a cognate debate on 2 matters dealing with the Budget, a Customs Tariff Bill dealing with tariff simplification and another dealing with 11 matters of tariff alteration. As the House would expect, 1 am going to deal with the general question of Customs Tariff Bill (No. 3) which lists the alterations to 11 particular matters. The queer thing is that this deals with all the matters that were introduced up to 18th August. Evidently we have to wait until next year before we debate the customs tariff proposals that have been introduced since then. I have been most refreshed by the way that the present Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) has gone out of his way to make tariff alterations and debates in this place more interesting and easy to follow, but I think that this arrangement is a departure from the high standard that he has set for himself.

I want to deal particularly with the general policy which lies behind Customs Tariff Bill (No. 3) which deals with the alterations to the 1 1 items. I am glad to be able to state that it is obvious that Australia is moving gradually towards a more responsible tariff protection policy. Gradually we are bringing our tariffs more into line with the economic facts of life. What are the reasons for this gradual progression in this way? The first is that we are now an industrialised economy. It is generally recognised that we are the most urbanised country in the world. However, it is not so well recognised that we are more industrialised than the United States of America. In other words, we have a greater percentage of our work force employed in secondary industry than has the United Stales of America. In the past, lavish tariff protection for particular products has been justified by the infant industry argument. The infant economy argument has also been used. We have to become industrialised.

The point is that we are an industrialised country and we ought to recognise ourselves as such. Because we are realising that we are an industrialised country there is a movement towards a more responsible tariff protection policy. The second thing that has helped in this movement is that we are becoming increasingly mature, particularly in the industrial sector. Industrialists, as they travel around the world, realise that the old policy, almost one of protection of everything that moved, that they used to advocate in the past, is not good enough for the world in which we live. One of the big reasons for the change is that in Australia an increasing proportion of our exports is being supplied by secondary industry. The secondary industries are becoming acutely aware of the high cost burdens that unwise tariff protection place on their ability to export. I could give many examples of this. I have often said in this House that the support I used to get solely from the primary industry sector has been followed by quite solid support - not so much vocal support, but very refreshing and solid support - from the secondary industries which know that their chance to expand their production comes from their ability to export. This was borne out in quite a surprising way on 20th July in an interview with Sir Ian McLennan, the Chairman of Directors of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd who is, of course, not unknown in industrial circles. He and another person were interviewed about what had taken place in the defence committee with which Sir Ian was working. Both of them mentioned how grievous was the burden that high tariffs placed on the raw materials that were being used in industry. He said:

I was staggered at the disadvantage which plastics are under because of the tariffs.

This is the kind of thing that I have been pointing out in this House for a long while. The tariffs on basic raw materials are a grievous burden on the plastics industry. Another reason why we are going to change our tariff policy is that rural exporters are no longer able to carry the high costs of unduly high tariff protection.

Not only does this apply to direct costs of things like agricultural chemicals and anything that the farmer buys directly but also it applies in another way. This was brought out in a statement by Mr Peter Roberts, the President of the United Graziers’ Association of Queensland. When speaking about the duty on shirts he said:

It should be understood that shirts are an item in the ‘C series index which is involved in annual national wage claims. Surely it must be recognised that wage inflation derives much of its impetus from protection of this nature.

So there are 2 costs that the rural sector has been asked to bear. The first are the direct costs of which we all know and about which it is easy to make the farmers angry. The second are the indirect costs that come about by heavily protecting such items as sheets and shirts. I am certain that I speak for my colleagues in the Australian Country Party when I say that those of us in the rural sector are acutely aware of the cost of the tariff and how bitterly it is resented by those rural producers who produce for export. We used to think that the sheep could carry any increased load, but the sheep has a job to carry its own load, let alone anybody else’s. There must be a change.

It is worth pointing out that the subsidy everybody is crying about that the rural sector is getting - everybody makes speeches about how well the farmer is treated - is not so much as it looks. The Tariff Board’s figures show that $2,700in is available in subsidies to secondary industry. Let us say it is only $2, 000m annually that is actually used, but this is a subsidy by the consumer and it looks large alongside the subsidy that goes to Australian primary industry. Let us put it in specific terms. The Tariff Board recently brought down a report dealing with woven and knitted shirts and outer garments. The Tariff Board then measured the consumer subsidy and it came to $45m as an annual subsidy for the shirt industry. This works out at $2,000 for every man employed in the industry. Even with the increased rate of subsidy to, say, the wool industry it is still twice as much as wool growers are getting. So there will be a change here.

Another reason why there will be change is that the mineral industry is going to speak with a very loud and clear voice. It also has to live by exports and it also has to carry the burden of unnecessarily high tariff protection. Another reason for change is that we are now becoming more aware of the impact of the restrictions on the channels of world trade in general. Sir Alan Westerman has mentioned this. On the radio this morning I heard him say that we have to trade with other people if they are going to trade with us. lt is interesting to realise that the other day the Australian Council of Trade Unions stated that we ought to be particularly severe - I think 1 am quoting it correctly - on tariffs to protect against imports from South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Japan. Today I received figures from the Parliamentary Library which show that we now import from these countries half as much as we export to them. What kind of a world trade system are we going to get if other countries buy from us twice as much as we buy from them? Are we going to move in and say: ‘We are not going to deal with you.’ How can we do that kind of thing when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade specifically and rightly forbids giving particular preferences to particular areas? A noticeable omission from this ACTU statement which related to cheap labour countries was a reference to imports from China.

Another reason why we will change is that we as a nation - I am glad to see this - are concerned about the widening gap between the developed and underdeveloped countries. This came out in an interesting way in the Australia wide concern about aid for Pakistan. We are becoming acutely aware that unless we can close the gap it will bring civilisation down. Yet we all know, and everybody admits it, that in the long term trade is indeed more important than aid. Everybody recognises this. Everybody knows that this is the only healthy long term way to help get these countries off the ground and make themselves self supporting. Some years ago I was in Bombay and had an opportunity one morning to see a factory that was processing Australian skim milk powder with Australian machinery given under the Colombo Plan. I said: ‘Are you having any problems?’ They said: ‘Mr Kelly, we have only one and that is that we cannot buy skim milk powder.’ At that time we were overburdened with skim milk powder and I said: ‘Why can’t you buy it?’ They said: ‘We cannot get the foreign exchange.’ That afternoon I went to the Bombay dyeing factory to have a look at one of the best textile factories I have seen in operation. I said: ‘How are you going? Have you any problems?’ They said: ‘Only one. We cannot export our sheets to Australia because you have just put a 55 per cent duty on them.’ This brings home the point that if we want to help them by trading with them we have to buy from them as well as sell them things.

This brings me to something that the honourable member tor Lalor fDr J. F.Cairns) said in the House on 3rd November. He said:

The modern Australia with a gross national product of over $30,000ni. with nearly J 3 million people, can buy vastly more from the under developed world than an under developed Australia would be able to buy.

This may be true, but we have to start buying from them. It is a bit like saying to a miser: ‘lt is all right being a miser because when you die the money is going to your kids, but you have to die first.’ We have a responsibility and it is not just a responsibility to pass money over, lt is a responsibility to trade with other countries. Education is another reason why things will change. One finds it in this House The people who speak and carry the banner for really high protection are perhaps the older ones like me. One does not find the young, well educated Labor people coming in and supporting the idea of protection at any price. There is going to be a change because people who are educated do not swallow the old argument that we need to have tariffs to create employment. We know that the employment so gained may be dearly bought. Educated people would be acutely aware thai the employment so gained is frequently at a cost to other industries. We used to be able to convince this House of that but now we cannot. Not many people take much notice. We are at last becoming acutely aware that unwise tariff protection leads to misallocation of resources. One of the reasons why Australia’s productivity growth has been so lamentably low is that we have devoted a lot of our resources to doing things we are not good at. We could grow bananas at the South Pole as the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) once instanced in this House. But this is a misallocation of resources and one of the reasons why our productivity is so low is that we will mrsist in trying to do too much instead of concentrating on the things we are good at.

An argument we used to hear frequently, and still do, about immigration was that we must have an immigration programme so we will have people to do our work. We still hear the same speeches by the same persons who say we need to have a heavily protected industry so that we can provide employment for our migrants. We are growing up and beginning to realise that this kind of thing is economic nonsense. Another reason for change is that the performance of the Tariff Board over the years has shown a gradual and steady increase in competence and, because of that there has been an increase in the Board’s reputation. The Tariff Board now has the ability to make the measurements that must be made and 1 am very interested to see that the Government has certainly not put any barriers in the way of it having the ability to do this. I think it is vital that we make economic measurements.

I have been critical in the past of a statement made by a previous Minister for Trade and Industry that the Tariff Board had to keep within its sights statements made from time to time by Cabinet Ministers. The honourable member for Lalor in his speech the other day said that we must tell the Tariff Board pretty clearly that it has to take these kinds of things into account. What he was talking about was non-economic matters - social matters. We must have a tariff board system to give independent economic advice, and having received the economic advice the Government then takes political decisions. But we cannot ask the Tariff Board to make decisions other than economic ones, lt must confine itself to that so that the Govern ment gets clear economic advice and makes decisions thereon. These are the reasons why I think there is going to be a change but I would not like to think it will be easy all the way.

We have had some special pleadings from industries that may have been disadvantaged and this is one of the things against which we have to be on our guard. As an example I instance the recent Special Advisory Report on woven manmade fabrics. This is a clear example of how the system has worked to steady down this inevitable, if slow, progression. This was a queer case. It was quite obvious from looking at the figures that the reason why the production of woven man-made fabrics had fallen in Australia was that people were buying garments of knitted man-made fibres. But looking at the figures it could be seen that the use of yarn had increased over this period rather than decreased. It was obvious that the demand had switched from woven man-made fibre fabrics to knitted man-made fibre fabrics. In spite of this the industry went !o the Tariff Board saying it wanted protection for its products but really seeking protection for its profits. What happened was this: Within a week or two of the Special Advisory Authority taking action prices went up by about the same amount as the increase in the tariff. This- was an exercise in profit protection. This was an abuse of the system of emergency protection and it is something which slows down the proper progression of Australia along the line towards a more responsible and more worth while system of tariff protection. We are getting there, but it is not easy. There will be a lot of special pleading on the way, and a lot of people will beat old drums.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– Year after year, Mr Deputy Speaker, we see a steady governmental increase in fuel tax charges ruthlessly adding to the inflationary spiral in Australia. No regard has been had to the effect on the community. On the one hand the Government makes, .loud statements as to the effects of inflation through wage increases and the private section of the community which increases charges to meet added costs in the never ending spiral of the small person attempting to meet everyday living costs. We have here just one example of Government inspired inflation where the cost will be passed on in the community. It is far past the time when Government departments ceased to look on the public purse as an inexhaustible source of revenue. We would be most impressed if the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) would give some assurance that this will be the last such increase for many years and that some attempt will be made to control prices in this field. Action is what is imperative, not words and accusations against workers and small business people who are the people who will be required to meet these increased charges.

The people who purchased diesel units because they were cheap to operate are now seeing their profit margins being attacked by this Government on a regular basis. These people would not protest so loudly if they were assured that the additional revenue to be gained by these increases will be returned to the motorists by way of improvement in the roads they use. But this money disappears into general revenue. I think that with the increase that is to take place the Federal Government should be in a position to seal the eastwest road link, the Eyre Highway. Many operators of diesel units - and these are the people who will have to bear this added burden - utilise this road link to serve the country in its progress. Is it too much to expect this Government to return to that section of the community some part of the increased charges?

I know that on previous occasions the Minister has argued that if this tax were returned to the field from which it was taken it would then be argued that the tax on liquor and cigarettes should be returned to the field from which it came. But this is a different argument. This is an area of national concern where a tax is being levied. Australia has an appalling road accident toll largely contributed to by its inadequate road systems and lack of funds at the local level to take the necessary action to rectify known hazards such as those that I have previously mentioned when speaking in this House about the Eyre Highway. If the Commonwealth is not prepared to do this it must make sufficient allowance in the Commonwealth aid road grants to the States to enable the States to take action. It has been indicated by the South Australian Government that it is prepared to do its share. That Government has offered to pay $3m of the $9m necessary to complete the sealing of the Eyre Highway. That is a very responsible attitude.

The truck operator who regularly uses this highway acknowledges that South Australia has already commenced to spend its share and no doubt he hopes that the Commonwealth will face up to its responsibility and pay its share. The Minister should assure the House that the extra tax gleaned from diesel fuel will be spent in areas such as this, for this is one of the most heavily taxed sections of the community. When a diesel unit is purchased the buyer pays a heavy tax on the purchase price. Every spare part is burdened with a heavy tax cost. Every tyre carries a heavy tax burden. Every mile travelled means further taxation in many States in the form of road maintenance tax which is imposed by the States, not because they want to but because they must, because insufficient Commonwealth funds from sources such as this finds its way back to the States for road maintenance, development and safety. Yet this Government has put yet another burden on transport operators in the form of increased taxes. It would be more fitting if the Government were to take steps to allow truck transport operators to survive and expand in business by pegging their costs for fuel and allowing them to continue to serve this country. Transport operators are in a service industry which affects rural, building and living costs for a high proportion of our community.

If this Government wants to contribute to the inflation about which it so loudly speaks but does nothing, it must realise that this tax is one of the surest ways to increase the costs to all sections of the community - no doubt large sections of the same community fail to realise how or why these increases occur. The facts are that as costs increase inflation continues, because this Government is paying only lip service to the problem of inflation when it has the audacity to increase charges in a field such as this which is already heavily overburdened with increased costs. This Government has no regard for this industry. It contents itself, for instance with a miserly contribution towards maintenance of the unsealed part of the Eyre Highway. Under the heading of health and welfare the Government evidently does not consider public road safety important enough to receive individual attention in the Budget Papers. On page 55 of the Budget document an amount of $150,000 is to be distributed amongst all the States for this purpose, while the Commonwealth is to spend $400,000 on the promotion of road safety. Let the States have some major proportion of the proposed fuel tax increase so that something more meaningful can be done than the provision of the miserable sum of $550,000 in an annual disaster area about which so much is spoken. If we are to have this yearly inflationary taxing system then let this tax be used for the betterment and safety of the public against whom this tax is levied. I ask the Minister to assure the House of the specific reason and the use of this tax. The people have for too long seen the annual attack on their incomes through increased taxation, direct and indirect. They want some reassurance that this money is not just levied against them in order to meet some unspecified Government expenditure.

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– The 2 Bills on diesel fuel now under discussion will raise the amount of tax to be levied on diesel fuel. These Bills also raise the question of exemptions from diesel fuel tax. In this context I want to congratulate the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) for the recent exemption of municipal street sweepers with hoppers attached from the diesel fuel tax. As I understand it, prior to 1st July this year a street sweeper which did not have a hopper attached was classed as road plant and was therefore exempt from diesel fuel tax. If a street sweeper had a hopper attached to collect the street sweepings it was classed as a road vehicle and subject to the tax. Since then it has been reclassified as road plant and exempted from the tax. 1 congratulate the Minister for taking this action and alleviating the cost to be borne by municipal councils. I think any assistance that can be given to municipal councils at the present time is welcome. The local government bodies are suffering as much as any other group in Australia from rising costs and from the pressure to provide increasing services which they have to pay for. The recent Budget announcement by the Government in handling payroll tax over to the States that local government bodies would be exempted from the payment of payroll tax was a step in the right direction by this Government, and I congratulate it for that step.

I want to draw attention to an anomaly that still exists with mechanical street cleaning equipment. A street flusher is classed as a road vehicle, not as ro..d plant, and is therefore subject to diesel fuel tax because it carries the water that is necessary to flush the street. I atn told that in the country cities and towns in the drier areas of Australia a street flusher is - n essential piece of equipment because of t e greater dust problem in the streets in those areas. In these areas a street sweeper can create in certain circumstances a miniature type of dust storm which not only is a nuisance but can create a hazard to the stocks of goods that are held in the shops in the commercial area. By flushing the street the dust is dampened and it can be pushed into the kerb. Then the street sweeper with hopper attached can come along and remove the dust and the other things that have to be removed.

I have been told that there are some problems in reclassifying a street flusher from a road vehicle to road plant. If this is so I would draw the attention of the Ministers present in the chamber, the Minister for Customs and Excise and in fact all Ministers to the point that all road vehicles operated by municipal councils should be exempt from diesel fuel tax. This would overcome the classification problem of street flushers as distinct from street sweepers and it would also be a positive step by this Government to help the sorely pressed financial position of local government bodies. It would not cost this Government very much, but it would be of considerable value to. local government bodies in Australia, and as such I think it deserves close attention and sympathetic consideration by the responsible Ministers.

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– The 5 Bills before the House at the moment basically deal with the means whereby the Government can increase the tax on diesel fuel, petrol, aviation fuel and also on tobacco and cigarettes. I want to deal with the section relating to diesel fuel, aviation fuel and petrol. The 2c a gallon increase in this year’s Budget following a 3c a gallon increase last year is an impost that the motorist and the air transport system should not be called upon to pay. This Government allegedly is concerned with inflation and a serious inflationary spiral is evident in the country today. The Government is endeavouring to throw the onus completely on the wage earner and the trade unions and is calling on the employers to exercise restraint by not granting wage increases. It is also threatening to bring down legislation to penalise trade unions for taking industrial action to gain an increase in wages to try to keep pace with the inflationary spiral. Yet at the same time we have found in this Budget and in the Government’s previous Budget all the ingredients for the present serious inflationary spiral.

Transport costs are recognised as comprising something like 25 per cent of the total cost structure of this country. This being such a substantial percentage of that cost structure, I just cannot understand the reasoning adopted by the Government in imposing this heavy tax in the last 2 years on the 3 types of fuel to which I have referred, namely diesel fuel, petrol and aviation fuel. It is a tax which should not be imposed on the transport system. In turn it floats right through the economy pushing up prices all the way through. It affects not only the cost of transport of goods and freight but also fares and every facet of transport.

I want to deal firstly with civil aviation. The Government announced an increase of 2c a gallon in aviation fuel in the Budget on 17th August. On 23rd August the airlines announced an increase of approximately 64 per cent in all air fares. As an example, this means that a first class air fare from Sydney to Melbourne increased from $31 to $33, an immediate increase of $2, and that an economy class fare increased from S25.60 to $27.30, an increase of $1.70. This must have an effect on every facet of the economy when increases such as this take place. How does one condemn or criticise the airlines for this increase when the Government is the one that is basically responsible for it? But the worst effect of ali is felt in the road transport industry where the increases that have been levied in the past 2 years obviously must be having a serious effect on costs.

In the application of diesel fuel tax and petrol tax there is an anomalous position. I want to draw attention to a few facts. For example, a 7-ton truck using petrol would average 7 to 8 miles a gallon. Of course there are many contingencies as to the amount of the load of the vehicle and other factors, but this is an average figure. The same sized truck using diesel fuel would average 15 to 16 miles a gallon. So in this one example the user of diesel fuel is getting a very decided and distinct advantage over the petrol user. They are both using the same road and they are both doing the same job; but one has the distinct advantage of getting almost double the mileage. In other words, the operator of the truck that is using petrol will be paying 17.3c a gallon tax and getting an average of 7 to 8 miles a gallon, and the diesel fuel user will be paying the same amount of tax but he will be getting 15 to 16 miles a gallon. I think this is an aspect which the Government should be looking at. lt should be considering whether diesel fuel tax and petrol tax should be levied at the one rate or whether the information I have just brought to the attention of the House should be taken into consideration. People in the motor industry assure me that a petrol driven motor uses approximately twice as much fuel as does a motor operating on diesel fuel. I ask the Government to look at whether the tax on diesel fuel should remain as it is. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard 2 tables which have been prepared by the Parliamentary Library Research Service.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Hallett

–

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– I thank the House. These tables disclose the amount of the tax which is collected by State and Federal governments throughout the Commonwealth and give some indication that the motorist is probably the most heavily taxed individual in the community. The tables disclose that, for the year 1969-70 - which is, incidentally, the latest year for which figures are available - taking the whole range of taxes into account, the total amount collected by the States was

S244.5m. Of course, as a result of what Mr Morris is doing to the motorist in New South Wales there will be a heck of an increase in the amount collected in that State in the next 12 months. In 1969-70 the Commonwealth collected $600.1m. The overall total for Australia was $844.6m. To this must be added third party insurance costs of $ 147.8m, making a grand total of $992.4m for the year. To this total must be added an unknown figure - of which I am not aware at this stage - for the cost of comprehensive insurance policies on motor vehicles. From these figures alone, honourable members can get some idea of just how much tax is being levied on the motorist today, yet this Government is still not satisfied with what it is doing and what it has done to the motorist by putting this additional burden on him.

One tax that I think the Commonwealth should be making an effort to assist the States to eliminate, because I consider it to be a wasteful tax, is the road maintenance tax which, in the year 1969-70. totalled $35,644,000. Whilst no Government department is prepared to say what it actually costs to collect that amount of tax. it is estimated to be in the vicinity of 30 per cent of the total amount collected. So, in round figures, it cost about Sl im to collect the $35 m of road maintenance tax. If this tax could be levied by way of an increase in diesel fuel or some such means, the cost of collecting it would be minimised, because the cost of collecting customs and excise duties on diesel fuel and petrol is so infinitesimal that it just does not matter, whereas the wasteful cost of collecting this tax is something like $1 1m, or roughly onethird of the total amount collected. I hope thin the Government will do something positive to try to assist the States to eliminate this form of taxation.

Another matter with which I should like to deal is the actual amount of customs and excise duties which is collected on automotive petrol and diesel fuels. I seek leave to incorporate a table in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

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

Mr CHARI ES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– I thank the House. This table discloses that between the years 1962-63 and 1971-72 the Commonwealth will have collected $2,534m in umm-. *- -[124] taxes from this field and will have paid to the States SI. 630m, leaving a total excess of about S903m of revenue collected over the amount allocated to the States. During the currency of the present Commonwealth aid roads agreement, from 1969-70 to 1973-74 1 estimate, from the figures which have already been made available and the fact that the tax has been increasing at the rate of about 8 per cent per annum, that the Commonwealth will have collected approximately S2,045m and will be repaying to the States only SI, 252m leaving, in that 5-year period, a surplus to the Commonwealth Treasury of something like $793m. The worst feature of this is not only the fact that the Commonwealth is retaining so much of the petrol tax but also that it is showing clearly that it is using the tax as a form of revenue and not for its original purpose. The general principle of the Commonwealth aid roads agreement and the petrol tax was to assist the States to build roads and to provide them with the necessary finance. The petrol tax was based on the principle that those who use the roads the most will make the greatest contribution to their construction.

In 1969-70 the allocation to the States was SI 93m; in 1 970-7 r it was $2 18m; and in 1971-72 it will be $245.25m. Many people have overlooked the point thai in this period there has been a serious increase in average weekly earnings. I have completely disregarded the first year, when average weekly earnings increased by a little over 8 per cent, but in 1970-71 there was an 11.3 per cent increase in average weekly earnings. If this percentage were deducted from the $2 18m which was allocated to the States under the Commonwealth aid roads agreement, it would bring the States’ allocation back almost on par with what they were allocated in the first year, namely, $193m. On my figures, in real monetary terms, the States received only $196m in 1970-71. Even though they were allocated $2 18m by the Commonwealth, this would pay for only the same amount of road construction as was undertaken in the previous year. This year the States have been allocated S245m but once again taking 1 1 .3 per cent as the figure by which wages will increase this year, the States will receive in real monetary value $198m. So, in actual fact, even though the

Government set out to give the States an escalating amount each year so that they could plan an increased programme of road construction. This programme will not be achieved as a result of Commonwealth assistance. The allocation is still on a par with the 1969-70 allocation and I believe that it is now time for the Government to review the Commonwealth aid roads agreement which allocates to the States $ 1,252m over a 5-year period. I have already shown honourable members how the allocations for last year and this year will be reduced by at least $69m. If this Government is sincere in its desire to do something for an improved road system in Australia, there is only one way to go about it and that is to review the whole system as it now stands.

The Opposition believes that sufficient emphasis has not been placed on the need to construct a national roads system in Australia. The Commonwealth Government appears to be leaving too much to the States which can make decisions as they feel so inclined. The Government is not concentrating on a national roads system. When President Kennedy was President of the United States of America, he brought down a mammoth national road construction Bill which provided for the construction of roads in the interests of the development of the United States of America. If ever a country needed something of this nature to open it up and to provide the means of transport at fair, reasonable and economic rates it is Australia and the Commonwealth Government should be giving the lead. It should not be leaving it wholly and solely to the States. It should be bringing forward plans and saying to the States in the same way as it does in connection with universities: ‘We are prepared to put up this amount of money for this particular project which will be in the interests of Australia if the State is prepared to make matching grants available for this purpose’. In this way, we could develop a national roads system instead of what exists at present - an uneconomic State roads system where everything is centralised on the State’s capital. Instead of it being in the interests of the Commonwealth, it is in the interests of individual States.

With regard to urban transport we seem to be in the terrible situation where the only plans which exist at the moment are to build more roads in the capital cities. We see the expressways that are being built in Sydney and Melbourne and in almost every major city in Australia today. These roads are being built at great cost to the States and in turn at great cost to the Australian taxpayers. But in actual fact what we should be doing is trying to encourage people requiring transport, particularly in the capital cities, to use public transport. For example, the Eastern Suburbs railway is under construction in Sydney. It was originally estimated to cost $8 5m, but probably it will cost $100m or $11Om This rail system will provide a means foi transporting people from the centre of the city into the Eastern Suburbs in the same way as Sydney’s existing rail system transports people. Sydney’s rail system can carry between 40,000 and 50,000 people per hour. One can compare that with the number of people who can use the road systems in Melbourne. A survey conducted in Melbourne some 5 years ago showed that the roads in that city were completely clogged with traffic, and that the number of people travelling in private vehicles on those roads was approximately 2,400 per lane per hour. When one compares that figure with the 40,000 to 50,000 people who are carried by Sydney’s rail system per hour, I believe that what the Commonwealth Government should be doing is giving an incentive to the States to improve their public transport systems; to provide a better means of conveyance.

This is a modern age in which everybody accepts air-conditioning not as a luxury but as a fact of life. Why cannot trains and buses be air-conditioned and made more attractive to the traveller, as is the case in other major cities throughout the world? I believe that travelling by train in Melbourne is a hazard and that in Sydney one uses electric trains only when one has the choice of either using them or walking. This should not be the position. People should be encouraged to travel in trains which are of a comparable standard to those in other cities in the world. Cheap off-peak fares should be made available to people. Instead of increasing fares all the time we should try to reduce them, and the Commonwealth Government can do this by making money available to the States by way of non-repayable grants, so that they can get on with the job of providing transport, rather than by making loans available to the States which, as I have said repeatedly in this place, results in the State transport systems having to carry huge capital debts and to meet huge annual interest payments. Whilst the States are meeting these payments obviously they cannot provide cheap transport for the people. 1 believe that this is what the Commonwealth Government should be doing.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

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

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) can always bc relied upon to give us a very interesting and informative talk on transport, but i thought that we were discussing the question of customs and excise. The honourable member seems to have departed a long way from that subject, although 1 can ses how, in his mind, he would associate it with transport. As so often happens when the proceedings of this chamber are being broadcast honourable members opposite get up and try to persuade the people tha* the Government should be spending millions of dollars on providing better and more comfortable transport and all sorts of other things, but at the same time they run away from (he task of raising the money to do these things. Let them tell us where they will get the money to undertake all these grandiose schemes. I agree with the honourable member for Newcastle in this matter. 1 would love to see all these improvements made in the transport system in Australia today, but do not let us forget that we are only a young country and these things are coming. Overpasses and other things are being constructed, but we need to have the money before we can do this work.

In one part of bis speech the honourable member for Newcastle complained about the fact that the money which was collected from the petro) lax was nol being spent on roads for which it was originally intended. This is just not true. The petrol tax is. as it has always been, a tax. ft is a revenue producing tax, and the amount of money that is allocated for roads and other transport needs is a separate item in the Budget, and 1 hope that will continue to be the case. 1 am quite sure that, if by some mischance, the Labor Party were to become the Government of this country it would do exactly the same thing. Obviously it would be in such great need of money to do all the absurdly extravagant things that it proposed in the minipolicy of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in the last few weeks that the money which was collected by way of petrol tax would go into revenue. I would like to remind those people who may be listening to this broadcast that I, too, would like to buy cheaper petrol. It would be very nice if we could get a lot of things more cheaply. This might benefit the individual’s pocket, but it must be remembered that we have one of the lowest prices for petro! in the world. If people were to travel to other countries and see the price of petrol in those countries they would understand this matter of great deal better. 1 have not entered this debate to speak on the question of the petrol tax. 1 am compelled to get on my feet and say a few words because of what was said by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), and 1 think that he rather expected that I would do so. He went back and dredged up some of the old arguments that he has been advancing to us for years, and 1 propose to dredge up some of . the answers that 1 have been giving to him for years. I do not think that any of us gets anywhere in this argument. But the honourable member for Wakefield went back to the old story of the difference between the subsidy paid to manufacturing industry or the secondary industry or whatever one (ikes to call it and the subsidy paid to the primary producer. He referred to the figure, which is a pretty ancient figure, of $2,700m a year which is supposed to be the subsidy paid by the Australian people to keep manufacturing industry in business. That is a lot of nonsense because presumably whoever dreamed up the figure of $2, 700m based it on the assumption that the subsidy represented the increase in the price of local products that is made possible by the existence of the tariff. In other words, whatever the tariff, the local manufacturer pushed his price up to that level regardless. Of course. I realise that in some cases it is essential for local industries to use the whole of the tariff facilities available to them. But in fact, many of those are showing very poor returns on shareholders’ funds from the effort that they put into their businesses. But these local industries provide a service to Australia and make available the goods which Australia needs.

Let us suppose that there is a duty of 20 per cent - and 1 keep it low in deference to the Tariff Board - and that the Australian product is worth Si 20. The assumption that is made is that the duty-free landed cost of the imported product is $100. This is not necessarily so, but this is the assumption that is made by people who find it an easy argument to use. These people deduce from’ this fact that the local manufacturer is subsidised by $20. One only has to turn to the Tariff Board reports to find that” it has blown out this idea. In the 1970 report of the Tariff Board reference is made to this subsidy of $2,700m a year, although the actual amount of duty collected in that year was less than $400m. This amount of $400m which has been paid by way of duty has been blown up into a subsidy of $2,700tn, which is just not possible except in dreamland. Only about one-third of the $400m duty collected is actually for the purpose of protection. I will go back another year because 1 do not happen to have up-dated figures. In 1968-69 - I will not bore the House with the detailed figures - two-thirds of imports entered without any protective rate at all. Only one-third in value of the goods that came into Australia had any protective rate. So there is a very big area where goods are allowed in free but if we go back over the history of tariffs in this country we will find there are very good reasons for that.

I know that the argument being put up at the present time is that wc will have a review. There are these dragnet clauses which were applied to tariffs many years ago relating to manufacturers of metals, wood, glass and so on, n.c.i., and a few matters have crept in under these clauses which today may need tidying up. All that will happen is that these manufacturers will make a fatter profit because these items are being made in the main by people who have been given protection for some particular item which of its own right secured a certain rate of tariff. They have gone on to make some other item without getting any specific tariff rate to cover that item and they have been able to. manufacture it and sell it on the Australian market against, admittedly, competition from overseas that may be deterred by the fact that there is a manufacturers of metal n.e.i. rate of tariff.

Reverting to what 1 was saying a minute ago, the Tariff Board has shown that suggestions about the inflation of S2,700m a year in subsidies has not any basis in fact. There is no guarantee whatsoever that if the tariff is removed we will be able to get goods from overseas at the price at which we get them now on the f.o.b. or a c.i.f. basis due to the fact that there is a tariff which they have to overcome. The Board’s report on agricultural and horticultural machinery in June 1970 had quite a lot to say on this and I would like to quote 2 short paragraphs. It said:

In a number of important instances where the market has been wholly or substantially supported by imports, the price competition between these imports was nol such as to prevent very large mark-ups to end-users.

Here it is by the importers and not by the manufacturers. It continues:

In some cases they were up to 3 times the mark-ups applied to similar types of locally produced goods.

So the argument on this overall subsidy is quite wrong. The report continues:

Although tariffs are frequently, blamed for the high cost of machinery, duties in most instances represent only a small proportion of the difference between the landed duly free cost into store and the selling price of the machinery to the dealer. They are an even smaller proportion of the price of machinery to the end-user

It is time we got away from this argument that tariffs are adding enormously to the costs of the primary producer. It just is not true.

The honourable member for Wakefield said that we are going through a period of change and that he is looking forward with anticipation to a lot of change. 1 know we are; we always have been. Tariffs over the years since they started have been continuously going through a process of change and adaptation. This is what we are here for; this is why we have a Government. This is how we look after the interests of the people of Australia. Very quickly I would like to refer to another quotation and again I go back into the past - I have said this in the House before. Sir John Mc Ewen, as Minister for Trade and I ndustry, said in this House in November 1968 that as far as he could discover Australia is the only industrialised country in the world which relies on tariff almost exclusively to provide protection for its industries. Other countries may limit our imports by imposing quotas, bans and variable levies, but we continue to allow them to tailor their prices to fit in with our ad valorem rates of duty so as to undercut our selling prices. I agree with the honourable member for Wakefield thai we are going through a process of change. The Tariff Board is trying to impose on this country changes which are most undesirable if carried to the extent to which the Tariff Board wants them carried and which would have a devastating effect on employment if they were allowed to prevent, the carrying on of industries which have been long established in this country and which provide us with a market for the primary products about which we are so worried today. If we do not have a good home market we will not have any primary plo.ducing industries and if we do not have satisfactory and growing secondary industries we do not have any home market, lt is as simple as that.

Last week 1 went to a meeting in Melbourne organised by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia. The speaker was the Chairman of the Tariff Board, Mr Rattigan, and 1 did my money in cold blood because he was speaking on trends in the Australian protection system’. He started at the beginning-, gave an explanation of what has happened and finished by saying something that everyone in the room must have known. He spoke of i he developments that have happened and mentioned that we are now about to review the whole system. He proposes to try to tailor the secondary industries of Australia to suit himself by imposing mathematical limits on the protection that is available. He speaks of this as a 50 per cent or perhaps a 20 per cent tariff. An industry can be just as inefficient with a 20 per cent tariff as it can be with a 50 per cent tariff. Mr Rattigan speaks of building up the staff of the Tariff Board so that the Board will be better informed and able to give more meaningful reports. This is what we all want.

But when we look at the Tariff Board we find that it now has more staff than it has ever had and that it is slower getting out reports than it has ever been. It has people doing research and is trying to get more for this task. It is using a whole lot of equations as to how we arrive at an effective rate of tariff and they confuse the issue. The Board should put it in simple language so that everybody can understand. Everyone knows that if the manufacturer of plastics has to pay a duty on the material he uses something is added to his cost. But there is a reason for it. It is no good taking it in isolation and saying: Here is an effective rate of 50 per cent or 60 per cent’. In the case of cherries the Board spoke of 300 per cent but it did not know what it was talking about. These rates have a meaning and have to be taken into consideration in the overall picture and not just considered from the point of view of how they affect one item that happens to be before the Tariff Board. After Mr Rattigan had given a quite innocuous speech which did not really inform anybody, except for a little history, there were questions. I will not deal with all the questions that were asked but the people assembled were a bit worded about the fact that we have a tariff which has a pretty tough effect on some of the things that happen in this country.

This man, who is Chairman of the Tariff Board, was asked to give some explanation of the difference between the type of tariff that Australia has and the tariffs that are used overseas. Some of those present quoted eases, most of them on a rather humorous basis, I thought of instances in which they had tried to get goods into overseas markets and were prevented by the types of measures of which I spoke a few minutes ago, quotas, bans, variable levies and all sorts of dodges that countries around the world indulge in to try to prevent other countries getting goods into their countries. Yet, Australia is silly enough to allow these countries to bring their goods into Australia on the basis thai we impose a tariff on those goods. If we impose a tariff of 40 per cent, the selling country knows exactly how much it must charge from its end to enter the Australian market. If we increase the tariff to 50 per cent, the price on the goods is lowered so that the goods may be sold here. When it comes to selling goods on the Australian market ad volorem tariff rates have no hope of protecting anyone. Dumping is a practice which occurs only too frequently.

What worried me was that the Chairman of the Tariff Board completely ducked this question asked of him. He said that he really did not know very much about what other countries did, that his job was to look after tariffs in this country. These remarks astounded me. I cannot really believe that the purpose of the Tariff Board is simply to try to get its own way for the sake of getting its own way, and to try to build up its own empire, and not to be prepared to come out and to debate in public the difference between a country that is really interested in being an industrialised country, that believes in building up ils population and that believes in having soundly based manufacturing industries, and a country that will fritter those objectives away and say. ‘Let us make only those few things for which we are most suited’. This is on the proviso that the goods can be made cheaply enough. As an example I mention stoves, a very heavy product. Most of the stoves sold in Australia are made here. This type of industry is provided with a natural protection. But, comparing what we do here with what happens in other countries in the world, I say that we are just amateurs.

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

– The honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) commenced his speech by rubbishing the proposals by the Australian Labor Party in respect of roads and came up with the old cliche: ‘Where is the money coming from?’ I wonder how many people in the Liberal Party asked that question when the Government bad to find $130m for wool buying? We have read in the Press recently that the Government intends to capitalise child endowment. This has not been announced yet but it is a possibility Where will the money come from for that purpose? Later in my speech 1 will mention the 57m that oil companies and tobacco companies managed to avoid paying by meeting their excise commitments a week before the last Budget was introduced. This is an example of where the money for our proposals will come from. The type of argument used by the honourable member for McMillan is trotted out from time to time, lt seems that the only Party which would not be able to find money necessary for its proposals is the Australian Labor Party. When the Government is faced with an election, it has no problem at all in this respect. One of the things that the Labor Party will do is to start to exploit. Australia’s resources for Australia instead of allow Australia’s resources to be exploited by overseas interests. We will start buying Australia back and using the profits we make to carry out a number of the policies that we are proposing. 1 wish to deal with the question that the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) raised. 1 refer to the four lane inter-city expressway. We propose that if necessary the money should be raised for this purpose through increases in excise charges. In a speech that I made not so very long ago during the debate on the Estimates, I quoted what had happened in the United States of America. The honourable member for Newcastle mentioned this earlier when he said that it was President Kennedy - I- might correct him because I think it was President Eisenhower - who in 1956 introduced a Bill proposing a programme to build 41,000 miles of inter-city expressways at a cost of $50,000m. During my earlier speech I mentioned that this project was three-quarters completed and that it would be concluded by 1976. J will not go into all of the facts because I have mentioned them in 2 or 3 speeches that I have made on this matter in the past couple of years. The point that I want to stress is the benefit not only in terms of comfort and economy but also in terms of the saving of lives.

The House will be aware of my interest in this matter. When I spoke on this subject during the debate on the Estimates of the Department of Shipping and Transport, I was not able to give figures as to the number of people killed on the major New South Wales highways. These figures have been given to me today and I wish to quote from them. With respect to the Sydney-Albury section of the Hume Highway - that is, starting at Ashfield in Sydney and travelling to Albury - in the year 1970-71 there were 3,385 accidents in which 74 people were killed and 1,346 were injured. I have not been able as yet to obtain figures for the section of the Federal Highway from the Hume Highway south of Goulburn to Canberra. These would add slightly to the number of lives saved by a multi-lane expressway from Sydney through Canberra to Melbourne.

In the same period on the Pacific Highway from Sydney to the Queensland border, 5,172 accidents occurred in which 102 people were killed and 2,010 people were injured.

Mr Chipp:

– May 1 interrupt the honourable gentleman to ask whether the research indicates how many of the people who were injured subsequently died?

Mr COHEN:

– A person is listed as an Australian road death if that person dies within 30 days of the road accident. In the United States, the period is 12 months. A friend of mine with whom I used to play squash was injured over 9 months ago. He was in a coma for 9 months and died only a few weeks ugo. His death is not listed as one caused by a road accident. These figures would be considerably greater if the method of calculating the number of people killed on Australian roads were extended to include people who die several months after the road accident. The situation is ridiculous when a man who is injured in a road accident, lies in a coma for 9 months and eventually dies, is not listed as a road toll statistic.

The statistics that J am giving relate to New South Wales only. In the year 1970-71 on the New England Highway from Hexham to the Queensland border, 1,297 accidents occurred in which 38 people were killed and 612 people were injured. These figures show that on existing highways from the Queensland border to the Victorian border approximately 254 people were killed. I say ‘approximately’ because I have not been able to obtain the exact figures with respect to the Princes Highway from Sydney to the Victorian border. I am told that approximately 40 people are killed on that highway per annum. This means that approximately 260 people are killed every year on highways from the Queensland border to the Victorian border. From the figures that T have quoted of those countries which have expressway systems - be they 4-Iane or 6-lane divided highways - the experience is that there has been a saving in lives of 75 per cent to 80 per cent. This means that if we were to build a multi-lane divided expressway from Brisbane to Melbourne we would save approximately 200 lives per annum in the New South Wales section alone. The road toll has risen almost every year without exception although it may drop marginally this year because of the introduction of seat belts. In 10 years time because of the growing number of drivers and can inevitably the toll will grow, unless there is a drastic national programme to cut it, and the lives of about 2,500 people will be lost on these highways. I believe that the value of a human life in terms of the loss to the economy and the loss of a breadwinner to a family could be calculated at about $50,000. This figure has been accepted as about the cost of a human life. We should also remember that the great majority of people killed are in the younger group between 17 and 20 years of age. This means that the cost over a 10-year period would be about $100m. Therefore, when we talk about spending money on building such an expressway we should realise that we have to spend money to save money.

There are many, many other great benefits to be gained from building such an expressway. I mentioned that President Eisenhower in 1956 sent to Congress a Bill to put a levy of 4c a gallon on petrol. It has been suggested in this place by the honourable member for Newcastle that we should ask the people who use the roads most to pay for such a road. I believe that if the people who use the roads were asked to pay an extra 3c per gallon on petrol so that such a road could be built they would support the proposition.

We can justify the building of this road on a number of other counts. What would happen if we were involved in a war? What sort of road system do we have at present? I hope that the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) listens to what I am saying because this is in his area of activity. What sort of road system do we have in terms of our defence system? What would happen if a bomb dropped today on any one of one hundred points of the Pacific Highway? What would happen if we wanted to shift troops or tanks along that road? As the Minister for the Army well knows, this would be a hopeless proposition. Defence was the reason why the intercity highway system was introduced in the United States. In fact, it was introduced not as a safety measure but as a defence measure. If we have to shift troops from one end of the country to the” other surely it will be much easier to do so along a 4- to 6-lane expressway.

Another matter that has been in the news of late is decentralisation. One of the greatest deterrents to decentralisation is the fact that companies will not build their factories out of the capital cities in areas from which their vehicles would have to make long trips across bad roads in order to get to their markets, to ports, or to the rail heads. J would think that one of the greatest incentives for companies to move to areas 100 miles or 150 miles away from the capital cities of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne would be the establishment of a 4-1 a ne expressway linking them. In that way the manufacturers could very quickly get to and from the factories built in decentralised places. Only the other day I talked to one of the managers of Sara Lee, a big American company that has opened in Gosford in my electorate. He pointed out to me that in his consideration the building of such an expressway road was a very important factor. He believed that the area around Gosford, which is only 40 or 50 miles from Sydney, was being retarded simply because there was not a continuous section of expressway. How much more would the situation be improved, Mr Deputy Speaker, if we were able to go from Sydney to places such as Taree, which you represent, Sir, in 3 or 4 hours instead of 5 or 6 hours as is now the case? Indeed, trucks probably take a longer time to complete this journey.

The Australian Country Party has talked about decentralisation for 20 years but it has done, 1 would say, very little about it.

Mr Daly:

– Fifty years.

Mr COHEN:

– I cannot remember as far back as the honourable member for Grayndler can. But if we want effective decentralisation, the establishment of such an expressway is a real way of going about it. Of course, I have not mentioned the benefits and the incentive that this expressway would provide to international tourism.

In addition it would provide freight savings and other economies and add to the personal comfort of the motorist.

Having dealt with that aspect of the Bill and my suggestion of raising money by way of excise to finance such an expressway, I would like to turn to a matter that I raised some time ago. 1 refer to the question of the oil and cigarette companies managing to evade the payment of tax. I understand that in respect of the oil companies this tax amounted to $1.3m and in respect of cigarette companies it was $3.4m. I have raised this matter with the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp) by way of a number of questions and during debates. I am satisfied that the Minister is doing everything in his power now to stop this practice. I am anxious to know what he proposes to do because I believe that this matter has caused considerable concern amongst the public who know that, by paying excise 5 days before the Budget was introduced, the oil companies could evade $1.3m and the cigarette companies $3.4m.

It has been said that there is a certain element of gambling in such action and that an increase in excise might not have been placed on petroleum products. I accept that. Also it has been said that a certain amount of evaporation occurs in oil products. 1 accept that the oil companies should not pay the excise until they take their oil from the bond stores. However, there is no evaporation in the case of tobacco. Tobacco does not ‘evaporate’ until one lights it. This matter needs to be investigated thoroughly. The average citizen is very very concerned. This matter came to my notice through a citizen of Woy Woy - and it was not Spike Milligan. The incident demonstrates to me how the average citizen can play a very real role in government. This matter was mentioned to me in passing, and I will not mention the person’s name because he has asked me not to do so. I think that if we are able to stop this practice this man will have every reason to feel very satisfied that he has played a very real part in saving this country many, many millions of dollars. 1 have only done my duty by bringing this matter before the House.

The other point that the Minister for Customs and Excise would, perhaps, like to answer when he comes to reply to the debate is how the oil companies can justify the increase in price granted to them by the South Australian Prices Commissioner. I do hope that the Minister is listening.

Mr Chipp:

– I am hanging on every word.

Mr COHEN:

– I did not know that the Minister could do 2 things at once.

Mr Chipp:

– Do not judge everything by your own standards.

Mr COHEN:

– 1 will repeat what 1 said just- in case the Minister did not hear. How can the oil companies justify the increase granted to them by the South Australian Prices Commissioner, because I understand that the increase is justified on the bases of the price they paid wholesale and the excise duty? As the excise would have been increased immediately after the Budget they were probably putting false figures before the Prices Commissioner in order to gain approval for the new price.

The other thing about which 1 have not had a satisfactory explanation is why the Minister deplored the way I had raised this matter before. 1 would appreciate it if he would give me an answer because 1 went through every action I had made and quite frankly I cannot see anything that 1 did was so untoward. I believed I had a duty to raise that matter and 1 would appreciate-

Mr Chipp:

– 1 appreciate that.

Mr COHEN:

– Yes you did, but you also said that I had - 1 think you know what 1 mean. The only other matter I would like to raise relates to cigarettes. I am very concerned that the Government has not seen fit to ban the advertising of cigarettes on television. I suggest to the Minister that what could perhaps be done would be to place a levy of lc or ic a packet on cigarettes to enable the anti-cancer forces to advertise on television as a means of advising- people throughout the country of the dangers of cigarette smoking. I hope that they might also find ail effective cure for those who smoke. I am one of them. I only hope that many of the younger generation are not as silly as 1 am and that they do not continue to smoke knowing the dangers. I hope that the Minister will take up the matter. The Postmaster-General (Sir Alam Hulme) has stated that one of the problems in relation to the banning of cigarette advertising on television is that it will damage the television companies. A levy of ic would raise, I understand, about S6m and the levy of lc would raise about $12m which could be spent on advising people through television to give up smoking and of the dangers of it.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– As other honourable members wish to speak in this debate 1 will just state one or two salient facts and then they will have an opportunity. 1 have listened very carefully to the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) who spoke about road safety. The excise on petrol has nothing to do with the grant under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act. He was far off the track. The money collected goes into the Consolidated Revenue fund and it is from Consolidated Revenue - not specifically from the petrol excise or tax - that money is allocated for all kinds of things. The honourable memeber suggested that we should pay more tax to advertise certain aspects in connection with cigarettes and more tax on petrol to provide for better roads. 1 think he suggested 3 cents. We do not want more taxes. We want fewer taxes, especially for the motorist. I travel long distances by car as I am here in Canberra for about 6 months of the year. I do over 25,000 miles every year in my private car. That can be proved by looking at the speedometer and by going to my service stations. Therefore I notice very carefully what is happening. 1 think that a dual road from Brisbane to Melbourne would be very good. The amount it would cost would be immense. It is a strange fact that a lot of accidents, including head-on collisions, happen on good, straight roads. One of the strangest things that has been happening in Victoria is that they have had a police blitz on motorists. H is advertised all over the country days and perhaps weeks before that on a certain weekend there will be a police blitz. Of course, everybody is very careful at that time. If someone travels with me to my home from Melbourne on a Friday and back on a Monday - 165 miles each way - I will show them where accidents could quite easily happen if it were not for sheer luck. I am not saying that I do everything right, because one can get into an accident very easily. The man who thinks he cannot get into an accident at all is far too confident.

One honourable member referred to the Australian Country Party 20 years ago, and the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) mentioned 50 years ago, so I can go back to about 1947. About that time I moved the adjournment of this House seeking more money from petrol tax - which was applicable to the roads at that time - would be made available. The speaker who followed me was the Prime Minister of the time, Mr Chifley. He was followed by a later Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, Then what they called the lord high executioner came in and moved the gag. That is what they thought about it. At that stage the Government of the day kept nearly three-quarters of the money collected in petrol tax in Consolidated Revenue, as Hansard will show. The Government allocated just over a quarter of the amount collected for roads. This shows how things have changed, but there is no good argument to be had out of what happened years ago. The Labor Party has always been the Labor Party, and the Country Party and the Liberal Party do not change very much as the years go by. Conditions may change but the parties do not. They have certain objectives towards which they lean. All this talk about road safety must be looked at very carefully.

We must not let the people know when there is to be a police blitz. There was a crime blitz on a recent weekend and all the criminals probably said: ‘We had better keep quiet for the time being. We will start again when it’s over.’ I have never heard anything as ridiculous as that. Let me refer now to general tariffs. I understand that there is to be a general inquiry into tariffs. I am pleased about this and I hope it will be hurried up and that we have it quickly, because it is urgently needed. I. representing a large primary producing area, feel that primary industry should receive the same consideration as secondry industry. There is no doubt that at the present time the cities are more or less booming. When compared with the rural areas the difference between the two is remarkable. After all. how could you have students marching everywhere, moratoriums and people kicking up noises if they had to earn their living? These things do not happen in the country. You do not get people marching through the streets in the country because at the present time there are very acute financial problems in the country areas and people have to watch every penny.

The point I want to make is that the Labor Opposition cries out if some secondary industry makes a big profit that that profit is completely wrong and should not have happened at all. But if the Opposition analyses it, it certainly never speaks against the cause of profit. Efficiency plays a big part in profits but protection plays a bigger part. When manufacturers make a very large profit Labor calls out against the profits but never against the reason for them, which is the high tariff protection. The simple reason for this is .that the moment the manufacturer makes a big profit the unions go to the Arbitration Commission for a better award and they generally get it, because the Arbitration Commission is said to apply better award conditions and wages to those industries that can pay. Have honourable members noticed that they are never primary industries?

When the industry makes a profit and the employees receive their award improvement, that flows on to other industries. This is one of the big causes of inflation in this country. Let no-one say that I am advocating a big reduction in tariffs. I am not saying that at all, because I know that an immediate prohibition of tariffs, or a big cut in them, would hit the wage earner and the primary producer the hardest. Therefore 1 do not advocate that. But I do advocate that we must not have tariff protection gone mad. Those big industries in the cities that are making so much profit against which Labor calls out, do not require the protection that they are being given. Therefore I think that this inquiry is necessary and overdue. What happens when wages rise in the way I have just mentioned? The manufacturers and the retailers merely change their price tags. Of course, the primary producer cannot do that. But the strange thing is that the very people that big secondary industries are protected against, the low standard of living countries which are consequently low wage countries, are largely the countries to which the primary producer has to sell his exportable products. I believe that where efficiency can take the place of protection this should be done and, as far as I am concerned, the sooner the inquiry is completed the better it will be for Australia.

Mr CONNOR:
Cunningham

– I rise in particular to draw attention to an alarming situation which is revealed by the latest statistics available in respect of imports of iron and steel. It has often been said that when the United States economy sneezes the world economy catches pneumonia. Similarly it can be said of the Australian steel industry that when it not merely sneezes but also coughs there will be some serious economic consequences for the rest of this nation. The comparative figures for the last 2 years of imports and exports are alarming. In the case of exports, for the year 1969- 70 they were $135m. Imports were $95m. I am using round figures. There was a surplus in that year of $40m. Precisely the opposite prevails in respect of the year 1970- 71 in which exports were $97m and imports $138m, a deficit of $41 m. In terms of technology and in terms of cheapness and quality of raw materials the Australian steel industry can hold its own with that of any part of the world. The only country comparable to us in terms of technology is Japan. I believe that Japan is the culprit in this particular case.

Let me put to the House that in the last 2 years the value of imported iron and steel products was $233m. It is true that 5 or 10 per cent of that might be special alloys and types of steel which are not readily made in Australia, but 90 per cent of those imports could have been and should have been avoided. For that reason I say that there is an urgent need for the Tariff Board, under instructions from this Government, to have a look at exactly what is happening. In my own area there are 19,000 men employed in the steel industry and all honourable members have seen reports in the Press of what is happening. There is a substantial reduction in every sector of the vast monopoly known as the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and more to come because, let us be frank about it, there is over production of steel all over the world today. Certainly there is acute over production in

Japan and that over production is a consequence of 2 things, not merely Japanese economic optimism in their planning - their false optimism in this case - because for the year 1973 they thought that they would have a market and a capacity to produce about 135 million tons of steel.

In point of fact, for this current year their target figure is 88 million tons which is a reduction of some 5 million or 6 million tons on the previous year’s output. That will, of course, have other serious consequences in respect of experts of hard coking coal and iron ore from Australia to Japan. But the point I want to make is that with what is happening in the United States today and the shutters being put up there, or at least the Riot Act being read in , term. of excessive exports to that country of Japanese steel, the pressure on Australia will be stronger than ever before. 1 know it has been said that there are a number of other covert reasons for what is happening. The management of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd are not economic tyros. They are not political or industrial babes in the wood either, but having said all that and having in mind the profits that they have made I believe that there is still a case for protection. That is the situation because when we look at the world trading position today we find that we are going to enter a period of acute, vicious and unparalleled economic competition and consequent protectionism.

Today in the world we have an economic giant in the United States with a gross national product of some $1,060 billion a year and it is dependent for only 4 per cent of that gross national product on exports, in other words, a matter of $45m out of a total world trade of $286 billion. Australia’s contribution is some $4 billion. But the world is breaking up into economic protectionist blocs. We have the European Common market, and my friends of the Country Party know what their chances of penetrating that are. Equally we have COMECON - Russia and its economic satellites - a close, integrated and, within terms of their own political philosophy, closely protected area. In respect of the United States, which, of course, dominates what may be termed the western hemisphere protectionist bloc we have the position where it literally has read the Riot Act to the rest of the world and told them exactly what they are to do. The United States has a deficit in terms of balance of trade of some $13 billion and it wants that corrected at the expense of certain other countries.

In the process of forcing that correction there has been imposed a surcharge of 10 per cent on most of the major types of goods imported into that country. In addition, there is a matter of 8 or 9 per cent by way of special concession given to firms and individuals within the United States which buy goods, particularly major capital goods, made within that country. That is the situation that we face and it will be a case of every nation for itself. We can hear shibboleths mouthed by gentlemen like the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Kelly), but those belong to the past because today we stand on our own as a nation. So does Japan in terms of world trade, lt will be a case of every nation for itself and the devil take the hindmost, lt is the first obligation of an Australian government, irrespective of its political persuasion, to protect the industries of Australia and the jobs and the livelihood of the Australian worker. Instead of talking in terms of hard-earned export income let. us, to begin with, examine what we can produce ourselves. With a deficit over the past 2 years of $233m worth of iron and steel imports it is time that we had a good hard look at things.

There is nothing wrong with the Australian industry in terms of technology and there is nothing wrong with the Australian worker in terms of his skill and aptitudes. If honourable members want the proof of. it let us look at the 1970-71 report of the Tariff Board. In table 2 of the first appendix honourable members will see, referring to iron and steel, the comparative indices taking 1968 as a base year and a base figure of 100. Honourable members will find that the indices relating to foundry pig iron are not given in respect of Japan. In the case of structural steel they show that the Japanese product dropped in price from a figure of 100 in the base year of 1968 to a figure of 71 in 1971. We find that in respect of hot rolled strip steel the figures again are not available. In other words, where the Japanese want to disclose their hand they will do so, but in other cases they will not. This Government has a solemn responsibility to protect this industry because it is the key to the future of Australia.

We face a world of economic crisis, a world of over-production. We have vast mineral wealth here but it will be made available only in the long term, considering the drop that is occurring in the prices of metals, and non-ferrous metals in particular. In respect of our exports of coa) to Japan we can at least say that if Japan can buy it for less than $13 a ton free on board but must pay S20 to $23 f.o.b. for comparable coal from the west coast of the United States and Canada, Japan will continue to buy our coal. The same will probably apply for iron ore, to the limits that Japan wants to buy it and with the revisions that it will have to make from time to time in its production targets.

There is a lot more I could say about this matter but as a matter of courtesy to the Minister I will terminate my remarks. But I do say that any person today in this House who talks in terms of free trade and of reducing tariff protection is kidding himself and is doing a disservice to Aus’ tralia. We are as a Parly by inst ‘net, tradition, policy and precept a protectionist party. There is only one reservation that we make about that and it is this: Those who manufacture in Australia within the protection of the tariff wall charge a fair and reasonable price and do not exploit the Australian consumer.

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

– in reply - Mr Deputy Speaker, I sincerely thank the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr Connor) for his courtesy in giving me 2 or 3 minutes to reply so that we may have a vote before the suspension of the sitting. If 1 may briefly comment on one or two matters, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) has exhorted the House to support the Opposition in voting against the Excise Tariff Bill as a gesture towards rectifying some of the alleged ills of the economy, and so on. I am sure it will not come as a surprise to the honourable member to know that the Government does not accept his suggestion. These Bills are essentially machinery matters and this debate is hardly the one in which to discuss the success or otherwise of the general Budget aims and strategies. My colleague the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) is charged with this responsibility and will as circumstances require bring pertinent matters to notice for discussion.

The honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) raised what is to him an apparent anomaly. He wanted to know why street sweepers were exempt from diesel fuel tax while street flushers were not. The honourable member along with other honourable members from both sides of this House have made representations to me on this matter. As the honourable member rightly says, this is not a question of my arbitrary judgment; it is a question of law as to whether in fact street flushers are road vehicles. As the honourable member knows, I have decided that street sweepers should not be subject to this tax because the legal view is that they are vehicles which do not carry goods. However -and I do not push this too hard - street flushers are basically, apparently, trucks equipped to carry water for the purpose of flushing roadways. The legal experts have advised that therefore they cannot be exempted from this tax.

The philosophical point raised by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) and the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) was that excise collected from petrol, and I suppose from diesel fuel, should be applied to the improvement of roadways and given back to the States for this purpose. I would have thought that that is a most fallacious argument. I would be surprised if many economist would support the view that tax raised in any particular area must be spent in that area. It is one of the oldest fallacies of taxation philosophy that I know of. Without trying to be too facetious one could then say to the proponents of this proposition that all excise gained from the sale of beer should be spent on beer drinkers; that all excise from whisky should be spent on whisky drinkers; that all excise collected on playing cards should be spent to evangelise further the beauties of bridge as a game. What would we do with the tax collected on snuff? Would we spend it on retired colonels? I would like to ask honourable members opposite what they would do with tax gathered from the sale of con traceptives. The mind boggles at the possibilities. I repeat that the argument put forward by the Opposition is fallacious.

The honourable member for Robertson referred to excise on petrol and cigarettes, as did the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. I have publicly commended the honourable member for Robertson for raising this matter. I have stated that it was under consideration. I now inform the House that I do have some concrete proposals which are now under consideration and I would hope to be able to inform the House about them at an early date. In regard to petrol prices and the position of the South Australian Prices Commissioner, the honourable member would be aware that the petrol companies by convenience accept the South Australian Prices Commissioner’s ruling - and this is not so well known - the New South Wales Prices Commission ruling, and the companies accept those prices throughout Australia. As the honourable member knows, this is a matter which is quite beyond the control or administration of this Parliament.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 59

NOES: 52

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Third Reading

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

page 3492

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Motion ‘ (by Mr Chipp) - by leave - agreed -to:-

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent orders of the day Nos. 2, 3, 4 and5 for the resumption of the debate on the second reading of the Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 1), the Diesel Fuel Tax Bill (No. 2), the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) and the Customs Tariff Bill (No. 3) being called on and read together and a motion being moved that the Bills be now passed.

page 3492

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 1)

Second Readings

Consideration resumed from 17th August 1971. 19th August 1971 and 28th October 1971 (vide pages 148, 368 and 2695), on motions by Mr Chipp:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Bills (on motion by Mr Chipp) passed.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

page 3492

EXPORT INCENTIVE GRANTS BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 October (vide page 2696), on motion by Mr Peacock:

That theBill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition does not oppose this measure, which is fairly technical. In a sense it is a re-enactment of something that has applied for a number of years. This legislation was related to the payroll tax which the Commonwealth Government formerly collected but which it now has relinquished in favour of the States. By relating this legislation to that tax it was possible to give rebates, mainly to manufacturing industries in Australia, for improvements in export trade. One of the reasons that it was done in this rather curious fashion was that Australia, as a contributory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade arrangement, was not permitted to make certain kinds of inducements for export trade. Apparently under the conventions of that agreement one cannot make rebates of direct taxes, but seemingly there are loopholes with respect to indirect taxation. This is the reason why this legislation has been hinged to the payroll tax.

Now, as a result of certain rearrangements which have been made whereby the payroll tax has been handed over to the States - quite a retrograde step in my view, but nevertheless it was done because it gave to the States something which is described as a growth tax - we have to go through the subterfuge- of conceding what would have been paid in payroll tax had this payroll tax been collected by the States. The purpose of this Bill is to reenact for a further period - for the financial years 1971-72 and 1972-73 - the provisions that formerly applied. In fact, as the Minister for the Army and Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peacock) said:

The Bill proposes that direct Commonwealth grants be payable in respect of increases in exports during the financial years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the years for which the payroll lax rebate scheme was to remain in force.

This was a scheme that had been introduced some years ago and which has been renewed periodically but which would not have been renewed until 1972-73. What will happen to this kind of thing after 1972-73, like a lot of other things, the Government leaves completely up in the air. I presume that the same sort of inducement in a different kind of way will still be forthcoming. Certain details are contained in the taxation statistics supplement to the 49th report of the Commissioner of Taxation who administers this legislation. The last available figures are for 1968-69 and they show that in that year the rebate allowed to those entitled to it was about $33m. For 1970-71 - I quote from page 71 of the statistics attached to the Budget - the figure had increased to $47,750,000. For this year the projected estimate is $53m.

This has always been a fairly messy way of encompassing the objective which the Government had in mind. 1 should like to quote again from a document to which I have referred on a number of occasions in this House. It was produced in 1966 some 5 years ago and is entitled ‘A Report With Recommendations on the Australian Taxation Incentives for Manufacturing Exporters’. It was prepared and presented by the Australian Manufacturers’ Export Council, Industry House, Canberra. The section I shall quote is still relevant even though it is 5 years since the document was prepared. The Council had made a survey and under the heading ‘General Observations’ the following comment appears:

The survey reflects a trend towards significantly better export performance by the smaller firms than by many of the larger ones. This confirms an observation in the Report of the Commonwealth Committee of Economic Inquiry (Vernon Report) that ‘such firms apparently have exhibited more flexibility in taking advantage of export markets more quickly than their larger counterparts’.

One of the reasons why some of the larger firms have not taken this advantage is because of the existence of what are known as export franchises with some of the larger companies in Australia which are dominated by foreign ownership. The document continues:

The survey illustrates the grave anomaly that the smaller manufacturers, who achieved the better export performance, received the lesser benefit from the payroll tax incentive.

I suggest that that kind of difficulty still applies. The document notes:

As well, it is clear that the present scheme gives greater encouragement to the labour intensive industries than to the capital intensive ones

Surely if there is any country that should be devoting itself to what might be called capital intensive industries rather than to labour intensive industries with respect to export trade, it is Australia. This afternoon honourable members have spoken of the awful mish-mash which faces Australia’s economy at present because of growing unemployment, but if our economy were properly planned and if there were some sense of priorities, as there should be, we would not be in this situation. What we face is a shortage of skilled manpower. One of Australia’s besetting evils at the moment is that we use wastefully what is a short supply commodity - skilled manpower. One reason why we cannot get the best out of our economy is that we cannot employ our unskilled people sensibly unless, firstly, we have deployed our skilled people successfully. Undoubtedly if we are to expand our economy we must expand our export sales. Our traditional export industries are passing through a critical stage. One need not dwell on the difficulties confronting our rural industries both by reason of Common Market problems and the fact that our principal export industries - the wool industry is an example - are in a critical condition. Our export earnings have been maintained at the sort of levels Australia requires only because of our mineral exports. I have noticed one thing, and I quote from page 2 of the explanatory memorandum which accompanied this Bill wherein it is staged:

In broad terms, a grant-

That is, a grant for export rebate in terms of payroll payment - is available, as was the payroll tax rebate, for increases in exports of all classes of goods other than minerals (as defined).

For the most part minerals do not attract this concession. Certain minerals that are defined attract it, and one of those is gold. I am sure that my colleague the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard) is happy that at least gold in its industrial uses attracts this rebate. This is a measure, introduced some years ago as a kind of piecemeal device, which has been allowed to grow rather lopsided and in a topsy.tervy manner without much attention being given to the fundamentals involved. It would seem that in its present form the rebate will cease to be paid by 1972-73, because the payroll tax will no longer be a tax which the Commonwealth can command. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to devices of this kind in the future.

There is no doubt that Australia’s export trade needs to be stimulated and encouraged, but it does not require encouragement quite of the kind envisaged in this legislation. My Party in particular would like the Government to consider the tact that the present Act does not make any kind of reservation about the countries to which export trade goes, and because of that it appears that a rather peculiar anomaly exists. Among the beneficiaries under this legislation are some of the Australian breweries whose export trade is not going to what normally we would regard as an overseas country; it is going to the Territory of Papua New Guinea. In one sense Australian trade going to Papua New Guinea should not be regarded as being very much different from trade crossing the Murray River. I know that in years ahead Papua New Guinea will become somewhat different from the Murray River area - I do not deny that proposition - but nevertheless I am sure that when this legislation was introduced it was never intended to aid sales of beer from Australia to Papua New Guinea.

After all. as we know from our own economic history, the brewing industry is one of the industries that a country can best encompass for itself, and there is such an industry in Papua New Guinea. 1 do not argue about the relative merits of one kind of brew compared with another, but t suggest that as far as the future welfare of Papua New Guinea is concerned, if it is to have a local brewing industry I am not too sure that there should not be some barriers set against the import of the product from outside Papua New Guinea. I suggest that this is one area in respect of which the law ought to be reviewed. 1 am not quite sure that that may not apply also to some industries in Australia which apparently are aided and abetted by the legislation as it stands. I think that most Australians, when they talk about export encouragement, are thinking about export from Australia to some of the new markets where we must make an impact in the future. I refer to countries such as Indonesia and to other countries in South East Asia, and to countries in the Commonwealth - to name only a few. We are reasonably successful, I suppose, in our trade with Japan which is our principal partner in this area. But if there is to be expansion in the future, then I think that there needs to be a lot more selectivity in the kind of measure that is introduced to encompass that expansion.

I see that the Minister for the Army and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Peacock) is sitting at the table. At one stage we had intended to move an amendment which provided that the legislation ought not to apply to Papua New Guinea, bt,/ perhaps in general terms that might have been a bit sweeping. The definition of ‘prescribed goods’ is to be found in clause 4 on page 6 of the Bill. I hope that perhaps some attention might be given to altering the definition of “prescribed goods’ in order to exclude at least certain kinds of products which are favoured because of a strict interpretation of the Act as it stands at present but which we do not believe were intended to be favoured in the original Act. Whilst our trading performances have been quite satisfactory in Australia, I doubt whether companies such as Tooth and Co. Ltd and Carlton and United Breweries Ltd need succour from legislation such as this. I hope that consideration might be given perhaps to modifying this legislation if the Government recasts it, as it will have to do in the future. We honour some of our international obligations more in the breach than in the observance. 1 think that this is one of the difficulties with the arrangements under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was one of the things hopefully started nearly 20 years ago in the post-war era wilh a view to securing better trading relationships between the developed and the undeveloped countries, and Australia in a sense in those days, 1 suppose, fell somewhere between those 2 categories.

Australia has now a relatively developed economy, compared with most countries with which we like to compare ourselves, and I think that probably now is the time to review the real import of some of the legislation that has been on the statute books for a considerable number , of years. This legislation has been quite successful in its operation. One needs only to look at the statistics that are contained in the table to which I have referred to see that approximately two-thirds of the benefit that is provided by this legislation is given to the export of manufacturing goods, such as machinery and other like components. That is the kind of area into which Australia has to expand its overseas trade in the future. 1 think that in that field at least the legislation has been successful. But the Government might have to find a quite different hook on which to hang this benefit now that it has handed payroll tax over to the States, “because apparently the difficulty is thai concessions of this kind must somehow be aligned to indirect concessions rather than to direct ones. I am sure that that will throw up some problems for the Government when it revises this legislation which expires in J 972-73.

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 Peacock) read a third time.

page 3495

VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND GREAT BRITAIN

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– l seek leave to make a statement on my recent visit to the United States of America and Great Britain.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:

– The statement is in 3 parts - the United States, Britain and general matters common to both countries. 1 think most honourable members in this Hou.se would agree that Australia stands on the threshold of a transitional period in its development as a nation. We are living in a world in which relations with our traditional allies and friends and with the nations of the Asian and Pacific region are changing significantly. And so, having received invitations from both President Nixon and Prime Minister Heath, I believed it was wise to go to Washington and London.

It was natural that as the head of a recently formed government I should welcome the opportunity for discussions with the leaders of 2 major powers who are traditionally close friends and allies of this country. With the passage of time there is inevitably a risk that changing circumstances might erode the understandings and contractual arrangements of long standing between us and put under strain the commitments embodied in them. Moreover, changes are taking place in the world strategic balance of power which are of fundamental importance to us. As honourable members know, I left Australia on 27th October and returned last Thursday, 18th November. 1 believe this visit was timely, successful and to Australia’s advantage.

A new balance is emerging which includes the United States, the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, Japan and the European community, including Britain. In this situation the voice and influence of a medium power such as Australia is becoming increasingly significant. On behalf of the Government of this country, J wanted to establish close personal contact with leaders in the United States and Britain and to explore their thinking on major international issues, their attitudes to which are of importance to us. 1 also wanted to put at the highest level our own views on some of these bilateral and international questions.

My visit to America followed closely the United Nations vote on the admission of the People’s Republic of China which created a new situation in the world body, and in the Asian region. It followed Dr Kissinger’s return from his second visit to Peking. And, as it happened, it occurred at the same time as the defeat of the foreign aid Bill in the United States Senate. It came shortly before Mr Laird’s visit to Vietnam and President Nixon’s planned announcement of further American troop withdrawals from that country. It also preceded the President’s planned visits to Peking and Moscow. My visit to the United Kingdom followed immediately after the House of Commons had voted in favour of British entry into the European Economic Community. It also preceded Sir Alec Douglas-Home’s present attempt to find a solution of the Rhodesian problem. In the international economic field the world’s currency arrangements are in disorder and the stability and growth of international trade are threatened.

In the United States, I had lengthy and very frank discussions with President Nixon, Secretary of State Rogers, Defence Secretary Laird, Deputy Secretary Packard, Dr Kissinger, Under Secretary of the Treasury Volcker, Chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality Russell Train, and Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I also had discussions with many others including the Republican Leader in the Senate, Senator Scott; the Secretary for Commerce, Mr Morris Stans, who is to visit Australia shortly; and the Managing-Director of the International Monetary Fund and the chairman of the Export-Import Bank. All of these talks were very frank and friendly. I have returned with the firm impression that the American Administration is well disposed towards Australia. This reinforcement of our relationship at the personal level is worthwhile in itself.

An important result of my visit was the public reaffirmation by President Nixon of the continuing strength and validity of the ANZUS Treaty. President Nixon gave me an unconditional and unqualified assurance that ANZUS is as valid today as it was when it was signed, 20 years ago. The ANZUS Treaty, as honourable members will know, provides that in the event of an armed attack on any one of them or on their forces in the Pacific area, the United States, Australia and New Zealand would each act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. The reaffirmation is important for 3 reasons: Firstly, it was described by the President as one of the fundamental pillars of American Policy in the Pacific, giving it a special emphasis at a time when a new balance of forces is emerging throughout the world; secondly, it was a most positive public affirmation of the Treaty following the announcement of the Nixon Doctrine which outlined new American attitudes in the Asian and Pacific region; and thirdly, it came at a time when a minority in Australia was doubting its worth and others were downgrading its importance. I should add that, in all my discussions on this subject, it was clear that we shared the view that ANZUS is more than a Treaty. It is the symbol of the close co-operation which exists between Australia, the United States and New Zealand. But more than that, in addition to providing for the annual meet ing of Ministers, it furnishes a framework of practical co-operation under which there is constant exchange of information and views of the greatest importance to Australia. Senator Fulbright, who has been critical of many of America’s involvements beyond its shores, also said - to use his own words - ‘ANZUS was different’ and was a commitment of indefinite duration. None of this must suggest any easing off in our determination to strengthen and enlarge our defence capacity. We are a nation of increasing influence in the world with a fundamental responsibility for our internal and external affairs. This responsibility is ours and ours alone. But if circumstances beyond our capability arise, we know we have reliable allies.

On my way home I discussed defence strategy in the Pacific with the United States Commander-in-Chief, Pacific, in Honolulu. We spoke of the continuing danger of Communist subversive and insurgent activities throughout the region. I also remind the House of the uncompromising speech by the Chinese delegate to the United Nations on his first appearance at that forum earlier this month. We have no hostility to the great Chinese people who have contributed so much to the culture and history of mankind and we favour an accommodation with them.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I remind those honourable members who are interjecting that there is a great deal of interest in this statement both inside and outside the House. The Leader of the Opposition is to follow the Prime Minister and I hope that he will be accorded the same kind of reception as is given to the Prime Minister. So I suggest that honourable members contain themselves.

Mr McMAHON:

– But we should not forget that this great revolutionary power in Asia still holds fast publicly to its policies, including its support of National Liberation movements. We will seek to advance our own dialogue with China but, as I have said before, we will proceed with caution.

In my talks with the Secretary for Defence and Deputy Secretary Packard, who has recently visited this country, I raised the question of the security of the Indian Ocean. It was agreed that the increased Soviet naval presence does not constitute a serious threat at present to the vital sea lanes across the Southern Indian Ocean, but it was also agreed that the situation needs to -be watched with care, particularly in view of the fact that the Soviet presence, of course, can be built up quickly and sustained, especially if the Suez Canal were to be re-opened. I am satisfied the United States is fully aware of the political and strategic importance of the Indian Ocean and agrees that a careful watch should be continued in this area. The United States will continue visits and transits by its naval ships and naval exercises in the Indian Ocean. They have welcomed the possibility of using facilities at Cockburn Sound and are, with the United Kingdom, maintaining a communication station at Diego Garcia.

During my talks with President Nixon and Mr Laird we exchanged assessments on the situation and the future in IndoChina. The view, which I questioned closely, was put forward that Vietnamization in both the military and the economic sense was making very good progress and that the situation in South Vietnam was much more stable and promising than seemed likely 9 months ago. I was also informed of American intentions regarding troops to remain after the withdrawal of American combat forces and on the maintenance of air and naval support for the Vietnamese forces for some time to come. 1 informed the President of our decision in principle to assist in the training of Cambodian troops in South Vietnam after our own combat forces are withdrawn if practicable arrangements can be made in conjunction with the other countries concerned. The President and other members of the Administration expressed their appreciation in the warmest terms of our constant support and help in Indo-China. If I might digress for a moment, our hope in Vietnam and indeed in Cambodia and Laos is simply that these countries will have the opportunity to live in peace and to determine their own futures, rather than have imposed upon them, by force, unwanted communist regimes. Can anyone in this House seriously contest the sense and propriety of this objective? In essence our policy towards Cambodia, which attracted so much public interest while I was overseas, is to play a modest part through aid and training programmes in helping to give that country a chance to survive as an independent non-communist state. As I have emphasised before, there is no question of sending Australian military advisers or instructors to Cambodia. During my discussions I invited President Nixon to visit Australia at a time when it would be possible for him to do so.

The Australian Government has been giving much thought to the question of the environment. I took the opportunity while in Washington to have discussions with Mr Russell Train and other members of the council on environmental quality. From these discussions I gained valuable insights into American experience of the problems of dealing with pollution and environmental protection measures, especially in the context of a federal-state relationship. They are willing to assist and advise in this field where they have already made some’ notable advances. In Washington, I took advantage of the presence of the Prime Minister of India, Mrs Gandhi, to have a’ full discussion with her on the situation in the east of the sub-continent. After this meeting I sent another message to President Yahya Khan urging upon him once again the need to deal with the elected representatives of East Pakistan and with’ Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. During the discussion, Mrs Ghandi said she would welcome a visit by Australian members of Parliament to see for themselves conditions in the refugee areas.

I turn now to my visit to Britain. In London I had detailed discussions with the Prime Minister, Mr Heath; the Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home; the Minister for Defence, Lord Carrington; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Barber; the Minister responsible for the British relations with the European Economic Community, Mr Rippon; and the Governor of the Bank of England. I also addressed the Cook Society, the Confederation of British Industries and the Australia-British Trade Association. Naturally, I spent a great deal of time discussing the British entry into the European Economic Community. I started from the point that, while we had been disappointed at the terms agreed upon for British entry, those terms were now a fact and we should look towards the best arrangements we could make for the future.

Generally, I expressed the hope that Britain, having made its -decision, would now use its influence to ensure that the community was outward-looking and international in its approach, that it should be flexible in its approach to world trade, rather than regionally exclusive in its attitude. I also pressed strongly for assurances that during the transitional period the British would adopt as helpful an attitude as possible to Australian commodities affected by the British entry. 1 was assured by Mr Heath, Sir Alex Douglas-Home and Mr Rippon that Britain would use its influence to see that the European Economic Community adopted an outward-looking policy. The point was made to me that Britain depended heavily on its trade and, consequently, the widest area of multi-lateral trade and payments was a source of strength. The point was made to me also that a weak Britain would be of little use to its old Commonwealth friends. A strong Britain within the EEC would be of value to countries like Australia. Mr Rippon also explained fully the inclusion of a clause in the entry agreement that if imports of an agricultural commodity subject to import levies were seriously affected or likely to be affected by British entry, either Australia or Britain would have the right to raise the matter before the commission.

Assurances - the value of which admittedly can only be fully tested in time - that Britain would, during the transitional period, be ready to discuss on a commodity basis those commodities likely to be affected by British entry into the Common Market, were reaffirmed to me. The point was also made to me that it would be desirable for the industries concerned to be active in presenting their cases themselves. I urged upon British Ministers the need for the EEC to adopt measures to ensure that the exports of tropical produce from Papua New Guinea are in a no less favourable position than those from other developing countries which are to receive special treatment. Notwithstanding that Papua New Guinea is still a trust territory, the British are hopeful for early progress towards agreement on this matter. I should tell the House that I questioned repeated assertions that although the United Kingdom is to enter the Common Market its bilateral relationship with Australia would not change. I can report that I was assured by Britain’s Ministers that there was a pervasive desire to maintain the closest possible co-operation with Australia.

During my talk with the Chancellor, I raised with him my concern that the voluntary restraint on the movement of British capital to Australia should not be maintained, while, at the same time, movements of capital were liberalised in respect of the EEC countries with consequent disadvantage to the traditional flow to Australia. Members will be glad to learn that I received an assurance of the fullest consultation and co-operation before any decisions are made. When Britain enters the EEC she will be creating a situation in which her longstanding trading preferences in the Australian market will come to an end. These foregone preferences will be available to us for bargaining purposes. Our policy in any negotiation of new arrangements will be based on recognition of the principle that trade, to be successful in the world of today, needs to be multilateral. In my discussions with persons involved in commerce and industry, I repeatedly emphasised the point that, despite some problems, our economy was fundamentally sound and that we could look to a long-term annual growth rate of around 5 per cent or more. These views were generally well received and British interests with whom I discussed the matter continue to regard Australia as a country of promise and a suitable place for British investment. Mr Health and I agreed - and this was followed up later in my talks with the Minister for Defence and the Foreign Secretary - that even closer consultation and communication should be effected between the two Governments. This included strong confirmation of the policy that the British and Australian High Commissioners should have, when needed, immediate direct access to the respective Prime Ministers. At the same time, we would take the opportunity to step up our direct contact wilh other EEC members and strengthen our representation in Brussels.

I had useful and wide-ranging discussions on defence matters with the British Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Foreign Secretary. I was assured that the Heath Government intends to maintain its political interests and defence commitments in South East Asia. We reviewed the five-power defence arrangements for assistance in the defence of Singapore and Malaysia. The signature of the new arrangements on 1st November reflects the readiness of the Heath Government to make a contribution to the security and stability of our region which is both welcome ant! timely. I am aware that the British Government is actively considering, with other Governments in the five power arrangement, further areas of co-operation in the defence field. There was also a close identity of views on the security of the Indian Ocean. I was left in no doubt about British concern for the implications of the Soviet naval influence in the area.

Mr Heath indicated to me that his Government intends to maintain a naval presence in the Indian Ocean. Ibis reaffirms his statement to the conference of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Singapore last January, We also had useful opening discussion directed lo increasing defence co-operation in the Indian Ocean area and work is proceeding on proposals about improved procedures for coordinating resources and surveillance. I was given a survey of the situation in Western Europe, including NATO and was informed that Britain would maintain its commitments to SEATO, in which it still sees, to use their own words, itself as a ‘full partner’.

I want to turn now to some of the matters which are common to my visits to America and Britain. As a result of my visit, the Australian Government now has a deeper appreciation of American and British thinking on a wide range of international issues of importance to us, such as: The British entry in the EEC; the future of China and Taiwan; the future for Vietnam and Cambodia; the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean; overseas trade; President Nixon’s forthcoming visits to Moscow and Peking; the international monetary situation; and the Rhodesian situation. For our part, I was able to give American and British Leaders a clearer picture of our Government’s thinking on the role we expect to play in the Asian and Pacific region. And to emphasise that, while we are a dependable friend, we shall make our own independent judgments based upon our own national interests.

I also took the opportunities available to me in my discussions to emphasise our changing role in a changing world. I emphasised the need to take full account of Japan in the emerging balance between the United States. China and the Soviet Union in North Asia. I emphasised the role we were seeking to play in regional economic co-operation and regional defence co-operation in South-East Asia. I also emphasised the importance of a stable and peaceful Indonesia in South East Asia and the weight we give to our relations with that country. I believe the administration in the United States, the Government in Britain and leading representatives of the media in both countries now have a greater awareness of Australia - as a country of stability and increasing influence in the South East Asian region. I believe, too, that they may now be more conscious of the importance and vitality of Japan and Indonesia in the Asian region.

Before I left I had been concerned for some time to find that, perhaps because we are so far from North America and Europe, ignorance about Australia and misunderstanding of some of our policies are still quite widespread in these areas. For these reasons. I talked in New York over 2 special lunches to the editorial writers and correspondents specialising in Foreign Affairs of ‘The New York Times’ and of the Time Life Incorporated. A member of my party did a similar briefing on Australia’s role in South East Asia for The Washington Post. In London, at a similar lunch I was able to speak to the editors of nearly all the main newspapers published in England. I believe this was worth while in focusing the interest of leading opinion formers in the media in the United States and in Britain on Australia and its prospects and policies. My mission also received considerable public notice in the media of both countries, particularly in the responsible Press. And I think this, too, served to project Australia effectively to the man-in-the-street.

I turn now, Sir, to the international currency situation, a difficult, unresolved problem for us all. I discussed the situation with the President and members of the Administration in Washington - with the Prime Minister and senior Ministers in London - and with high officials and trading and financial interests in both countries. In both Washington and London I emphasised that Australia wants an early resolution of the present impasse as being a matter of the greatest importance for the whole trading world.

I pointed out the impact which the United States import surcharge and the uncertainty about exchange rates has had on the market for some of our products, including wool. I mentioned the charges that temporary expedients could harden into dogmas and that a widespread slowdown in economic activity could result. Unless there is an early, sensible and adequate readjustment in trade and currency arrangements, competitive devaluation could occur, and increasing protectionism in trade develop, with a consequent threat to economic stability and growth around the world. I stressed, particularly in the United States, the indirect implication for Australia of any sharp check to economic growth and trade in third countries, such as Japan, as a result of the United States’ measures. There were dangers in isolating Japan, which has to be seen as a country finding a new role in the world, and particularly a role in the economic development of South East Asia. I have made it clear that, in relation to currency matters, Australia reserves its position. We will take our decision when any realignment is settled. Our decision will be based on the interests of the Australian economy and the Australian people.

In America I urged on the Administration the need to remove barriers in the way of world trade in agricultural commodities, and raised at the highest level the problems we face in our attempt to export Australian wool and meat to the United States. These discussions were followed up at other levels. There are good grounds for believing that the United States is seeking ways of being helpful to us in respect of both wool and meat.

Sir, in concluding this outline, I think it would be appropriate to say something about Australia and where we stand today. I believe that my visits to New York, Washington and London did something to project Australia to a Britain, which is becoming increasingly involved in Europe, and an America which is subject to varying degrees of pressure to withdraw from its overseas involvement, and to remind them that they have in the southern hemisphere: A vigorous, like-minded but independent friend; a country of great prospect, of influence and stability in the South East Asian region; a country willing and able to make its contribution to a secure and stable Asian and Pacific area increasing in economic strength.

I pointed out that we have our problems - such as inflation and the state of some of the rural industries - which we must solve but, at the same time, our friends should not lose sight of the fundamental soundness of the economy and the great promise of this country. For our part we should concentrate on representing Australia to the world as a tolerant, stable, healthy member of the international community - increasing in size and strength as it develops, but threatening no-one. I attempted to do this during my tour.

In short I emphasised that we in the Government will direct our energies to building a greater Australia based on selfconfidence, determination, co-operation, and a vision of an unlimited future. Mr Speaker, I recommend that this statement be studied by members of the Opposition. I lay on the table the following paper:

Visit to the United States and Britain - Ministerial Statement, 23 November 1971.

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House tak* note of the paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition speaking for 30 minutes, the Opposition) (8.49) - The visit overseas by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) began during a truly momentous week in world affairs. China was voted by a more than two-thirds majority into the United Nations; the House of Commons voted in principle to take Britain into the European Economic Community; and the United States Senate reversed the direction of United States policy over the past 22 years by voting to end foreign aid. I agree with the Prime Minister that it was valuable for

Australia that he and so many senior Australian officials should have had the opportunity for talks with persons, and at places, and in times so close to these commanding events. 1 am not among those who criticise the Prime Minister either for his timing, his itinerary or his encourage. One would, however, be more impressed with the value of the visit if one could discern in anything the right honourable gentleman said abroad or in anything he has said tonight that there has been any real change in Australia’s approach.

The Prime Minister lays great stress on the value he attaches to the President’s reaffirmation of ANZUS. The right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) has pointed out that successive Presidents have given this reassurance to successive Prime Ministers. We must give an impression of curious nervousness when we display this eagerness for repeated reassurance that the US will not abrogate her treaty with us. It is no compliment to the US when Australian Prime Ministers display such recurring doubts about her constancy or reliability. There are two constitutional aspects to be understood about ANZUS: It is the law of the land, but it is a law which requires the agreement of tha US Senate for its effective implementation. And in the final analysis, this means the will nf the American people. Successive Australian Prime Ministers and Governments have concentrated almost exclusively on relations with successive Presidents and Administrations. Australia has been singularly ineffective in cultivating and comprehending Congress. The Embassy in Washington has been a post office for the State Department. As a result, the Australian Government has been repeatedly taken by surprise by shifts and drifts in congressional opinion. These miscalculations of American opinion have led to great miscalculations in Australia’s own policy.

The outstanding example is Vietnam itself. As early as 1967 half the Senate opposed the war in Vietnam. I repeatedly warned of this in this place; it was as repeatedly denied. The fact is that US senate opinion was ahead of US public opinion itself, not least because the Senate was the first to realise and naturally to resent how it had been misled over the Gulf of

Tonkin incident, io-called. lt was that sense of grievance - a sense of betrayal almost - which led Senator Fulbright to become a foremost opponent of foreign aid, not so much because he opposes foreign aid as such but because he believes that curtailing foreign aid is the one way the Senate can reassert its influence over foreign and defence policy. The Prime Minister mentioned tonight that he had talked to Senator Fulbright. He is reported to have said after his meeting with the senator that he had been able to clear up Australia’s position, and on his return to Sydney last Thursday he expressed particular pleasure that he could bracket Senator Fulbright’s name with the President’s as supporters of ANZUS, lt is the more surprising, therefore, that a week after his meeting with the Prime Minister. Senator Fulbright made the following statement in answer to a question during the Senate debate on the revised foreign aid Bill:

Australia, as the Senator knows, was a supporter, perhaps reluctantly, of our country in Vietnam. They sent al the height of the activities I think, 8.000 men. That was after much armtwisting. New Zealand sent a few hundred, lt was purely a token force. . . . 1 do not know what kind of direct aid they give. They may give some bandages - Red Cross bandages and things like that. Many countries do that. It helps their consciences.

We gave Australians contracts for trucks which we purchased from them and paid for under the military programme and then shipped to Cambodia. This is how our business is done: we paid the Australians out of this programme for trucks to go to Cambodia.

Whatever the facts, these are scarcely the words of a great advocate for ANZUS. Wc should, however, at least learn the lesson from Vietnam and from the US Senate’* new suspicion of foreign aid and foreign intervention. Power in the US is not monolithic. The President of the US. powerful as he is by virtue of his position in the world and by virtue of his country’s Constitution, is not the sole or absolute repository of power or influence in the US. And we ignore the other sources at our peril. We might even be reasonably cautious about criticising leading contenders for the Presidency. But the central lesson is this: American foreign policy, even her attitude to formal treaties like ANZUS, depends not only on the wi.-hes of the President, but also on the will of the American people. i he Prime Minister should remember hi.; own words to this House: ‘The ANZUS Treaty is one between, the Australian people and the people of the United States’. He might have added ‘the people o.” New Zealand’. And that is precisely why the policy of my party, in reaffirming our adherence to ANZUS, emphasises that it does, and will increasingly, depend on the relations between our 3 peoples if it is to work constructively and effectively in our region. If reaffirmation of ANZUS is, as claimed by the right honourable member for Higgins, a matter of routine, there is one other treaty about which the President and Prime Minister were apparently silent. The Prime Minister was the first to visit Washington without receiving reassurances about the future of SEATO. This omission appeared tonight the more striking, because the Prime Minister’s only reference to SEATO was in the context of his London visit.

I have no comment to make about the internal events of this week in the one remaining active member of SEATO in South-East Asia - Thailand. Yet these events do illustrate that SEATO never was and never could be an instrument of the democracies for the promotion or preservation of democracy. Whatever has held this hastily devised organisation together, it certainly never was a belief in democracy. The recent actions of another Asian member of SEATO, Pakistan, have dealt the ultimate blow to any possible effectiveness SEATO could ever have had. I applaud the Prime Minister’s efforts to promote mediation in this deadly triangle. I profoundly regret that his efforts have failed. It would be the more regrettable if he were dissuaded from continuing his efforts. The massive tragedy which has already occurred on the Indian sub-continent, and the even wider tragedy which threatens, serve as a powerful reminder how the assumptions on which Australia’s foreign and defence policies have been based for more than 20 years have been fragmented. The Liberal certainties and simplicities have vanished.

As I said earlier, miscalculations have been made on the assumption of a monolithic power sructure in the United Slates. Vast miscalculations have been made on the assumption of the monolithic nature of the communist world. And miscalculations have been made on the assumption of the monolithic nature of international relations and rivalries - the assumption that international events could be explained on the basis of a simple confrontation between the communist world and the free world. Surely now at last the fallacy of these assumptions can be seen. And yet the Prime Minister’s response to a dramatically changed situation hints at a hankering after those old simplicities. It is almost as if the old threat mentality about ‘the downward thrust of China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans’ is simply to be replaced with the general ‘menace’ from the Indian Ocean - to use the word of the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) today. The imminent tragedy on the sub-continent puts the Soviet presence upon the Indian Ocean in a much wider perspective.

These events combined with another threatened catastrophe further west - in the Middle East - show how tangled international relations and obligations have become. The super powers are deeply involved in both areas of threatened conflict - the sub-continent and the Middle East. Until a very short Mme ago, if both the United States and the Soviet Union were determined that protracted conflicts should not break out, it was almost certain that they could impose their combined will. They are not now in a position to do so. The United States has a bilateral defence agreement with Pakistan. It sends observers to council meetings of CENTO, to which Pakistan belongs and it will act to meet communist aggression under SEATO, to which Pakistan belongs. The Soviet now has a treaty with India. China, avowedly the supporter of wars of liberation, supports Pakistan as the government of Bangla Desh in the name of legitimacy just as she supports the legal government of Ceylon against communist terrorists there. In the Middle East Russia has armed Egypt, yet as long as the Suez Canal remains closed the Soviet has no easy western access to the Indian Ocean. These complex relations no longer lend themselves to the grand old simplicities, in the good old days of the first fine careless rapture.

We are vastly exercised about the threat of a Russian presence in the Indian Ocean, presumably as a potential threat to our traditional sea communications with

Europe. We may yet witness a double explosion stretching across all these lines - sea, land and air. By all means let us build naval support facilities at Cockburn Sound. Of course it would be inconceivable if our facilities on the west were not available to the United States just as our facilities on the east have been since the days of the Great White Fleet, but do not let us pretend by these puny measures, even by calling Cockburn Sound a base, that we have an Indian Ocean policy or that we are making any real response to the events about to unfold. lt may be that Bangla Desh and its aftermath have already claimed in 6 months as many lives as have been lost in Vietnam during the 6 years Australia has had combat troops there. If Vietnam involves our interest and conscience more, it is not because of a different scare in human tragedy but because wc clearly have had a different level of responsibility for what has happened and what is happening there. When one considers what we have helped to do to Indo-China, when further one considers how we, following the United States, slipped with fatal via.se into escalation after escalation of the conflict, one finds it almost unbelievable that we have entered new commitments in a cavalier way. Yet we have made the same sort of commitment to the Government of Cambodia that we made 9 years ago to the then Government of South Vietnam. In May 1962 the Australian people were assured that the commitment of instructors to the Government of South Vietnam would not involve a commitment of combat forces. On the very day that the Prime Minister returned home last week, the last of the 30,000 Australian troops who fought in Vietnam marched through the streets of Sydney. Our confidence in any reassurances now given about the Cambodian commitment is all the less because of the way the decision was made and conveyed. The Prime Minister has been singularly unconvincing on this. So have all his senior colleagues.

I imagine every member of the House was diverted today at question lime to learn that at the Press conference on the day he left Canberra for Washington, inc Melbourne ‘Herald’ correspondent meant something quite different from what the transcript from the Prime Minister’s own office says and that the Prime Minister meant something quite different from what that official transcript says. We are charmed with this meeting of minds. What heartburnings would have been saved for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) had such great rapport existed on this matter. These Ministers, it appears, made the mistake of taking the official transcript at its face value. The sorry story of how the Parliament and people were misled over this decision is not yet done. Even more important tjan the manner of the decision is the decision itself. The Prime Minister should know better than any other Minister its real significance. It is a move away from negotiations, a move away from settlement. My authority is none less than the Prime Minister himself. When he was Minister for Foreign Affairs he plainly enunciated the choice before Australia in this matter. He was interviewed on ‘Four Corners’ on 1 5th August 1970. He was asked:

On this question of military aid to Cambodia in Saigon last month - on the 30th you were quoted as saying ‘we have not decided on the question of military aid’; on July 3rd you’re quoted as say.ng that the Australian government had made it clear we would not be providing military aid; but again on the 7th you said ‘we haven’t been asked and we haven’t considered it’.

The Prime Minister replied:

Well I can’t remember those statements but I know that all through I’ve tried to be consistent in what I have said. First of all I did believe that Cambodia wouldn’t survive for very long. :ind consequently I’ve got to come back to this, that a negotiated settlement was desirable. Then they did; that happened when I was in Bangkok, and for the first time I’d heard that the Indonesians, the Thais and the Japanese were moving towards trying to achieve a negotiated settlement, and I believe that in these negotiations we played a paramount, even a decisive role because we wore tremendously helpful to the Indonesians in trying to get the final communique that was brought out, so this was the kind of dilemma in which we were in and we had to make up our minds whether we wanted to move in a negotiating way or whether we wanted to give direct military aid.

On the notice paper there still stands the following notice from 8th May 1970:

Mr McMahon: To move : That this House supports the principle of the guaranteed neutrality of Cambodia and the two fundamental principles of the Bandung Conference to be internationally observed. That is -

non-interference in the affairs of other countries; and

the right of all countries to determine their own future.

Thirdly, the House supports 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.

These are the actual words by the Prime Minister when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs. This notice has been on the notice paper since 8th May last year and there is a precisely similar notice in the name ot my deputy, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard). So it ought to be possible for the House to have a vote on it. Why is it that the Gorton Government and then the McMahon Government have avoided any vote or even a debate on 2 identical propositions? None of us have ever known identical propositions to be put on the notice paper, and for them to have been there for 18 months undebated and undetermined is quite singular.

The fact is that the Prime Minus tei has done nothing to follow up the initiative be was prepared to support as Minister for Foreign Affairs, lt is all very well to argue, as I imagine he would, that things have changed because the Cambodian Government has unexpectedly survived. The fact is that thousands of Cambodians have not survived. The longer a settlement for the whole of Indo-China is deferred, fewer and fewer Cambodians will survive.

Clearly there can be no settlement in lndo-China without China. Australia can play no effective part in working for a settlement until we are prepared to associate with China. There can be no dealings with China until we recognise the government in Peking as the sole government of China of which Taiwan is a province. It is open to the present Government to recognise China on those terms and on those terms only. Even 6 months ago it would have been easy to achieve full diplomatic relations on the basis of the Canadian formula. It is idle to imagine, now that China has received full recognition of her claims from a majority of the world body itself, that she will settle for less from Australia. Further delay of the inevitable merely earns the contempt of the Chinese, both in Peking and in Taipeh.

The Prime Minister paid fulsome praise to China tonight - I imagine the most effusive ever heard in this House. But he deludes himself if he believes this is any substitute for decision. And the first, and inescapable decision must be to withdraw our embassay - the embassy Sir Robert Menzies steadfastly refused to establish for more than 16 years - from Taipeh.

Very properly, the Prime Minister tonight recognised the importance of Japan to Australia and our region. He stressed that Japan should not be forced into a sense of grievance or isolation. He spoke in the economic context; he ignored the one field where Australia can be of real assistance to Japan - in helping her path towards normal relations with China.

The best friends of Japan will be those who encourage and assist her to solve her special difficulty of the peace treaty with Taiwan in the most honourable and least embarrassing way. The treaty was signed at Taipeh on 28th April 1952; the terms of the treaty were ‘applicable to all the territories which are now. or which may hereinafter be. under the control’ of Chiang Kai-shek’s government. Technically there is still a state of war between China and Japan or. even if one accepts the treaty as valid, between most of China - all except one province - and Japan. lt will be seen, therefore, that the difficulties facing Japan - political, economic, historical and psychological difficulties - are very considerable indeed. To resolve them will tax Japan’s political and diplomatic resourcefulness to the limits. Our own role should be to demonstrate that we understand Japan’s special difficulties and to show that we, for one, believe that Japan has fully discharged any obligations she may have felt she had to the Chiang Kai-shek regime and that we believe that she would be acting not only in her own self-interest and in the clear interests of the region, but in perfect honour, in establishing full and normal relations with China.

The Prime Minister also mentioned the importance of Indonesia. 1 am glad he did Whatever developments may take place in the 5-power arrangements, nothing can override the importance to Australia - politically, strategically and economically - of closer relations with Indonesia. The commercial preoccupations of Britain and the ideological preoccupations of the United States in our region have too long encouraged us to downgrade the crucial nature of our inescapable relations with our closest, largest neighbour.

I do not want to disparage the Prime Minister’s speech unduly. I understand there has been quite a bit of that from other quarters this day, or tonight. Nonetheless, it is impossible to disguise the fact that the Prime Minister won no new guarantees, no solid assurances about any matter, economic, diplomatic or strategic. He has only himself to blame for pitching the hopes of the House and the people so high. If tilling old furrows proves so barren, may we hope that at last Liberals will be prepared to cultivate new fields and explore new directions.

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

– We have heard tonight what 1 venture to suggest was a very fine statement by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) of his recent visit to the United States and Great Britain and of its importance to Australia. Nothing we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam”* detracts from the importance to our country of that visit. He has not really criticised the Prime Minister’s achievements on this visit. Rather he has permitted us to travel with him around the inside of his mind and his thoughts on world affairs which we have heard so often in this House and with which so few of us agree. But of course he had to add, again as usual, the somewhat clever, slightly dishonest and totally malicious personal criticisms of the Prime Minister. I will come to that later in my speech.

Mr Speaker, in the 15 minutes available to me I want to say something of ANZUS and also something of Britain’s proposed entry into the European Common Market. It is, of course, true that ANZUS, when it was signed, was related to the situation which arose after the signing of the Japanese Peace Treaty, but it is also true to say that in the circumstances which exist today it has a new relevance and it is of continuing importance for all the ANZUS partners. Constantly now we see certain sections of the Australian community tending to downgrade it, tending to criticise it and tending to challenge its relevance to modern affairs.

Europe, formerly the cockpit of world wars on this globe of ours, shows increasing stability and security with the prospects of the Berlin Agreement and the entry of Great Britain into the European Community. It is true also that the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent are the current and immediate trouble spots. But it is the Asian-Pacific region which has emerged as the area where the interests and influence of the great powers - the United States of America, Soviet Russia, the People’s Republic of China and Japan - have converged. Only time will tell of the extent to which these interests and influences may conflict, lt is the area where the great issues of peace or war in the world may in the future be determined. After the last World War the hopes of mankind for peace were vested in the United Nations. It is still the repository of the finest hopes and aspirations of mankind. But even its most ardent supporters must agree that as a peacekeeping organisation it has so far failed, and this not through any fault in the United Nations but because it reflects simply the attitudes, the strengths and weaknesses of its members.

Australia, finding itself a middle power in this volatile area, has developed 2 strong lines of policy. The first, which goes right to the heart of our ultimate survival should trouble on a large scale arise, is the maintenance of a close co-operation with the United States and New Zealand. The ANZUS Treaty is more important and significant for Australia today than when it was signed. It not only contains mutual guarantees which go as close as countries with federal constitutions such as our own and America can go towards positive commitment, but, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, it furnishes the framework of continuous co-operation and exchange of military information directed to mutual security and defence. It is not simply an agreement under which we have rights; it is an agreement under which we have obligations. The present Australian Government looking towards Australia’s long term interests has been prompt to meet these obligations whether it be with co-operation on the signal station at North West Cape or me , space research installation at Pine Gap. The decision to follow this line of policy is an independent decision taken in the vital interests of Australia. Indeed, at the present time we believe it will continue to be the only safe and responsible policy.

The second strong line of policy has been that of close co-operation with our neighbours, directed to securing their rapid economic advancement and their selfsufficient security. We have close ties with our nearest neighbour, Indonesia. We have committed practical aid to the extent of S54m over 3 years towards helping that country and have been instrumental in influencing other countries to help it. We have recently signed a 5-power agreement with the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore under which we have Australian Army, Navy and Air Force units stationed to our north. This demonstrates our practical concern and our willingness as friendly neighbours to play our part in securing the safely and stability of this region in which we live.

What is the Opposition’s policy on these matters? First, as to ANZUS, there was a strong move at the recent Launceston Conference of the Australian Labor Party to end the ANZUS Treaty and to adopt a policy of non-alignment. This, of course, is the work of the left wing of the Labor Party with its strong anti-American sentiment. According to newspaper reports of that Conference it was only after the Lender of the Opposition, in referring to electoral prospects, said, according to a newspaper report, ‘lt would put an intolerable burden on me if we change this after 20 years’, that a compromise formula was reached. Under this compromise the Labor Party deleted references to ‘the crucial importance5 of the American alliance and substituted the following: That the Australian Labor Party ‘seeks close and continuing co-operation with the United States and New Zealand to make the ANZUS Treaty an instrument for justice and peace, social and economic advancement in the Pacific’. Nol only did this completely downgrade ANZUS but it substituted a form of words which do not fit into ANZUS; they seek to make it rather a vague convention on human rights. The explanation of this is quite clear when we realise the history of it. The Launceston Conference of the Australian Labor Party was held in June. In the ‘Australian Left Review* of May 1971 at page 10 appears a record of an interview with the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) in which the following exchange occurs:

Question: What prospects are there for the ALP left wing to win the leadership of the ALP federally, and what policy differences do you think would be likely to eventuate if this occurred?

Cairns: The ALP left wing has a very good chance of winning Federal Conference and Executive leadership of the ALP. Among the changes in policy this would bring are: (1) An end to the principle that the US alliance is crucial, and a beginning of support for the ‘human rights’ revolution around the world most often expressed in the national liberation movements.

By this wording ANZUS is to be twisted lo become a human rights national liberation convention. It is clear that the change in the ALP policy on ANZUS represents a victory for the left wing of Labor and that in any Labor government its voice on this matter would be decisive. ANZUS in any real sense would be dead. 1 believe it is important for the people of Australia to understand the significance of this fact, lt is important for the people of Australia to realise, the achievement of the Prime Minister in securing in modern conditions the unequivocal and resounding re-affirmation which he did secure on his recent visit.

As to the policy on regional security, the Australian Labor Party would unilaterally withdraw our troops from Malaysia and Singapore, would abolish national service thereby reducing our Army to two-thirds of its present size and would regard the limit of our territorial sea as the limit of action of our armed forces unless they went outside that limit at the request of the United Nations. This policy would of course irreparably damage our relationship with our neighbours and inevitably destroy their confidence in our will or ability to play any effective role in our regional security.

As to the entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community, the visit of the Prime Minister at this time was of great importance to Australia. As the Prime Minister said, we will maintain our close contact through diplomatic relations and in other ways with other members of the EEC and will be strengthening our representation in Brussels. We have, I may add, extremely able representatives in the capitals of the EEC countries. But it was important at this time for a renewal and re-affirmation of our close contacts with Great Britain. Of course, Great Britain still remains our close and trusted ally and friend. What the Prime Minister achieved in London also was a successful achievement on his trip. 1 mentioned that a number of criticisms were made by the Leader of the Opposition. Firstly, the honourable gentleman criticised the answer given today by the Prime Minister regarding the question asked of him at a Press interview shortly before his departure on his trip by a Mr Matthews.

The Leader of the Opposition suggests that what Mr Matthews now says as to the context or as to the wording cf his question differs from th; transcript and that what the Prime Minister now says differs from the transcript. 1 think it would toe more honest and fair of the Leader of the Opposition if he read the transcript, lt is necessary, as the Prime Minister emphasised, to read the questions and answers because what the Prime Minister said today was entirely consistent with t .ose questions and answers. The Leader of the Opposition also in a rather unnecessary aside gave an implied criticism of our Ambassador in Washington, describing this post as a kind of post office and spoke of there being a failure to tell us of Congressional opinion. I want to put this matter in perspective. The Ambassador in Washington is an extremely able professional diplomat, one of the ablest not only in our service but I would say in most of the services that 1 have seen as I have moved around the world. He is in close contact with members of Congress and does keep the Government informed and, indeed, takes the trouble when Ministers visit Washington of introducing them to some of the members of Congress wilh whom he has close contact. I think it is an extremely unworthy reference that was made by the Leader of the Opposition. In addition to that the honourable gentleman says quite falsely - I think what he said should be corrected at this time, although one allows him to say these things from time to time-

Mr James:

– I raise a point of order. Ls the Foreign Minister entitled to accuse the Leader of the Opposition of saying something quite falsely?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. I suggest that the honourable member for Hunter resume his seat.

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

– The Leader of the Opposition has asserted tonight, and n>t for the first time, that the Government has made the same kind of commitment to Cambodia as was made originally to South Vietnam. This is totally incorrect and I think he must know this. The original commitment in South Vietnam was of persons who went out advising alongside combat troops in the field. It has been staled time and time again that no combat troops and no advisers will be sent into Cambodia. The kind of training whic < has been under consideration - either the kind of training in Australia which has been announced in the defence paper or the kind of training that has been agreed to in principle subject to discussions wit . our allies in South Vietnam - could by no stretch of the imagination be regarded as being in the same category as the original commitment to South Vietnam.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) has referred to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) as a very fine statement. If it was such a fine statement why did the Minister for Foreign Affairs not spend some time in reinforcing the Prime Minister’s speech or at least commenting on it? In fact he really had nothing to say on what the Prime Minister has said or achieved because the truth of the matter is that the Prime Minister has achieved nothing. There is nothing in the Prime Minister’s speech upon which to comment, lt is a dead and negative speech.

All members of the Opposition and I think a lot of the members on the Government side listened in amazement to the Prime Minister’s travel story and his version of his own achievements, particularly what he allegedly achieved in ,he United States of America and the United Kingdom with respect to trade matters. The unpalatable facts are that what t the Prime Minister has told us tonight about the European Economic Community and its relationship to Australia is at least 6 months out of date, and every word of what the Prime Minister has informed us on the EEC and the attitude of the United States to war is well known. What he said about the EEC has been repeated officially by Mr Rippon, by the British Prime Minister, Mr Heath, and by Sir Alec

Do g’.us-Home and others. This information is out of date. The plain facts are thai the Prime Minister has achieved nothing in his visit to the United States and the United Kingdom with respect to trade matters.

Mr Heath and Mr Rippon repeated to the Prime Minister almost word for word exactly what they told the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) when he was in the United Kingdom last July. I can

Only say that if the Prime Minister has returned home to Australia in a happy frame of mind at what he achieved in the United Kingdom with respect to the Common Market and what Mr Heath and Mr Rippon told him he must have been treated as a sucker, because there can be no question, as I will illustrate later with one commodity only - sugar - about how he has been taken for a ride in the commodity field by the British authorities. The Prime Minister makes great play about the saleguard clause that Britain has inserted with respect to future negotiations with the European Common Market. From the way he makes play of the fact that Britain will study commodity by commodity the effects on Australia’s exports of primary products to Britain or to the European Economic Community once Britain joins that Community one would almost believe that this was new.

But let us examine the official version given by Britain in June, 5 months ago, when it stated categorically in an official release (hat Britain at first sought a transitional period before it would adopt full Community preference, obviously to protect its traditional food suppliers for as long as possible, but France would have none of it and it was plain that Britain would never achieve membership if it insisted on a gradual application of EEC preferences. Britain succeeded in inserting a safeguard claude last June that would allow the Community to take special action in the case of sudden dislocation of British markets. The official communique indicated that if Australia or any other Commonwealth country found that it was suffering a major loss of markets in Britain, the enlarged Community could be asked to take remedial action. Australia or Britain would be free to take to the Commission the case of Australian primary products. Australian indus tries also would be free to take to the Commission the case for Australian primary products. This was stated officially by the British Government last June yet the Prime Minister came into the House tonight and repeated this almost word for word as something new. In other words, he really has achieved nothing.

He also made a point about tariffs. He made the point that the future of British preferences in Austrafia will be a bargaining point when Britain enters the Common Market. Of course they will. This is old hat. This is only logical with respect to Australias preferential trade agreement with Britain. This agreement has meant that British goods have a differential as regards the tariff. Britain enjoys a tariff preference of less than half, for example, of what is paid by Japan - 7.6 per cent as compared with 19.9 per cent. It is obvious that when Britain does join the EEC the preferential agreement will be terminated and the preference tariffs will be ended. This is logical and there is nothing new in it

One serious point needs to be brought out to illustrate why I believe that Mr Heath and Mr Rippon have taken our Prime Minister for a ride. In his statement tonight the Prime Minister said: 1 should tell the House that I questioned repeated assertions that although the United Kingdom is to enter the Common Market its bilateral relationship wilh Australia would not change. I can report that I was assured by Britain’s Ministers that there was a pervasive desire to maintain the closest possible co-operation with Australia.

Let me now illustrate how seriously the British Prime Minister, Mr Heath, and Britain’s chief negotiator, Mr Rippon, really treated the Australian Prime Minister - the close co-operation that the Prime Minister mentioned. I shall deal with sugar - the commodity which the Prime Minister mentioned repeatedly in a communication between England and Australia. The safeguard clause which the Prime Minister has emphasised had always been thought to apply to sugar. The Prime Minister’s statemeat tonight completely confirms that understanding. In fact, it was always believed by the sugar industry and this Government that the Australian quota position after 1974, when the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is finalised, would still be very much open. This was made a firm understanding following the talks between the senior commercial adviser, Mr Donovan, and British officials during the time when the Prime Minister was in London. Reports reached Australia that the Prime Minister had made an important breakthrough with respect to sugar after talking to Mr Heath and Mr Rippon. In fact we all believed that he had achieved better conditions for the transitional period than the Deputy Prime Minister was able to report when he came back after his visit to England last July. However let us consider what happened.

Last Tuesday in the House of Commons Britain’s Minister for Agriculture, Mr James Prior, said that Australia’s share of the British sugar market would be phased out after 1974. He said that after 1974 th<’ Australian quota would be phased out and (his would mean that there would be an additional market equal to 335,000 tons of beet sugar available. The situation is that after the Prime Minister’s visit to London the position with respect to sugar has worsened, not improved, if the statement by the British Minister for Agriculture to the House of Commons can be believed, and there is no reason why it should not be believed. There has been no refutation of that statement. Apparently the Prime Minister’s attention has not been drawn to the statement by the Minister for Agriculture because if it had been he would not have made his statement tonight about assurances from the British Prime Minister and Mr Rippon concerning bilateral agreements and co-operation with Australia. In view of the statement made in the House of Commons it is quite clear that the assurances given to the Prime Minister will not be honoured.

Australia does not want to hear platitudes and a series of generalisations such as we have listened to tonight. With respect to sugar, which is the commodity which the Prime Minister has concentrated on, what Australia wants to know is whether Britain will use its best endeavours to get the European Economic Community into the International Sugar Agreement. Will Britain still take all or part of Australia’s sugar after 1st January 1973 when Britain joins the Common Market? When Britain joins the Common Market will Britain technically be in the International Sugar Agreement? This is of importance to Australia, Cuba and the importing countries. Will Britain back Australia in getting a larger quota under the International Sugar Agreement when the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement ends in 1974? These are the crucial questions to which we hoped the Prime Minister might have some answers. However in his statement tonight there was no mention of these important matters.

The Prime Minister mentioned wool. Without question the United States of America is the key to the wool situation in Australia. The United States is the largest consumer of wool in the world. It is perhaps the world’s largest importer of woollen textiles and, for this reason alone, Australia, Japan and the United States have a common interest in the export of woo* to Japan and thence, via textile manufacturers, of textile products into the United States. One of the vital issues that we thought would be discussed by the Prime Minister with President Nixon and the American Secretary of Commerce is the surcharge on wool - the extra 10 per cent levy in addition to the already outrageous import duty or import tax on Austraiian wool. Reports were coming to Australia - obviously leaks or informed reports to journalists in America - that we could look forward perhaps to an alleviation of this special surcharge on our wool. But there was no mention of it in the Prime Minister’s statement tonight. I asked the Prime Minister a question in the Parliament today and I was told only that the Secretary of Commerce would be coming to Australia early next year. Surely to goodness we do not need the Secretary of Commerce coming to Australia to find out what is wrong with our wool industry. Australia has trade commissioners overseas and our Ministers travel overseas. The Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) is overseas at present, as is the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). We do not need the United States Secretary of Commerce in Australia to find out what is wrong with the wool industry. We had hoped that the Prime Minister would have returned to Australia and told us something positive about this special 10 per cent surcharge.

The whole negative approach of the Prime Minister’s statement tonight c nee again reveals the inability of this Government to give positive leadership in the economic policies of this nation. The Australian Government deserves to be severely censured over its handling of the Common Market issues and the Common Market negotiations, particularly with respect to Australia’s case concerning Britain’s entry to the Common Market. The Prime Minister’s visit to the United Kingdom, with special reference to the European Economic Community, has achieved absolutely nothing. If he has achieved something, then why has he not said it tonight? Why ha>s nol the Minister for Foreign Affairs said it tonight? I hope that the Acting Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) will tell us tonight what the Prime Minister has achieved. But nothing positive has been said about what he has achieved.

Some months ago we witnessed the incredible and petulant outbursts by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry when he was in London negotiating with respect to the European Economic Community. He accused Mr Heath and Mr Rippon of double crossing Australia. That was last July. Such attacks have been deeply resented by the British Government as well as by the 6 European Economic Community nations. Of course, Britain countered by charging the Minister for Trade and Industry with grand standing to the rural electors of Australia. Certainly such illfounded outbursts by the Deputy Prime Minister have not helped in getting the best deal for Australia when Britain joins the European Economic Community. But the Prime Minister went to Britain not to abuse Mr Heath or Mr Rippon. as did the Minister for Trade and Industry, but to try to charm them and, I assume, to apologise for our behaviour during the last negotiations. Of course, the results have now emerged, as we have seen tonight. We have the illustrations regarding the key commodities of wool, in the case of the United States, and sugar, butter and fruit in the case of the European Common Market, and there was nothing positive at all about these matters in the statement made by the Prime Minister tonight. In fact, it was a travelogue; a travel story. He has achieved nothing positive for Australia in the field of trade.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP

– It was only on about 20th lune of this year that we heard the somewhat petulant outbursts from the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson). He described in somewhat sarcastic terms the rejection by the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party of any sort of rural policy that he had been trying to put together. That the honourable member for Dawson could come into this chamber and have the monstrous gall to criticise the activities of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in face of the fact that he himself has no rural policy whatsoever to offer to Australian farmers shows the hide of the man. J want to commend the initiative of the Prime Minister in undertaking this recent mission to the United States of America and to Britain, and I congratulate him on his success. Nowhere from the Prime Minister’s mission came any of the insults to other nations that came out of the mission to China by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and his infamous interview with Chou En-lai. He ingratiated himself with Chou by insulting a great number of countries in the region, such as Japan, Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines.

Indeed, from the statement which the Prime Minister has made in this Parliament tonight and from discussions in the Government following his mission, there is no doubt whatsoever that his mission was soundly conceived and well executed, with fruitful results for Australia in its international relationships. But the Opposition has sought to denigrate the Prime Minister and his mission for reasons which are blatantly and plainly party political. In essence, the situation boils down to the difference between the Government and the Opposition on the defence of Australia, and the difference of international approach between the businesslike attitude of the Government and the showy public relations exercises of the Leader of the Opposition. The fact is that some important changes in the world power situation are occurring, and it is essential that close communication should be maintained between the leaders of allied countries. There is no better way of doing this than by personal contact, built up by private conversations and mutual respect. In this changing world, matters of defence, trade, and foreign affairs are paramount topics and it would be an abrogation of ils responsibilities foi thU Government not to engage in regular dialogue and contact with its friends.

There has been a claim raised that it was unnecessary for the Prime Minister to go to the United States to seek an affirmation of the ANZUS Treaty, because the United States had given an affirmation to the former Prime Minister. It is perfectly true that President Nixon did affirm this Treaty to the former Prime Minister, but that was in May 1969. Since then what has become known as the Nixon Doctrine has been propounded by President Nixon. Basically, this Doctrine, as applied to the Asian area, sets a style of diplomacy, a way of conducting America’s programmes abroad, which reduces America’s direct responsibility and calls upon the nations of the area, individually and collectively, to assume an increasing role in providing tor themselves. This means that in the case of countries with mutual defence pacts with the United States substantial reductions of United States armed forces personnel have been occurring. America says its objective under the Nixon Doctrine is to ensure United States national security and thai of its allies, but at the same time permitting the reduction of United States forces abroad and reducing the likelihood of having combat ground forces in the future.

The effects of the Doctrine can be seen in comparing 1969 with today. In January 1969 there were 740,000 United States military personnel in east Asia. Now it is down to around 400,000. Most of that reduction has occurred in Vietnam - which indicates the success of the Vietnamisation programme - but significant cuts have taken place in Korea, Thailand and elsewhere. This reduction has been accompanied by increases in other types of aid to enable the relevant country to take over missions which the United States has been performing. In its effect and potential, therefore, the Nixon Doctrine is a momentous change in America’s Asian outlook, and one which is of particular concern to Australians, especially in regard to defence. Thus it was obviously important with a new Prime Minister in the chair that he should take an early opportunity to confer with the President of the United States. Official communications between governments are fine in their way, but there is no substitute for personal contact in getting down to cause and effect, and the Prime Minister has won a ringing reaffirmation of the ANZUS Treaty and a wide ranging expression of faith from the President. The President said:

I believe this Treaty is one of the fundamental pillars of our policy for peace in the Pacific . . This Treaty goes far beyond simply that piece ot paper.

What a great guarantee of alliance in defence are the President’s words, yet it is the sort of guarantee which the Australian Labor Party seeks to wave airily aside. Of course, the Opposition’s defence attitude, or rather its lack of a viable defence policy, is well known. There was the recent public difference of opinion on forward defence between the Leader of the Opposition and the Singapore Prime Minister. Recently the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) was at some pains to scoff at the Prime Minister’s talks on the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean in both the United States and Britain. The approach of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that there are not man Soviet vessels in the Indian Ocean, and that the Prime Minister has been seeking to throw a scare into the Australian people. This dangerous view of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition needs to be exposed, and in saying that I am not indulging in party politics, because let us compare the. view of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition with other international defence views. The military advisers of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation said in a communique that the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean was causing the alliance considerable anxiety. In London last month Sir Edward Ashmore, the British Navy’s Commander-in-Chief and a senior commander in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, said that the Russian naval build-up in the Indian Ocean was a most disturbing factor. Then in Canberra this month Air Chief-Marshal Sir Brian Burnett, Britain’s retiring CommanderinChief in the Far East, indicated that the Soviet naval presence in the Indian Ocean was comparable with that formerly in the Mediterranean. Finally we have the statement by the Deputy Defence Secretary of the United Slates, Mr David Packard. Against that background of their statements, the Australian people will be able to judge for themselves the value of the remarks and I he policies of the Deputy Leader of the

Opposition. Certainly these views are not shared by the United States, which told the Prime Minister that it intended to maintain forces in the Indian Ocean. Indeed, a Western presence in the Indian Ocean would seem common sense to all but the Opposition as a logical back-up to our ANZUS and SEATO Treaties and the 5-power agreements for the defence of the Singapore-Malaysia area.

The Prime Minister also took the opportunity of discussing the People’s Republic of China. After years of isolation, China is emerging into the outside world. The attitudes of other nations, including ourselves, are undergoing change. Australia welcomes the advent of China into the world community, but at the same time we believe that it can be only to Australia’s advantage for mutual attitudes to be explored between the President and the. Prime Minister.

I want to say something now about the Prime Minister’s discussion on Britain’s entry into the European Common Market and the serious effects this will have on some of our great farming industries. Until tonight the Opposition has been monumentally silent on this aspect of the Prime Minister’^ mission and this, of course, should cause little surprise. It has one or two carpetbaggers masquerading as rural representatives but I am unable to recall any farmer among its ranks in this House.

As I said before, at the Australian Labor Party Federal Conference, the Party’s rural spokesman was utterly repudiated under the weight of city-based trade union leadership. The honourable member for Dawson said that any policy he had had been totally disowned by the ALP Federal Conference. The Labor Party’s lack of interest in and ignorance of the farming industries is underlined by the fact that during the recent Labor Party mid-term publicity campaign conducted by the Leader of the Opposition there was not one segment devoted to rural matters. That is how much it cares about the rural industries and this is at a time when the honourable member for Dawson both inside and outside this House makes destructive criticism of the efforts of the Government to resolve the rural problems. As is well known, the Government’s atti tude is entirely different. It cares about what happens to the rural industries and the people in the rural industries.

The decision by the British Parliament in favour of entry into the European Economic Community is a momentous one. It represents a major change in the relations between Australia and Britain and the European Economic Community itself. With the entry of Britain, the European Economic Community will become by far the largest trading entity in the world. Britain will be part of a system which, when its expansion has been completed, will -account for over 40 per cent of world trade. Others will have preferred entry to the British market but we who have enjoyed trade preferences in Britain for many years will within 5 years have no preferred position in the British market. Nevertheless, continuing entry to such an enormous market must remain a major objective of Australian trade policy. As the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has said, we hope that Britain’s entry brings to the Community a new sense of responsibility for the wellbeing of world trade as a whole. We, as a nation importantly dependent on trade, need to come to terms with this new trading giant. I am sure that we will be able to do so.

Britain’s decision is a major change in its orientation; it is moving away from the Commonwealth and towards Europe. There are problems for Australia in Britain’s decision, particularly for our dairying, meat, sugar and fruit industries. These have been brought to the attention of Britain and the European Community before and during the negotiations by a succession of Australian Ministers and officials.. As events turned out, Australia believes Britain could have done more for Australia during the negotiations; but notwithstanding this, Britain did succeed in obtaining some safeguards to mitigate the effects on countries such as Australia if serious disruption is threatened. Thus with Britain set on the path to Europe, the time was obviously opportune for the Prime Minister to confer with the British Prime Minister, not only about our market interests but also on the wider international implications which spread beyond commercial relationships. For its part, the British Government has assured the Prime Minister that it will watch our interests, industry by industry, in the transitional period of Britain’s entry to the European Economic Community. The point I made earlier about the Prim, Minister’s visit to Washington is equally valid in relation to his visit to Britain. Government to government communcations are fine, but there is no substitute for 2 leaders getting together in a private room and saying: ‘Look, this is the score as we see it’. In his mission the Prime Minister covered 3 vital fields - defence, trade and the international monetary situation. He has placed Australia’s views squarely before the leaders of the United States and Britain. The Prime Minister went because it was in Australia’s national interest for him to do so and I commend the success of his mission.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– 1 want to say something about one of the matters which the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) said has been adequately covered, namely, the international monetary situation. With all respect to the- Minister, scarcely anything at all of a definitive nature was said about it this evening. Not having the advantage of a copy of the Prime Minister’s statement, I could only listen to what he said, and . in quoting one or two of his phrases I hope I do not misquote him. He said about the international currency arrangements that ‘it was a difficult, unresolved problem’. He said: ‘Australia wants an early resolution of the present impasse’. He went on to say: ‘Competitive devaluation could occur and if it did it could have unpleasant consequences’. Finally he said: ‘Australia reserves its position’. To begin with. I would like to ask: How long can Australia continue to reserve its position? I have been a little intrigued this evening by what is described by the Minister for Shipping and Transport as a great trading bloc, the European Common Market.

I would draw the attention of the House to some very interesting figures that were contained in the November 1971 issue of the bulletin of the Australian Industries Development Association. They give a picture of the direction of Australia’s export trade covering the period from 1948-49 to 1970-71. In 1948-49. 68.5 per cent of Australia’s export trade went to

Europe and only 14.6 went to Asia, while 5 per cent went to what is described as Oceania which, according to the bulletin, means the Australian Territories, New Zealand and its Territories and other Pacific Islands. To hear the Minister speak tonight one would think that that also was the position that prevailed in 1970-71. However, the figures show that in 1970-71, 25.1 per cent of the total Australian export trade went to Europe as against 68.5 per cent some 20-odd years before. Our trade with Asia increased to 43.2 per cent of our total while our trade with Oceania increased to 1 1 per cent.

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) this evening said that we now have a wider appreciation of American and British thinking on a wide range of international problems. One would expect when the Prime Minister went to America and Britain that those were the matters to discuss, but what is missing at the moment is any attempt by Australia to have talks on the position of international currency with our principal trading partner now, Japan. Last evening I happened to be reading the latest issue of the “Economist’ available in Australia. It is dated 13th November 1971 and on page 87 it shows a picture of Mr Connally, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, talking with Mr Fukuda of Japan. The caption asks: ‘Bilateral bargaining?’ The action which America took on 1 6th August it took for its own purposes, external as well as internal, and the action which it took, in essence, breached 2 very significant international arrangements in which America was supposed to be a partner. I refer first to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The 10 per cent surcharge imposed by the United States, was in breach of GATT. Secondly, the action which America took unilaterally about suspending the conversion of gold at S3 5 an ounce was also in breach of America’s arrangement with the International Monetary Fund. lt seems that in the present Prime Minister and the present Treasurer (Mr Snedden) we have 2 of the greatest quoters of economic jargon with whom this country has ever been afflicted. They talk rather easily about its being better that trade should be multilateral than bilateral. But the Minister for Shipping and Transport. who has just resumed his seat, said that nothing was better than the 2 most important people of the 2 countries concerned getting together and talking about their individual and particular problems with each other. I would submit that that is what is necessary now as far as Australia and Japan are concerned.

How long can we wait? Is it any wonder that there is some difficulty about the sale of wool to Japan - wool is still the principal commodity we sell to Japan - when uncertainty exists in Australia, and I have said this now for the last 2 months, as to whether Australia is to follow the US dollar downwards or the yen upwards? Is it any wonder that potential Japanese buyers of wool are not interested when they do not know whether the rate of conversion is to be approximately 400 yen to the Australian dollar or 360 yen to the Australian dollar, which must be the position if we have a choice of either a 10 per cent devaluation or an appreciation of the yen in relation to the American dollar and we do not commit ourselves as to whether we want to go one way or the other. I think also it is not surprising that there is a reluctance about the purchase price of wool when the Australian Government places a type of ceiling price of 36c a lb on wool and then is prepared to guarantee a price at that level from a margin some 5c to 6c a lb below that price?

What I submit is necessary is that a delegation of the highest officials comprising representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of the Treasury should go to Japan on the same sort of terms on which the Prime Minister recently went to North America and to Britain. A certain amount of nostalgia, if I may call it such, is associated with these recent journeys but not a very great awareness of the problems of 1971 leading towards 1980. How long can we afford to wait for something to happen? Why should we not enter into some kind of separate arrangement by saying to the Japane.se: We believe that our commodity, wool, is undervalued in terms of the price per kilo today irrespective of how exchange rate arrangements may vary’? Why not come to a separate arrangement that would quote the Australian dollar in relation to the yen on some term’s that were mutually suitable.

Japan is one of the greatest trading nations of the world. But trade is a twosided process, lt is a process that involves exports, and it is a process that involves imports. What is called the exchange rate that is arrived at at any particular point in time is something that is supposed to satisfy both sides in transactions of this kind. When the point is reached where uncertainty exists as to what an exchange rate should be, there are some people in each country who are advantaged either as exporters or as importers when the exchange rate is fixed at one rate rather than at another. This is where room exists for mutually satisfactory arrangements between the 2 sides concerned.

We see this here with some people who in many respects are quite contradictory in their altitudes. I refer particularly to members of the Country Party who on the one hand want devaluation because it would favour the export of rural products but who at the same time claim that one of the difficulties facing rural industry is the level of tariffs in Australia. After all, devaluing the currency is equivalent to increasing the tariff. Other people adopt a different attitude. I refer to the metal industries in particular which, because they thought some years ago, for shrewd reasons, that the US dollar was the currency that would stay perennially as the strongest currency in the world - I think that it will not be very much longer before it will become so again - for sheer economic reasons chose to have the sale prices of Australian minerals to countries like Japan quoted not in Australian dollars but in American dollars. Naturally enough, that industry wants devaluation. But there are other interests in the country which believe that a good sifting out of some Australian problems would be achieved if our currency was revalued or appreciated.

I would like to go on record individually as saying that I do not think that there is any case for the devaluation of the Australian currency. I am not too sure that there should not be some caution as to how far and how fast we might want it to move upward. We stuck for a while with sterling when it appreciated, relative to the

US dollar. Now we are not quite sure whether the luck of sterling will Hold much longer.

Mr Webb:

– I hope so.

Mr CREAN:

– The honourable member for Stirling is speaking in a much more dispassionate fashion than I am. As for the American dollar, I think it is time that we gave a little bit of separate and special consideration to our problems with the yen. I am one who believes that exchange rates should be adjusted for the benefit of trade. They should not be adjusted for the benefit of financial speculators who indulge in transactions which have nothing whatever to do with the welfare of people but have a great deal to do with their own speculamania’. 1 think that the time is ripe for some high level talks to take place between Australia and Japan about our future trading relationships. I think that this would be to the mutual advantage of both of us and might stir some of the’ giants into realising that occasionally the smaller interests of the world should be considered as well as the greater ones.

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– The important statement delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) covered a wide sweep of the nation’s affairs, not only our defence and foreign policies but also international trade and monetary problems. 1 was particularly interested in his discussions in America on environment control. There is much that we can learn from America’s successes and failures in this field. The agreement on the maintenance of a continued British naval presence in the Indian Ocean Ls very welcome because this is a strategic vacuum which Russia is hastening to fill. For understandable reasons - his complete ignorance of the subjects being the most obvious - the leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said nothing about currency or international trade. Insofar as he talked about anything, he seemed to be discussing defence. 1 would like, therefore, to discuss some of the defence issues raised by the Prime Ministers statement and the reply by the Leader of the Opposition.

The defence of this country is of vital concern to all of us. In an ideal world we would not need defence forces and could devote the resources we now devote to defence to peaceful purposes. But we do not live in an ideal world, and Australia is situated in a particularly turbulent corner of this far from ideal world. The maintenance of adequate defence must be the first concern of any government. It is true that Australia’s mainland is not faced with any immediate threat. This has been the result of wise Government policy in the past. Our neighbours to the north are independent and reasonably stable and surely it must be the first object of our foreign policy, and our defence policy which derives from our foreign policy, to keep them that way.

But although Australia does not face any immediate threat, I am concerned at the attitude of members of the Opposition who seem to deduce that because there is no immediate obvious threat, therefore defence is of low priority. It is always dangerous, when looking a long way ahead, to postulate specific threats. Who in 1931 would have predicted that in 10 years time Australia would be at war with Germany, Italy and Japan? Certainly no-one in the Austraiian Labor Party. What we need, bearing in mind the long lead time of defence equipment and defence organisations, is to plan forces now which could meet the conceivable threats running into the 1980s and 1990s. What threats might we face then? The first and most serious is that of nuclear obliteration. If a global nuclear war broke out it would be the end of world civilisation, including Australia, whether Australia wished to be involved or not.

The only sensible course for Australia is to do what it can to prevent such a war breaking out. This is the purpose of our co-operation with the United States with the North West Cape Naval Communication Station, Pine Gap or a possible Omega station. The Polaris submarines with which North West Cape is associated are essentially second strike weapons, designed to deter the launching of a surprise nuclear attack. Their existence, and Australia’s contribution to them, thus reduce the likelihood of global nuclear war and therefore is clearly in Australia’s interest. The Opposition would have us dismantle or emasculate these agreements with the United States; by doing so, it would increase the likelihood of global war, and thus increase the danger of Australia’s nuclear obliteration. Such policies are the acts of thoroughly irresponsible people.

The next possible threat we may face is that of interdiction of our overseas trade, the overwhelming proportion of which goes by sea. Australia is the twelfth biggest overseas trading nation of the world. We send as high a proportion of our gross national product overseas as does Great Britain, which has always been regarded as a country peculiarly dependent on overseas trade. Considered as a proportion of gross national product, we are nearly twice as dependent on overseas trade as is Japan. We need to develop over the next decade a greatly expanded Navy so that we can counter likely threats to the. safety of our overseas trade and our coastal shipping. The Labor Party’s policy is that our strategic responsibility ends with our territorial waters, which would deny us the right to protect our vital overseas trade. Such a policy is the policy of thoroughly irresponsible people.

The final possible threat that we mav face is that of invasion. While Indonesia is in strong and free hands we are not vulnerable to invasion. Therefore the maintenance of Indonesia’s strength and independence must be a high priority of our economic aid, and our foreign and defence policies. To support this, we need to help Singapore and Malaysia to preserve and strengthen their independence. Our forces in that area, which are welcomed by the governments of Singapore and Malaysia, are designed to assist the stability of those countries. The policy of the Opposition would have us withdraw all our forces from the area. The Leader of the Opposition would, I think, like to withdraw our Army only, but he is of course not a free agent. The Opposition policy would have us retreat within our territorial boundaries and only take action beyond them if asked to do so by the Security Council of the United Nations, on which both Russia and Communist China have a veto. Is it conceivable that Russia and China would not veto action by Australia designed to keep a Communist threat away from our shores? This policy of the Labor Party - and I do not believe it is the true policy of many members of the Parliamentary Labor Party - is the policy of thoroughly irresponsible people.

It. is, of course, dictated by an outside body not responsible to the electorate - the famous 36 faceless men - although I believe they have added 11 faces to this body, or perhaps 12 if we count the 2 faces of the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. A prominent member of the Labor Par’y front bench has recommended that we should withdraw from all military alliances, including the ANZUS alliance, and retreat into isolationism. The former Secretary of the Labor Party in Victoria - a member of the group which advised Australian troops in Vietnam to mutiny - has recommended that Australia cut back its defence expenditure. This would be the policy of thoroughly irresponsible people, because the dangers in our area are growing.

Mr Foster:

– 1 rise on a point of order. Is it right for the honourable member to suggest what he is suggesting when he himself stood in the House recently and criticised the Government for its wasteful expenditure on destroyers?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! There is no point, of order. I warn the honourable member that irrelevant points of order can amount to an obstruction of the business of the House.

Mr HAMER:

– We have had much discussion in this chamber on how the Russians are moving into the Indian Ocean. Much of the discussion has been irrelevant, for (he issue is not what number of Russian ships are there now, but how many are likely to be there in 10 years time and what is the object of their presence. Communist China too-

Mr Foster:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– Ring the bells. (The bells being rong) -

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I rise on a point of order. Is it in order for the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) to try quite deliberately to obstruct the business of the House and use the calling of a quorum to attempt to answer an honourable member from this side of the House?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr Grassby:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I did not call the quorum. I suggest that the Minister for Education and Science is mistaken and that he should apologise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! A quorum is at present being formed. There is no point of order in what the Minister has said. As a quorum has been formed I call the honourable member for Isaacs to resume his speech.

Mr HAMER:

– Communist China too has developed nuclear weapons, which will surely increase its leverage on small Asian states. If China can neutralise the threat of American nuclear power, and use her superiority in conventional arms, the dangers are obvious for those who are prepared to see them. Yet at a time of growing danger the Opposition plans to destroy our Army by abolishing national service, before the measures to build up the Army through voluntary enlistments can have a chance to take effect. Moreover, the persistent denigration of servicemen by Labor Party supporters can but hamper the recruiting. If the Opposition were serious about building a volunteer Army it would restrain the vilification of servicemen by its supporters. The Labor Party’s policy of the destruction of the Regular Army is the policy of thoroughly irresponsible people. The Opposition’s defence policy seems to be that of a helpless kitten which rolls itself into a furry ball and hopes that if it keeps its eyes shut tight no-one will harm it. The Opposition has no defence policy. It has only a policy of surrender.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– lt is very regrettable to hear the sort of speech that was made by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer). It is part of the patter of falling dominoes that always seem to start collapsing when the Government is in its greatest panic - usually towards election time. So Australia’s defences have just collapsed because the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has come back, his Party is in disarray and an election is in the offing. But the honourable member for Isaacs and other speakers on the other side tonight cannot conceal the fact that virtually nothing was achieved by the Prime Minister overseas. He received no assurances of any definite character on anything. Much of what he said was a rehash of the cliches and the dogmas of the Liberal Party of the past. Most of what he learned overseas could have been just as gainfully obtained by a telephone call to President Nixon, by a telephone call to the Prime Minister of England or by a few letters. There was very little gained.

Indeed, the Prime Minister has had to back-pedal somewhat on one of the issues which, hopefully, the Liberal Party was aiming to make the major election issue - the ever-growing ‘menace’ of the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean. Even worse is what it reveals about the mentality of the Liberal Party at this stage of the nation’s history. What it reveals is that at a time when some great powers are leaving the area and at a time when our regional neighbours are calling for them to go and welcoming their departure, Australia is still acting like a child at pre-school calling for its mother to come back. Some noise has been made about the reaffirmation in the United States 0f America of the ANZUS Treaty. Exactly what was reaffirmed i« not made too clear. Nevertheless we are assured that there was a reaffirmation of the ANZUS Treaty. One might ask. however, in the face of such an importunate visitor as the Prime Minister of Australia, in the face of such toadying by the Australian Prime Minister, what else President Nixon could have done except to say: ‘Yes. We promise that the situation is as sweet between our Government and yours as it ever was.’

Indeed, had the Yugoslav representative been in the United States at the same time similar assurances of the everlasting friendship between the American people and the Yugoslav people would have been given too. But most important of all is one of the questions which concerns the whole of Australia’s forward defence policy in Malaysia and Singapore. Did the Prime Minister ask the United States President for any guarantees that the United States alliance would cover Australia in the event of our being involved in a conflict in the Malaysia-Singapore area? If so, what was the answer given by the President? My suspicions are that, judging by the silence of the Prime Minister, the question was not even raised, let alone answered. Yet according to the honourable member for Isaacs, forward defence is one of the cardinal principles of Australia’s policy. It is a dangerous policy if we do not have this sort of backing.

There was no mention, we noticed, of the SEATO alliance. This must be one of the first times in history that an Australian Prime Minister has not received some sort of consolatory reassurances that this alliance actually means something to the United States. It is clear that this alliance does not mean anything to the United States and does not mean anything to the people of the region, let alone to those nations which are members of the SEATO alliance. What is even more tragic at the present moment is the failure of SEATO to act as a means of protecting and increasing democracy in this area. Here we have an alliance which is nominally aimed at protecting democracy and freedom in South East Asia yet virtually its only Asian supporter, Thailand, now has a government which has conducted a coup d’etat which has destroyed democracy in Thailand. Of course there was no statement on that subject from the Government. 1 dare say that, as usual, this sort of attack upon parliamentary democracy, even though 1 concede that that was only in its beginnings in Thailand - nevertheless it was a start - will not cause any official Australian Government protest against the situation in Thailand. 1 was there in January. I visited the chamber of the Thai Parliament. I am sure that in many ways the Thai Parliament could not possibly have the sort of power that we expect parliamentary democracies in the West to have. Nevertheless it was supposed to be the beginnings of democracy.

One wonders now, if this SEATO alliance is aimed at protecting Thailand, what exactly is it aimed at protecting, apart from the financial and political interests of that minority who have seized power formally. What is equally distressing about the Prime Minister’s statement tonight is the reversion once again to the grand old cliches about revolutionary China which were used in the 1950s and the 1960s. At a time when Austraia’s trading opportunities are being severed by Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community, at a time when we should be seeking further opportunities for trade, at a time in particular when we should be seeking dialogue with China particularly in preparation for any possibility of a high level conference over the Indo-China situation - at a time such as this the Australian Government is returning to the talk of revolutionary China. We heard the Prime Minister say tonight that the Government is seeking dialogue but is doing it cautiously. 1 regard this attitude as a luxury that this nation cannot afford to continue.

The Government, because of its politically motivated attitudes towards the People’s Republic of China, has lost this nation over $900m worth of wheat trade. We have been selling wheat to China to this value over the last decade. We have sold about 743 million bushels of wheat. That is not to mention the other areas in which it is possible for this nation to increase its trade with China. One wonders whose interests we are serving. For example, at the beginning of the 197.1-72 financial year the United States wheat farmers had a surplus of 19 million metric tons of wheat. One can rest assured that, as the newspapers have already reported, wheat farmers in America are becoming a powerful lobby whose aim is to make the sale of substantial quantities of wheat to China the first means of improving relationships between the People’s Republic of China and the United States. If that happens, the opportunity of Australia regaining its lost trade will be even less.

In my view it is nonsensical for the Australian Government to continue with this highly dogmatic and ideological approach Which is also determined by fear of that minority in the Democratic Labor Party which dominates the foreign policy of this Government, lt is a luxury that this nation can no longer afford and it is time that Australia recognised that our interests, both diplomatically and economically, are best served by recognising the People’s Republic of China. Also mentioned tonight was the growing ‘Russian presence’ in the Indian Ocean. I cannot spend a great deal of time on this but suffice to say that the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) in particular has resorted to what I believe are the most dishonest tactics. I am sure-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– Order! The honourable member must withdraw that imputation.

Mr KENNEDY:

– About tactics?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member said ‘dishonest tactics’. The honourable member’s comment ‘dishonest’ must be withdrawn.

Mr KENNEDY:

– I withdraw that adjective and suggest that the Minister for the Navy is resorting to the most dubious tactics in the figures that he is using in reference to the Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean. The figures he has used and tried to reiterate today are that there are 20 Russian naval ships in the Indian Ocean. He obviously is trying to whip up a campaign of fear on which the Liberal Party may hope, discredited, discarded and disintegrating as it is, to regain some of its collapsing fortunes. What are the facts about the Russian presence? I would like to quote just a few. I am sure the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who is a great Red baiter and who is relying heavily on Democratic Labor Party votes at the next election, will flog this issue when he rises to speak tonight. I point out to listeners and to people in the chamber beforehand what sort of bogeyman is being synthetically created here. In the ‘Australian’ of 9th November there is an article referring to Vice-Admiral R. I. Peek, the Chief of >he Naval Staff in Australia, who had just returned from a naval conference attended by representatives of 43 maritime nations. The headline states: Sea threat scorned’. The sub-headline reads: ‘Soviet “no danger in Indian Ocean” ‘. The article slates:

There is nothing ominous about the Russian naval presence in the Indian Ocean, the Chief of Naval Staff. Vice-Admiral R. T. Peek, said yesterday.

He was speaking al Sydney Airport on his return from the second International Seapower Symposium at Newport, Rhode Island.

So there we have one statement. The article continues:

The conclusion was accepted- he was referring to, the conference - that the Russians are in the Indian Ocean in the classic exercise of seapower - to show a presence, make an economic impact on the area and get a foot in the door,’ he said.

There is nothing ominous. They are just catching up with what we have been doing for years.’

I am not welcoming the Russians there by any means. I would rather they were not there and I would certainly prefer that all foreign powers were absent from the area, but the point is to keep the situation in perspective. We also have statements that can be quoted from officials of the Department of Defence and the Department of

State in the United States on the size of the Russian presence. For example, we have a Mr Spiers, the Director of the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs in the Department of State making a statement in July 1971 at a hearing before the SubCommittee on National Security Policy and Scientific Development. This is a subcommittee of the American House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee. He said:

We have some figures of the most recent Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean and as of now it consists of about 4 ships. As of July 20th-

I point out he was speaking on 21st July- the Soviet presence consists of one destroyer, one LST and 2 fleet minesweepers. The Soviet presence fluctuates but that is the most recent reading unless my. Defence colleagues have something more up to date.

A Mr Pranger, a colleague of Mr Spiers, concurred in this estimate and address:

Previous deployments had featured guided missile ships which this latest deployment does not feature.

Admiral Elmo Zumwalt Jnr, the United States Chief of Naval Operations, gave testimony to the Sub-Committee of the Committee on Appropriations in the United States House of Representatives on 15th March 1971. He said that the average presence was 3 to 4 ships and that they had no base rights. So here we have a presence of some 3 or 4 ships in the area. This is what the Minister for the Navy is trying to inflate into a monstrous and massive presence which endangers this nation. Obviously the United States has not bought into the sort of campaign the Government is trying to whip up. Mr Laird has made some very cautious statements about the subject of the Russian presence and has no intention of committing his Government to a dangerous and very damaging arms race in this area. In particular we look at the British position. The British Government has rejected the sort of attitudes expressed by the Australian Prime Minister. I refer to the ‘Australian’ of I1th November this year. The headline reads: ‘McMahon snubbed on Indian Ocean aid’. The Prime Minister went overseas because he wanted an election issue. He wanted a Russian scare. Mr Heath was not buying it. There will be no increase. no intensification, of the forces already used by the British Government in this area. The article states:

Britain is distinctly coot towards anything more than a token naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

What bothers me most of all is the fact that our attitude is so contrary to the attitudes of those nations in our own region - about 30 of them - which are now calling for the neutralisation of the whole area. They see their danger not from the Russian presence so much as in an escalation of forces and the danger of confrontation. I believe those attitudes that have been expressed by the Ceylon Government, the Indian Government, the Pakistani Government - and also expressed this month again by the 5 ASEAN nations - Malaysia. Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– I. wish to make a personal explanation. ; ‘

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr MACKAY:

– Yes. The honourable member for Bendigo made a number of charges suggesting that I had been misleading the House and that I had made dubious statements in referring to a particular number which 1 quoted from what anyone in the shipping world or the naval world would recognise as the most authoritative journal in the whole field of assessment of relative naval strengths of the various nations. 1 quoted from that in the House today. But I would like to point out the. fact that in quoting from the ‘Australian* words that the Chief of Naval Staff was alleged to have used on his return to Australia from the seapower conference the honourable member said that the ViceAdmiral had said that there was nothing ominous about this presence. In fact, the words that the Vice-Admiral used, which are quoted in other Press comments and which he has told me personally that he used, were: There is nothing necessarily ominous about the presence of a Russian fleet in the Indian Ocean’, which is rather different. As to the number of 4 ships that the honourable member has quoted from various sources, this might relate to a particular type of ship. But I would like to assure the House that as Minister for the Navy I am not going to quote particular numbers because my intelligence experts tell me that it would be completely wrong for me to do so. But I assure the honourable member that the number he has given is wrong by a factor of several times.

Mr KENNEDY (Bendigo)- I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Does the . honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr KENNEDY:

– Yes, I believe I have been misrepresented. The Minister for theNavy suggested that I was misrepresenting him and I was doing no such thing. I believe that a person in his position has an obligation to inform the nation of the size of the force that we are supposed to be dealing with. There is a variety of figures that can be used. He has used one and one only.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member may not debate the point. He is entitled only to explain how he has been misrepresented.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I think honourable members opposite would like to forget that the recent visit of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) to the United. States and the United Kingdom occurred as a result of invitations, firstly from the President of the United States and secondly from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, invitations that would enable the Austraiian Prime Minister to put Australian views on matters of great concern not only to Australia but also the major part of the free world. There are many issues confronting the world at the present time, issues to which the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe are putting their mind-:, and to have the opportunity by invitation of putting an Australian view at this time is certainly something which this country should be thankful for and the Prime Minister in his recent overseas visit has put a view which would stand Australia in good stead. There have been 2 major issues. There are political issues and there are economic matters that will infect the trading fortunes of all the Western world.

I would like to say something first about the political issues with which the visit has been concerned. The Prime Minister had pointed out the need for a relationship between the United States the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Japan and Europe that would enhance the security of medium and small powers, of which, of course, Australia is one, medium and small countries that may be small in size and in material resources but which are nevertheless significant. I think it is to the credit of Australia that Australia’s Prime Minister was asked to visit Washington and London at a time when specific issues were under discussion on matters so important as they were. The changed world in which we are living has been emphasised by a number of events that have occurred in recent times. China has been admitted to the United Nations organisation, and I wonder how many honourable members opposite with their euphoria at this event realise the significance that this will have for the future of that organisation. The changed relationships are being emphasised again by the fact that President Nixon’s personal emissary was in Peking at about the time when the Prime Minister was going overseas, or shortly before it.

We find again a changed forum by the defeat of the Foreign Aid Bill in the United States Senate. This might perhaps be symptomatic of some of the changed views which are being expressed in the United States, even though many members of the Senate of that country have since expressed the importance of the continuance of foreign aid. The fourth event which is of great significance to us and to others is the decision of the House of Commons to take the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community. It is plain that we live in a changed world and a world in which the major countries including our major friends, are reassessing policies in a number of directions. It is of vital concern to this country that Australia’s views and Australia’s policies be known and taken into account, just as the policies of other countries are worked out and put into effect. This has been the task of the Prime Minister, a task which has been well and ably performed in all our interests.

The Opposition, as one would expect, has sought to denigrate some of the achievements of the visit. The Opposition has said that the assurance which was given in very strong and categoric terms by President Nixon about the ANZUS Treaty did not really mean much and that it was a repetition of earlier events. Well, of course, the ANZUS Treaty has been reaffirmed on a number of occasions, but the importance of this reaffirmation - that it came at a time - and for the first time - after the enunciation of the Nixon doctrine, after changed United States views, and after the expression in the United States of views which some people might call isolationist in approach. To have in that forum a strong reaffirmation of ANZUS, with the President calling the ANZUS one of the principal pillars in their policy in the Pacific, is a great advance for Australia and for the continuance of Australian policy. One could well understand how the Opposition would not like that, because its views on this particular matter have changed significantly in the last year or two as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) has become more and more a captive of the left.

In 1969 the Opposition’s policy as stated at its biennial conference, under the separate heading of ‘ANZUS’, read:

The alliance of the United States and New Zealand is essential and must continue.

But it is worth looking to see what has happened in the 2 years since then and at what now appears in the Opposition’s platform as a result of the infamous Launceston conference which is not yet properly understood. The separate mention of this crucial plank of Australian policy has been deleted from the Opposition’s platform and instead there now appears a reference under ‘General Principles’. It is not under Defence’ but under ‘General Principles’. It reads:

The Labor Party seeks close and continuing cooperation with the people of the United States and New Zealand to make the ANZUS Treaty - and honourable members should listen to these words - an instrument for justice and peace and political, social and economic advancement in the Pacific area.

That means quite plainly that the Opposition would seek to change the ANZUS Treaty, which is a defensive treaty, into an aid organisation. We already have aid organisations and if one wanted an additional aid organisation it could be formed. But the ANZUS Treaty is a defensive treaty, a defensive alliance which is important to us and to the Pacific area. For the Opposition to make it so plain to Australia that it would seek to remove its defensive connotatation by turning it into au aid organisation is to undermine one of the principal planks of Australian policy over a significant period, and one which by its own importance, has enabled Australia to play an important part in its own regional activities.

This change of view by the Opposition has, I think, not been sufficiently or adequately emphasised. The Prime Minister has shown and emphasised how Australian policy is adapting to change, how our relationships with South East Asia are expanding. The 5-povver relationship to which he referred on his overseas visit gives emphasis to this fact. We sometimes forget that there was a United Kingdom defence guarantee in categoric terms to the SingaporeMalaysian area in earlier times, but now we have an arrangement of equal partnership between the 5 countries which are concerned. Perhaps is is not always adequately understood that Australia is the linchpin in this arrangement because the simple fact of life is that if Australia were not concerned to make this arrangement a viable one New Zealand by herself would be too small to do so. If Australia were nol concerned how could the United Kingdom on the other side of the world persuade her people to be concerned in a matter which is so significant to Australia, part of our near north? So Australia is a linchpin. The people of those countries look to Australia and to the Australian view to see how valid the total arrangement may be. Of course we know the Labor Party’s policy on this matter, the Labor Party’s policy of withdrawal.

There was an argument with the Prime Minister of Singapore when the Leader of the Opposition believed he knew much better than that Prime Minister what was good for Singapore. Quite clearly the Labor Party would unilaterally and without consultation withdraw from this alliance and destroy what has been built up and developed. It is not always realised that it is the relationship that has been maintained and built up over a long period of years with the United Kingdom and United States that enables Australia to play an effective part in our ow& region. This has been emphasised and reemphasised by the significance of the Prime Minister’s visit to the United States and the United Kingdom and also by the importance of the discussions which took place in both countries. We are a significant independent country. We have the paramount interests of Australia at hean. The Prime Minister has put those interests to the United Kingdom and to the United States, lt is this relationship on the one hand with countries overseas which enables us to play a significant role within our own region.

I mentioned that the issues which had taken the Prime Minister overseas wei e 2 - political and economical. It is plain that the Prime Minister has had frank discussions concerning various economic matters. Some of the things that concern the world include the present trade relationships between the United States and the European Economic Community. The Prime Minister has made it plain that if the problems of this area are not resolved i! will have an impact on world trade which could well lead to a run down in wot id trade to the disadvantage of us all. He emphasised in particular the importance of the impact of the argument between the United States and Europe on the policies, attitudes and fortunes of Japan. Australia is not a member of the Group of Ten. We are not a party principal to this particular argument and discussion but nevertheless it is of vital concern to Australia as one of the great trading nations of the world to have Australian views put in the United States and in the United Kingdom, to have Australian views expressed firmly and categorically about the importance of resolving a dispute which could offer a greater threat to future world trade than anything that has occurred since 1939. This, of course, has been done. It was one of the reasons why it was so important for the Prime Minister to put Australia’s view in the United States and in the United Kingdom.

As a result we hope to see that both countries will be well aware that the impact of their policies could well flow far beyond the shores of the United States and the United Kingdom. Of course the problems of that argument are in a sense made all the more important and significant by the United Kingdom decision to join (he EEC. lt is important for the United Kingdom to try to do what she has said she will do, and that is to ensure that the EEC becomes an outward looking community concerned for world trade and not merely for the narrow selfish views of an affluent and rich Europe. But whether the United Kingdom can have these views sufficiently incorporated into the policies of the European Economic Community is something that yet remains for decision.

It is claimed that the Community has given cause for concern in its trading policies and the restrictions that it has placed on the exports of other countries for a number of commodities. If Britain is to become merely a member of an enlarged Community the problems for third parties will be magnified many times, and if Europe is to remain a narrow and inward looking trading bloc the problems could well have an impact on policies in other countries, particularly in the United States, leading to a downturn in world trade and to problems for many other countries such as Australia and Japan.

Again it is the Prime Minister who has emphasised the importance of these matters in the place where it may have the most effect at the present time. In recent years, of course, Australia has been doing a great deal to diversify her trade to make the impact of a possible British entry to the European Economic Community less severe on many of our industries. But these matters are still of great importance to Australia, and whatever the impact might be on specific industries that have depended on markets in the United Kingdom for many years, the impact in total terms of the general attitude of the European Economic Community is something which is of paramount importance for all of us. The need for an outward-looking European Economic Community is something which cannot be over-emphasised.

The Prime Minister’s visit overseas ha» been a visit of great service to Australia at a time of important decision making both in the United States and in the United Kingdom. It is a credit to this country that he was invited to go to both countries at a time when their own policies are changing and developing in a manner that is certain to affect Australia and our part of the world. Again I emphasise that our relations with the United Kingdom on the one hand and with the United States on the other enable Australia to play a significant and important part in the South East Asian region. That is the political aspect of the visit. The other economic issues speak for themselves.

In marked contrast to this we find the Opposition doing much to erode the position that has been built over a long period of years. I have mentioned its policies in relation to ANZUS and I have mentioned its policies in relation to the 5-power arrangements. One could mention its policies in relation to Taiwan and the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition when this matter was under debate in the United Nations - remarks which could only be construed as encouraging people to vole for the Albanian resolution and against the objectives of the United States and Australia which would have preserved an independent status for both countries. I am quite confident that the people of Australia, when they come to exercise their choice, will know whose policies will best serve the interests of this country.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– I believe that international contact at any time and at all levels is good, and accordingly it follows that I believe that the recent tour made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was in principle perfectly acceptable. 1 do not even qualify that view by reference to some of the criticisms of lbc tour which have been made by others - for example, the fact that it was made during parliamentary sitting time and that some believe that it might just as conveniently have been made at some other time, or the fact that it served to highlight the administrative fiasco of the Cambodian instructors or even the fact that it served to denigrate Australia’s own flag line, Qantas Airways Ltd, by international reference to the fact that the Prime Minister found the aircraft of competitors of that airline more comfortable than our own. Of course some of these were gaffs and Prime Ministers are not supposed to make them. But when all is said and done they are hardly the sort of stuff to go into the history books. We will soon forget them and, to be honest and to maintain some sort of perspective, so we should.

Indeed, if the Prime Minister had simply said: T think it is desirable to have some contact with international leaders to exchange Views with them, simply to get to know them’, hardly any more need have been said. But the tour, of course, has not been approached by the Government on this basis. On the contrary, both before and since the tour there has been a conscious effort to create about it an aura of significance and achievement which is simply not there and which is important only to the expectations which it disappoints. If there were to be any special significance for this tour it could arise only from some reference to matters themselves significant in Australia today. This means in turn that any evaluation of the tour must have as its starting point these national problems currently of greater concern and urgency. What are they? As it happens, and in spite of the Prime Minister’s heavy emphasis tonight, defence is not one of them. That is not just a matter of observation or conviction on the Opposition’s part. We also have the word of the previous Prime Minister and Minister for Defence for it. His expressed view that Australia can look forward to a minimum period of 10 years physical and military security has not been challenged by any member of the present Government, not even the most punctilious of them,

What is the real problem or problems then? How can it or they be best tackled by the Prime Minister’s tour or anything said about it? The truth seems to me to be that the most pressing and immediate difficulties facing the Australian community today are all in one sense or another economic. Unemployment, inflation, rural recession and uncertainty, industrial relations - these are Australia’s immediate problems. Yet only one of them, the rural crisis, had even a passing reference in tonight’s report by the Prime Minister and none of them was actually assisted by his tour.

Let us take unemployment. How nas the Prime Minister’s tour helped that? How could it possibly have helped it? How was it intended to help it? Yet what w.i <-.f national life, defence included, is in such obvious need of help today? So far on this question there is only one assurance to be had from everyone in the Government, from the Prime Minister down, and that is that they are keeping a close eye on :he situation and that they will not let it get out of hand. They said that when unemployment was at 30,000. They said it a fortnight ago when unemployment was over 63,000. They will no doubt still be saying it when, as seems certain on the Government’s own admission, unemployment reaches 100,000 or even 120,000 or 140,000 in the new year. It reminds me of nothing more than a captain of a ship which has been holed reporting back to port: ‘I now have 4 feet of water in the hold. I am not actually doing anything about it but I am keeping a very close eye on it.’ His next report is: ‘Six feet of water in the hold at the moment. Still not doing anything about it but observing it very carefully.’ The next report is: Twelve feet in the hold’ with the same follow up and the next report simply: ‘Gurgle, gurgle*. That is about the sort of approach we have.

There has to be a limit to unemployment but there is none in sight nor is there any possible discernible effort to contain it. Meanwhile those who are unemployed may take some solace from the fact that the Prime Minister has a clear impression that the ‘United States Administration is very favourably disposed towards us’ or that even Senator Fulbright believes that ‘ANZUS is different’. They will have no solace from any likely improvement in the employment situation. For all the talk of friendship, frankness and favourable frameworks, there is not a single dollar in assured export trade to keep a single Australian worker in employment for an additional single minute. In that lies, in my opinion, the true test of the success or failure of the Prime Minister’s tour abroad.

By the way, I think I should correct myself. 1 think I said earlier that the Government was doing only one thing about unemployment. That is not strictly true. As well as saying that it is keeping a close eye on the situation it is also taking steps to assure us at every opportunity that the only other necessary remedial action is an increase in public confidence. One Minister - I forget who - was even so hackneyed as to quote Roosevelt’s depression exhortation that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. That is not true for Australians. We do have something else to fear - our national leadership. Roosevelt was not speaking in a vacuum when he said: ‘There is nothing to fear but fear itself. He meant that in the context of the policies and actions which he was proposing. In Australia today, on the other hand, we are being asked to be confident on the basis of Government inaction, which is an entirely different proposition. Why should we and how can we be more confident? Basically that means to spend more of our savings in the absence of government initiative to assure us that we can do so safely.

Words alone are useless. Every Minister of the Government can stand on his head from today until tomorrow exhorting us to be confident and collectively they will still not counterbalance the one minute that it took the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd yesterday to announce that an extra 200 men will be stood down. That, bluntly, is the nature of things; and the Government ignores it at the peril of us all. Even our anachronistic unemployment benefit is relevant in this area because how can one conscientiously spend one’s savings without some more reasonable emergency support than we now have? The current unemployment benefit is anachronistic for 2 reasons. In the first place at its basic $10 a week, it does not provide enough for a flea to live on reasonably. In the second place it is wrong in principle because it is based on the philosophy that in a full employment economy the only people out of work are either loafers or people who are just spending a couple of days in between voluntarily changing jobs. The loafer argument should, by agreement- -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! I suggest to the honourable member that the matters he is debating are not within the scope of the statement that is being debated by the House. The honourable member is rather wide of the statement and I ask him to keep his remarks relevant to the general framework of the Prime Minister’s statement.

Mr BERINSON:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I simply point out to you that in the first place I believe one is entitled to make some comment as to omissions from the Prime Minister’s speech. Secondly. both he and subsequent speakers from the Government side have been at pains to indicate how important the Prime Minister’s tour was to an improvement in the country’s economy with, one can only imagine, resulting improvement in the employment situation. That is the basis of the comments that I have been making and 1 put it to you that these are, in the truest sense, relevant. However, I have only a few moments to spend on this point and if you will bear with me I will complete the comments I seek to make. On this question 1 want to add that the 2 reasons for (he anachronism of the unemployment benefit are demonstrated by the numbers. The loafer argument obviously is irrelevant when we reach the numbers that we have. For the purpose of showing that the. second point is irrelevant I seek- leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which appears at page 4 of the ‘Treasury InformationBulletin’ No. 64.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr BERINSON:

– By reference to this table, particularly to the Western Australian figures, one will see very readily that the position over the last 3 years has Changed dramatically. In 1969, in round figures, there were 2 unfilled vacancies for every person registered for employment, in 1970 the 2 categories were roughly on a par. This year we are in the position where registered unemployed are more than double the number of unfilled vacancies. In 2 years, therefore, we have gone from a position of twice as many jobs as available workers to a position today where there are only half as many jobs as there are registered unemployed.

Compounding the many other difficulties in our economic position is the Government’s lack of flexibility. I do not want to be parochial about this but an example from the Western Australian experience again is appropriate. The last census shows that over the last 5 years Western Australia’s population increased more than twice as fast as the population of any other State. That created numerous stresses in many areas - housing, education and so on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! I again point out to the honourable member that the statement the House is debating tonight does not cover housing or education. I ask the honourable member to relate his remarks to the statement that is being debated.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is the point he is trying to make - it should cover these mutters.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh wil! cease interjecting.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I only want to help you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order. The honourable member for Hindmarsh will cease interjecting. I warn him.

Mr BERINSON:

– Although I must say that I do not agree with your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will abide by it in the few minutes remaining to me and co mplete my remarks. In general, the matter 1 have tried to put to the House is that the essential and immediate problem which is facing the Australian community is one which has been recognised by the Prime Minister but which was not met in any way by his tour or by his report on it. He sought to build up a public expectation - he was supported in this by members of his Government - that what he was doing was significant for the welfare of Australian’s, but it was nol. I conclude as 1 commenced by saying that I think his tour was a good idea. I do not begrudge it to him. I wish him good health to have many more such tours, preferably in son»e sort of Opposition capacity, but I do not want the impression to be left that anything he did on this tour in a practical sense in terms of positive results other than high expectations on his part and lofty words on the part of others has any relevance to the real problems which are facing the Australian community today.

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

Hume adjourned at lt. 8 p.m.

page 3527

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Tariffs on Fibres (Question No. 41 68)

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

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

  1. The Tariff Hoard has estimated the subsidy equivalent (or cash cost) of the existing tariff protection on knitted shirts and outergarments on the assumption that the garments could otherwise be imported free of duty. In its recent report on knitted shirts and outergarments, the Board said that the subsidy equivalent to manufacturers would have amounted to at least $35m in 1967- 68. The Board’s report did not provide further information on this question.
  2. and (3) The Tariff Board also stated that the great majority of yarns used by the Australian knitting industry is produced in Australia. The quantity of yarn used by the industry amounts to 30 million lb and more than half this quantity is made up of wool and cotton. The Government has imposed protective duties on most yarns, including wool yarns, to assist local spinners to competewith overseas suppliers.

Dentists (Question No. 4226)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What were the findings of his Department’s survey of supply of dentists and demand for them.

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

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

The departmentalsurvey on the dental profession of Australia was published in the Department’s Professional and Technical Manpower series and I have arranged for a copy of the publication to be forwarded to the honourable member. The survey found that at mid-1969 there were approximately 3,560 dentists practising in Australia of whom about 5 per cent were women. The growth in the number of dentists since the war has not kept up with the growth in population. In contrast the number of dental auxiliary personnel- e.g. dental nurses or attendants, receptionists and dental technicians or mechanics - has increased sharply.

The 1966 ratio of dentists topopulation Australia (1 : 3,332) was below that of, for example. Sweden (1963-1 : 1,400) and Norway (1964-1 : 1,400), about level with Canada (1966-1 : 3,100) and New Zealand (1964- 1 : 3,200) and ahead of the United Kingdom (1965-1 : 4,200). The study concluded that prospects for a supply of dentists during the 1970s sufficientto meet the anticipated effective demand for treatment appear to be reasonably favourable. While shortages of dentists are apparent in particular areas and services, these are of a kind to which specific remedies may be applied if sufficient public interest can be enlisted in support. In this connection it is evident that the supply of dental services will be much enhanced if increased numbers of women continue to be attracted not only into the profession, but also into the newly developing auxiliary dental nursing (theraphy) services. In the longer term, however, the benefits to he derived from advances in preventive dentistry - with the emphasis on young children - may be even more decisive.

New and Permanent Parliament House (Question No. 4286)

Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Acting Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. As it is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to abolish the Senate, will he give the House of Representatives alone an early opportunity to determine finally whether Capital Hill or Camp Hill will be the site for the new Parliament House.
  2. In view of (a) ‘ the desperate plight of the rural section of our society, (b) the gravity of inflation of our society, (b) the gravity of inflation now prevailing and (c) the extent of existing and threatened unemployment throughout Australia, will he consider putting the building of the new and permanent Parliament House once the site has been finally decided by the House of Representatives alone, among the lowest priorities of all national undertakings so that building will commence no earlier than somewhere between 1976 and 1980.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. I note that the honourable member says that it is the policy of the Australian Labor Party to abolish the Senate. I need not remind him that this is not the Government’s policy.
  2. 1 can assure the honourable member that the question of the timing of the construction of the new and permanent Parliament House will be considered in the light of all relevant factors, including parliamentary needs, and including also national economic priorities.

Decentralisation (Question No. 4329)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What body, if any, was commissioned to make the close study recommended to Prime Minister Menzies by the Vernon Committee (17.77) on 6th May 1965 into the possibilities of accelerating the growth of a limited number of non-metropolitan centres that have already, as a result of natural advantages, achieved some degree of development.

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The honourable member will be aware that, prior to the presentation of the Report of the Committee of Economic Inquiry, the Commonwealth and State Governments had agreed to establish a Commonwealth-State Officials’ Committee on Decentralisation. The Committee is in course of preparing a report to the Commonwealth and State Governments which will doubtless deal with issues such as those referred to in paragraph 17.77 of the Report of the Committee of Economic Inquiry.

Water Resources Projects (Question No. 4426)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister or National Development, upon notice:

  1. What Commonwealth finance (a) has been and (b) will be expended on water resources projects recommended by the Australian Water Resources Council (i) throughout Australia and (ii) in each State
  2. What projects (a) have been and (b) will be assisted in each State.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The Australian Water Resources Council does not have any direct involvement in the National Water Resources Development Programme under which the Commonwealth Government provides finance to the State Governments to assist them with their works of water conservation. These projects are submitted by States individually and are considered by the Commonwealth Government. It is assumed that the honourable member’s question is in fact related to the National Water Resources Development Programme and the following information is provided on that basis -

Under phases I and 2 of the Programme the Commonwealth has agreed to make available up to$150m to the States of this amount$89m has been allocated of which advances actually made to the States at 30th June 1971 amounted to $34.218m. The equivalent figures for each State are as follows:

  1. The following projects have received Commonwealth financial assistance:

Queensland - Fairbairn Dam; Bundaberg Irrigation Scheme.

New South Wales - Copeton Dam; Flood Mitigation Projects.

Victoria - River Murray Salinity Reduction Scheme; King River Dam.

Tasmania - Cressy-Longford Irrigation Scheme.

South Australia - Tailem Bend to Keith Pipeline Scheme.

All States - Water Measurement Programme.

The two Victorian projects are virtually completed and work is continuing with Commonwealth financial assistance on the remaining projects. A project to be assisted which has not yet received any finance is Pike Creek dam the cost of which will be shared equally by the Commonwealth and the Stales of New South Wales and Queensland.

Australian Army (Question No. 4486)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

  1. Will he give details as to what steps have been taken to return servicemen from Vietnam to their home states for Christmas.
  2. Will he take steps to ensure that troops planned to be left in Vietnam are returned to Australia for Christmas either on recreation leave or preferably on a permanent basis.
Mr Peacock:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Suitable movement arrangements have been made to ensure that those servicemen, whom it is planned should return to Australia by Christmas, will do so. Movement to Australia will be by sea and air. In this regard, I have directed my Department to make arrangements for South and West Australian soldiers to be returned to Australia by air to allow them sufficient time to be reunited with their families for Christmas.
  2. This would not be practicable having regard to the continuing need for personnel to be retained in the theatre to pack and ensure the security of equipment etc. still to be returned.

Australian Army (Question No. 4528)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Is it the practice of Army authorities to charge men suffering from sunburn with having a self inflicted wound.
  2. If so, (a) what are the possible penalties involved, (b) how many men have been charged for this offence in the last 12 months, (c) how many have been convicted and (d) what penalty was imposed in each case.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. It is not Army practice to charge men suffering from sunburn with having a self inflicted wound.
  2. Not applicable.

Electoral Rolls: Northern Territory (Question No. 4529)

Mr Calder:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the numerous complaints about the state of the electoral rolls used at the recent elections for the Northern Territory Legislative Council.
  2. Will he call for a full report from the Commonwealth Electoral Officer for the Northern Territory for details of any electors who were disfranchised on 23rd October 1 97 1.
  3. What measures will be taken to ensure that any errors which may have occurred are corrected.
  4. Will all necessary steps be taken to seen that the rolls are 100 per cent accurate for the next election.
  5. If it is found that errors have occurred, wilt he take steps to see that innocent people are not penalised.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The Chief Electoral Officer has drawn my attention to Press reports about the condition of the Northern Territory electoral rolls. The Chief Electoral Officer has advised me that due to the inability of the electoral office to conduct a full review in the Northern Territory in 1970 or 1971, the electoral rolls are not up-to-date. However, there is no evidence to support the reports that names have been omitted from the rolls due to computer malfunctions or staff errors.
  2. Yes.
  3. An alphabetical listing of persons whose names appear in the Northern Territory Electoral Rolls has been prepared. This listing will be compared with the information on the claims for enrolment submitted by the electors and any errors which are detected will be corrected.
  4. In areas where it is possible to effect a house to house check of the electoral rolls, such a check will be undertaken by Review Officers during 1972. In respect of other areas, Electoral Agents will be appointed wherever possible to furnish information about the movement of persons eligible for enrolment. In addition the Returning Officer is required to use all available avenues to keep his rolls up-to-date. By using these means the electoral office expects the Northern Territoryroll to be as up-to-date as possible for the next House of Representatives election.
  5. Yes.

Naval Personnel: Issue of Hard-hats (Question No. 4554)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

What arrangements are made to issue hard-hats to members of the Royal Australian Navy and to officers of his Department who are employed casually in hazardous situations.

Dr Mackay:
LP

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

In ships and establishments of the RAN sufficient safety helmets are carried for issue to personnel who are required to work in potentially dangerous areas or at hazardous tasks needing head protection. In the Naval Dockyards itis mandatory for all personnel to wear safety helmets in designated areas, and in the docks, the floating dock and beneath all cranes, they must be worn at all times. Notices are prominently displayed indicating that entry to these areas without wearing safety helmets is prohibited. These safety instructions are rigidly adhered to and have full Union support. When ships are at the Dockyards if sufficient safety helmets are not available from ships stores they will be issued by the Dockyard store for use by crew members in designated areas. The same strict safety precautions apply to uniformed personnel as to civilians.

Electoral: Australian Capital Territory Representation (Question No. 4556)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the population of the Australian Capital Territory is increasing at about 9 per cent per annum compound.
  2. Did his predecessor state on 20th August 1970 that the Government believed that we may well have reached the time when there is need for extra representation for the Australian Capital Territory.
  3. If so, is the Government taking any steps for making any preparation to create a second seat for the Australian Capital Territory in the House of Representatives.
  4. If steps are being taken, what are they.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. The Field Count Statement No. 1- Population: States and Territories recently released by the Acting Commonwealth Statistician shows that the average annual rate of growth of the population of the Australian Capital Territory between 30th June 1966 and. 30th June 1971 was 8.42 per cent.
  2. During the debate on the Territory Senators Bill on 20th August 1970 as reported in Hansard on pages 281-282 the then Minister for the Interior stated: ‘Certainly when one has regard to the rapidly expanding electoral population of the Australian Capital Territory it appears that the time is fast approaching when some additional representation may be justified on the basis of the number of electors involved’.
  3. No decision has been taken by the Government in this matter.
  4. See (3).

Australian Army (Question No. 4561)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

How many horse depots and farms and stations for the breeding of horses are maintained by the Army under the powers given to the GovernorGeneral by section 63(1) (dc) of the Defence Act.

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

The Army does not maintain any depots, farms or stations for the purpose of breeding horses.

Commonwealth Properties (Question No. 4566)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities with properties within the boundaries of the City of Port Pirie (a) make and (b) do not make ex gratia grants to the City Council in lieu of rates.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

The following shows, as accurately as can be ascertained, those Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities with properties within the boundaries of the City of Port Pirie that, in accordance with Commonwealth policy, (a) make or (b) do not make ex gratia payments to the City Council in lieu of rates:

Department of the Army (residential premises).

Department of Health (residential premises).

Postmaster-General’s Department (residential premises).

Australian Broadcasting Commission (residential premises).

Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority (residential premises).

Commonwealth Railways (residential premises).

Commonwealth Banking Corporation (office and residential premises).

Department of Customs and Excise. Department of the Interior and the Departments and authorities (other than the Commonwealth Banking Corporation) listed in (a) in respect of non-residential premises.

Trailer Safety Chains (Question No. 4577)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Australian Capital Territory has no legislation making it compulsory to install and use safety chains on trailers and caravans; of so, why.
  2. Was a man killed in Campbell in the Australian Capital Territory on 27th September 1971 in an accident involving a trailer and was the man’s death partly the result of a trailer not being secured by safety chains.
  3. When will legislation be introduced to ensure that trailers and caravans are required to be secured properly with safety chains.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. and (3) The Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936- 1971 provides, in Section 189, that it is an offence to drive a vehicle to which a trailer is attached upon a public street unless the trailer is securely fastened close to the rear thereof. Legislation merely requiring safety chains to be fitted would be of doubtful value unless the registering authority could determine that chains fitted to trailers and caravans would not fail under load. In the absence of an Australian standard and therefore the means to check, by reference to an approved mark, that chains have been manufactured to a recognised specification no legislation making it compulsory to install and use safety chains on trailers and caravans has been introduced in the Australian Capital Territory. A standard is being prepared by the Standards Association of Australia which will provide a specifica-tion for chains for trailers and caravans in terms of link size, stretching capabilities and breaking strength. When the standard is published, consideration will be given to the introduction of legislation in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. A coronial inquiry is to be held into the death of a man involved in a road accident in Campbell on 27th September 1971 and it would be improper for me to comment.

Hospital Charges (Question No. 3088)

Mr Webb:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a thesis prepared by Mr R. B. Scotton of Melbourne University in which it is stated that the very rich, when tax deductions are allowed for, can get private ward treatment as cheaply as the poor can get public ward care.
  2. Is the Minister able to confirm Mr Scotton’s figures.
  3. If the position is as stated, does this illustrate an inequitable feature of the National Health Scheme.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. I am aware of Mr Scotton’s writings regarding the relationship between health insurance contributions and taxation concessions.
  2. and (3) The honourable member’s question is couched in such vague terms that it is not possible to provide a concrete answer.

In the absence of a more precise indication of the income levels in relation to which the honourable members seeks information, it is not possible to confirm the figures.

Recognition of Medical Qualifications (Question No. 3688)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Have officers of the Department of Health attended meetings of the Presidents of State and Territory Medical Boards since a former Minister’s answer on 22nd February 1971 (Hansard, page 471); if so, whenand where.
  2. What progress has been made since that answer in securing Australia-wide recognition of qualifications obtained in any State or Territory or in another country in dentistry, dietetics, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, optometry, pharmacy, physiotherapy and speech therapy.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. I am not aware of any significant developments towards the securing of Australia-wide recognition of qualifications obtained in any Stale or Territory in the fields listed. The question of the recognition of overseas qualifications continues toreceive the attention of the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications.

Free Health Insurance Benefits (Question No. 3763)

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: (1)How many persons in receipt of (a) sickness and (b) unemployment benefits during 1970-71 qualified for free health insurance premiums.

  1. What whs the average duration of the benefit.
  2. What was the cost to revenue of benefits provided in each category.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. This information is not available in respect of each class of beneficiary. The following sets out the total number of unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries who enrolled in a health insurance fund during the year ended 30th June 1971:
  1. This information is not available.
  2. It is not possible to provide expenditure for each class of beneficiary under the Subsidised Health Benefits Plan. However, total expenditure on benefits under the Plan for the year ended 30th June 1971. was as follows:

Institutes of Management and Administrative Staff College (Question No. 3951)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Dues the Government give financial orphysical assistance to the (a) Australian Institute of Management, (b) Australian Institute of Personnel Management, and (c) Australian Administrative Staff College; if so, how much assistance has it given in each of the last 5 years.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

My Department does not give financial assistance to organisations (a), (b) and (c). However, it has co-operated closely with all 3 over a number of years. Departmental officers have worked on committees of (a) and (b), joint surveys of personnel practices have been conducted, lecturers have been supplied for training programmes, and in the case of the Australian Administrative Staff College the Department regularly receives groups of students to examine its operations. I shall arrange for the Question to be circulated to other Ministers with the request that they reply to you direct if they can add to this information.

Works of Art (Question No. 3990)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. How many works of art have been acquired since the former Prime Minister’s answer to me on 21st October 1970 (Hansard, page 2613). and at what cost.
  2. Which Commonwealth building proposals since theanswer have allowed for works of art.
  3. What steps have been taken to establish an Australian National Gallery Trust Fund since the National Art Gallery Committee of Inquiry recommended it on 14th March 1966.
Mr Howson:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. During 1970-71 344 works were acquired for the National Collection at a cost of $256,277.
  2. The following Commonwealth building projects have allowed for works of art:

Weston Creek ‘B’ High School

Macgregor Primary School

Flynn Primary School

Belconnen 24 Primary School

Belconnen, Western Offices

Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport

Melbourne (Tullamarine) Airport.

  1. The question of establishing an Australian National Gallery Trust Fund has been considered but further action has been deferred pending the establishment of the Australian National Gallery Council. The Prime Minister announced on 26th

October, during the course of his statement on the arts in Australia, that it is the Government’s intention now to legislate for a permanent council as a statutory body to administer the Gallery.

Road Fatalities (Question No. 4205)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

Why is there a difference between the figure of 9.8 fatality rate per 100 million vehicle-miles given in his answer to question No. 2744 (Hansard, 16 Marth 1971, pages 957-8) and the figure of 15.8 per 100 million vehicle-miles given in the March-April issue of the publication by the Department of Shipping and Transport.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

As stated in the March-April 1971 issue of the Department’s publication, ‘Australian Road Safety Report’, the fatality rate of 15.8 deaths for every 100 million miles travelled was a quotation from a survey conducted by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of New York.

The figure of 9.8 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles given in answer to question No. 2744 is based on an estimate of miles driven, using fuel consumption as the measure.

My enquiries regarding the difference between these two figures reveal that the Metropolitan Life survey was based on data from the 1969 edition of ‘World Road Statistics’. This publication lists deaths per 100 million kilometres travelled. However, the figure shown for Australia in the 1969 edition was actually that for 100 million miles. This error was corrected in the subsequent edition but was not noticed at the time of the Metropolitan Life survey. Conversion of the information shown in ‘World Road Statistics’ resulted in the erroneous figure per 100 million vehiclemiles that was published in the Metropolitan Life survey. The figure which should have been used in. the survey was 9.8 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles.

Vasectomy (Question No. 4272)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister repre senting the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the statement by the Queensland Minister for Justice, Dr Delamothe, that vasectomy for contraceptive purposes is illegal in Queensland.
  2. Is this operation illegal in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
  3. Is the Minister able to state the position in the other Australian States.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Attorneyerai has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. This question should be addressed to the appropriate State authorities.

Navy: Pollution Control (Question No. 4281)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. What pollution control measures are taken by ships of the Royal Australian Navy:

    1. at sea and
    2. in port.

  2. What disposal methods are used with:

    1. packages and wrappings from stores,
    2. waste stores and
    3. effluent.
Dr Mackay:
LP

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

  1. The pollution control measures taken by RAN ships are as follows:

    1. At sea ,

HMA ships are required to observe the principles of the Commonwealth Pollution of the Sea by Oil Regulations although not legally bound by these regulations.

  1. In port

    1. in ports HMA ships abide by the local port regulations. For remote anchorages, small ports, etc., where there are no port regulations, special naval instructions to prevent pollution are in force.
    2. The question of using only biodegradable detergents in HMA ships is the subject of a current investigation with which Defence Standard Laboratories have been requested to assist.
    3. Plans are being developed to convert oil burning ships to diesel distillate, which will reduce funnel smoke particularly when ships are lighting boilers from cold.
    4. The following disposal methods are used in the RAN:
  2. Explosives and warlike stores are rendered non-buoyant and dumped in depths in excess of 500 fathoms.

  3. (1) Beyond harbour limits normal shipping practice is followed and garbage and general waste are disposed of over the side. Floating material, e.g., cans, are pierced so that they are rendered nonbuoyant. Care is taken that this only lakes place when well clear of beaches.

    1. In port garbage and general waste are off-loaded into appropriately provided containers and cleared by private contractors.
  4. Effluent is disposed Of, by those vessels which are equipped with holding tanks, when at sea. The remainder of ships follow normal merchant ship practice and pump over the side in port or at sea. New construction ships will be fitted with sewage disposal systems.

Civil Aviation Flights North-Western Australia (Question No. 4283)

Mr Collard:

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

  1. Can (he Minister say whether it is a normal situation for a MacRobertson Miller Airlines Fokker Fellowship aircraft flying north and scheduled to land at (a) Broome or (b) Derby to carry insufficient fuel to proceed, if need be, to an alternative aerodrome other than Fitzroy Crossing.
  2. If not, why did the Fokker Fellowship which landed at Fitzroy Crossing on 31st July 1971 have insufficient fuel when it arrived over Derby to fly to one of the other alternatives.
  3. Where would the captain of the aircraft have been obliged to seek a landing bad Fitzroy Crossing been unserviceable.
Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. lt would be a normal situation for a Fokker Fellowship aircraft to proceed to Broome or Derby without carrying fuel to proceed to an alternative aerodrome provided that the forecast weather conditions and facilities at the destination aerodrome met specified minimum requirements.
  2. The forecast weather conditions and facilities at Derby, were such that the Fokker Fellowship aircraft which landed at Fitzroy Crossing on 3 1st July 1971 was noi required to provide for an alternative aerodrome on that .flight.
  3. Had Fitzroy Crossing been unserviceable either Kununurra or Halls Creek was available for use by the aircraft, lt would have been necessary however, for the pilot in command to have decided to depart’ from Derby earlier than he did.

Civil Aviation Flight: North-western Australia (Question >to. 4284)

Mr Collard:

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

For how many minutes could the Fokker Fellowship aircraft which landed at Fitzroy Crossing on 3 1 si July 1971 have continued flying on the 300 to 500 pounds of fuel which the captain estimated as remaining when the aircraft landed (Hansard, 28th September 1971, pages 1604-5).

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The flight time for the fuel remaining of 300- 5(1(1 lb would have been between 4 and 6 minutes.

Airports: North-western Australia (Question No. 4285)

Mr Collard:

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

  1. Which airports are classified exactly as alternatives to (a) Derby and (b) Broome for (i)

Fokker Friendship and (ii) Fokker Fellowship aircraft.

  1. What is the flying distance in each case from (a) Derby and (b) Broome.
  2. What amount of fuel, in pounds, would bc required at full passenger and freight load and under normal flying conditions for the flight by (a) Fokker Fellowship and (b) a Fokker Friendship aircraft from (i) Broome and (ii) Derby to each of the alternative aerodromes
  3. Which of the alternative airports are tully equipped with night landing facilities.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. For both the Fokker Friendship and Fokker Fellowship aircraft, nc aerodromes a,e specifically classified as alternative aerodromes for either Derby or Broome. Aerodromes in the area that have the necessary facilities to permit them to ho nominated as alternatives when required are P.,r Hedland, Dampier, Derby, Broome, Meekatharra. Darwin and Kununurra.

The conditions under which the pilot in command must nominate an alternative aerodrome an J the requirements nf the nominated alternative ure stated in the aeronautical Information Publication.

  1. and (3) The answer; to questions (2) and (3) are combined in tabular form and Jr(. listed below:

  1. The still air fuel requirement is the additional fuel, including reserve fuel, which must be carried to permit the aircraft to divert from either Derby or Broome to the selected alternative.

    1. The following aerodromes are fully equipped with night landing facilities: Broome, Derby, Port Hedland, Meekatharra, Kununurra and Darwin.

Australian Wool Commission (Question No. 4323)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Will he make available in answer to this question the information he proposes to provide the honourable Member for Mitchell relating to the intrim balance sheet of the Australian Wool Commission (Hansard, 28th September 1971, page 1526).

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

Under the previsions of the Australian Wool Commission Act 1970, the Australian Wool Commission is required to prepare and furnish an annual report on its operations as soon as practicable after 30th June each year. The Commission is also obliged by the provisions of the Act to attach to its report financial statements in such form as the Treasurer approves, and these must be certified by the Auditor-General.

For the benefit of members of the Parliament, arrangements were made for thu Wool Commission to prepare an interim annual report for tabling early in the Budget Session. It should he noted that the financial statements accompanying the interim report are also of an interim nature. They do not purport to bc in an approved form.

On page 39 of the interim report, the Commission has provided explanatory notes on the interim financial statements. The statements comprise three accounts - an Interim Wool Trading Account, an Interim Administrative Expense Account and an Interim Balance Sheet. The costs presented in the Interim Administrative Expense Account are explained in Note 6 on page 39 nf the Interim report.

The question of the form of the financial statements for the year ended 30th June 1971 is being examined by the Treasury in consultation with the Department of Primary Industry, the Australian Wool Commission and the Auditor-General’s Office. I understand that the outcome of this examination will be conveyed to the Treasurer to assist in his consideration of the form in which the accounts of the Commission should be presented.

When the final form of the financial statements has been agreed upon, the statements and the final annual report of the Commission will, in accordance with the Act, be tabled in Parliament.

Army: Officers’ Quarters at Puckapunyal (Question No. 4324)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. When were the officers’ living quarters established at the Armoured Centre in Puckapunyal.
  2. How many officers are accommodated in these quarters.
  3. When will these quarters be demolished and replaced with modern accommodation.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. The buildings referred to were erected about 1941.
  2. These quarters will cater for up to 33 officers. The number of officers occupying this accommodation varies according to the number and size of the courses being conducted at any time. As at 9th October 1971 there were 30 officers living in.
  3. It is not planned to replace this accommodation in the immediate future as other accommodation requirements with a higher priority must take precedence within funds availability.

Army: Armoured Centre at Puckapunyal (Question No. 4325)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. When was the entire complex at the Armoured Centre in Puckapunyal established.
  2. When were plans for new accommodation and facilities for the Armoured Centre drawn up, and what do these plans include.
  3. What is the estimated cost of implementing these plans.
  4. When is it intended to commence construction of these buildings and facilities.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. The Armoured Centre, originally the Armoured School, was established at Puckapunyal early in World War II. Some additional buildings have been added since. Kapyong Barracks which, primarily accommodates members of the Armoured Regiment, was built in 1958.
  2. Planning has been proceeding for some time. It is planned eventually to replace all hutted administrative, living, training and technical facilities.
  3. No firm estimate is available as it is not planned to replace the existing facilities in the near future, because of the necessity to undertake work of a much higher priority.
  4. See answer (3) above.

Human Environment Conference (Question No. 4377)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Why is Australia not a member of the preparatory committee for the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment which is to be held in Stockholm in 1972 (question No. 2914, Hansard, 23rd April 1971, page 2036).
  2. As the then Minister for Foreign Affairs indicated in his answer that officers in the

Department of Foreign Affairs who attended meetings of the preparatory committee in Geneva and New York as observers were not technical experts in environmental matters, will he ensure that in future officers attending these conferences are competent in these fields.

  1. Will the Australian contribution to the Conference be co-ordinated by the Office of the Environment after it commences operation.
  2. What are the specific details of Australia’s proposed contribution to the Conference.
  3. How will Australia’s delegation to the Conference be constituted.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. There are 27 members of the Preparatory Committee drawn from the total membership of the United Nations. Australia is not a member of the Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment because it was nol elected to membership. We exercised considerable effort in seeking membership of the Committee, which was comprised according to the electoral distribution pattern of the Economic and Social Council, under which Australia must share representation with a number of other countries. Australia strongly urged that this pattern was not suitable for a committee on environmental questions if it did not ensure that important geographical areas of the world were adequately represented.
  2. The third session of the Preparatory Committee was held at New York during September 1971 and Australia was represented in an observer capacity by Professor Webster, Scientific Counsellor at the Australian Embassy, Washington, and an officer from the Australian Mission to the United Nations, lt must be noted that, since an. important part of the work of the Preparatory Committee itself is concerned with questions of international conference procedures, it is desirable al’:o to have an observer present who is versed in these questions. Australia is a member of 4 working groups (on marine pollution, soils, conservation and monitoring), which ure preparing material and formulating proposals for the Stockholm Conference. On each of them the Australian representative has been a technical expert.
  3. The Department of the Environment, Aborigines mid the Arts is co-ordinating preparation 13r Australia’s participation in the Stockholm Conference.
  4. Australia nas submitted a national report on the environment. In addition, 14 proposals for case studies to illustrate particular opics to be discussed at Stockholm were submitted to the Conference Secretariat. Tha Secretariat has selected a limited number of case studies from various countries for special treatment. At the invitation of the Conference Secretariat, a case study on the development of new towns has been prepared for possible inclusion in the official conference documents. Australia is also participating through its technical specialists in the work of the 4 lnter-governmental Working Groups referred to in (2). In addition, we have sent observers to the lnter-governmental Working Group on the Declaration on the Environment as - well as the

Preparatory Committee of the Conference. As soon as action proposals to be considered at Stockholm have been completed and circulated by the United Nations Conference Secretariat, discussions with the appropriate agencies, particularly the States, will be held to enable the brief for Australia’s delegation to be prepared.

  1. Its composition has not yet been determined.

Mineral Sands (Question No. 4400)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Has the Bureau of Mineral Resources made any study of the elasticity of supply of the metals obtained from mineral sands.
  2. If so, docs this study indicate that the optimum return to Australia would be achieved by increasing or decreasing the production of mineral sands.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. The Bureau of Mineral Resources maintains a continuous study of the supply - demand position of,, and future possible trends in mineral commodities both on a national and an international scale. However, the Bureau has not undertaken any specific study concerning the elasticity of supply for the minerals obtained from mineral sands.
  2. The question of maximising national returns by contracting or expanding production of Mineral sands is a complex one as so many imponderables are involved.

While Australia enjoys a near world monopoly as a supplier of rutile, it is only one of a large number of suppliers of ilmenite. both of which can be used as a source of titanium dioxide and titanium metal. If production of rutile was restricted world demand for these products would inevitably bc met from upgraded ilmenite and processing plants could become geared to the feedstock rather than to rutile. This is already occurring to some extent. Zircon is produced as a by-product of rutile and ilmenite mining; the level of production both in Australia and overseas is geared to the level of production of the other 2 minerals. Substitutes will undoubtedly erode zircon’s traditional market if zircon process were increased to any marked degree. It is felt that in both the shorter and longer term a reduced output of mineral sands in Australia would reduce national revenue and would increase the risk of Australian producers losing some of their markets.

Commonwealth Railways: Sick Leave Provisions (Question No. 4415)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What action has been taken to alter the existing sick leave provisions covering Commonwealth

Railway employeesto allow accumulated half pay, sick leave credits to be converted by division to full pay sick leave.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

No action has been taken by the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner to alter the existing sick leave provisions covering Commonwealth Railways employees, nor is any action intended at the present time.

Motor Vehicle Certification Board (Question No. 4460)

Mr Charles Jones:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board..
  2. When a certificate of compliance is issued by the Board that a motor vehicle complies with Australian design rules, what laboratory tests are conducted and by whom.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The members of the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board are:

Chairman -

MrK. J. Cosgrove

First Assistant Secretary Department of Shipping and Transport

Mr L. Crowe Director of Traffic Department. of the Interior

Mr R. A. French Chief Engineer Department of Motor Transport Sydney

Mr K. Nevin Assistant Under Secretary Chief Secretary’s Department Melbourne

Mr W. Hansen Deputy Commission Department of Main Roads Brisbane

Mr A. K. Johinke Commissioner of Highways Department of Highways Adelaide

Mr R. J. Court Assistant Commissioner Police Department Perth

Mr A. Pybus Administrator of Road Transport Transport Department Hobart

  1. Before issuing an authority to affix a compliance plate the Australian Motor Vehicle Certification Board requires motor vehicle manufacturers to submit documentary evidence demonstrating to the Board’s satisfaction that the vehicle mode) in question complies with all relevant Australian Design Rules.

Where an Australian Design Rule calls for physical testing, the motor vehicle manufacturer is able to nominate the laboratory in which the prescribed tests are to be conducted provided it is suitably equipped and staffed.

In most cases motor vehicle manufacturers have nominated their own laboratories or those of a component manufacturer.

Apartheid: Humanitarian Assistance (Question No. 4506)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What sum has Australia contributed to the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa that was established in 1965 to provide humanitarian assistance to the victims of the South African policy of apartheid.
  2. Can he say what other countries have contributed to the Fund and what sum has been contributed in each case.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)The Australian Government has not made any contributions to the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa, though contributions have been raised in Australia by private organisations.

  1. The following, from a United Nations document, is a list of contributions the Trust Fund has received from Governments since it was set up in 1965. (The contributions are in United States dollars):

The Trust Fund has also received contributions from organisations and individuals (including Australian sources) totalling over $50,000.

Wool: Exports to United States of America (Question No. 4522)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice: (!) Can he- say whether Australia and New Zealand were the only two Western powers to commit combat troops in support of the military involvement in Vietnam of the United States of America.

  1. If so, can he say whether the United States of America appreciates this exceptional display of fealty to its foreign policy.
  2. Has the United Slates offered, as an expression of appreciation, to reduce the discriminatory trade barriers against Australian wool imports; if so, what are the details of the offer.
  3. Can he say what amount of United States money was raised by the appropriate authority through the application of these trade barriers and (b) distributed to United States wool growers.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. Countries which, in addition to the United States of America, contributed troops to the support of the Republic of Vietnam against unprovoked communist aggression were Australia, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand. The notable feature that all these countries have in common is that they are all situated in the same Asian-Pacific region as the Republic of Vietnam itself.
  2. The decision to contribute troops was taken by the Australian Government having regard to its assessment of Australia’s national interests. It is a matter of public record that the decision was warmly welcomed by the people and Government of the Republic of Vietnam and by the governments which took similar action.
  3. The Australian Government would not expect the Government of the United States of America to make gestures of appreciation in respect of decisions made by the Australian Government in the pursuit of Australia’s national interests.
  4. The United States of America has duties on row wool and wool manufactures.- In addition there is a 10 per cent import surcharge on raw wool. The United States National Wool Act of 1954, as amended, limits the accumulated total of payments under the Act on any date to 70 per cent of the accumulated total, as of the same date, of gross receipts from specific and ad valorem duties on wool and wool manufactures on and after 1st January 1953. The answers to (a) and (b), then, are shown in the following table:

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 23 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711123_reps_27_hor75/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant