House of Representatives
28 March 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

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

page 1203

PETITIONS

Education

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the Following petition:

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

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.

That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money is being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.

That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money is being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr MORRISON:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of government education services has established serious deficiencies in education, the most important areas being a severe shortage of teachers, inadequate accommodation, and, as a result, oversized classes.

That extra Federal finance is urgently required to save the government school system.

That while the needs of the government schools are being neglected, large amounts of public money are being given, in various and numerous grants, to private schools.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to make emergency Federal finance available to the States for State school education, and divert the large sums of public money being spent on private schools, to the government school system for which the government is truly responsible.

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinance

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Division of the A.C.T. respectfully showeth:

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the words ‘or for preventing conception’ to be deleted from sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the A.C.T. Pharmacy Ordinances.

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

Petition received.

Sydney Airport

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

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the electors of the Division of Kingsford-Smith showeth that:

The approval given by the Minister for Civil Aviation to operate Electra aircraft to and from Kingsford-Smith airport during curfew hours is contrary to the public interest of the electors and a breach of an undertaking given by the Government that aircraft noise would be reduced in the area.

We are already saturated with noise during working hours and the only respite we have is by the curfew being rigidly enforced. These Electras are very much heavier aircraft and do create a severe noise nuisance irrespective of the runways used. Further, they have limited life and it follows that they will be replaced by jet aircraft with an even greater noise factor.

By failing to provide a second airport for Sydney, the Government has created an everincreasing noise nuisance during the present operational hours and instead of the airport being a reasonable amenity for the city, it is being used as an offensive weapon against the residents whose quiet enjoyment of their homes and recreational hours is seriously affected, and the value of their properties hereby diminished.

Your petitioners humbly pray that -

The curfew between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. at Sydney Airport be regidly enforced.

The use of Electra aircraft and/or jet aircraft be prohibited within the curfew hours.

Concessional airport charges be granted to encourage aircraft operators to use their aircraft during normal business hours.

A social survey be taken of the area surrounding Sydney Airport to indicate the magnitude of unrest and disturbance attributable to aircraft noise.

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 in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

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

That the Australian Capital Territory is 8 homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies.

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

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

Petition received:

Eyre Highway

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we, the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, residents in the State of Western Australia do humbly petition and pray that all levels of Government responsible in Australia will take note of the wishes of we, the Citizens, in so far as we request:

That the Commonwealth co-operate with all authorities to ensure the early sealing of the one East-West road link, the Eyre Highway, and that urgent consideration be given to increasing the maintenance of the road in the intervening period and endeavour to curtail the dreadful road toll, injury and vehicle damage.

That the Commonwealth consider this road as a Defence Measure for the whole of Australia and road link connecting the two coasts of the Continent, and consideration to the sealing from the aspect of the increase of Trade and Tourism within Australia, thus encouraging the retention of the finance in Australia which is now going overseas. Consideration be given on the grounds of a better understanding between the people of all of the Stales of Australia, because of their improved ability to travel and meet one another.

That consideration be given to one of the most heavily taxed groups within the community, the motorist, and be given the opportunity to enjoy some of the tax fees as charged, by being able to travel with reasonable comfort and safety on the major highways of Australia.

That consideration be given to returning specifically for this purpose the increased revenue received from the increase in petrol tax.

We, the petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled would take immediate steps to’ ensure provision of funds to provide for the all weather sealing of this important highway, the Eyre Highway, linking East and West and your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

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

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr WHITLAM:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr KATTER:
Minister for the Army · KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

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

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr CHARLES JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a norma] business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

-I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available io Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Sir CHARLES ADERMANN:
FISHER, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

Thar the Postmaster-General’s Department Centra] Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent ils unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to’ national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standardsof service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as anormal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standardsof service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Dr SOLOMON:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest..

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr GRASSBY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from certain citizens of Australia, mostly in Moombooldool:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– J present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in. the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

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

-I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and ull details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I present the follow ing petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent ils unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I. present the fol lowing petition:

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

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest

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

  1. Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and
  2. Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree on which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to national development.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourble the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That on 10th December 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and otherlack of livelihood in circumtsances beyond his control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many thousands of our people live in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs of social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other appliances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Commonwealth revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to increase the non-repayable grant to the States for low rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public inquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr COPE:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That on 10th December 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many, thousands of our people live in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease with the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs of social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other appliances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Commonwealth revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to increase the non-repayable grant to the States for low rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry, into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That on 10th December 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond bis control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many thousands of our people live in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs for social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical, physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other appliances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Commonwealth revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to increase the non-repayable grant to the States for low rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought intoline with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

MrMcIVOR - I present the following petition:

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

That on 10th December 1948, Australia signed the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Article 25 reads: ‘Everyone has the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age and other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.’

Yet, 23 years later, in our country of great national wealth and abundance it is to the nation’s shame that many thousands of our peoplelive in a state of being inconsistent with the dignity and worth of the human person - languishing in poverty, and want, neglect and the lack of proper care necessary for their health and well-being.

We, the undersigned, respectfully draw to your attention that the conscience of the nation is not at ease while the records of our country show that social services are not comparable with that of other advanced countries administering such services, therefore, we call upon the Commonwealth Government to immediately legislate for:

Base pension rate - 30 per cent of the average weekly male earnings, all states, plus supplementary assistance and allowances based on a percentage of such earnings. Unemployed benefits equal to the foregoing.

Completely free health services to cover all needs of social service pensioners - hospitalisation, chronic and long-term illness, fractures, anaesthetics, specialist, pharmaceutical, hearing aids, dental, optical physiotherapy, chiropody, surgical aids and any other appliances.

Commonwealth Government to promote a comprehensive national scheme in cooperation with the States and make finance available to provide for the building of public hospitals, nursing and hostel-type homes necessary, to effectively meet the special requirements of aged people, in conjunction with a comprehensive domiciliary care programme to enable aged people to stay in their homes.

Mental illness placed in the same position as physical illness.

Substantial Commonwealth increase in the $5 subsidy a day per public bed pensioner patient in general hospitals.

Ten per cent of Commonwealth revenue to local government for general activities which now include social welfare, health, conservation and other community needs. Commonwealth subsidy for the waiving of rates for pensioners.

Commonwealth Government to increase the non-repayable grant to the States forlow rental home units for pensioners.

Royal Commission or other form of public enquiry into Australia’s social welfare structure that Australia may be brought into line with accepted world standards of the most advanced countries.

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

Petition received.

page 1213

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– I wish to inform the House that the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) is ill and will be unable to attend the House for some weeks. During the Minister’s absence the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) will be Acting Postmaster-General. Senator Cotton, in regard to his function as Acting Postmaster-General, will be represented in this House by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch).

page 1213

QUESTION

TERRITORIAL SEA: MAKINE POLLUTION

Mr WHITLAM:

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. On the last sitting day the Minister for Education and Science, in moving the second reading of the Australian Institute of Marine Science Bill, voiced concern at the possible pollution of the marine environment by a proposed nickel smelter atTownsville. As such pollution would fall within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth under the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill, of which the second reading was moved on 22nd April 1970, I ask the right honourable gentleman whether he has yet consulted his Party and the full Cabinet about that earlier Bill, as he told the House he would certainly do when he was asked about it in the week after he took office?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The Leader of the House will answer the question.

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– This is a matter that the Leader of the Opposition raised at the end of the last sessional period, and it has been referred to, in a different way, by the Minister for Education and Science. To some degree this matter comes into my field because the nickel development concerned is at Greenvale and the Commonwealth has a specific interest, although, of course, the development is directly the concern of the Queensland Government. The position regarding the Territorial Sea and Continental Shelf Bill which is listed on the notice paper was stated by me in the House on the last occasion when the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter and also when one or two other honourable members referred to the matter at the same time.

Mr Whitlam:

– Last December.

Mr SWARTZ:

– That was last December, before the end of the last sessional period. I indicated at the time that the Prime Minister had staled that the matter would be raised at a meeting of the joint Government parties during this sessional period of the Parliament. Subsequent to that time quite a number of actions have been taken in relation to the matter, all of which have required the attention of the Government and the attention of a number of Ministers. I think I can assure the Leader of the

Opposition that this matter has not been neglected and certainly has not been overlooked or forgotten, because it is the intention of the Prime Minister to see that the matter is raised at the meeting of the joint Government parties during this week, after which will be explained what action has been taken and any future action that is considered.

page 1214

QUESTION

COAL

Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for National Development whether he is aware that the South Clifton and North Bulli collieries owned by Clutha Development Pty Ltd are closing down, with notice being given to 280 men, thus, in conjunction with the Excelsior mine closing off, probably forever, the production of millions of tons of coal? Would he please give me a full answer on whether this is because cheaper coal is being mined from open cut mines?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– This matter has been raised by the honourable member in conjunction with his interest in the coal mining industry generally. Also, my friend opposite, the honourable member for Cunningham, raised the matter with me today. Firstly, I indicate that the interest of the honourable member for Macarthur in this matter is quite well known, not only in relation to these mines but also in regard to other important coal mining areas in his electorate. I had an opportunity to visit an area in the. honourable member’s electorate only the week before last. Strange to say, the mine we visited and inspected is also run by the company to which he refers today. The Government is aware of some problems in relation to this matter. I have stated publicly and in the House that the Commonwealth is taking a special interest in the coal mining industry and has been doing so for some time. In fact, the Government undertook a survey of the. known reserves of coal in Australia. I published the results only a few months ago. I indicated at the time that, in addition to the survey of reserves, the Government was conducting other investigations into the industry.

I hope to be in a position before long to submit a report to the Government not only in relation to the overall position of the industry but also in relation to the complications of overseas markets, the difficulties in the domestic field confronting the 2 major producing States of New South Wales and Queensland and the problems associated with the production of good quality coking coal on a cheaper basis by using open cut methods. These problems require very careful and close examination and discussion between all the governments concerned. We are moving towards that position at the present time. I have been informed that there is a strong possibility that the mines to which the honourable member referred could be closed. As a result of this possibility, we took up this matter immediately with the Joint Coal Board which is also discussing it with the appropriate State Government department - the Mines Department in New South Wales. At this point of time, I cannot make any further comment until these discussions are concluded, except to say that tomorrow there will be a meeting between the Miners Federation-

Mr Whitlam:

– That microphone noise was the Malaysians!

Mr SWARTZ:

– lt is interesting to know that the Leader of the Opposition apparently is not interested in this matter, which is of vital importance to a large number of people in New South Wales and of importance to our economy as a whole. I was pointing out, in conclusion, that I cannot make any further comment at the moment, except to say that tomorrow there will be a meeting between the Miners Federation and the Joint Coal Board. After that meeting, I hope to be in a position to make some further comment.

page 1214

QUESTION

INSPECTORIAL GRADES

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Could the Prime Minister inform me when the recommendations of the Inspectorial Grades Review Committee arising out of the Stoner report will be implemented? Is he aware that the delay in finalising this review is involving inspectorial personnel in the loss of approximately $500 per annum? Does the Prime Minister know that the morale of technical grade officers is at an all time low due to the lag in salary adjustments and reclassification? Is he aware that the Stoner report reduced 29 classifications to 6? Finally, are not inspectorial grades worthy of sub-professional status?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I am well aware of the 5 statements made in the honourable gentleman’s question. As he knows, I had already referred the matter to the Public Service Board which had given me answers to certain questions asked by him. Last Thursday or last Friday, I believe, I signed a letter setting out details of the report I had received from the Public Service Board. Nonetheless, knowing of the honourable member’s great interest in the matter - particularly in the loss in salaries that might be involved - I have again taken the matter up with the Public Service Board. The honourable member can hope to get another letter from me as soon as I am able to get a reply from the Public Service Board itself.

page 1215

QUESTION

PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen the text of a proclamation issued by President Nixon to mark a national week of concern for Americans who are prisoners of war or who are missing in action in Indo-China? Will the Minister ensure that the President’s proclamation and the tragic situation which it describes are brought to the attention of the Australian people?

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

-I have seen the text of the proclamation. It declares a week of national concern from, I think, the 26th of this month. I would like to express our deep concern and compassion for those who are prisoners of war or missing and for the families who are suffering as a result. Perhaps one might say that Australia has been less unfortunate than the United States in that I know of only 4 Australians, that is 2 soldiers missing presumed dead, and 2 Air Force personnel missing, who would fall into the category covered by the proclamation, while the Americans have over 1,600 servicemen and about 50 civilians in that category. The North Vietnamese are parties to the Geneva Convention relating to prisoners of war. I think we must condemn the fact that they will not identify their prisoners of war. They will not permit inspection of the areas where they are held. They will not permit those who are wounded or sick to be repatriated. They will not permit correspondence. These are breaches of the Geneva Convention. One would hope that the appeal made by the President of the United States, which I believe has the support of all men of goodwill throughout the world, will have some effect on the intransigent attitude of the North Vietnamese.

page 1215

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. How much longer has the South Australian economy to suffer the additional burden of cost because of the lack of overseas air cargo services? Is it a fact that on-carriage to an international airport from Adelaide involves at least a minimum of 10c per lb extra for internal freight? Is it a fact that exporters, with the support of the South Australian Government, have over the last 2 years repeatedly made representations direct to the Minister for at least one direct overseas flight a week out of Adelaide for the United States, and Europe and one direct Asian flight a week? Will the Minister take immediate steps to implement the services requested by the exporters and the South Australian Government and thereby place South Australian exporters on a competitive basis with manufacturers in the other States?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I appreciate the answer given by the honourable member. I only wish that I had a question to put to it. He certainly has provided some information, the facts of which I am unable to check at the moment; but as he states that he has been in communication with my colleague in another place, I will see that the matter is raised with my colleague and a suitable answer forwarded.

page 1215

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Education and Science seen a statement in today’s Press attributed to a Labor member of Parliament that Government grants to private schools are corrupt? Can the Minister advise what are the facts in relation to Government grants to private schools?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Can the honourable member for Maranoa vouch for the accuracy of the statement in the Press?

Mr CORBETT:

– All that I can say is that it appeared in the Press.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Minister for Education and Science. “ Mr MALCOLM FRASER - A statement did appear in the Press which resulted, I believe, from a quite deliberate Press statement made by the honourable member for Bendigo. That Press statement has been issued and copies of it are available. I would like <to remind the House of the basic reason for the special capital aid provided to independent schools in the Australian Capital Territory. This was introduced initially because of the virtually forced removal of large numbers of public servants from capital cities of the States to the Australian Capital Territory and to give them some prospect in the newly developing city of having available to them the same kind of independent school facilities as would have been available had they remained in Melbourne or Sydney. But the alleged facts that have been contained in a number of statements made in recent times are very often just not facts, and I would like to mention one or two. lt was indicated that a payment of $100,000 had been made for a school whose enrolment was 21. The planned enrolment of that school is 100. It was stated that $5,000 a head was the cost of a pupil placed in that school. In fact, the aid that we do provide to the independent schools is worked out on the same basis as the cost per pupil placed in Government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. At the time that school was referred to that was about $1,200 per pupil place. Despite increased costs, that in fact has since been reduced to $900 which is comparable with costs in the States. In a statement issued a day later the honourable member for Bendigo indicated that the costs per pupil place were now $2,000. He had changed it from $5,000 to $2,000, but in the second statement he claimed to have added interest payments. Technically, it therefore should have been a larger sum. In fact, it was $3,000 a pupil place less.

But it does not make sense to include the interest payments that might be involved in the cost per pupil place.

I would only like to draw the House’s attention to the non-repayable capital grant made available to the States which enables them to build school buildings on a straight out basis without any interest repayments if they choose to do so. The honourable member said that the Government had concealed this policy of support in the Australian Capital Territory. That also is false. It has been referred to several times in the departmental reports of my Department, in the 1970 annual report, in answers to questions by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory and others, and in the departmental bulletin of 8th August. It has been policy since 1965. I would believe that if the attitude shown by the honourable member for Bendigo is widely known in his own electorate it will do him no good and the Government much good later this year. I would like to know also the views of the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory, many of whose electors are in schools that they would not otherwise be able to be in if this policy did not exist.

I would ask only that the House judge the tenor of the honourable member for Bendigo’s comments by these direct quotations from his statements. Referring to the policy be said this is the ‘last word in the insanity of Liberal State aid’. It was ‘absolutely immoral and unjustifiable’. He said that the Government had ‘become drunk with the mania of State aid’. He used the words ‘luxuriating in the colossal lavishness of the Commonwealth Government’ and crazed with the madness of a mindless State aid scheme’. He said .also that Liberal Ministers had produced a ‘sophisticated system of political cowardice’. He said: This is State aid gone crazy. This is a corrupt system’. They are the remarks of an extremist, a bigot opposed to State aid.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

- Mr Speaker, I withdraw that word. They are the remarks, Mr Speaker, of somebody who is very much opposed to State aid and who would obviously be at one with Senator Murphy and others in the other place who are opposed to Government support for independent schools.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Before I call the next member to ask a question I draw the attention of the House to the length of answers during question time today. I have appealed to Ministers on many occasions. If the practice of making long answers is not corrected I am afraid that in the near future the Chair will have to take some action about the length of answers to Qestions.

page 1217

QUESTION

PEAS

Mr DUTHIE:

– Has the Minister for Trade and Industry anything to report on my representations of 3 weeks ago concerning the menace to Australian blue pea growers of imports of blue peas from New Zealand? Is the Minister aware that New Zealand blue peas are being cleaned in Sydney and sold at $2.30 a bushel whereas the Tasmanian grown blue peas cannot be sold in Sydney for less than $3 a bushel because of sea freight costs? Will the Minister’s New Zealand-Australia trade panel act to save this important industry in Australia from strangulation by New Zealand?

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

– It is true that the honourable member for Wilmot made representations to me expressing his concern for the blue pea industry in Tasmania and drawing attention to the threat to the industry from imports from New Zealand. All I want to say is that it is true that the New Zealanders can land blue peas in Sydney at a cheaper price but there is a preference by processors to use the Tasmanian blue pea because of its better quality. Following receipt of his representations I expected that the bean and pea panel which met at the beginning of this month also might have been concerned because that is the proper place in which to bring up this matter. It was not raised there. If the industry is still very concerned about the matter I suggest that it refer it to the panel and my Department then will act on the recommendation of the panel and take whatever action is necessary to correct the situation.

page 1217

ECONOMY

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer the Treasurer to the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television programme ‘Monday Conference’ screened last night on which Mr Gordon Barton, the convenor of the Australia Party, appeared. I quote from a transcript of that programme. Mr Barton said: I was concerned about trends in the Australian economy last August when I was abroad-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member shall not quote from a document at question time. He may paraphrase it or he may be able to use so much of it as to make the question intelligible. He will be out of order if he quotes from it.

Mr MacKELLAR:

– I shall paraphrase it. Mr Barton said that he was concerned about the Australian economy when he was abroad last August and had written to the Treasurer setting out his views in a long letter. When he was asked whether he had received an answer to this letter he replied ‘No’. I ask the Treasurer: Did he receive the long letter that Mr Barton claims he sent? Did he answer it? Can he inform me of the substance of the suggestions contained in the letter and will he outline his reply, if in fact he did reply?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I happened to see the programme last night and I asked my office to check because I had a recollection, firstly, of receiving a letter and, secondly, of replying to it. I have looked up the letters. I did receive a letter from Mr Barton, written-

Mr Reynolds:

– Was it a hush question?

Mr SNEDDEN:

– Oh, no. Indeed, it is honourable members opposite who have the hush questions. Honourable members opposite know very well that their executive emerged from a meeting in Adelaide last week proud of the fact that they had not made a single decision. The members of the executive were frightened - every one of them - to face up to their policies. I received a letter from Mr Barton. I re-read it today. I might say that it covered a little over a page and was couched in very friendly terms. I received it a little after the Budget was presented and shortly before I went overseas. My reply was dated 22nd November. In it I explained that I had been overseas, hence the delay. I do not know whether he received my reply. As the matter has been raised, I will communicate with him about it. As it was a letter that was written to me personally and as my reply was directed to him, I would not like to disclose the contents of the letters without his concurrence, although I have no reason not to disclose the contents of either of them. But I will communicate with him and make sure that he has received a copy of my letter. At the time he was concerned about maintaining a growth in the gross national product, and he put in context the question of inflation with a continued growth in the GNP. We were able to agree, at any event, that the classic remedies for controlling inflation are tar to costly for a country to afford.

page 1218

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Mr REYNOLDS:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is the Minister aware of the widespread and increasing dissatisfaction and sense of insecurity among employees of Qantas Airways Ltd? Is morale among employees at an all-time low? Has this unhappy situation arisen from a heavy and continuing programme of retrenchment, early retirement and downgrading of employment status within that airline’s work force? Is the feeling among employees of Qantas that the airline’s interests have been sold out in order to obtain increased export quotas of primary products in the United States of America justified? Finally, can the Minister inform the House of any steps currently being taken to halt further disruption of that airline’s work force?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I think I should make it clear to the House - I am sure it is known by all honourable members who can appraise a situation in a fair way - that Qantas, a major airline which operates as the flag carrier for Australia, is recognised for the particularly high standard that it has achieved in aviation circles throughout the world. It is a company which has operated efficiently and effectively. It is a company which has raised Australia’s prestige in many countries of the world. There has been no change in the high standard being maintained by Qantas. The service that is being provided is up to the best standard in the world. Its record is as good as that of any other airline operating today. Its class of equipment is up to world standards. I pay a tribute to the staff of Qantas. The flying staff, the ground staff and the administrative staff are all playing an important part in an important airline, and are all carrying out their tasks in a very efficient way.

My experience of Qantas over the years has been that, despite difficulties at times, the morale of the staff has always been good. I believe that today morale is still good. I know from discussions wilh my colleague, the Minister for Civil Aviation, that there has been a slight downturn in world figures for international air traffic and that Qantas has been affected by this situation, as have the other major operators throughout the world, but proportionately Qantas is not losing what Pan Am, Trans World Airlines, United Airlines and the other major airlines in the United States are losing. Qantas is losing proportionately less. In fact, if one looks at Qantas’s record one finds that the company came out with another profit at the end of last year, although it was not up to the figure for the previous year.

Obviously, because of a downturn in the international aviation field it has been necessary for Qantas, despite the fact that it is maintaining a very substantial share of the market and maintaining it well, to reduce its staff to a certain degree. We can only regret that. 1 do hope that the situation will change and that Qantas will be able to re-establish itself in the international aviation field, and not only to maintain its present share of the world traffic market but to increase it. When that happens Qantas will be in a position to expand its staff. I will see that the points which the honourable member has raised are referred to my colleague in another place for his information. But I repeat that I am sure the morale of Qantas today is as high as it has ever been in the past.

page 1218

QUESTION

RURAL FINANCE

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Treasurer seen a recent report of an economic research committee formed by the United Farmers and Graziers of South Australia Incorporated which has recommended the setting up of a Commonwealth rural bank to provide farmers with long term, low interest loans? What action is being taken by the Government in connection with this matter?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I have seen a Press article about the report; I have not seen the report itself. The Government is greatly aware of the importance of long term finance in the rural sector, and we have the matter under study. My colleague the Minister for Primary Industry has made it clear that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is conducting a deep study into the whole question of the demand for and the supply of credit for the rural sector. That study is being pressed on with and as soon as the results are received the Government will be in a position to consider the whole “er. including the possibility of establishing a lending authority in the rural area.

page 1219

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY HEALTH SERVICES INQUIRY

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for the Interior a question about the board of inquiry which has now been appointed, following a resolution by the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory 10 months before, to inquire into and report upon medical and hospital services in the Territory, including all aspects of medical services provided to the Territory’s Aboriginal people. In particular, my question concerns the public advertisement that neither that board nor the Commonwealth will accept responsibility for expenses incurred in making a submission or appearing before the board. I ask the honourable gentleman: Will senior counsel be appointed to assist this board, as in the case of the inquiry into general medical practitioners’ fees in New South Wales, and will that counsel be available to assist Aborigines and their well-wishers in the preparation and presentation of their written and ora] submissions?

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

– I think it is a well established practice that persons who wish to appear before commissions or committees of inquiry on a voluntary basis do so on the basis that they meet their own costs of attendance. With respect to the last part of the question, I will make further inquiries to ascertain whether this sort of facility will be available to assist Aborigines. I want to make it clear that I have had discussions with the officers of my Department to ensure that this committee of inquiry travels throughout the Northern Territory so that Aborigines can give evidence before it as much as possible - to ensure that the committee goes to Aboriginal centres or to as many of them as possible.

page 1219

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the possibility of securing cheaper wool shipping freights to Europe and Great Britain by using a certain overseas shipping line? Will the freighting of Australian wool overseas by this method result in considerable savings to the industry? Will the Minister inform the House as to the position of this important item?

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

– Freight has always been an important component in the returns which exporters gain from whichever commodity they sell overseas. Regrettably, escalating costs in freight charges are one of the items which very adversely, affect all commodities - wool no less than others. One of the matters which will be taken into account by those negotiating for the next contractual term, which, I under-; stand will begin later this year, is the alternative forms of transport which are submitting offers for the carriage of wool. Ofcourse this will be one of the matters which will be of fundamental consideration in determining whether the conference contractual systems which existed in the past will be a satisfactory basis upon which the wool -industry can negotiate its economic cartage. Essentially this is a matter for negotiation by the industry itself. My colleague the Deputy Prime Minister has recently announced the formation of a shippers’ council. Within that council and during the course of the negotiations I feel that the interests of the exporters can be brought into some relativity. 1 am sure that in the negotiations when the interests of all exporters are considered it will be possible also to give adequate consideration to all the forms of transport which may be offering.

page 1219

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING POLICY

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

-] ask the Treasurer a question relating to Government purchasing policy. In an article under his name in the March issue of the magazine Australian Purchasing’ the Treasurer stated-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! As I said earlier to the honourable member for Warringah, you will be out of order if you quote from any document or newspaper during the asking of a question. If you care to paraphrase such matter in the question I will allow you to proceed.

Mr STEWART:

– Did the Treasurer in an article in the magazine ‘Australian Purchasing’ state that if the comparison between Australian goods and overseas goods went against the Australian manufactured goods the position was reviewed at Ministerial level? If so, is this Ministerial review applied in every case in which imported goods are purchased in preference to Australian goods? If so, which Minister makes the review?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The manner in which this control of purchasing by the Commonwealth - which is after all the biggest purchaser of commodities in Australia - is carried out is through, primarily, the Minister for Supply. He has assisting htm interdepartmental consultation and, following that, consultation among Ministers. It is a matter for the Prime Minister to determine who shall constitute an interdepartmental committee or a committee of the Cabinet.

page 1220

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr ERWIN:

– I wish to ask the Minister for Education and Science a question. Did the Opposition in this House vote against the States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill last week? Did it do the same in the other place?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– In this House the Opposition did not vote against the legislation. It included in its amendment to the motion for the second reading a provision of which I do not have the exact words but which stated that it did not refuse the Bill a second reading and then went on with the burden of the Opposition’s amendment. That could not be construed as complete opposition to the Bill, but in the other place it was a different matter. The amendment which was moved there was in flat opposition to the Bill. As I recall it the Bill was opposed by all members of the Australian Labor Party in the other Chamber.

page 1220

QUESTION

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health who was previously the Minister for Health. I ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Mr Jago, the New South Wales Minister of Health, in the Legislative Assembly - I shall paraphrase the statement - that many people might not know that though belonging to a voluntary health insurance scheme they were not covered if they were in a psychiatric hospital; the State Government, therefore, was not developing any more psychiatric hospitals; it was developing psychiatric wards in public hospitals in order to make the patients in those wards eligible for Commonwealth subsidy. Is the Minister satisfied with the position under the Government’s health scheme in which the financial treatment of psychiatric patients depends on whether they are admitted to psychiatric wards of public hospitals or psychiatric wards of psychiatric hospitals? When will the Government accept the recommendation made to the Commonwealth in 1968 by the State Health Ministers, who said that there was no justification for discrimination between the physically ill and the mentally ill in relation to health and welfare benefits?

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

– I have not seen the statement by Mr Jago. I am aware, however, that as a matter of policy benefits are not paid in relation to persons admitted to institutions which cater wholly or primarily for the mentally ill. I should explain here that at the time the health insurance scheme came into being there was a very good reason for this policy. The good reason for it was that no State government made charges in its mental institutions, so that there was no point in covering them for insurance. I will need to check this with my colleague, but I think I am still right in saying that only in New South Wales and South Australia are fees charged even today.

The Commonwealth Government regards the care of the mentally ill as basically, historically and fundamentally a responsibility of the State governments. The Commonwealth Government makes its contribution through the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act. It believes it completely right and proper that the State governments should carry on their historical role in this matter, as indeed 4 of the Australian States still do by not charging mental patients. However, the Commonwealth Government has no desire to discriminate against mental patients, and where the State governments, which are responsible for health institutions, do not discriminate - that is, where they treat mental patients in genera] hospitals - we do not discriminate in relation to health insurance.

page 1221

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MINERAL RESERVES

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Has the attention of the Minister for National Development been drawn to the claims by a conservationist, Dr John Coulter, that Australia’s huge deposits of iron ore will be exhausted in 16 years and that its bauxite deposits will be exhausted in 31 years? Has the Minister any idea what motivated Dr Coulter to make these claims? Is there justification to compare these claims to the reckless and irresponsible utterances, damaging to Australia, made last week by the honourable member sometimes described as the Australian Labor Party’s shadow minister for foreign affairs?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I did see a Press statement relating to a report of some seminar, I think it was, at which the person concerned did make the claims, or at which he was reported to have made the claims. 1 think that it is really an extraordinary statement because of its complete inaccuracy. The position regarding iron ore and bauxite, I think, is quite, well known to all members in this House for the simple reason that I publish quite regularly a document which shows a summary of our known reserves. It is made available to all honourable members who, I am sure, study it most carefully. They would, therefore, be aware of the facts.

The actual position is that some time ago when our total reserves were not known there was an embargo on the export of iron ore. When additional reserves were discovered, principally the enormous high quality reserves in the Pilbara area in Western Australia, that embargo was removed. Subsequent to that, further discoveries of iron ore have been made. Bauxite was discovered at Weipa, at Gove, in the southwestern part of Western Australia and also later at the Mitchell plateau - some of the deposits being the best and largest in the world.

I conclude by saying that the figures to which reference has been made are inaccurate. The latest publication issued by the Bureau of Mineral Resources, which comes within the jurisdiction of my Department, classifies the known or proven reserves in Australia in categories of very large, large, adequate, small and very small. The ‘very large’ category applies to deposits which will cover the known requirements, domestically and in the export field, for over 100 years. Strange to say, both bauxite and iron ore come under that classification.

page 1221

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– Mr Speaker, I have been misrepresented and I seek to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes. I was informedI have checked this - ‘that on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s programme ‘This Day Tonight’ last night the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) stated:

At that point-

The honourable gentleman was referring to the point after the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) had spoken in the House last Thursday morning -

Mr Whitlam chose to bring politics and personalities back into it and to obtrude into a sectarian situation in a way that the Prime Minister wanted to answer with a motion of principle. But he couldn’t go ahead with it because he wasn’t supported by his own Party.

At no time did I obtrude politics and personalities into what I said last Thursday morning. After the honourable member for Perth had spoken, I moved for the suspension of Standing Orders. The fact that I did not obtrude politics or personalities into my speech is shown by the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), without debate, agreed to the suspension of Standing Orders. Thereupon I moved a substantive motion. The fact that I did not obtrude politics or personalities into my speech when moving that motion is shown by the fact that the House unanimously adopted it.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– I feel that purely for the record’s sake I should comment

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member has not yet claimed to have been misrepresented.

Mr KENNEDY:

– I would like to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr KENNEDY:

– Yes. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made certain allegations about me. Those allegations are false. In commenting on why I made those statements let me say that the reasons that he gave today as to why the facilities for education in the Australian Capital Territory are so outstanding amount, in my opinion, to a philosophy of portability of privilege for public servants. That is the very reason 1 made the statements.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will not debate the question.

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr MACKAY:

– -Yes. In the television programme to which reference has just been made I called one motion a motion of principle. It was a general motion which stated that the Government Parties as a whole repudiated and condemned antisemitism and that they stood firm in this regard. The other motion to which I referred as bringing politics and personalities into the debate was one which, rather than taking the matter of principle as I have just described it, chose to align these matters with an alleged statement by a member of the Liberal Party, thus bringing in an individual and as a member of a political party. It was this motion to which I referred.

page 1222

EDUCATION

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present a statement setting out the amounts paid as per capita grants to independent schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory during 1971.

page 1222

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

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

– by leave- I move:

That this House supports the partial relaxation of the embargo on the export of merino rams as recommended by the Australian Wool Industry Conference.

The purpose of this motion is to resolve the’ deplorable situation which has developed in regard to the export of merino rams from Australia. As a result of a politically motivated, illegal black ban placed on the handling and transportation of merino rams for export by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, aided and abetted by the Australian Labor Party, a number of rams which have been purchased by overseas countries cannot be delivered. The ban has prevented Australian exporters from honouring their commitments in international trade and, unless removed, will continue to interfere with overseas trade and damage Australia’s good name in the eyes of the world. In spite of the fulfilling of the suggested conditions precedent to its removal, the ban remains. As a result, the Australian stud merino industry, labouring under a significant reduction in local demand for rams, is denied the additional competition which the partial relaxation of the export ban would provide - with the consequential financial penalty this involves. It is imperative that this illegal ban imposed by the ACTU be removed immediately; otherwise sale contracts for merino rams sold for export at the recent Sydney sales will be cancelled and a further financial sanction inflicted on this great Australian industry. For anyone who has taken the trouble to study the history of the merino export embargo and the factors which led to its partial relaxation, it is incomprehensible that the ACTU should take the attitude which it has adopted.

Let us look at the historical facts. On 27th November 1929 the Scullin Labor Government imposed, by administrative action, a ban on the export of stud sheep from Australia. This action was taken hastily, without adequate research and without proper consultation with Australian wool growers generally. It was taken without any referendum or poll of wool growers. From my own investigations it appears that the ban was imposed in response to representations then received from a section of wool growers in only one Australian State. Indeed, the policy of the Australian Woolgrowers Council, which was then the only Federal wool grower organisation, was against the imposition of an embargo.

The ban was announced in the House, but only after the necessary proclamation had been signed by the Governor-General. A short debate took place, but a vote was not taken on the subject. The ban was subsequently modified - again administratively - to exclude non-merino stud sheep; but it remained on all merino breeding sheep. Over the years the merino export embargo remained a controversial subject, with wool grower organisations being sharply divided in their attitudes.

It was not until 1962 that positive action was taken with a view to resolving the situation. At the request of the Australian Agricultural Council, the newly formed Australian Wool Industry Conference was asked to consider the matter from the point of view of the industry. The Wool Industry Conference initiated research into all aspects of the embargo and obtained expert advice from all relevant authorities. The results of this research were distributed to wool grower organisations so that they could examine the issues involved prior to the matter being considered by the Wool Industry Conference.

The whole matter was debated in detail by the Wool Industry Conference in June 1967 and again in November 1968. At the latter meeting the Conference recommended a partial relaxation of the embargo for one year subject to stringent safeguards. This decision was carried by a vote of 37 to 16. The conditions recommended by the Conference to apply to the partial relaxation were:

  1. Not more than 300 merino rams to be sold for export in any one year. (if) The prohibition on the export of merino ewes, semen and fertilised ova to be continued. (Mi) Export approvals to be issued only for merino rams sold at public auction sales nominated by the State member associations of the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders.
  2. the partial relaxation to be reviewed before the end of the 3 year period.

The Government accepted the recommendation of the Conference and this was announced by the then Minister for Primary Industry in the House of Representatives on 20th March 1969. Following protests from some sections , of the industry, however, the Government deferred implementation of partial relaxation in order to allow time for the opponents to put their views to the Wool Industry Conference. In December 1969, after 9 months had elapsed, my predecessor asked the Conference to state its position. The executive of the Conference advised that it could see no reason to reconsider the issue. Accordingly, the Minister decided to give effect to the partial relaxation as from 1st February 1970.

The initial period of relaxation was due to expire on 31st January 1971 but pending a review of the first year’s results by the Australian Wool Industry Conference, the executive of the Conference recommended that, as an interim measure, the period of relaxation be extended to 31st March 1971 but without any change in the annual ceiling of 300 rams. As soon as the limited relaxation of the embargo came into effect in February 1970, the Australian Council of Trade Unions imposed a black ban on the handling and transportation of any merino rams sold for export. The implications are frightening. One wonders whether the Labor Party, the alternative Government, if ever elected, would in fact ever be able or allowed to govern when non-industrial action by the ACTU of this character can effectively interrupt normal and legitimate commercial transactions. During the first period of the partial relaxation of the export embargo a total of 222 rams were sold for export to a number of overseas countries. Because of the ACTU ban, however, great difficulty was experienced by Australian agents in delivering these rams to their overseas purchasers. The agents were forced to make costly private arrangements for transport of rams so as to meet their obligations to overseas clients.

To facilitate delivery when all commercial means had failed, the Government also made RAAF facilities available. There the refuelling and servicing of a charter aircraft was undertaken to carry a consignment of rams to their destinations. In other cases, purchases of rams for export had to be cancelled because of difficulties in obtaining delivery. The first year of the partial relaxation of the export embargo was reviewed by the Wool Industry Conference on 16th and 17th March 1971 and by a vote of 31 to 17 the Conference recommended the continuation of the relaxation for another year on the same terms and conditions. This was accepted by the Government. During this period a total of 50 rams were sold for export. There is little doubt that the ACTU ban had discouraged many potential overseas buyers from making purchases. Once again, Australian agents were put to great expense and inconvenience in trying to deliver the rams.

On 25th and 26th November 1971 the Wool Industry Conference reviewed the second year of the partial relaxation and by a vote of 31 to 18 recommended that partial relaxation be continued for a further 3 years until 31st January 1975, on the same terms and conditions as had applied previously. The main reasons for extending the partial relaxation for a period of 3 years were to remove uncertainly in the minds of overseas purchasers of rams arising from annual extension and also to allow for the better planning of rams sales. The Government again adopted the recommendation of the Conference and I announced this decision in the House of Representatives on 9th December 1971. The decision was the result of prolonged examination and consideration by the Australian Wool Industry Conference. The Government did not consider, nor did the industry recommend, that the matter should be referred to any other body. Nor did it recommend that it should be referred for consideration by a poll of growers. Instead the matter was debated by this House and no dissenting vote was recorded when the House took note of my statement. Since the commencement of the current period of the partial relaxation on 1st February 1972, 10 rams have been sold for export. Attempts have been made by Australian agents to air freight the rams by normal commercial channels but because of the threat of the ACTU to place a ban on the airlines operations if they handled merino rams for export no airline has been prepared to accept bookings.

In the contracts of sale, a period of 6 weeks to effect delivery was allowed. The Government therefore did not precipitously rush in to intrude in what it saw as a normal, legitimate commercial transaction. This period has just expired and delivery therefore can no longer be delayed. The action by the ACTU is particularly reprehensible in the light of recent develop ments. Following my statement in the House in December last year on the embargo and the ensuing debate, I understand that sheepbreeder organisations approached the ACTU and asked it to reconsider its position. Notwithstanding an earlier promise which I understand the ACTU made to sheepbreeder organisations that it would reconsider its attitude once the question of the embargo had been debated in the House and voted upon, the whole position is still unchanged. I have been informed that the ACTU undertook to consider its stand on the embargo at the meeting of its Executive in February last. It failed to do so.

Because of the events which I have outlined I am sure that the House will agree that the actions of the ACTU in this matter are reprehensible and difficult to understand. The action which the ACTU, as an industrial body, has taken is tantamount to dictating to the woolgrowers of Australia how to run their affairs. Arguments can be adduced for and against the relaxation of the merino export embargo. It is not my intention to canvass them here. As I indicated earlier the arguments have been critically examined by the Australian Wool Industry Conference which, as the national body of woolgrowers, is surely best qualified to judge on the merits or otherwise of the embargo. After long and intensive study the Wool Industry Conference concluded that a partial relaxation of the embargo was desirable and it has reaffirmed this decision on successive occasions. The Government has acted on (he advice of the Conference.

The continuation of the ACTU ban is depriving Australian studs of the opportunity to earn some extra income at a time when the studs are experiencing serious financial difficulties due to the depressed conditions which have prevailed in the wool industry. I am sure the House fully appreciates the importance of maintaining these great merino studs, particularly the parent studs, if our great Australian wool industry is to prosper. Many of these studs are in difficult financial straits. They can neither afford to fail to meet their contractual obligations through non-delivery of rams sold nor the loss of sales which results from the absence of buyers uncertain of the studs capacity to effect delivery.

Indeed the studs did anticipate normal commercial delivery after the Sydney sales in February. They attempted bookings in the normal way. Their belief was based not only on the understood ACTU intention to lift the ban but on the failure to enforce it on the then most recent occasion when rams were presented for shipment. This, Mr Speaker, is one of the most frightening aspects of the sorry record of events.

In December 1971 no opposition was offered by the ACTU nor any unionist to the export by ship of 29 rams to the People’s Republic of China consigned ex the Port of Melbourne. It seems curiously inconsistent when the ACTU had gone to extreme lengths in attempting to prevent the export of merino rams to non-Communist countries. It appears therefore that the ACTU policy on the embargo varies according to the political ideology of the countries to which the rams are exported. Their motivation - and presumably that of the Opposition - derives not then from the issue of whether rams should be exported, nor from whether there should be a referendum nor from the alleged absence of parliamentary resolution of the matter but from the politics of the countries to which rams were sold. As I have mentioned in my previous statements, the export of merino rams is in no sense an industrial issue. It is not a proper concern for trade unions. It is clear therefore that the ACTU is interfering for political reasons in a field which is outside its area of responsibility. There is little doubt that in so doing it has the support of the Australian Labor Party. The action taken by the ACTU has led to the frustration of legitimate commercial transactions. It has prevented Australian exporters from meeting their obligations to overseas clients. At the same time, it has damaged Australia’s good name as a trading partner.

The ACTU black ban on the export of merino rams has no logical basis. It cannot be justified on any grounds. It is high time the Council removed this ban which, apart from anything else, casts doubt on its standing as a responsible body. The Government does not intend indefinitely to leave the question of delivery of rams sold within the agreed terms of relaxation of the ban to be determined by the whim of the ACTU and the Labor Party, particularly as the whim is orientated in one direction where the sales are to Communist China and another when elsewhere. Following this debate and a second vote on the matter, I intend to ask the exporters to again endeavour to export through normal commercial channels, the rams purchased for export and still awaiting delivery. If their efforts should again be frustrated, the Government will stand behind the exporters in determining a means to ensure delivery. Australia’s international reputation as a dependable and reliable trading nation cannot be put at risk simply because of the politically orientated motives of the ACTU or the Opposition. I commend the motion to the House.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– Without doubt this is one of the shallowest statements that I have ever heard from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). It has been made simply for the purpose of delivering an attack on the Australian Council of Trade Unions. We have even heard once again coming into this question the familiar Country Party ploy of the Communist bogy. I can assure the Minister for Primary Industry that if he goes around Australia today he will be wasting his time trying to raise the Communist bogy again. The people of Australia, including the primary producers, have seen through it and have had enough of this Government’s use of this device. Anybody who needed any proof of who is represented by the Minister for Primary Industry has it now. He is interested in the major stud breeders of Australia. He is not interested in the small wool grower, the bona fide traditional family man who is growing wool. Not on your life. He is interested in the major stud breeders of Australia, the people who no doubt are providing party funds for the Country Party. I intend to move an amendment to this motion. To the Minister’s motion That this House supports the partial relaxation of the embargo on the export of merino rams as recommended by the Australian Wool Industry Conference’ I move:

In other words, the Opposition is prepared to support the partial relaxation of the embargo on the export of merino rams as recommended by the Australian Wool Industry Conference if the majority of wool growers affected decide by referendum or other fair means in favour of removing or relaxing the embargo. I shall refresh the Minister’s memory a little abou.1 the history of this matter and discuss some of the points that he omitted to mention. In 1950 Sir Ian Clunies Ross, Chairman of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, authorised an investigation of scientific and economic effects of the embargo. In 1951, he recommended that the embargo be lifted or partially lifted. This recommendation was placed before the Australian Agricultural Council, but Sir John McEwen, who was leader of the Australian Country Party at that time, would have absolutely nothing to do with it. He refused to accept the recommendation in any circumstances and for 10 years it was buried. There was no mention of it during that time.

The next positive move came when wool prices started to decline and stud breeders’ incomes also started to decline. Pressure was then put on the Government to relax or to relax partially the embargo so that the stud breeders might receive a share of the lucrative market which until then had been denied to them. In November 1968 the Australian Wool Industry Conference decided by 37 votes to 16 - not by any absolute majority or by unanimous decision - partially to relax the embargo. If this Government, as the Minister for Primary Industry has implied, believed that the embargo was wrongly imposed in the first instance, why did the Minister for Trade (Mr Anthony), who was Minister for Primary Industry at that time, wait for 5 months before bringing the matter before the Parliament? If he subscribed to the view that the embargo was wrongly put on, why should he wait 5 months before raising the matter in this place? When a removal of the embargo was suggested we witnessed opposition throughout Australia from wool growers, industry organisations and even from State governments.

Mr Giles:

– What nonsense.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It is not nonsense. No-one in this place talks such nonsense as the honourable member for Angas. We all know what his capabilities are on this score. I propose to cite some remarks made by Mr Blacker, President of the United Western Lands Lessees Association of New South Wales. A document from that Association states:

  1. . SO per cent of the wool grown in New South Wales and a substantial percentage of the Australian clip was grown in the western division of the State, Mr Blacker said that the relaxation of the embargo by regulation in defiance of a vote in the Senate for its retention pending a plebiscite of growers was viewed by many, in the wool industry as an ‘appalling’ action.

The Federal Government could not, in fact, have chosen a more inappropriate time to discontinue the embargo. To vast numbers of growers in the western division it seemed like a ‘slap in the face’ while they were suffering acutely from the effects of low wool prices and ever-rising production costs.

A little later the document states:

He believed it was the duty of members of all parties to restore the authority of Parliament by re-imposing the export ban by parliamentary decision pending a plebiscite of growers. It was a matter of principle which should transcend party loyalties.

This is what the Opposition believes. To satisfy the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) 1 shall cite the remarks of the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Mr Chandler, contained in a written reply to a question by the member of the Legislative Assembly for Moonee Ponds. I do so so that there shall be no suggestion that I am taking his remarks out of context. The report of his answer states:

The Victorian Government believed there were strong reasons for opposing the sale of merino rams to overseas competitors.

Whatever may have been said to the contrary, competition from overseas buyers for merino rams will tend to raise the prices, reduce the numbers and lower the standard of rams available to Australian wool growers in the short-term at least.’

What is the attitude of the Graziers Association to this matter? A resolution moved by Mr M. N. Clark of Warialda called on the Association to seek the re-introduction of the embargo. This resolution was carried by a majority of 62 votes to 32. The AWIC majority in favour of this proposal was 37 to 16. Is this clear-cut evidence that the wool industry wants the embargo lifted? Does the Minister for Primary Industry really believe that the AWIC is truly representative of the wool growing industry? Does he believe that its decisions always should be taken as gospel? If so, why did the Government refuse to accept the recommendation by the AWIC for a reserve price scheme? That issue went to a referendum because there was controversy over the matter, the same as there is now. On that occasion, when the matter was submitted to the wool growers at a referendum they threw out the proposal.

Let us be consistent about this. If it is suggested that we must agree to representations made by the AWIC let there be no inconsistency as the Minister is now proposing. I do not intend to relate the whole history of this wrangle. The Senate’s rejection of the Government’s action is well known. Honourable members are aware of the involvement of the ACTU in this issue. There was an invitation to unions by wool growers to help the industry. There was the secret smuggling of sheep from airports, even under armed guard. It was admitted in the Parliament that this occurred at the Richmond air base. This was the sorry farce brought about by a weak and negative government.

I invite honourable members to consider the remarkable argument put up by Mr Anthony that the Government could not ignore the recommendations by the AWIC, which is the supreme industry body - the parliament of the wool growers - or determine the matter by referendum. If that is the case, why did we not have the same argument about the reserve price scheme when the growers would not agree with the recommendation from the AWIC? Let us look at the matter objectively. 1 think everybody in the Parliament will agree that a case has been established to show that there are serious differences of opinion within the wool industry. I have mentioned the attitudes of organisations and wool growers. Even State governments and the AWIC have come into the matter.

The Opposition’s attitude is clear. While there is this serious controversy, at least a right should be given to wool growers who are directly affected to express by referendum their views on the subject. But the Government is bowing to the wishes of and pressures from a small powerful group in the wool industry. The Government refuses point blank to allow wool growers to express themselves by referendum. The Labor Party will not agree to a relaxation of this 42-year ban until a vote has been given to wool growers. They are fully entitled to it and they are eligible so let us not have the type of argument that we cannot get a sufficiently representative poll or that we would not know which wool growers should vote. Any self-respecting statistician would be able to work this out immediately if he were given the terms of reference.

Let us examine the pros and cons of the arguments relating to the removal of the export ban. It is argued that the export of merino rams will raise the standard of wool throughout the world; that it will enable wool to compete more effectively with synthetics; that it will create an increased demand for wool and that it will give a boost to Australian stud breeders. These are some of the arguments. Remarkably, however, it is said by some that there would be no significant effect whatsoever because of the environmental restrictions of overseas countries as compared with Australia. If that is the case the Government, by relaxing this embargo, is deliberately antagonising large sections of the wool industry. The whole argument is full of inconsistencies.

The argument most frequently advanced in favour of the retention of the embargo is that merino wool is the best ail-purpose wool in the world, built up after years of research and husbandry, so why should Australia provide rams to overseas countries to compete against Australian wool producers? When the wool industry was financially sound there was no strong move by the stud breeders to sell the best rams overseas. Another argument - one which cannot be refuted - is that relaxation of the embargo will increase the price of stud rams to Australian wool growers. All the best rams will go overseas, because overseas countries have the most money to invest in them, and Australian wool growers will have to accept second best rams.

All these points have to be looked at. I personally have an open mind on this issue. I am fully aware, from my experience throughout Australia, that there is one salient scientific and economic fact, namely, for the gene build up of the Australian merino there has to be a climatic environment suitable to that particular gene. It is argued that Australia has the right environment. This is a grey area. It is questionable what other countries have these conditions and what countries do not have them.

In conclusion, the cold facts are these: The Government is being pressurised by a powerful group of vested interests of stud breeders, of agents and of pastoral houses to relax this embargo for their own financial gain. The Australian Wool Industry Conference does not democratically represent the views of the wool industry throughout Australia, particularly the small family traditional wool producer. The Government is arrogantly ignoring the rank and file wool growers who surely are entitled to express their opinion, through a democratic process, on a matter which affects them financially. The Government has arrogantly ignored the Senate direction given to it with respect to this matter. In other words, the Government is shamming in this Parliament. The Government’s bitterness against the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the unions of Australia is revealed in this motion today. Let the wool industry itself decide on this issue.

Mr Sinclair:

– It has.

Dr PATTERSON:

– It has? Does the Minister think that the AWIC, by a vote of 37 to 16, speaks for the entire wool industry of Australia? If he does then there are very few producers in Australia who do. Let the wool industry itself decide. Let the small bona fide traditional wool producers, who are the economic backbone of this nation in the wool growing areas, tell the Government whether they want the embargo relaxed. If there is a decision to relax the embargo partially along the lines of the motion, the Opposition will agree to it, but it will not agree to any partial relaxation of the embargo until the traditional wool growers of Australia have had the right to express their opinions in this matter.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– In seconding this motion I say very bluntly that the deplorable situation to which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has referred has been brought about entirely by the Minister and the Government. In fact, this entire situation is their responsibility. The only reason that the Minister is in !he chamber this afternoon and the only reason that the Government has at last permitted the Parliament to say anything at all is that the industry has recognised this responsibility and that the Government is guilty of causing all the confusion of the situation which members of the Opposition have tried to rectify for the last 2 years, indeed, throughout the whole life of this Parliament. I remind the Minister, in case he has forgotten, that on 18th March 1970 I indicated that the Government was allowing matters to drift and there were increasing requests by wool growers for the matter to be referred to them by referendum. He continued to ignore that proposal. The partial lifting of the ban was in defiance of the wishes of the Australian Senate. It was lifted in defiance of the expressed opinions of Victoria and Western Australia. It was lifted in defiance of the Woolgrowers Association of New South Wales, the Victorian Farmers Union and the United Farmers and Woolgrowers Association of New South Wales. The 2 New South Wales farmer and grazier organisations and the Victorian Farmers Union could claim to represent 56.6 per cent of the industry. These organisations were against lifting the ban. I might say that the Senate was also definite in its opposition to the lifting of the ban. On 18th March 1971 I directed a question to the Minister in connection with this and urged that this matter should be dealt with properly. I remind the Minister that on 29th April 1969 the Senate, by a majority of one, passed the following motion:

Thar the Senate is of opinion that the embargo on the export of merinos should not be removed at this rime and that the embargo should remain in force until a majority, of those persons affected shall decide by referendum or other fair means in favour of removing or relaxing the embargo.

There was no constructive response to that motion. Then, on 9th December 1971, the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and I sought to have the Minister present a prepared statement to the Parliament to enable the House properly to debate the issue. He denied us the opportunity. The House divided on the proposal and by a vote of 52 to 44 - a majority of 8 votes - members of the Opposition were denied a proper opportunity to debate the matter at that time.

Mr Sinclair:

– The House carried the motion without dissent.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I might say, despite the Minister’s noisy interjections, that he is in a fix because of his inadequacies in this matter. He only reflects the inadequacies of the Government at the same time. 1 am deeply concerned, as a representative of many fine and basic studs, that in recent years, as a result of the Government’s sponsored rural recession, the studs have been in a situation which has been increasingly difficult. In fact, last year alone they were 70 per cent down in their operations. They have not been able, in many cases, to get access to private finance to carry on their operations. They had hoped, when the wool subsidy was introduced, that they would be able to participate in that scheme and would get a share of it but, as the Minister knows, 90 per cent of the subsidy in some areas has gone, not to wool growers or to stud owners and operators at all, but to the pastoral finance companies, banks and other people who have a lien over particular flocks and sheep numbers. This is a situation where the much vaunted wool subsidy scheme has not helped a vital section of the industry. Of course, no-one on the Opposition side wants to see the dispersal of studs. It would take 20 years to put them back together again. Under the legislation of a Labor government they will be in a position of security compared with their present position. I speak of those who are seeking to serve the industry.

Let us just have a look at what the Minister has put to the House. It was really quite an incredible statement. He said:

On 27th November 1929 the Scullin Labor Government imposed, by administering action, a ban on the export of stud sheep from Australia. This action was taken hastily, without adequate research, and without proper consultation. . . .

That is a very interesting statement. It has taken the Minister and his colleague 40 years to wake up that this was hasty and jil advised. The Minister has spent the last 3 years in denying this Parliament an opportunity to properly debate this matter. I might say that we have been totally consistent on this subject. We have said that if the Minister wanted to impose a ban or to lift a ban we should discuss it in this place. There are some very exotic bans. This Government maintains a ban on the export of budgerigars. I do not know what the attitude is on this matter but perhaps the

Government is going to have a nice little conference somewhere to recommend that this ban should be lifted partially or entirely. Nothing would surprise me. I know that it is possible to have a referendum amongst the honey growers. We had that and we approved of it. There was no problem as far as the bee keepers were concerned but our great wool industry is to be denied a voice. Now, after 40 years, the Government has woken up and begun to count rams. This is very interesting.

This Government has never brought this matter to the Parliament. It has denied the Parliament any opportunity to decide. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) made it plain that as far as we were concerned - being interested in parliamentary procedures, dedicated to upholding them and seeing that they are properly observed - this matter should be brought to this House so that it can make a determination. He said that on behalf of members of the Opposition. This opportunity has continually been denied to us. Then the Minister has what I think are very serious things to say about our trade, particularly with China. We have had again a pattern of attacking China. I understand, of course, the motives of the Govern mont. But is it not incredible that the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), on the very first day that he took over this portfolio, sought to denigrate and smear China? In fact, he said he would not jeopardise his soul to sell wheat to China. I am not sure of the state of his soul, but I know that we have not sold any wheat to China.

We had the Minister for Primary Industry come into this House this afternoon and say that there is a deep plot to help the communist Chinese. What a poor thing to say when we have an industry which hopes to join the world rush for trade with China. I wonder what is this incredible phobia of the Minister for Primary Industry and his colleague in this continuing dislike of trade. This has nothing at all to do with politics. It has nothing to do with the emotionalisms of politics. This is a matter of international trade. I suggest that we as members of this Parliament have a responsibility to see to it that we are not out of step with the march of time now in regard to trade with China. Unfortunately the Government is.

The situation now is ‘.hat it has been suggested that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is in some way the guilty party. That is a very interesting observation in view of the fact that the ACTU has told the Minister and the Government that it was awaiting the expression of the will of the Parliament. The ACTU was an instrument of parliamentary democracy in this case. I might say that the only people who have denied the Parliament the opportunity to debate this mat’er and resolve it have been the Minister for Primary Industry and the Government generally. The Minister’s mishandling has caused this indecision and the difficulty. It is, of course, an embarrassing situation. It is a reprehensible situation to find that sales have been made from Australia to overseas countries, including China, much as the Government may not like it, and contracts have been entered into in a situation of complete indecision by the Government, the Parliament and the nation. The indecision is clearly the responsibility of the Government and the Minister. We have pleaded that the indecision be resolved. We tried. We are completely consistent because we said 3 years ago and we repeat it today: Let this great industry decide for itself.

The Minister may have another point of view. In fact, 1 think he does indicate his support for a partial relaxation of the embargo on the export of merino rams. He does attempt, of course, to support this with a reference to the Australian Wool Industry Conference, which is neither a democratic nor an acceptable body to the overwhelming majority of wool growers. So let the Minister take the responsibility for what he is proposing. Let the Government for once take some responsibility. It does so when it is in the mood but it usually likes to hide its decisions behind someone else. Let the Minister take the responsibility for this decision. He is the one who is putting it forward. He takes full responsibility for it. He and his predecessor should have done this before any decision was taken. It should have been properly done, not done in a bad and poor way.

Mr Sinclair:

– Make your mind up.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am saying this to you very bluntly. If I have not made myself clear, I think this is worth repeating for the Minister’s benefit in case he dropped off; I know that the afternoon is getting on. There should have been a reference to the industry in the first place. This is what we have consistency said. We have also said that if there is to be any determination it has to be made in this Parliament, and we have sought to have this done. There has been nothing inconsistent about our stand.

Mr Sinclair:

– We debated it. You had every opportunity.

Mr GRASSBY:

– I say that there was no agreement at all and the Minister knows this. In fact he is in a situation of his own making and now a decision has to be made or will be made, I hope, by the House; this is what we desire. This is the sovereign Parliament of the nation, as sovereign as it can be under this administration. We have a responsibility to the people whom we represent. I am only sorry that this whole mess occurred in the way that it did, with the attempt by the Government to shift the responsibility on to the ACTU and to blame the communist Chinese - again I quote the Minister. This is a reprehensible thing to have done. It does no honour to the country. It does no good to the Government. It certainly does no good to our trading relationships. Our stand is clear. First of all, there is a great concern - and I share this concern - for the future of the stud industry. As a matter of fact, there is a need for definite support to be given. There is a need for the wool subsidy, which is being held up, blocked on its way to the growers and the studs, to flow to them.

I repeat that we on this side of the House do not want to see a situation where the best blood lines in this nation would be dispersed because it would take us 20 years to put them back together again. This is a clear situation as far as we are concerned. What we are debating is a great decision which touches on the industry but on which the industry has been denied the opportunity to express itself in a democratic way. As far as the Opposition is concerned, we rest on our consistent advocacy of the reference of this vital matter to the industry itself. I hope that in the meantime, because there is this continuing confusion, the Government will act with some dispatch. After 2 long years of waiting the penalties that have accrued to the good name of Australia and to the wool industry have been severe. It is more in sorrow than in anger that I castigate the Government for the situation that it has created and which we are trying to change. For these reasons I speak today and second the amendment.

Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP

– The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) referred to the statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) as a subterfuge. I am not quite sure of the honourable member’s definition of a subterfuge, but mine would not include an issue which has been debated 3 times in this House - this is the third time - and twice in the Senate. I would have thought that that would have given any subject a fair airing. Now the honourable member for Dawson, supported by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby), is asking for a referendum.

Dr Patterson:

– Not now; I have been asking for 4 years.

Mr STREET:

– The honourable member was asking for the partial relaxation of the ban. I think this question of a referendum has to be considered in this light: Most important of all, there was no referendum before the embargo on the export of merino rams was imposed in 1929. Secondly, what is envisaged, and what has happened, is not an abolition of the export ban but only a very limited relaxation of it. Thirdly, the relaxation is subject to stringent conditions which have been designed by wool growers themselves to safeguard the interests of Australian wool growers. Finally, the organisation which recommended a relaxation of the ban to the Government is made up of representatives of all Federal wool grower organisations, and the decision of the Australian Wool Industry Conference to make this recommendation was carried in the first place by a majority of 37 votes to 16 votes. No request was received by the Government for a referendum then. It is worth noting that on 2 occasions this issue has gone back to the AWIC and on another occasion it has gone back to the executive of the AWIC. On none of those occasions has there been a request from the grower organisation to hold a referendum on this matter.

The honourable member for Riverina at one stage had me worried a bit when he got on to wheat sales to China. However, he then got back to the subject of the debate when he implied that the embargo on the export of merino rams had been lifted - I remind him again that it has not been lifted; it has been partially relaxed - in defiance of the Parliament and some farmer organisations. One might just as well argue, as I pointed out a moment ago, that the embargo was imposed in defiance of the Parliament and some grower organisations. No vole was held in the Parliament when the embargo was imposed and no question was asked of the grower organisations, which were certainly not unanimous about the introduction of the embargo. The honourable member for Riverina referred repeatedly, as I understood him, to there having been no vote held in this House on this question. I think the honourable member . for Riverina must have been the only member of the House unaware that when the last debate occurred in this House and the motion was moved that the House take note of the Minister’s statement - I was quite clear in my mind - the House was endorsing the Minister’s statement.

Dr Patterson:

– You were not even here that night. We moved for the suspension of Standing Orders and honourable members opposite would not allow the debate to proceed.

Mr STREET:

– My recollection of the matter may be inaccurate, but that is as I remember it. I will stand corrected if I look up the record and find that I am wrong. The House endorsed the Minister’s statement. Perhaps the honourable member for Riverina was so busy talking at the time, which is not exactly an unusual occurrence in this place, that he missed what was going on.

I do not think that any other single issue concerned with primary industry has had such a long history of so much illinformed comment, particularly from people with little or no knowledge of the principles involved or of the industry itself. We are indebted to the Minister for Primary Industry for giving us a clear, concise account of all that has happened since the original decision to impose the ban. Although it has been said before, it should be repeated - I do so again - that this ban was imposed without a vote in this Parliament. It is also interesting that the original reason given for imposing the ban was the possibility of a local shortage of rams; that is, that Australian wool growers might not be able to buy enough rams for their own requirements. But quite clearly, whatever else may be said, this does not apply today. For a start, the number of rams involved, 300 a year, is extremely small in relation to the total number of rams available. I do not have the latest figures, but in 1967 some 200,000 merino rams were sold and some 300,000 remained unsold. My guess is that the proportion of unsold rams would be even higher today. But quite apart from that, the rams which would be bought for overseas interests would certainly not be the flock rams required by the traditional family wool grower about whom the honourable member for Dawson was talking. The expenses involved in exporting rams would certainly rule out the possibility of anything except stud rams being exported. It is also important to note that neither would the rams exported be the best rams in the country. Stud breeders always keep their top reserves for use in their own stud. So the original reasons for imposing the ban are irrelevant.

Other reasons have, of course, been put forward over the years but no new ones have appeared in this debate. For example, it has often been put in highly emotional terms that we would be selling our heritage if the ban is relaxed. Let us look a bit more closely at that argument. The first fact which should be noted is that Australia has no monopoly of the genes of the merino sheep. There are large flocks of high quality in South Africa, and millions of merinos in Russia. So the gene pool already extends far beyond Australia, and this has always been so. Then there is the fact that in the 1930s the ban on the export of stud sheep was lifted for PO.warths and corriedales, on the very sound ground that these breeds were available in other countries anyway. It will no doubt be news to the Opposition that genetically the corriedale is 50 per cent merino and the polwarth is 75 per cent merino. There is nothing magical in merino wool in comparison with corriedale or polwarth wool. We now know that easily the most important characteristic of wool is its fibre diameter. But I have seen core-test certificates of corriedale wool which give the same micron measurement as strong merino wool, just as I have seen core-test certificates of polwarth wool which give the same micron measurement as medium merino wool. So far as wool use is concerned, the manufacturer could not care less what the breed is. What concerns him is the manufacturing characteristics of the wool. The most important element involved is fibre diameter, which can be the same for different breeds of sheep. For over 30 years sheep producing wool of similar micron measurement to merino wool have been freely exported from Australia.

The final extension of the selling our heritage argument is that it is really the fine wool we should be worrying about. It is said that fine wool sheep are unique to Australia and we must maintain our monopoly of them. Here again the argument does not stand up. Firstly, it is very doubtful whether we do in fact have a monopoly of fine wool sheep, which may be. defined roughly as those having wool with a micron measurement of less than 19. Secondly - and the honourable member for Dawson did mention this point - the environment in which the wool is grown has a very large influence on the type of wool produced, and whether in fact sheep of a particular strain can survive is often determined by the environment in which they live. It is extremely interesting to note that the rams bought for export so far have tended to be the stronger wool types. The number of true fine wool types bought for export is small because overseas countries have found that their conditions do not favour the growing of this kind of wool.

So the influence of the rams exported as a result of the relaxation of the ban will probably not be great. Such influence as they do have should be beneficial - upgrading the quality of wool generally and encouraging the continued use of wool. These are points which have been made before, but they are valuable points and valid points in answer to the argument sometimes put forward in favour of retaining the ban, and so I have repeated them today. But other issues are involved. One of the principal ones is the relationship between government and industry organisations. It is now 10 years since the question of relaxing the ban on the export of merino rams was referred to the AWIC, the national body of wool growers, following a recommendation in favour of relaxing the ban having been made 11 years before by the Australian Agricultural Council. So the original recommendation was made 21 years ago. During its consideration of the proposal, the Australian Wool Industry Conference obtained expert advice from many bodies including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the wool industry itself. In addition, the Australian Wool Board prepared a most comprehensive paper on the subject. Finally, 6 years after the matter was referred to it, the AWIC recommended in favour of a relaxation of the ban, subject to certain specific conditions.

Surely no issue has been looked at more closely or for a longer period. Acting on the advice of the industry, the Government relaxed the ban. However, following representations from some growers who felt that their voice had not” been heard,- a decision was delayed. After some months, the executive of the AWIC confirmed its original decision. It said that it had no reason to alter its original recommendation. Since 1st February 1970, some 280 rams have been sold to overseas buyers. During this period the AWIC has twice considered the issue, the last time being in November last year. Both times, it supported the relaxing of the ban. Never before have so many opportunities been given to an industry organisation to change its mind if it so wanted. On each occasion, the original decision was confirmed. It seems to me to be extraordinary that in these circumstances the Opposition wishes to override the clearly expressed and several times repeated wishes of the national wool grower body. Presumably, honourable members opposite have set themselves up as a greater authority than the body which the industry itself has nominated to make recommendations to the Government after that body has spent some 6 years making the most exhaustive examination ot the subject. I think that wool growers will be watching the Opposition’s attitude closely since no doubt the same approach will be adopted by it if it were ever to become the Government.

The other matter to which I would like to refer is the role of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in this issue. The ACTU has taken it on itself to frustrate the policies of the Australian national body of wool growers and to defy a decision of the national Government on a subject which has nothing whatever to do with the legitimate industrial objectives which it pursues on behalf of its members and a subject on which it could not be expected to have expert knowledge. It is an extraordinary example of the misuse of power by the ACTU on a matter quite unconnected with the purposes for which that body was established. It has damaged Australia’s reputation for reliability and integrity as an international trading nation, and has gravely disadvantaged the breeders and buyers who have been put to great trouble and expense in trying to overcome the obstacles that the ACTU has put in the way of exporting sheep bought in good faith and according to the conditions recommended by the AWIC. In addition, it has endangered the future high standard of the Australian wool clip.

In the present very difficult conditions facing wool growers and stud breeders, especially, because naturally costs involved in stud breeding are considerably higher than they are in commercial flocks, there is a very real danger of our great parent studs finding that such work is no longer worth the candle. If this should happen, we would indeed be in a position where our local growers might find it difficult to obtain their requirements and our clip standards would inevitably decline. By partially relaxing the export ban on merino rams competition and, therefore, prices at stud sales would be improved and there would be a new incentive to stud breeders not only to continue their enterprises but also to raise the quality of their product to the benefit of commercial growers and the Australian clip as a whole. It is bad enough for our primary producers to have to sell most of their output on the open world market while at the same time they have to buy many of their inputs on a protected home market. But here we have an attempt to prevent producers having any export market at all. As far as I am aware, it is the only example in Australia of such a situation. I support the Government in its decision to rectify the restrictions and discrimination suffered by one very valuable section of our primary producers.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

– In this matter, as in all other major matters, the Government betrays the national interests of Australia. Whether it is in the plunder of resources in some other field or in any other respect, we can always be sure that the Government will come down on the side of foreign interests rather than protect Australian interests. With this Government, national interests are always subordinated. We can always come second or in some other place. Our special position in regard to stud merino rams and our ability to produce fine wool is being disregarded by a Government which is concerned to sell our heritage for a mess of pottage. There is no doubt about that. I refer to the speech of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). At no time did he attempt in any way to justify the lifting of the embargo on the export of stud merino rams. As one would have expected, he concentrated on the type of speech that should have been delivered by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch).

Obviously, the Minister for Primary Industry is not too comfortable on this matter. Neither are his Country Party colleagues. He has many friends in the wool industry who would adopt the same attitude as that adopted by the Australian Labor Party in standing by our industry. We are prepared to protect our industry. We will be loyal to the wool industry, and we will not sell it to foreign people who want to gain at its expense. It is true that the stud merino ram breeders could derive quite satisfactory returns from the sale of their skills in the breeding of stud merinos over the years. But in no way did the Minister attempt to justify in his speech the export of stud merino rams. He avoided that like the plague. He did not attempt to offer one word in support of that.

I listened to the speech of the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). In effect, he said that wool does not matter anyhow, that there is a substantial pool of genes of merinos overseas and that in any case corriedales and polwarths are almost as good so it does not matter. Consequently, we should embark on this campaign in which the Government is engaged of the betrayal of our industry and of Australia’s national interests. When one looks at this industry and what has taken place over the years, it is easy to see that the Government has not been comfortable about it. Almost 43 years have elapsed since the Scullin Government, with an act of courage, political wisdom and by placing national interest first decided to impose a ban on the export of stud merino rams. Then, after all those years this Government finally weakened under pressure from the lobby of those in charge of the stud merino industry and decided to take some action. Here was a case in which the Government was not prepared to accept the viewpoint of the industry. It did not want the industry’s point of view. It regarded the views of the Australian Wool Industry Conference as quite all right. But when the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and other honourable members on this side of the House wanted a reserve price for wool, when we wanted action to be taken years ago to protect this industry, the word from the Government invariably was that we had to be satisfied that that was the point of view of the industry.

Quite properly, the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Dawson on behalf of the Opposition merely asks that a democratic procedure be adopted. The Minister has moved that the House support a partial relaxation of the embargo on the export of merino rams as recommended by the Australian Wool Industry Conference, to which the Opposition has moved that the following words be added: if a majority of wool growers affected decide by referendum or other fair means in favour of removing or relaxing the embargo.

This clear statement of a democratic procedure is rejected by the Minister. Of course it is rejected by the Liberals. We would not expect them to take any other course, but we would expect the people who represent the wool growers to speak up in this place and say that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Dawson is reasonable and therefore should be supported by the Parliament. As to a poll of wool growers, are we afraid that the wool growers will give us a decision that we will not like?

Let us examine the attitude of the Government step by step. It decided firstly that it would relax the embargo on the export of merino rams for a period of one year, in which time 300 rams and no more could be exported. The embargo was to be lifted from 1st February 1970 to 31st January 1971. The raising of the embargo was then extended to 31st March 1971 and the latest information is that it is to be extended for a period of 3 years, terminating on 31st January 1975. The first step, of course, was the last step in the betrayal of this great industry, in the betrayal of the national interest and in the betrayal of the privileged position of our wool industry. Does anyone think for one moment that there is a country in the world, however backward or sophisticated, which would sell out any patent rights, any special skill, any special advantage that the country might have in any field at all? Yet this Government rushes in, in my opinion merely to try to score a point in a debate about the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and is determined to lift the embargo.

At no stage was the decision of the Australian Wool Industry Conference unanimous. The results of the votes taken were 37 to 6, 31 to 17 and 31 to 18. In considering such matters surely the right answer to obtain is that of the people who derive their income from producing wool. Everyone will readily agree that the present problems of the wool industry are great indeed. They include trying to balance the budget, trying to meet rising costs, and selling wool at a fair price. On top of all this, the only solution that the Government seems to have is to sanction the export of our stud merino rams so that everybody else in the world will be in the same privileged position as we are.

First we heard the point of view of those people who supported the lifting of the embargo for only 12 months to allow 300 rams to be exported. They said it was an important move as it would lift the quality of wool throughout the world and place the wool industry in a special position to meet the competition from other fibres. They said that the standard and quality of wool would be enhanced and wool would be able to take its rightful place in the world textile industry. That was one point of view. Then we heard the other point of view, which went like this: In any case, to export 300 merino rams could not in any sense affect the world situation; it would not be a threat in any way; it would be a mere drop in the bucket and nothing at all to be worried about; it was not at all important; and it would have no effect upon other countries. We were told about our special climate and conditions and our special knowhow. We were told that we would be no poorer because of the export of stud merino rams and it could not possibly be a threat. They were the conflicting points of view. One view was that it would enhance and uplift the world quality of wool. The other view was that it would not matter at all that it would not have an impact of any kind. Then the more realistic and more mercenary people said: ‘We will be able to get exchange from the sale of rams on the world market and this will help our balance of payments.’

All these matters indicate the mixed feelings of the Government on this question. This Parliament has no other course than to be guided by the people in the industry. The only way in which we can be guided by people in the industry is to permit those who will be involved because of the policy of this Government to determine the matter themselves - to give to wool growers the right to decide this” matter. They should vote to determine the question. If some other matter were to arise surely we would adopt that practice. The honourable member for Dawson referred to the honey industry. An opportunity will be given to honey producers, to apiarists, to have a vote in electing their officers and determining the constitution of the Honey Board. The people who produce the honey will be given an opportunity to vote. All that the Opposition asks is that the wool growers themselves be given an opportunity to judge this matter as it affects them and their clip, as it affects their bank balances and this nation.

If any honourable member believes that that is an unreasonable attitude I would like him to go on record and say it, not only in this Parliament but also on the hustings in the forthcoming election campaign. He should say that he feels that the growers are not entitled to determine a matter of this kind by exercising a vote on this important national question. We are fortunate and blessed that we have an industry that stands high in the world and has no real or serious rival anywhere. Despite what the honourable member for Corangamite has said in regard to South Africa, the Soviet Union or any other country, when fine wools are required the buyers of the world come to Australia. They will continue to come to Australia and it is up to us to look to the interests of the Australian wool producers, to protect their industry and to see that they have an opportunity to determine this question for once and, as far as I am concerned, for all time. I enthusiastically support the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Dawson.

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– I would like to make a passing reference to the concern expressed by the honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) about the possible export of budgerigars. If I may say so, the problems of the honourable member will begin if ever we start to export galahs, particularly if he frequently wears a tie of the colour he is wearing today. I have one message for the Opposition in this matter; .the Opposition should have remembered the old motto that it is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Each time we have a debate of this kind honourable members opposite expose their woeful ignorance of things rural. It becomes increasingly obvious that there is not a farmer amongst them and they do not really know what they are talking about.

I think I really ought to take it on myself to try to fill in some of the gaps in their knowledge. The first point is whether the embargo is imposed to stop the export of fine wool genetic material. This must be one of the arguments put forward by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti). Does the Opposition think that we have a monopoly of fine wool blood?

Have honourable members opposite seen, as I have seen, the Russian merinos in Rajasthan in India? Have they seen, as I have seen, the American rambouillets in Nepal? Do they not know that we certainly do not have a monopoly of fine wool blood in the world? Do they not know that there are great changes in breeding techniques in other parts of the world? So what is the sense of talking about keeping the Australian fine wool blood to ourselves when it is all over the world now? Do Opposition members not know that polwarths are exported? I would like to ask any Opposition member whether he can tell the difference between a fine polwarth and a merino. I do not think any of them could. There would be a lot of people who could not do it, and certainly I could not tell the difference between the wools.

Dr Patterson:

– Could you tell the difference between the sheep?

Mr KELLY:

– I think I could, but I am not certain. I certainly could not tell the difference between the wool from a fine polwarth and the wool from a medium merino. If this is so - no-one will deny it - what is the sense of pretending that we are denying other people access to fine wool blood when we are exporting it all over the world now in the form of polwarths This just makes nonsense of the argument that by keeping the embargo we are denying people access to fine wool blood. Is that the effect of the embargo? Perhaps it is not for that reason that the Opposition takes its stand on this matter. For the reasons I have pointed out it is obviously a silly kind of argument. There must be some other reason. Is it to keep the prices of flock rams rising? There must be some justification for the embargo. Is it to keep the price of flock rams rising in order to make a play for the commercial ram breeder. That is the main thing in which they are interested.

Does the. Opposition think that we will be exporting flock rams? The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) spelt out the fact that this would be ridiculous because obviously the costs of exporting are so considerable that the only sheep that would go would be the top stud sheep. What influence will having a good market for top stud sheep have on the price of flock rams? Surely its effect will work the other way. Does not the Opposition know that the merino ram breeding industry has been until now just about on its knees? Does it not know that this is one of the greatest problems that face us? Does it not know that it will take our best endeavours to sustain the stud breeding industry through this very difficult period? In my electorate I am surrounded by stud breeders, big and small. Some of the best stud breeders in my area operate only in a small capacity and they export only a small number of sheep because of the limited opportunities available. So must we accept this ridiculous argument that the embargo is being retained to keep down the price of flock rams for the small breeder? It does not work that way at all. Even if it did, I do not think it is the way in which we ought to handle our affairs.

I am not a merino stud breeder but a stud breeder of another breed of sheep. If I were exporting to perhaps New Zealand or South Africa I would not think it proper that the Government should move in and say: This is not good enough. You are going to make too much money’ or You are going to make the price of flock rams dearer’. This is no encouragement to a ram breeder. It would be a complete devastation to me. What kind of Opposition do we have when it does not know that the reason why Australian merino wool has its pecular qualities is the environment in which it is bred. Does not the Opposition know that the quality of merino wool varies all over Australia as the environment changes? Does it not know that in the arid areas of South Australia are grown the strong wools and that the finer wools are grown in the we.t climate of Tasmania?

We have heard some discussion about the fact that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has allowed - I put the word allowed’ in inverted commas - the export of sheep to Communist China but to no other country. I have been to India and found that one of the crying needs there is access to strong wool; it need not be merino wool but it has to be well bred strong wool. Evidently it is all right to allow these sheep to go to China but the ACTU is deliberately denying the export of these sheep to countries such as India.

Is this the way in which we ought to conduct our international affairs? Another matter referred to in this debate is that we ought to hold a referendum on the embargo. Does not the Opposition know that when the embargo was first instituted no referendum was held? Apparently the Opposition thinks it is all right to impose an embargo without a referendum and then demand a referendum about lifting it. It has been suggested that a referendum would be appropriate in this case because a referendum was held in relation to the reserve price plan. But does not the Opposition know that in the latter case the referendum was asked for by the industry organisations, which have not asked for one on this occasion.

I now turn to a much more serious problem, and I would like the Opposition to listen closely to my remarks. Does not the Opposition know that the action of the ACTU in relation to this matter has led to ill feeling in the community, which I think distresses all of us. I have seen cases where rams have been cared for and sold and then the opportunities for delivery spoilt. They could not be sold again. They had to be held at great expense for a year. The people concerned said to me: ‘What are we going to do?’ I said: ‘You will just have to sell them as flock rams.’ I am speaking about rams that have been bred with great care and sold at, say, one thousand guineas for export. How does the Opposition think the people in the community regard the actions of the ACTU which deliberately imposes this kind of hardship on both big and small breeders? The picture of the merino ram industry being composed of great wealthy squatters is ridiculous. There may be a few wealthy ones. There are a lot of big breeders who are finding the going very tough indeed, but there are many more very small breeders who have started off with 50 ewes, increased the number to 150, 200 and 500 and then found in some cases that their progress has been inhibited by this kind of union action. This is the kind of thing that we should not allow to destroy the trading relations of our country. It is the same kind of thing as the black ban that is being imposed on the soldier settlers on Kangaroo Island. Because the settlers have had to employ the sons of neighbours to shear their sheep, the union organisations have declared them black.

What kind of feeling does the Opposition think this breeds in the community? I think that this is the greatest tragedy of the whole business. There should not be this kind of ill feeling between the union organisation and the rest of the community. The action of the ACTU led inevitably to this bitterness creeping into the wool industry. It should not be there. I hope we can close what I think has been a disgraceful chapter in our history. The action of the ACTU, supported by the Opposition, has made us a laughing stock overseas. I see the would-be merino ram buyers when they come to Australia and they say to me: ‘What kind of a country have you got? Who is running it?’ I would say there is a grave danger that the ACTU thinks it is. I hope that we can close finally this lamentable and shameful chapter in our history. I very strongly support the motion moved by the Minister for Primary Industry.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

- Mr Deputy Speaker-

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 55

NOES: 50

Majority . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Dr Patterson’s amendment) be so added.

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

AYES: 49

NOES: 53

Majority .. ..4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

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

– The question now is: That the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no. I think the ayes have it.

page 1239

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Customs Tariff Bill 1972

Income Tax Assessment Bill 1972

Public Service Bill 1972

States Grants (Independent Schools) Bill 1972

States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1972

Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill 1972.

page 1239

QUESTION

EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– After the last division I waited a considerable time before I put the next question, firstly, to enable honourable members to return to their seats and, secondly, so that honour able members on the Opposition side would be aware of what was happening. Then I put the question. I said: The question now is that the motion be agreed to’.

I looked at the honourable member for Dawson. The amendment, which was that certain words be added to the original motion, was defeated, and when I put the question That the motion be agreed to’I must confess I assumed that as the amendment had been defeated the honourable member for Dawson did not require a division on the motion that was then before the House as a result of the amendment having been defeated.

Dr Patterson:

– I did not hear you say one word of that. I am remiss on that. I want to make it very clear that the Opposition opposes the original motion and would prefer to have a division on it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I would surmise that the House is always the master of its own business. The only thing is that 2 other matters have been before the Chair in the intervening period.

Mr Swartz:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of the circumstance I think that the question could be put again.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Very well.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 53

NOES: 49

Majority .. .. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1240

QUESTION

AIRLINE POLICY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The need for an even-handed 2-airline policy.

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– One is forced to raise the subject of the need for an even-handed 2-airline policy as a definite matter of public importance because of the apparent reluctance of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) who is in the other place, to report to the Parliament on this important and contentious subject. Since the honourable senator has been Minister for Civil Aviation he has made only 2 statements in the Senate in relation to civil aviation. One dealt with a second airport for Sydney and the other was in relation to a report on an accident to a Boeing 707 aircraft. This is notwithstanding the fact that during the time that the honourable senator has been the Minister he did not report, as he should have done, upon many contentious and important subjects. For example, there were the embargo by the United States of America on the Qantas Airways Boeing 747 operating into that country; the additional schedules which were granted to American airline operators on the Pacific route; concorde pollution and supersonic flight across Australia. Yet after the Senate rose last week - for what we could probably describe as the Easter recess - after weeks of contentious questioning by members of the Opposition who were trying to obtain information on the last mentioned subject the Minister made a statement on the matter. No statement has been made in Parliament about the problems associated with international charter operations or about the present crisis which exists at Qantas on the possibility of additional layoff of staff. Therefore in order to obtain a debate on the subject of the 2-airline policy the Opposition has had to resort to raising it as a definite matter of public importance.

At the present time the matter about which I am mainly concerned is the recently announced purchase by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd of a 23i per cent interest in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. This purchase must have a most telling effect on Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and Trans-Australia Airlines. When this purchase of shares takes effect it will represent a total turnover of about $300m by ATI and TNT. Yet the Government has seen no reason why a statement should be made to the Parliament. Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd is a major transport operator having operations not only in Australia but also in New Zealand, the United States of America and Canada. It is involved not only in road transport, sea transport, and now air transport, but also in television and tourism which includes hotels and bus tours. From my information, up to the present time TNT has, in the main, placed half its business with TAA and the other half with Ansett, both in passenger traffic and freight operations. It is the logical conclusion that now TNT and the companies with which it is associated because of the inter-connection of shareholding and part ownership in other companies, TAA business will go to the company with which TNT has a major shareholding, namely, 23¼percent.This will have a major effect on TAA.

We on this side of the House are not opposed to the kite flying which is taking place at the present time for an extension of the 2-airline system. We know that the agreement will run until 1977. I accept the logic that it is fair and reasonable for a new agreement to be drawn up. We are not going to let the agreement run until 1977 before a new agreement is drawn up. The Opposition realises the logic of this situation. But the Government is in a state of turmoil. It is divided. It has no clear policy on any subject. It should be left to the incoming Parliament or the incoming Minister for Civil Aviation or Minister for Transport, as the case may be, to make the decision and to negotiate a new 2-airline policy which will be fair and equitable to all operators and not as it is at the present moment. Today the operations are very one-sided. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard page 6 of the 1971 report of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, which discloses the whole of the Company’s operations.

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– This fully sets out the diversification of the operations of ATI. I consider it is most important that TAA should be given opportunities similar to those which Ansett has to attract traffic in form of either passengers or freight. I hope that when the new agreement is drawn up these facts will be taken into consideration. At the present moment ATI has a monopoly on operations in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria. One of the unfair aspects of the 2-airline agreement is that TAA is in competition with Ansett on interstate operations in Queensland. In New South Wales, East West Airlines Ltd probably plays the role of TAA. Ansett has approximately half the business in New South Wales. We consider that Queensland can be left alone and New South Wales can be left alone because East West is feeding traffic into TAA. But there should be some arrangement or agreement in relation to the other States. I am not going to say that in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria TAA and Ansett should operate aircraft on every route. I know that that would be uneconomic and it is not what we are advocating. We are saying that after due consideration of the relevant economics of each of these routes provision should be made for a rationalisation whereby - I am using this as an example of my thoughts - in Western Australia Ansett retains the whole of the intrastate operations and to balance the situation TAA has the monopoly on intrastate operations in Victoria and South Aus tralia. In this way there would be a true operation of a 2-airline system. For example, in Western Australia since December 1968 TAA has been trying to obtain permission to operate from Perth to Darwin and intermediate airports. To save time, I ask for leave to incorporate in Hansard question No. 4372 placed on notice by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the answer supplied by the Minister for Civil Aviation through the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz).

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Aviation: Western Australia and Northern Territory (Question No. 4372)

  1. Will the Minister table, in the Parliament or the Library, copies of the Agreement between the Commonwealth and MacRobertson Miller Airline Services which expired on 30th September 1971.
  2. Has Trans-Australia Airlines applied for (a) a Perth-Darwin Licence since 18th December 1968 (Hansard, 7.4.70, page 781) or (b) a SydneyAlice Springs-Port Hedland Licence (Hansard, 4.6.70, page 2942), if so with what result.
  1. A copy of the Agreement between the Commonwealth and MacRobertson Miller Airline Services which expired on 30th September 1971 has been tabled in the Library. I would remind the Honourable Member that on 22nd May 1968 in my then capacity as Minister for Civil Aviation I made a copy of the Agreement available to him and received a polite acknowledgement from the Honourable Member.

By an exchange of correspondence In November 1968 the Agreement was varied so as to relieve the Commonwealth of its obligation to determine the overall subsidy, ‘having regard to the need to maintain a reasonable return on the capital invested in the company’ (Clause 5 (0 ), and in lieu of this obligation the Commonwealth agreed to subsidise agreed unprofitable developmental services approved by the Minister in accordance with the standard principles applied by the Commonwealth in respect of other unprofitable developmental services.

As I explained in the House on 30th September 1971, no subsidy has been paid on the major trunk route between Perth and Darwin since 1st July 1968, and since January 1969, the only service in respect of which subsidy has been paid to MMA is the developmental air service operating in the Kimberleys. It is proposed to offer to MMA to extend the subsidy agreement to 30th June 1972 in respect of the Kimberley services only.

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

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

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

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

Mr CHARLES JONES:

– That question and answer sets out clearly the endeavours by TAA to enter intrastate operations in Western Australia. It is important that TAA have this opportunity to operate intrastate so that a flow on of traffic is provided for its interstate services. In Western Australia, MacRobertson-Miller Airlines is now fully owned by Ansett Transport Industries. It is estimated than in respect of flow on traffic the earnings of MMA are between $3m and S3. 5m. I would not like to estimate the value to Ansett of the flow on traffic in South Australia and Victoria. It must be worth mil lions of dollars to Ansett. The benefit of that flow on traffic should be available to TAA also.

Up to date, TAA has- not been able to compete fully. Rationalisation of passengers and mail occurs on competitive routes. But Ansett has a complete monopoly in this respect on non-competitive routes. No attempt is made, even on competitive routes, for Ansett and TAA to share freight. They share mail only. This is revenue derived completely from the Commonwealth. Each must get what it can out of freight work. Let me mention a recent example of what happens. TAA was debarred from submitting a proposal to the select committee of the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly inquiring into the future operations of airlines in that country after it achieves independence. Replying to a question that I asked, the Minister stated that under its present charter TAA was not in a position to be able to submit a proposal.

The Opposition believes that TAA should be permitted to diversify its activities. In the limited time available to me, this is what I wish to put forward most clearly. In each of the States TAA should be permitted half of the airline business or, as I said earlier, operations should be rationalised by a break up of work in each of the States. Hotels and tourism are an excellent source of flow on revenue to Ansett. Surely TAA should be in a position either to set up its own tourist activities including its own hotels or motels as part of its operations or be permitted to operate in a much freer vein than it does at the present time in order to negotiate arrangements with existing hotels, motels and other tourist groups. In this way TAA will be able to compete genuinely with Ansett. The same remarks apply in relation to bus tours. Ansett Transport Industries at the present time has tourist activities with buses. Some operations are part bus, part airline. People travel so far on bus and are then transported for the rest of their journey by air. TAA should be permitted to move into this activity.

I turn to parallel scheduling. It is time that Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia were directed by the

Minister for Civil Aviation to dispense with parallel timetabling. They should experiment with what they consider are appropriate timetables. Let me give an example. Presently TAA and Ansett operate 100 air schedules each a week between Sydney and Melbourne. Of that number, each airline operates 92 services at parallel times. Only 4 flights by TAA and 4 by Ansett operate at different times. This is a clear example of the need to dispense with parallel timetabling and at least to force the airlines to adopt different timetables. I recall the situation that existed when TAA tried to experiment with concessional air fares for travel outside peak hours. Ansett disagreed with this proposal. What was the result? No off peak fare concessions were introduced. Similarly, TAA sought to introduce Caravelle aircraft. Ansett did not want Caravelles and TAA was forced to purchase Electras instead. These are the situations which exist in respect of many aspects of the 2-airline policy.

In conclusion, I refer to the finances of the 2 operators. I have here a copy of the annual report of Ansett Transport Industries. I defy any accountant in Australia to tell me or this Parliament what profit was made last year by Ansett on its airline operations. I turn to the annual report of TAA. The biggest mug in the world can tell what profit was made by TAA. Under a new 2-airline policy we believe that Ansett should be required to set up a separate company dealing with its airline operations and associated activities. TAA would operate under the same agreement on equal terms. A company would be formed by Ansett to operate in this field so that it can be clearly established whether TAA is operating efficiently or whether Ansett is operating efficiently. At the present moment TAA could be the most inefficient operator in the world and the only person who knew that would be Ansett. To me, that is not good enough. There is only one way out of the situation. That is for these 2 companies carrying on identical operations to furnish identical balance sheets.

Mr SWARTZ:
Darling Downs Minister for National Development · LP

– Being in a debate with my friend, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) is a little like old times. The honourable member queried whether the Government had any policy on this subject. I think that he said that the Government had no policy. Yet, the debate is on the Government’s 2-airline policy. I would have liked the honourable member to have been a little clearer in relation to where the Opposition stands on this matter. Does it in fact support the present 2-airline policy? Does it consider that the 2-airline policy should continue in the future?

Mr Charles Jones:

– I said so.

Mr Cope:

– He said that.

Mr SWARTZ:

– The honourable gentleman did not make that clear, but he has now indicated that he supports the present 2-airline policy-

Mr Cope:

– You have my word too.

Mr SWARTZ:

– … as the honourable member for Sydney has indicated also. We are very pleased to know that. In the past the Opposition has never made that point clear. It is a fact that the Government’s 2-airline policy has brought significant benefits to the Australian domestic airline system. We have modern equipment, an efficient and widespread network of services, low fares and the world’s best safety record. At the same time, the industry has been able to remain financially stable even when economic conditions have reduced traffic growth. No-one pretends that the system is perfect. Of course it is not. The Government recognises this. We are currently reviewing various aspects of the 2-airline policy. We have asked the airlines to look at several important areas in which we believe improvements can be made.

The areas at which we have asked the airlines to look are, first, parallel timetables; secondly, freight services; thirdly, concession fares; and fourthly, country air services. One of the major areas of criticism of the 2-airline policy - this has been expressed again by the honourable member for Newcastle and has been expressed in the past in this House - has been the field of parallel timetables. This is one of the matters which we have asked the airlines to review. Following recent efforts by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) the airlines have submitted new schedules in the past few weeks which they claim will significantly reduce the degree of parallelism. The Department of Civil Aviation currently is studying these proposals.

We must remember also the need for both airlines to remain financially viable. We must balance this with the requirements of the travelling public. The issue must be kept in its right perspective. For instance, the Melbourne-Sydney route has about 203 flights a week with 104 different time slots. The Sydney-Brisbane route has 116 flights a week with 62 separate times of travel. At the same time we are aware of the continuing problem of parallelism relating to Canberra, Tasmania, Coolangatta, Western Australia and even Darwin. But in consultation with the airlines, the Department of Civil Aviation hopes to overcome some of these problems. Already talks have been held with the airlines. These have produced new timetables which should bring about a greater separation of flights to and from Perth. Further separation of Darwin timetables is also toeing considered. However, I stress again that the Government is strongly pressing the airlines to improve the situation further.

The honourable member for Newcastle referred quite rightly to the situation of Ansett Airlines of Australia in the operation of the 2-airline system. He criticised certain aspects of the share of the business which Trans-Australia Airlines obtains under the existing system. He made certain suggestions. Matters relating to the future of the 2-airline policy are under review at present, and obviously must be considered well before 1977 when the present agreement expires. Because of the financial commitment that airlines must make to meet future needs, consideration must be given to this very important matter at the present time. No-one can suggest that TAA has not been treated fairly under the Government’s 2-airline policy. There are many aspects of this policy that one has to consider. In the past 10 years the number of passengers carried by TAA has risen from slightly over one million to 3 million. Revenue has trebled to its present level of $108m. Staff has increased from 4,600 to 7,500. During this 10-year period TAA has paid to the Commonwealth more than Slim, which is a very satisfactory situation indeed. There has been no call on the Commonwealth for additional capital dur ing this period. I think this record stands comparison with TAA’s competitor - Ansett - despite the figures given and the statements made by the honourable member for Newcastle.

In addition, TAA has made to the Government certain proposals about the review which is to take place in future. Those proposals, if approved, would enable TAA to extend its operations. It currently operates numerous activities other than just airline services. It services aircraft on behalf of other Commonwealth departments. It operates the aerial ambulance service in the Northern Territory. It has a specialist contract with the Department of Lands in South Australia. A glance at its advertising, I am sure, will quickly show that it is in no way limited in the sale of package holiday tours. So I think it is incorrect to state categorically and in a general way that TAA is limited solely to airline operations. The Government will consider the most recent proposals that have been put forward by TAA as part of its current review of the 2-airline policy.

The honourable member for Newcastle referred to the takeover by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd of a 23) per cent shareholding in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. Obviously this introduces a new factor, the significance of which at present it is not possible to assess. But it must be taken into consideration in the review of the policy for the future. At present it is not possible to make any comment, other than that the matter will be taken into consideration, because we do not know the ramifications or the extent of the implications that flow from it. Until such time as Ansett Transport Industries is able to assess the situation, it is impossible for the Government to do so. I can assure the House, however, that the Government is well aware of the situation and obviously must take some account of it.

Reference was made by the honourable member for Newcastle to the. application submitted by TAA for access to the PerthDarwin air route. This is not an application for access to all services or all routes in Western Australia but an application for access to the Perth-Darwin route. I think it is in similar terms to the previous applications that have been submitted by TAA.

The Government recognises that the TAA case has been given a great deal of consideration over the years. As we know, there was an agreement between the Government and MacRobertson-Miller Airline Services which expired in 1970 but which was extended for a further year. After that TAA did submit a further application. However, consideration has been given to the application, and it has been decided that the issue should be considered as part of the 2-airline policy review which is being undertaken at present. It is only right and proper that the Perth-Darwin issue, I am sure, should be considered in the overall context and not in isolation.

The situation in Western Australia has been made more complex in recent months due to the fall off in airline traffic growth rates and the general slowing down of a temporary nature - how temporary it is we do not know - of mining development in the north western part of Western Australia. At the same time, we should look at the situation there and we should realise the services that are now being provided and the additional facilities that have been provided by the Department of Civil Aviation such as additional runway facilities to bring them up to jet standard. The services that are now being provided in Western Australia are up to a high standard indeed. All these matters have to be taken into account and, as I have indicated, they certainly will be considered in the review of the 2-airline policy which is being undertaken at present.

The honourable member for Newcastle also referred to concession fares. I suppose we should look at this matter in the overall sense. I think he perhaps omitted to draw attention to the fact that Qantas Airways has had a very definite part to play in the international field. I know he acknowledges the fact that Qantas has played a significant part in the fare reductions that have taken place in this field. In fact it was on the initiative of Qantas that recent changes took place such as reduction in the return fare to London to $700; also there was the approval of a series of World Airways charters from the United States to Australia. I shall refer to that matter shortly as I am sure it is of great interest to all members of the House. In recent months on the Australian scene there have been discussions between the Government and the domestic airlines to widen the concession fare market in Australia. At present the 2 major domestic airlines are studying methods by which they can introduce concession fares which will not have a detrimental effect on their regular operations. I think it is vitally important to ensure that where concession fares apply they do not upset the regular schedule structure of the airlines.

I am sure we must acknowledge too that other operators such as East-West Airlines Ltd and in another field - the commuter operators - Business Jets Pty Ltd have shown considerable and commendable initiative in de.veloping inclusive tour and charter programmes on a fare basis which is acceptable to the public. I think we must consider that as something which is a very satisfactory adjunct to the present 2-airline system.

I did mention a very important matter which has been announced recently by the Minister for Civil Aviation. I refer to the. approval that has been given to World Airways, which is a United States charter company, to operate 21 inclusive tour charter flights from the United States to Australia next year. This is somewhat of an experiment at present and the. approval is very limited. These flights will carry about 3,500 American tourists here next year on special low cost charter flights. The organisers estimate the value to Australia of this tourist programme to be about $2m. The. move has been welcomed widely throughout Australia, particularly by the tourist industry. This approval is a practical indication of the Government’s desire to meet the demand for low cost charter flights on the Australia-United States route.

Mr Luchetti:

– What good will that do TAA?

Mr SWARTZ:

– It is not intended to throw open the doors to foreign charter companies at the expense of the scheduled airlines, particularly our international airline, Qantas. Any extension of the inclusive tour charter flight programme will depend on Qantas or its charter subsidiary Qantair getting United States approval to operate the same type of inclusive tour charter flights on the same terms and conditions as the United States charter operators have.

My time has just about expired. I know that this debate has to be interrupted so that a ministerial statement can be made at 8 p.m. In view of that fact I will conclude by expressing appreciation of the fact that the. House has been given an opportunity to debate the matter at this time. It is interesting to have an indication from the Opposition that it supports the 2-airline policy as it exists and perhaps-

Mr Charles Jones:

– We support it in principle.

Mr SWARTZ:

– We accept the fact that the Opposition does support in principle the existing policy of the Government. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.1 to 8 p.m.

page 1247

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE

Ministerial Statement

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · Farrer · LP

– by leave - I wish to lay before honourable members the Government’s strategic outlook and the programme by which successive steps in a defence programme for the 1970s and 1980s will be taken. The Government’s advisers have, for several months, been engaged in a comprehensive re-examination of the nation’s strategic position. They have examined the more predictable situations in the 1970s and the contingencies for the longer term future to which we must equally address ourselves in our defence planning. The Government has already had the benefit of expert advice on some of these matters and acted upon it; advice on other matters has yet to be presented. I here refer particularly to the preparation for the Government of a recommended programme comprehending future equipment purchases during the next 5 years and the other provisions which are part of our total defence effort. I wish to say more about the programme for policy decisions on these matters later.

I have authorised the issue of an Australian defence review which has been pre pared by the Department of Defence in consultation with the Services and other departments. It was not prepared as a policy document. Rather it contains information and analysis which will be of interest to honourable members and which, I believe, will contribute to discussion and debate upon the policies which Australia should follow. I am therefore making the paper available to honourable members.

In deciding the extent to which it would be wise for the Government to announce decisions which in some cases would affect the level of fighting efficiency and technological efficiency of our Services as far ahead as 20 years, I have been mindful of the emphasis which our advisers place, as will be seen in the defence review, upon the importance of timing of decisions. The implications of making decisions too late need not be stressed, but the review warns against making premature commitments which, for example, could crowd out of consideration higher priority needs which would only come up for decision at a later date, or which could require us to accept equipment with deficient standards of technology. An example of the latter is methods of locating submarines.

The first requirement is to make a reasoned definition of the Australian interests needing to be pursued by our defence policy, and of the strategic situations against which we should build our defence capabilities. It is clear that the objective must be a policy for the 1970s and 1980s. It is clear that great changes are occurring in Australia’s external environment which justify a careful and progressive re-evaluation of the situation. It is also clear, I suggest, that we should not found our defence policy, or our willingness to engage ourselves to assist others, on a simple faith in the success of diplomatic efforts of mighty powers or on the benign intentions of rivals for ideological supremacy among communist powers.

It is not enough for Australia’s force structure to be built to meet only needs or threats that are explicitly definable. We owe it to the community, and to the future parliaments and governments representing them, to have in our 3 armed Services and in our industrial and scientific support an adequate readiness against contingent threats looking, in some types of equipment and works expenditure, as far ahead as the late 1980s. So far ahead - almost 20 years at the limit - it is not given to man to make predictions which can be stated as accurate; nor is it possible to suggest more than orders of probability or of intensity of threats against Australian interests.

If it should be said that we should not make speculations of this kind far beyond the range of reasonable intelligence assessments, the answer is that decisions on long life equipment, and even longer life infrastructure of bases and docks and airfields, always carry an implicit estimate, far into the future, of the need for this equipment. Destroyers delivered in 1980 will still be in service in 2000, and the weapons fit and general capability embodied in the design must be selected accordingly. Cockburn Sound will be supporting our naval forces well into the twenty-first century and probably indefinitely. It is necessary that the assessment of contingent requirements be thorough for many reasons. Naval and air systems, in particular, are expensive and there is no going back on decisions once made.

The statement that I make tonight is the first of several. It addresses itself primarily to the strategic issues which underlie our defence policies. The Chiefs-of-Staff and the Department of Defence are together analysing the programme which will be the physical expression of those defence policies. They will in mid-year put before the Government a recommended programme for 5 years of total defence activity and expenditure. Following consideration and decision by the Government, further announcements will be made of each concrete decision as and when required to be made.

The purpose of tonight’s statement then is to define the strategic environment which, in the view of the Government, is most likely to exist during this decade and could potentially exist in the 1980s; to describe how in general we believe Australian defence capabilities should be shaped in accordance with the responsibilities of an independent country; to make clear the Government’s policy of strengthening and not withdrawing from our international defence associations; to describe the burdens and the gains and the clear balance of national advantage which we believe flow from these associations. It aims as well to remind the House of some of the perils which will arise if any Australian Government should flout our commitments or jeopardise confidence in our word or our endurance, or seek refuge from contemporary burdens by reducing the country’s defence capabilities and retreating from a military role in helping to maintain the security of the external environment in which Australia is destined for all time to live.

In our approach we intend to avoid being imprisoned in concepts that are dominated by simple formulae. Formulae may fail to reflect adequately the potential range of security problems imposed on Australia in the years ahead and the various responses which future parliaments will want to be able to choose from. It is axiomatic that the defence of Australia calls for the. best defence of Australian interests. This embraces far more than fighting in defence of Australia’s territory and dependencies for by then we would be in extremis.

Destiny places us in a part of the world where a very large proportion of mankind is subject to deep-seated causes of instability, social conflict, slow economic growth, and recurring pressures directed from outside to capture power for ideological or nationalist reasons. At the same time global military and economic power is being redistributed among the great military powers. The old certainties are not as they were in the 1950s and the 1960s. This is a fact of cardinal importance for Australian defence. It is essential to try to foresee the way in which the nations who are great in terms of military and economic power will exercise that power in the are.a of Australia’s strategic concern - an area which comprehends our northern neighbourhood and the sea and air spaces of the maritime environment of Australia.

The United States of America maintains its global balance with the Soviet Union and it has a marked superiority in strategic nuclear strength vis-a-vis China. As the Department of Defence review points out, its strength in the Pacific Ocean is vast but American resources are not unlimited and the United States Administration has set conditions for its assumption of further responsibilities. The United States, the Soviet Union, China and Japan are exploring each other’s attitudes and examining the effect of initiatives taken. One may well hope that the development of the dialogue will open the way to understanding and trust which take us further away from the flash point of conflict over issues vital to great powers leading possibly to the utter disaster of global war. But we must also, in calculating how to defend Australia’s interests, allow for possible developments at some time in the future in which there may be acceptance of situations which, in effect, represent a change in the balance among these great powers and which are not all beneficial to the confidence of countries in South East Asia and the South West Pacific.

While others have preached withdrawal, negativism and isolation, the Government by positive diplomacy and defence cooperation has achieved a unique standing in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. We might remember that when a British administration in 1968-69 intended to withdraw completely from Malaysia and Singapore, Australia and New Zealand said they would take responsibilities alone. In the event British policy was changed to allow retention of a permanent force in the area and the positive attitude of the Australian Government was rewarded. From these developments the Five Power defence arrangements embracing Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Kingdom have grown.

I have recently returned from South East Asia. Nothing conveyed to me during my discussions in Malaysia and Singapore could confirm any view other than a view of the continuing relevance and importance of the Five Power arrangements, and of the significance for those arrangements of the continued presence of Australian, New Zealand and British forces in the area. The physical presence of those forces is an integral part of the only Five Power defence arrangements that make sense in the present and in foreseeable circumstances - a fact which the present British Government immediately recognised upon coming to power, and a matter upon which there seems to be a measure of bipartisan agreement in New Zealand, our close neighbour.

It is accordingly a matter of regret to the Australian Government that, with the ink barely dried on the agreements pertaining to the presence of the forces - international arrangements which are explicitly linked to the communique of the Five Powers issued in London last April - attempts have been made to sow in the world new doubts and uncertainties about Australia’s intentions as a nation. This Government’s judgment is that the withdrawal of the Australian force so soon after the arrangements and agreements had been settled would seriously undermine the Five Power arrangements. It would also make it difficult, if not impossible - not only for political, but also for important practical reasons - for Britain and New Zealand alone to maintain their forces in the region. This Government does not believe in the destruction of the Five Power arrangements. Bilaterally, the Government is also conducting practical defence co-operation with Indonesia. This does not require, nor is it the wish of either Government to have, any formal defence arrangement. There is a recognition that two friendly neighbouring countries sharing common interests in regional security should, in those fields where it is within their capacities, pursue and cultivate practical co-operation with one another.

In the present situation of uncertainty about the intentions of China and the Soviet Union, and the aggressive militancy of the North Vietnamese throughout IndoChina, and widespread insurgency in our northern neighbourhood, a positive Australian policy founded on an adequate defence effort and on defence arrangements or understandings with our neighbours may contribute to confidence and stability in the region in which we live.

There is a duality in the requirements of a national Australian defence policy: On the one hand, we need defence equipment and manning giving Australian Services an increasing measure of self-reliance and ability to act alone in certain situations. On the other hand, we seek an intensification of our defence understandings with the United States and with our northern neighbours in the expectation that the United

States will, as pledged to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon since the Nixon Doctrine was promulgated, provide the foundation of Australian security against threats or actual attack going beyond Australian capacity to deal with alone.

If we are clear headed, as the Government is, we will understand that the first objective - greater Australian selfreliance - will of itself contribute to the second objective - getting the support we need from greater allies in emergencies going beyond our capabilities. The worst way to protect this country is to saddle it with forces not for any good military reason, diplomatic reason, or economic reason - but to satisfy party ideologists. To lay stress on dangerous contingencies against which Australian defence efforts must steadily prepare over the longer term is not inconsistent wi.h the hopes entertained by the President of the United States of progressively negotiating understandings which will reduce tensions among the 4 great powers: The Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, the United States and Japan - and particularly among the 3 great military powers in this group.

What seems evident from the diplomacy exercised by all these powers over recent months is that there is a new fluidity in which new relations may be formed, and if old security dangers recede some new ones will take their place. The first requirement is for Australian diplomacy to address itself to these matters, and it is not my function to speak of this. But it is, I believe, an essential ingredient of Australian diplomacy that Australia should be understood to be a country whose security interests are growing; whose population and wealth are growing; and whose determination to take some part in shaping the environment in which we live is more lively than ever now that the great western powers have served notice that their involvement in lesser situations is not to be taken for granted. 1 have not the slightest doubt that the United States commitments to Australia under the ANZUS Treaty are as strong and effective as ever and it is my belief that it is the responsible attitude of this Australian Government towards the eco nomic growth and the military security of this region that have contributed to maintaining this undeviating attitude.

But we are a sovereign country pursuing independent foreign policies and the best assurance of an independent policy is that future parliaments and governments should not be influenced in their policies or responses to situations by fear of our inability by military means to deter interference with us. It is, of course, no part of Australian defence policy to prepare for massive defence by ourselves - whether by conventional or nuclear means - against an onslaught by one of the great military powers. This would be quite beyond our capacity and we should look to, in particular, our American ally in the contingency - judged unlikely in the foreseeable future - of this situation arising.

What can be achieved by a defence programme giving us the ability to project Australian armed strength beyond our continental shores is twofold: It will give future governments options to have some influence on events in our strategic environment so that we may contribute to the greater security of all countries in that area. It will give Australia the ability to deter direct interference with our interests except at a certain cost.

The accompanying defence Review which I am presenting suggests situations in relation to which, irrespective of present requirements for action, this Government believes that it must retain military capabilities adequate in quantity as well as in quality.

In South East Asia the impact of subversion and insurgency has been restricted by massive sacrifices of men and material on the part of many countries - not least the states of Indo-China under attack from North Vietnam. But the elimination of both subversion and insurgency continues to demand, in at least 6 countries, very great efforts on the part of the governments concerned.

Success will not be achieved quickly, nor will it be achieved by military means alone. But when men take up arms to destroy a government or to render ineffective the administration of wide areas of a country it is a practical fact that one of the means which the government concerned will employ to suppress this violence will be military. It is also a practical fact that where insurgent violence is evidently nourished and supported from beyond the frontiers of the affected country then the interests of all neighbouring countries are more or less affected by the resultant threat to security.

The Australian Government would, of course, prefer that Australia not be involved in insurgent situations in South East Asia at all. It is necessary however that, if the national interest in so doing is clearly identified, Australia should have the physical capacity to become involved if an emergency should arise, externally supported, and beyond the capacity of the threatened country to deal with unaided. It is necessary that Australia should have the practical option to provide - for the armed forces of its neighbours, where they are subjected to such threats emanating from beyond their border - the kind of support which will enable those local forces to acquit themselves most effectively against their adversaries.

The Government intends to maintain forces which keep these practical options open for the future. It rejects ideological arguments that we should decide in principle today to disqualify ourselves from helping our friends at some future date. It rejects so called pragmatic arguments Which would suggest that there is nothing in the military field which Australia could do to help its neighbours against insurgency. Within the limits determined by particular situations as they arise, it will retain the physical capability to do what is required. It believes that only if it preserves these practical options and thus preserves too the evident political option to support its neighbours will its military capabilities support its diplomatic and economic efforts in its environment.

I turn now to the Indian Ocean. The Defence Review refers to the Soviet Naval presence in the Indian Ocean and points to the present and potential strategic importance of this new manifestation of power. Let me make one thing clear. The Government does not regard the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean as, in present circumstances, a direct military threat to Aus tralia. It does regard it as a weapon in a Soviet diplomatic offensive in the littoral states, including those states from which vital petroleum supplies are obtained. It does not consider that this increase in Soviet influence would tend to an improvement of Australian security in time of war or to the pursuit of more independent foreign policies by Indian Ocean states in times of tension. History has demonstrated clearly that the USSR is not averse to exploiting any opportunities for political and economic leverage.

Soviet naval power in the Indian Ocean poses the possible need for other nations to deploy forces to the area. It facilitates the gathering of intelligence covering Australia or our allies. Our response has been to encourage a Western re-action to this pre.sence adequate to demonstrate to the countries of the Indian Ocean that that ocean does not and will not become a Russian preserve and that Western interests there remain positive and will be secured. To the allied responses the Australian Government has contributed positively by offering the co-operation of our maritime forces in surveillance and by improving and making available to our allies military facilities that will assist them. Our action in this regard has been warmly welcomed by our allies as a positive contribution to global security. It will be pursued vigorously - and not least in the progressive development of Cockburn Sound for the support of our allies and as a major facility for the improvement of Australia’s own naval capabilities.

China’s military power is of growing rather than lessening importance in Australian security. The Chinese nuclear armoury is already substantial enough to be taken into account by both of the super powers. The fact that Australia is not a nuclear power and has every desire to remain non-nuclear does not confer upon us some invulnerability. On the contrary it confers upon us a need to contribute as a non-nuclear power to the maintenance of the global nuclear equilibrium which is sustained by the United States. In this policy there is no provocation unless our very alliance with the United States is held to be such. I do not believe that there are any in this Parliament who would suggest that it is. To help to prevent a nuclear war is, we believe, consistent with our first and highest national interests, with our alliances - including our obligations under those alliances - and with our international obligations generally.

I want to return, however, to the subject of China, whose military inventory contains a good deal more than nuclear weapons. The Defence Review has pointed to the expansion of China’s conventional naval and air forces and to the modernisation of all three of the Services. While these forces are organised today essentially for the defence of China’s borders, they already possess some offensive potential and it is clear that this capability will be developed further. As to the intentions of the Chinese Government there are as many predictions as there are experts. Australia is concerned no less than any other country to sustain and develop the more conciliatory international attitudes of that Government. But Chinese military capability is a factor which cannot be ignored in considering Australian security.

I wish to say something of Australia’s defence obligations in Papua New Guinea. Our hope is that Papua New Guinea will advance in security and stability through the pre-independence period and through all the years which follow independence. We have contributed unstinted efforts to ensure this and we have high confidence in it. We must, however, recognise the contingency that in some way or in some measure the future security of that country might be threatened. The Government’s view is that this and future governments must be provided with the means to act militarily in support of the Papua New Guinea Government if the need should arise, if our help should be sought, and if we should wish to respond.

Before considering the kinds of forces needed by Australia in the future I should like to remind honourable members of the size, capabilities and competence of the forces we now have. The situation is vastly different from that of 10 years ago. During the 1960s public attention has been focused, quite naturally, on the commitment of our forces in Vietnam and on the operations and achievements of those forces. What has perhaps been insufficiently appreciated is the major expansion of Australian defence capabilities which has been brought about by the decisions of this Government and its predecessors over the past decade.

In this period the strength of the permanent forces overall has been increased by some 69 per cent from 48,000 to 81,000. The Army strength has virtually doubled, new equipment has been taken into service, additional battalions have been formed and a structure established which has enabled us to sustain over a period of years a task force of 3 battalions and supporting arms in combat operations in Vietnam. The Navy strength has risen by 55 per cent from 11,100 in 1962 to 17,200 today. In that period HMAS ‘Melbourne’ has been extensively modernised and has been reequipped with new aircraft in each of the reconnaissance, strike and anti-submarine roles. Our escort fleet has been almost completely modernised with new ships. A submarine arm has been re-established and is being built up to 6 boats. A patrol boat force has been established. New fleet support and research ships have been commissioned or are building.

Similarly in the Ah Force, strength has been built up by some 43 per cent over the last 10 years to its present level of 22,700. When the Fill aircraft are brought into service next year the Royal Australian Air Force will have been vitually re-equipped with modern aircraft in each of its main roles - strike, tactical fighter, maritime reconnaissance and strategic and tactical transport. In bringing into service these new and more advanced types of equipment, each of the Services has vastly expanded and modernised its technical and supporting and maintenance establishments. Today we have substantial and effective fighting services in being, well equipped and with good morale. This is a sound base on which we can proceed with confidence to the further improvement of our defence capabilities.

I turn now to requirements for the future. Timing of decisions for the progressive modernising and reshaping of the forces is a complex matter. We must first consider strategic need. We must take into account when existing equipment will come to the end of its operational life by attrition or by obsolescence. We must examine the lead time for the acquisition of new equipment, and this may vary from a few years to 5 years and more in the cases of the more complex items particularly if developed in Australia. We must establish when new technology will enable us to obtain weapons systems suited to our requirements and with the substantially improved performance which would justify the replacement of equipment presently in service.

With the ending of our combat involvement in Vietnam we have an opportunity to give greater weight now to long term factors in the shaping of our forces, and to move progressively to a national defence capability appropriate to the demands which might fall on us later in this decade and into the 1980s. We shall in the first instance, as I have already said, need forces which give us a greater independent capability so that we may be more selfreliant in protecting our own interests, and in dealing with lesser military situations. Greater self-reliance will also enable us to co-operate more effectively in security matters with our neighbours, who are disposed to look to Australia for co-operation and assistance while they are developing their own forces. It is in no sense in conflict with our expectations of assistance, under ANZUS, if a major threat to our security should arise. Rather, as I have already indicated, greater self-reliance will equip us better to play our part in ANZUS. Greater self-reliance has many aspects. It means a general level of competence in defence which enables us to develop and evaluate concepts and equipments related to our own national needs. It means more selfsufficiency in combat and support arms where we might previously have looked to allies - for example in some aspects of tactical air support or specialised sea lift or in afloat support for our Navy. In the further development of our forces we need to keep under constant review the balance between land oriented capabilities and maritime oriented capabilities.

The ratio between expenditure on capital items and expenditure on the maintenance of the forces is always a critical element in defence programming. There is a need during the mid and later seventies to spend very substantial sums on modern weapon systems and capital installations and facilities which represent long term investment in defence capabilities. We will develop our ability to give defence aid and cooperation over a wide spectrum of training, technical assistance and support and equipment for our regional allies or friends. Australian training schools have a deservedly high reputation, and our military competence is acknowledged in South East Asia. Our object must be the further development of the military capabilities of our friends in the region. We assisted the Malaysian Air Force through the gift of Sabre aircraft and an extended training programme. A similar programme is now under discussion for Indonesia. The Royal Australian Air Force has played an effective role in helping to develop a Bloodhound Missile system as an essential part of Singapore’s air defence.

We must of course at all times ensure the progressive development of an organisational and, as necessary, physical base for the mobilisation of the nation’s manpower and material resources for war. This requires, among other things, the maintenance of appropriate reserve forces for all 3 Services.

These requirements have implications for all 3 Services. The Navy and the Air Force are concerned with the preservation of the security of our general maritime environment and with freedom of navigation. They must have a capability to engage in surveillance in the region, in flag showing, and in combined exercises, coordinated with allied activity, in the ocean areas surrounding Australia. There will be a requirement for in-shore operations, including coastal and seabed surveillance and the protection of fisheries and support of the civil authorities. There will be a continuing requirement for strategic and tactical transport forces, both air and naval. Naval escort capabilities relevant to a wide range of roles are required in all probable, and in most contingent, situations. There will be a need for naval forces with an attacking capability; the composition of these forces requires further study.

The general trend for the Army should be toward maintaining a regular force, versatile and highly trained, mobile, taking full advantage of military skills and technology, and supported by reserve forces with the potential for expansion should the situation require this. The Army must maintain a capability to deploy and sustain in operations a task force of 3 infantry battalions and with adequate independent capability for combat and logistic support. This will require the maintenance of a regular Army in the vicinity of 40,000. In present circumstances this strength could be sustained only by the retention of the national service scheme. In the case of the Air Force, the requirement for a strategic strike force is confirmed by our advisers. Maritime reconnaissance and strike capability is required. There will be a continuing need for close air support, including (he possible acquisition of specialised aircraft for this purpose. There will be a continuing need for air defence capability.

On the basis of these considerations the Chiefs of Staff and the Department of Defence are currently together analysing some 70 larger weapons systems and major equipments on which decisions are said by the initiating Service to be desirable in the 5-year period 1972-73 to 1976-77- although delivery and payment would, in many cases, be spread over many years later. The equipment proposals under study are closely related to the foreseen end of life in the latter part of this decade of some of the defence capabilities now in service - such as the aircraft carrier ‘Melbourne’ and its helicopters, Neptune long range maritime aircraft, anti-aircraft guns and tanks and many more such cases.

The recommendations of our advisers will come before the Government for decision in the mid year. It is not intended that all the equipment referred to should be decided on then. The Government will then take only those decisions which should be made in the first year of the programme. Other purchases and provisions will not be decided in detail because it is the essence of programme planning not to freeze decisions prematurely. For example, we must remain sensitive to strategic changes. Negotiating positions with suppliers must be preserved and technological developments watched before finally selecting equipment.

I have made reference to the structure of our forces and to future equipment needs but we must always be conscious of the vital importance of the individual serviceman. We must seek in all Services a high degree of individual and corporate professional competence and motivation. Effective training, job satisfaction, adequate remuneration, status, proper recognition and provision for families are some of the factors in producing an effective fighting force. The Government’s understanding of the needs of the serviceman under today’s conditions, and deep concern for the welfare of members of the Services, are reflected in the many improvements already made in conditions of service, as well as the further improvements which are under active study.

Honourable members are aware of the work of the committee headed by Mr Justice Kerr which has made a comprehensive review of the fundamental conditions of service in the forces. All of the recommendations made to date by the Kerr Committee have been accepted by the Government. In addition other matters are under examination, including the review of the defence forces’ retirement benefits scheme by a parliamentary select committee, and the future machinery for the assessment and determination of Service pay and other conditions of service. The Government is not merely concerned with the remuneration paid to servicemen, important though this is, but we endeavour to improve the status of the serviceman in the community, to increase his job satisfaction, and to minimise his disabilities, while recognising that there will always be distinctive features of Service life, particular attention is being given to the improvement of Service housing, both as to standards and numbers. It is a matter of great satisfaction to the Government that so much has already been achieved in respect of improved conditions of service, and that this is already being reflected in improved recruiting and retention rates in the Services.

We need a progressive and long term development of base, communications and support facilities to serve Australia and its allies, co-ordinated where appropriate with civil development. These are the costly long term assets such as dockyards, airfields, barracks, storehouses, training establishments and research facilities which cannot be. created at short notice and which represent an investment for use in contingencies we cannot presently foresee. Many major decisions have been made already. Work is proceeding on the naval support facility on Garden Island at Cockburn Sound, which will serve our own forces and which we expect will be used by our allies. The first major stage will be completed in 1975. There have been major extensions to the RAAF base at Learmonth, Western Australia. The army aviation centre is being established at Oakey, Queensland. The Government has approved major works at the Jungle Warfare Training Centre at Canungra in Queensland. Plans are being developed for extensive works at Townsville and Amberley air bases, Army task forces bases, and the naval dockyard and shipbuilding facility at Williamstown, Victoria.

The Government will continue to foster defence industry in Australia. As the result of the application of this policy we have already become largely self-sufficient in items of basic equipment, such as ammunition, small arms and general stores. We will in addition, in areas of higher technology, but of necessity on a selective basis, put into production in Australia an increasing number of those items which are strategically important. Where total production in Australia is not practical, we will continue to seek opportunities for Australian industry to participate in partproduction or, if this is not practicable, in offset or reciprocal purchasing arrangements with the overseas supplier. A particular area of project activity which we are actively pursuing is that of collaborative programmes, involving Australian participation with an overseas company in the joint design and production of equipment required in both countries. The extent to which actual contracts will result from these opportunities created by Government initiatives must ultimately depend upon the efficiency and competitiveness of our defence industry. We will, of course, continue to look for situations where the skills developed against defence requirements have a value in accelerating the technological growth of other segments of industry.

In the time available to me this evening I have only been able to select significant aspects of Australia’s situation and some of the Government’s policy intentions. Other issues not calling for Government decisions now are set forward in the Defence

Review in the terms in which our advisers see them. Before I conclude I return - to one matter of overriding importance to the security of Australia and many other countries. I refer to the response which the Government believes we should adopt to the continuing defence burdens which are borne by the United States. The Government will continue to give defence cooperation to the United States. We will not impose doctrinaire conditions that would undermine the strategic mobility and the capacity for swift reaction by the United States against its adversaries. These 2 elements are the foundation of the deterrent system upon which the President of the United States is trying to develop understandings between the Americans and the Russians. They are the foundation for maintaining an effective balance of power in relation to a nuclear arming China - a consideration of great concern for Australia in the years immediately ahead as will be seen from the description of the subject in the Defence Review. Nor, in the Government’s view, should we permit disclosure of technological military secrets to undermine such advantages in the strategic balance as the United States may possess.

These are serious matters for the future security of smaller countries like Australia. I would like to say something further about the United States. The cost of keeping up the deterrent and general defence capacity borne by the American taxpayer and economy have been and are of prodigious size. We are aware of the arguments and pressures inside the United States against present levels of defence spending and defence aid. There are no comparable restraints on the growth of the mobile strategic strength of the Sovietnor on the unannounced expansion of the land, maritime and nuclear forces of China. This is not a time for carping or sniping about American defence policies. It is, I suggest, a time to acknowledge the debt which Australians, among others, owe to the United States for the burdens it is still carrying 30 years after Pearl Harbour and after that great country’s acknowledgement of its leadership role which it has performed steadfastly since. I present the following papers:

Defence - Ministerial Statement, 28th March 1972, Australian Defence Review - Department of Defence, March 1972

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

That the House take note of the papers.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barnard) adjourned.

page 1256

AIRLINE POLICY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Discussion resumed (vide page 1247).

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– As 60 often happens in this House, we move with great speed from one subject to another which is not really very related to the first, in this case from defence and foreign affairs to domestic airline policy in Australia. We of the Australian Labor Party Opposition have raised this matter in the Parliament today to show our concern for Trans-Australia Airlines, the people’s airline. All the signs are that this community asset, this example of public enterprise, is being subjected to unfair treatment by this Liberal-Country Party Government because of the misguided, doctrinaire attitude of this Government. There is a need for evening up the attitude of the Government. At the moment there is a serious Government preference in favour of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd.

Mr Speaker, let me make it quite clear that I am not taking part in this debate today with the purpose of denigrating Ansett. My purpose is not to drive a nail in the coffin of that piece of enterprise. Whether we like it or not, as my colleague the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) has said earlier on in this debate, the two-airline policy is here to stay. The wording of the matter of public importance we have raised implies this. We recognise the need for even-handed treatment of our airlines. The question is: On what conditions is it here to stay? Is it to be a condition that we have an overall environment in which the private airline will be mollycoddled at the expense of the community, or are we to have a situation which we on this side of the House want, namely one in which the people’s airline, TAA. will not be shackled in the interests of private enterprise but will be set free to compete in the interests of the community.

Ansett Transport Industries has the vast resources of the present Government to stand up and fight for it. Some of these resources are being fed into the coffers of the Liberal and Country Parties. This - we must face the facts- is its payoff. TAA has no such opportunities. Fortunately we have the Auditor-General to see to it that TAA cannot contribute to Party funds. So TAA must rely on the courage of its Chairman, who is appointed by the Government, and on members of the Australian Labor Party Opposition in this House to stand and put its case. We think it is a matter of urgency that we should do so today.

Mr Speaker, in case there is anyone noting my words who considers this account of mine of the position in which we find ourselves in this debate a biased one, I draw attention not to the words of politicians but to those charged with the task of running TAA. I ask honourable members to have a look at what was said by the late Sir Giles Chippendall when he retired as Chairman of TAA. He made a sensational series of announcements about his thoughts on Government internal airline policy. In particular he said that he believed that TAA should not be hamstrung by such policy and that it should be allowed to operate its aircraft as it wished within the limits of very general overall policy. Then there are the courageous words of the present TAA Chairman, Air Chief Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger. He has not minced his words. The ‘Canberra Times’ of 13th December last reported Sir Frederick Scherger as having said that the. 2-airline policy in Australia had been a kindly wet nurse to the non-aviation activities of Sir Reginald Ansett. According to the report, he went on:

He-

That is Sir Reginald Ansett - said that TAA which of course, only undertakes airline activities, had anunfair competitive advantage’ over his 3 road passenger operations, road freight company, extensive accommodation interests, 6 manufacturing and trading companies, 2 television stations - and 6 airlines.

What nonsense it is to think that TransAustralia Airlines the airline formed by the last Labor Government, has an advantage over Ansett Airlines of Australia. Sir Reginald Ansett does a lot of crying wolf in order to obtain more concessions from this Government, which is so sympathetic to his private operation. Sir Frederick

Scherger, the Chairman, of Trans-Australia Airlines, has said of the Government’s 2- airline policy:

It has also enabled Sir Reginald to build up his non-aviation interests -

I repeat that they include the road passenger operations, the road freight company, the accommodation interests, the manufacturing, trading and engineering companies and the television stations - over the years in a guaranteed economic environment, because they are inextricably combined within the Ansett Transport Industries Ltd group with his airline activities.

That is a quotation from a statement made by Sir Frederick Scherger showing what TAA is suffering in the way of unfair cOmpetition. That is why he referred to the 2-airline policy in Australia as being ‘a kindly wet nurse to the non-aviation activities of Sir Reginald Ansett*. In the same speech, Sir Frederick pointed out that ‘the Airlines Agreement Act came into being specifically to help Sir Reginald’s fledgling airline survive to become part of our 2- airline system’. As many people will remember, part of this help included forcing TAA to swop half of its Viscount fleet for Ansett’s DC6 aircraft which were not as competitive or profitable. Equipmentwise, the molly-coddling and wet-nursing has continued. On every occasion when TAA has wanted to branch out with boldness into a more up-to-date fleet, the Government has held it back in order to cater for the needs of the more conservative Ansett airline. We on the Opposition side of the House give notice now that that arm of TAA’s which has been tied behind its back will be untied. That will not be done to ruin Ansett Airlines of Australia. The honourable member for Newcastle and I have already stated that the 2-airline system is here to stay.

We concede that there has been some virtue in competition. Frankly, there ate some Labor members who, for various reasons, travel with Ansett Airlines of Australia, just as there are many Liberal and Country Party members who travel with TAA. I would prefer that the competition should be between 2 public enterprise airlines. But that is not to be. We are not afraid to face the realities as they exist and to cast these thoughts aside. One reality is that tremendous patronage is bestowed by

Governments on airlines in this country. I refer not only to the many public servants who fill airline seats but also to the over $4m which is available in postage contracts. Although this patronage will continue to be shared equally, there will not be further concessions given to Ansett visavis TAA. Another reality is that TAA should be allowed to run intrastate airlines in places such as Western Australia. Look at the tremendous advantage derived by Ansett Airlines of Australia in having so many other smaller airlines feeding it on its trunk routes. A further reality is that Government patronage must be used as a weapon to force more accounting disclosure out of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. For example, how do we know that Government guaranteed loans at reasonable interest rates, which are supposed to be used for the purchase of aircraft, are not being used to subsidise, say, television operations?

I hope I am not doing Ansett Transport Industries .Ltd an injustice when I say that it is little wonder that Commonwealth parliamentarians do not receive copies of its annual reports - unless, of course, they are shareholders, which I am not. I am aware of receiving copies of the annual reports of such companies as Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd and Hamersley Holdings Ltd. But I cannot remember receiving copies of annual reports of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. I should receive copies of these reports. Large amounts of public funds are tied up in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, but the research I have done indicates to me that there must be a serious improvement in those published financial statements, in that there must be a separation of Ansett trunk line aviation activities from that company’s other commercial ventures. Let us disabuse our minds, if this can be done, of the idea that public funds are subsidising television and other than airline activities. The reality of the position goes much deeper than this. The reality is that TAA must be allowed to enter the accommodation field and many other fields. Now is the time to unshackle TAA. Successful as it has been, now is the time to allow it to go out and give even greater community service. This is the purpose of this matter of public importance raised by the members of the Australian Labor Party. We give notice that we mean to achieve this when we attain the Government benches.

Mir McLEAY (Boothby - Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation) (8.55) - I think that the speech we have just heard from the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) is one of the weakest in a series of monumentally weak speeches I have heard from him. He resorted to a scurrilous attack on the Government parties and Sir Reginald Ansett. The charges that he made are totally untrue. As usual, he quoted statements made by many other people and did not have an original idea of his own. Fortunately, he is not the official spokesman on aviation matters for the Opposition; the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) is. At least, we hear some common sense from the honourable member for Newcastle, even if what he says does need a little straightening out. I would like to make a couple of points in relation to the comments of the honourable member for Newcastle which I think, to say the least, were a trifle unfair. I made some notes during his speech earlier today.

He criticised the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) for not keeping the Parliament informed on various civil aviation developments such as airline charter negotiations with the United States of America and possible operations to Australia by the Concorde supersonic airliner. He will remember making those charges. They are quite false. No Minister or department has kept the Parliament and the people better informed than Senator Cotton and the Department of Civil Aviation have. I have in my hand at the moment some of the Press releases and public statements which have been made on these very matters. One subject on which statements have been made is the Australia-United States Air Service Agreement. Two statements were made on this subject - one on 19th September and another on 21st September. There is no point in waiting to give the country or the Parliament news if events take place when the Parliament is not sitting. The Minister’s policy is to make sure that the public knows about news when events happen. If an event happens when the Parliament is sitting, he will bring it to the notice of the Parliament immediately. That is his record, and the honourable member knows that. The honourable member referred to the announcement concerning the Concorde supersonic airliner. That was pure Press speculation. There has never been a Press release announcing a decision on the Concorde supersonic aircraft, simply because no decision has been taken.

Mr McLEAY:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Civil Aviation · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– That is the point. The trouble with honourable members of the Opposition is that they read Press speculation and regard it as fact. In the last 24 hours, approaches have been made by the British Government to this Government. But no statement has been made on this matter. So I reject the criticisms of the honourable member for Newcastle. He also gave his understanding of the unusual matter of public importance raised by the Opposition. I will read it because I think it suits the Government parties very well. It reads:

The need for an even-handed 2-airline policy.

That is what we have. As I remember what the honourable member said, his interpretation of this matter of public importance is that TAA should be given similar opportunities to those given to Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. I think the honourable member for Adelaide implied that if ever the Australian Labor Party becomes the Government he will bring the big stick down on Ansett. I would like to have that statement clarified, if it is possible. I agree that it is difficult to dissect the figures in relation to Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. The figures pertaining to that company are its own business. The subsidiaries are all mashed up together in transport operations, television

Mr Hurford:

– Does the honourable member think they should be?

Mr McLEAY:

– Whether they should or should not be is its own business. If the honourable member looks at the ‘Financial Review’ of 8th March last he will find a very good article which peers behind these figures. He will find that the percentage of profit to capital in relation to TAA is 42.S per cent and in relation to Ansett Transport Industries it is 38.6 per cent. That does not sound to me like the activities of an air company which is victimised by the Government, which is what the honourable member implied. Recently the transport organisation TNT, headed by Mr Thomas, bought a large parcel of shares in Ansett Industries at $] a share. I understand that those shares are worth 88c each on the market. I would like to know what honourable members opposite would pay for shares in TAA, if they were available. On my calculations, if I could afford the outlay, I would be prepared to pay $1.20 for each TAA share. Surely the value of an organisation’s shares on the market reflects the true value of that organisation. 1 am not quite sure what the expression even-handed’ means. I take it that it implies that the Government tends to favour Ansett Industries at the expense of TAA and therefore has restricted the activities of TAA. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have conferred with the honourable member for Newcastle and he has agreed that a summary of TAA’s activities in the period from 1962 to 1971, included in its latest annual report, should be incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr McLEAY:

– TAA’s annual report for last year sets out those interesting figures showing the activities of a business which allegedly has been heavily repressed. They show that profit has doubled in the period from 1962-1971, rising from $926,000 to almost $2m. The value of fixed assets has risen from about $29m in 1962 to over $74m in 1971, without any need for additional funds. The number of employees has risen from 4,600 to about 7,500. The number of passengers carried has doubled in that period and total revenue has risen from a little over $34m to over $108m. In that period TAA was required to return to the taxpayers a dividend which has increased from 5 per cent in 1962 to 10 per cent in 1971. Its accumulated divi dends make an interesting total of $ 11.25m, a sum very close to the capital of the organisation.

Who would not want to have a piece of that company? During the same period Ansett Industries increased its capital from $13m to $27.5m. That is not too bad for a company which honourable members opposite say is not getting a fair go. I think both the honourable member for Newcastle and the. honourable member for Adelaide mentioned the restriction that applies to activities in hotel ownership and other fields. They implied that if those restrictions were not applied TAA would greatly improve its operations. However, the position is that under section 19 of the Act TAA is not at all inhibited from expanding those; types of services. Buses are an example of this form of expansion. On page 16 of TAA’s annual report for last year an enormous list of overseas agents is set out. TAA accepts bookings for Great Barrier Reef holidays. Do not honourable members opposite think that TAA would get some sort of commission from the hotels into which it books people, as well as getting the business of transporting them to the area?

It is interesting also to note that Ansett Industries is diminishing its ownership of hotels. I agree that at one stage the Government rejected an application for ownership of hotels, but ownership of hotels would not help TAA one scrap. It is access to accommodation which is important. Unfortunately there is very little time available in this sort of debate but I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to information given by both airlines in respect of accommodation. I have here 2 pamphlets which I picked up this afternoon from the 2 airline offices concerned. Under the heading of ‘Accommodation’ the wording in each is precisely the same. It states:

Whether for holiday or business requirements accommodation can be reserved by Ansett Airlines of Australia–

TAA’ can be substituted - anywhere in Australia or overseas.

TAA is not inhibited in respect of accommodation. In spite of what the honourable member for Adelaide has said, the Government has positively assisted TAA. TAA conducts the aerial services to the Northern Territory. That is referred toon page. 11 of its latest report. What a shame it is that the honourable member for Adelaide does not read the report. He would be better served by doing that than reading from a newspaper report and rehashing it in Hansard. Most of it was quite irrelevant. TAA conducts services for the South Australian Department of Lands through the agency and help of governments. TAA carries out maintenance on Commonwealth aircraft and also for many aero clubs in Australia. In the remaining seconds of my time I would like to point out that on behalf of Qantas TAA operates a regional international service to Honiara, West Irian, and also operates to Timor. I know that because I have been to Timor on a TAA aircraft.

I repeat that Ansett Industries is phasing out of hotels. Where possible Ansett is getting rid of his hotels. He does not think there is any advantage in owning hotels. TAA compared extremely well with Ansett Industries last year when it carried about 100,000 more passengers than Ansett excluding Papua New Guinea. Yet honourable members opposite say we are discriminating against TAA. Last year TAA received a subsidy of $453,000, while Anset Industries received $440,000. There is very little difference in the subsidy. TAA services the nation. It operates to Queensland and other outback areas. Ansett has withdrawn from those areas.

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

MrDUTHIE (Wilmot) (9.6)- We have just heard from 2 South Australians who did not agree with each other. That is probably natural, because one of them is a Labor man and the other is a Liberal - and what a Liberal! The speech of my colleague the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) was excellent, well prepared and full of facts. The speech of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) was full of nothingness. The honourable member for Adelaide quoted the view of the present 2 airline system held by the manager of Trans-Australia Airlines. I would sooner take his word for it than that of the honourable member for Boothby. The urgency motion we are discussing is relevant, pertinent and important. It would not have been necessary if the Government had been protecting its own airline. One would expect a government to protect and encourage its own airline if it believed in it, but this Government does not believe in public enterprise as a way of life. Hence it discriminates against and restricts TAA.

No private airline in the world has had the financial assistance and other assistance from a government that has been accorded to the Ansett airline. Ever since Mr Ansett established the open corridor to the office of Sir Robert Menzies in the 1950s Ansett Industries has enjoyed Government patronage. This patronage has been designed to stifle real competition and to restrict TAA’s operations. Ever since the LiberalCountry Party coalition first took office in

December 1949 TAA has been on the rack, fighting for its life to survive economically against an airline kept viable partly at least, by government assistance and encouragement. Obviously the Ansett airline is not a full-blooded private airline at all because the Government has rescued it time and time again in times of crisis. In fact, the Government would dearly love to kill off TAA because it is a government airline and this Government, deep down, despises public enterprise. Only the fear of the people’s obvious reaction is preventing the Government from creating a one airline system for Australia, and that would be a private airline.

No-one would take from Sir Reginald Ansett the credit for establishing Ansett Airways and building it to its present peak of performance. No-one would take from him credit for the initiative, drive and vision he has displayed since he entered the road and air transport systems back in the depression days of the 1930s. I know his story backwards because he operated originally from the town of Hamilton in Victoria where my people have lived for many years. I have no criticism at all of his airline. It is one of the finest airlines in the world and I travel with it often. It is a splendidly operated airline and its staff are professionals at their job. Let it be said once and for all that this is the general opinion of everyone on this side of the Parliament

In this urgency motion we are condemning the Government because it is prepared to restrict and restrain a government commissioned airline in the face of pressures from a private airline in competition. We agree on the 2-airline policy but it has to be evenly and fairly balanced, or ‘evenhanded’ as our motion states. Further, we want to remove some of the frustrating restrictions imposed on TAA by this Government. They have not been imposed by Ansett. I do not blame Sir Reginald Ansett for getting where he is today by means of Government assistance. Good luck to him. But what a weak-kneed Government we have had under Menzies, under Holt, under Gorton and under McMahon that let him get away with the things he has got away with. This is what we are criticising. We believe that TAA should have similar rights and benefits because the private air line in this country has a great advantage, as has been pointed out, in the fields of road transport, television, the construction of buses and its diminishing hotel business. It has airline feeder services monopolising in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia in particular. We believe that TAA should have similar rights and benefits. That is all we are saying. We say not that it should have move rights and benefits but that it should have the same.

TAA should receive Government loans to provide hotels and motels for its tourist potential. TAA should be given the right to operate feeder services in Western Australia and Victoria. The Labor Government in Western Australia had better get off its tail and start to do something about this. The 1945 Act specifically states that only a State Premier can invite TAA to operate within a State. We have a Labor government in Western Australia, and what is it doing about getting TAA into the west? We have a Labor government in South Australia, also, and what is it doing about this situation? Further, why should not the government airline have the sole right to carry the mails of this nation which are at present shared between the 2 airlines? TAA last year received $2,191,392 on competitive routes for carrying mails but Ansett carries the mails in the 3 States in which it has feeder services operating in a mopoly situation. So overall it would receive more than TAA for the cartage of air mail. TAA has paid $12m into this Government’s coffers in the last 5 years in taxation, and millions of dollars in interest payments on loans.

This airline is a credit to those who founded it. It came into being in 1945. The 1945 Act created the company under the drive and initiative of the late Arthur Drakeford, Minister for Civil Aviation in the Chifley Government. The first aircraft of TAA went from Melbourne to Sydney on 9th September 1946, which was 19 days before I came into this Parliament. At that time TAA had one solitary aircraft. Today it has 53, many of which are the most modern in the world, At June last year the company had 1,149 flying staff comprising 268 captains, 238 first officers, 51 flight engineers and 532 air hostesses. That is a miracle in government enterprise which would equal anything anywhere in the world. I am proud of what TAA has done in spite of the restrictions and hindrances that have been placed on it.

We speak in this Parliament with only limited information. Whereas TAA has to give a detailed balance sheet of its year’s operations to this Parliament, as laid down under the original Act, its rival airline has no such obligation. The Parliament never receives a balance sheet of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. Nobody except its top executives and shareholders has any idea how its airline operations finish up each year. The accounts of the airline service are balanced with other Ansett enterprises. They are all mixed up together. The real facts of the airline operations are secret. How can a government assess accurately the expenditure or nature of its assistance to an airline which makes no public or parliamentary announcement of its balance sheet? Surely the Government must be working largely in the dark in assessing any sort of assistance to Ansett Airlines. Where public moneys are spent, where Government sponsorship is given, the full facts should be available to the people and the Parliament. Private enterprise cannot afford to be so private that no-one but the top men knows what is going on.

The entry of Thomas Nationwide Transport to the scene has changed things also. The combined turnover of Thomas Nationwide Transport and Ansett from now on will be in excess of $300m a year. TNT has purchased 23) per cent of Ansett shares. It is generally assumed that TNT previously gave each of the airlines half of its business. It is natural to assume, therefore, that from now on all of TNT’s business will be channelled to Ansett Airlines. In view of this boost to Ansett, TAA should be given the right to expand its existing freight operations or to negotiate wilh other freight forwarding agencies or companies such as Ipec Carriers, Brambles Transport Services and Kwikasair. It should be able to exercise its own business judgment in expanding freight operations. Finally, TAA’s engineering services should be authorised to take in outside engineering work, either by contract or by tender, because its highly skilled labour and technical machinery are not used to full capacity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope>Order! The honourable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– Having listened to Opposition speakers on this issue, it strikes me forcibly that they must be very short of a medium to criticise the Government because they have chosen one of the most successful efforts ever made in any country to provide a satisfactory 2-airline service. It has been achieved in a country where this was not very easy because of the vast distances to overcome. So it is certainly a compliment to the Government that a debate on this subject should have been brought forward. It shows the paucity of subject matters on which the Opposition can tackle the Government. The Government is firmly committed to the 2-airline policy. Opposition speakers, and especially the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones) who led for the Opposition in this debate, did not argue with that. He agreed with it, at least in principle. He brought the matter back to a question of principle. It has worked well as a general policy. There is no question about that. We have received commendation not only in Australia but also throughout the world on the effectiveness and the record of our 2- airline policy.

The argument put forward by the Opposition overlooks many important points, including the international standing of our aviation services, the safety record and the progressive outlook that has always been adopted. The Opposition would have been better and more fairly employed in paying a compliment to the airline services of this country. To my mind aviation and national development are complementary and this is the manner in which they have been treated. Obviously, air services which provide speed, reliability and safety are basic to the conduct of commercial affairs and often are a prime reason for a decision to decentralise an industry. Air services are a very important factor in Australian development and indeed they are a stimulator of land settlement. They remove, to some extent at any rate, the penalties of distance, at least so far as it relates to travelling time. As you would well know. Mr

Deputy Speaker, they are a logical vehicle for the tourist traffic which is bow reaching remarkable proportions in this country.

As Australians, we can all be very justly proud indeed of the record of the airline services in this country. If, as I have said, commerce, decentralisation, settlement and tourism are bound up with development, surely we must acknowledge that the one thing common to all - indeed it is indispensable - is civil aviation. If one part of Australia is more dependent than another on this type of service it is those areas where there are vast distances to travel but a relatively sparse population. These factors necessarily throw into stark relief the hugeness of the challenge to civil aviation in Australia, a challenge that I firmly believe already has been accepted and met - in the light of considering financial limitations - and it is a challenge that will continue to exercise the best technical and administrative brains that the Department of Civil Aviation and the Federal Government can employ. But their record in the past, by comparison with international standards, is something, I repeat, of which we can feel very justly proud indeed.

Australia has some 700 licensed aerodromes and over 6,000 authorised landing grounds. Our airborne nation is ranked third busiest in the world in domestic operations, tenth in international operations and sixth busiest in total passenger operations. What a magnificent record. It seems that the Opposition wants to try to take away the credit from the people who have brought this about. I cannot understand members of the Opposition even suggesting that there should be criticism of the Government’s airline policy. All they have brought forward to support their case is the fact that a transport company has bought some shares in Ansett Transport Industries Ltd.

Mr Hurford:

– I did not mention that.

Mr CORBETT:

– The honourable member for Adelaide may not have mentioned that but he misses a lot of things. That is the basis of the Opposition case.

Mr Hansen:

– It is on equal rights.

Mr CORBETT:

– I am making this speech. The honourable member for Wide Bay can say something about it afterwards. I listened very carefully to what was said and I am quite accurate. The Opposition bases its case on the fact that Thomas Nationwide Transport bought some shares in Ansett Transport Industries and it therefore wants Trans-Australia Airlines to be given the same privilege and to be allowed to do the same thing. I think the honourable member for Wide Bay might have said that. This is what the Opposition case hinges on. Opposition members are making these comments before there has been time for the Government to evaluate what change there might be as a result of the purchase of shares by TNT. There will be time enough for the Government to do this. In fact, according to information I have received, it is not very definite that this transaction will go through. It is not clear cut yet. I repeat, despite interjections, that this is the only concrete argument that Opposition members have used for having this discussion and for criticising the Government.

The Government at all times has endeavoured to be fair to both our major airlines. If some honourable members in this House like to think that one airline has been treated a little better than the other, that is a matter of opinion. The general balance of opinion is that both airlines have functioned very satisfactorily. I think some honourable member said that TAA had contributed Slim to the Commonwealth. Surely that does not indicate that the airline is having difficulty in maintaining its position in this country. Surely that indicates that it is getting a fair share of the business. If I remember rightly, the honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Duthie) claimed that there should be a fairer distribution of business between the 2 airlines. He went on to say that TAA should carry all the mail. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Opposition became the Government we would not have a 2-airline policy, although it pays lip service to that policy. There would be monopoly control of airlines in Australia. The Government has endeavoured to keep this 2-airline policy operating.

Mr Duthie:

– You will get your free ticket on TAA.

Mr CORBETT:

– I do not know what the honourable member for Wilmot said but it does not matter anyhow; normally his words are not worth listening to. There is no doubt that the Government has spent a tremendous amount of money on civil aviation. It has done a great deal in this field. It introduced a local ownership plan for aerodromes and spent a lot of money, as did local government authorities. The only worry I have about this local ownership plan is that many local authorities are finding such great difficulty in financing their operations that they have difficulty in taking full advantage of it. The Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) recognises this difficulty. Local government authorities will be able to take full advantage of the plan only when a more equitable system of financing local government is brought into operation. I think that that will happen in the not too distant future, but of course, that is another subject.

In the very short time available to me I would like to make some comments on a statement that has just been .made available by the Minister for Civil Aviation. The Minister announced on 23rd March that the Commonwealth Government plans to provide extra aid for about 70 country airports throughout Australia. The cost of capital works to upgrade country airports to jet standard - about $10m over about 10 years - is clearly beyond the resources of country communities, particularly at the present time of depressed rural industries. The Government is anxious to provide these facilities everywhere. It is conscious of the need to try to do something further for country people.

I am sorry that I do not have time to read all of this statement by the Minister for Civil Aviation but he went on to say that he believed that the change in policy would enable country towns to improve their aerodromes, particularly terminal facilities in the interest of local prestige and tourism. Tourism will grow and it will cause tremendous changes throughout Australia. We will find that the Government will give greater consideration to developing airports in order to enable this growth in tourism to take place and everybody in Australia will benefit from it.

I do not have time to reply to all the things mentioned in this debate. I would like to point out - I thought the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) might have mentioned this - that TAA has applied for access to the Perth-Darwin route and the Government will consider this request. I appreciate the fact that the honourable member for Wilmot informed us that the Labor Governments in Western Australia and South Australia were not doing in civil aviation the things that he felt they should be doing. I venture to suggest that if there is a change in government the Australian Labor Party will not do anything about the major issues facing civil aviation in this country. Its performance will pale by comparison with the magnificent performance of the 2-airline service in Australia under the sound policy operated by this Government and the assistance it has given.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order! This discussion is now concluded.

page 1264

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM 1962 TO 1972

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 23 March (vide page 1134), on the following paper presented by Mr Fairbairn:

Australian Forces in Vietnam 1962-1972 - Ministerial Statement, 23 March 1972- and on motion by Mr Chipp:

That the House take note of the paper.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
Bennelong

– We are resuming a debate which began last Thursday on a statement made in this House by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn). I asked him to make that statement because I felt that now that our combatant troops have returned from South Vietnam the Australian people should know not only what they did but the results of their achievements. I wish only that every man and woman in Australia could read the Minister’s statement because it is a very good one. I believe it is necessary to place on record, for the sake of history, our participation in the conflict in South Vietnam. It is unfortunate that over the years the work of our forces and the magnificent things they did in Vietnam have been distorted by fierce propaganda which, I am sorry to say, was aided and abetted greatly by the Australian Labor Party, particularly by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) who is now sitting at the table. This made the task of our forces much more difficult than it need have been.

I believe no-one who reads the Minister’s statement could be but completely proud of the part that Australia played in that conflict, proud of the performance and sacrifice of our servicemen and women who took part. Perhaps more importantly, they could not but be proud of the hope and strength that our troops gave to the people of South Vietnam.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) spoke after the Minister for Defence had concluded his statement and I think his response was pathetic. All he did was to tear to shreds the high motive of Australia. That motive was to give the people of South Vietnam a chance to have freedom. There was in the Deputy Leader’s speech not one word of congratulation for the magnificent performance of our servicemen who fought in the name of Australia by order of the properly elected government of Australia. The view of the Australian Labor Party is that the whole of this conflict was wrong. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition went on to say that the North Vietnamese could never be defeated, that we were to blame for turning a local insurgency into a war and that all we succeeded in doing was to give time and help to the South Vietnamese to build up a powerful fighting force. He said also that North Vietnam was only biding its time and that a gory conflict - I am using his words - would end in a full scale war. Sometimes I wonder whose side the Labor Party is on. In its opinion would the proper course have been to hand over the whole of this area to the communists without any conflict and without offering any help to the South Vietnamese? That is the only alternative to what we did and to what our troops did.

Why did we go into Vietnam? It is necessary to remind ourselves, because we tend to forget about these things, that when the Second World War ended every independent country in South East Asia was ravaged by internal communist aggression and that very often this aggression was aided by either China or Russia. We all remember what happened in North Korea and South Korea and the part we played in the war that took place there. We know about the communist infiltration and aggression in Singapore, Malaya and, indeed, Indonesia, which was lucky to escape complete communist domination, as well as in Thailand, in the Philippines and in Vietnam. Most of those countries - Thailand, of course, is not one - are countries which have in comparatively recent years achieved their independence. Those countries were all fighting desperately to maintain their own individual freedom and to have their own national aspirations, but every one of them without exception was infiltrated by communist aggression within, and somebody had to do something about it.

It became necessary for the free world to set up organisations for collective security. This was properly referred to by the Minister for Defence in his statement So was born ANZUS, which is of course the greatest arrangement that this country could ever look forward to for its protection. SEATO was also born at that time as an organisation of collective security. So too was ANZAM, which is not referred to very often now but which was an arrangement between ourselves, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. We were vitally concerned with the events which were taking place in the countries to which I have referred because they were taking place in our part of the world. We, of course, took an active part in these organisations. As everybody knows, we played our part in the war that took place in Korea. We also played a great part, together with the United Kingdom, in preventing Malaya and Singapore being taken over by communists immediately after the war. I was the Minister for the Army at the time and I remember well what was happening and the fight that took place at that time to clear Malaya of communist terrorists. Had the Labor Party’s policy been accepted and followed by the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the other countries involved - the Labor Party says that that is the principle which should have been followed - all of South East Asia would now be under communist domination. No-one can deny these facts. I put that forward as the reason why we played a part - a comparatively small part but nevertheless a part which was commensurate with our ability - in the events that took place in South East Asia.

Time does not permit me to give the whole history of these events. However, I think I should point out that it was on 26th April 1954 that the Geneva Conference partitioned Vietnam into the North and the south. Without going into the details, it is known to us all that millions of people who did not want to live under communist domination or communist rule left the north and went to the south of Vietnam. Although they were entitled to do so under the Geneva Agreements, very few people left the south of Vietnam to go to the north. A number of those who were still of communist persuasion deliberately stayed in the south to sabotage it and to sabotage the Agreements. It was on 17th April 1955 that South Vietnam appealed to the United Nations against North Vietnam violating the Geneva Agreements, which prevented North Vietnamese going to the south. We do not hear much about these things now because memories are short.

The initial help from the United States was of only an advisory nature. I visited Vietnam in 1959 and, even at that time, we were giving considerable help to the South Vietnamese. We did not have official instructors or advisers there then, but we did have some of our people giving advice. We were at the. military college at Da Nang. We were also trying to help the South Vietnamese in other ways. We sent experts to Vietnam to assist the South Vietnamese to establish a dairy at Bien Cat. Well do I remember visiting this dairy, which was being sabotaged and where cattle were being killed every night. On the afternoon I visited it there were 250 troops with machine guns in the trees to guard me. I know I am not worth guarding, but that is what happened. I remember that clearly. We also sent military instructors to South Vietnam. That decision was first announced on 24th May 1962. By 1965 - it is interesting to think back on this because up to that time North Vietnam was denying that she was taking any active participation in the action or the aggression which was taking place in South Vietnam - it became obvious that, with the active support of and propped up by Russia and China, the North Vietnamese had in many ways overrun the south and the South Vietnamese were unable to help themselves. The Americans having started to help the South Vietnamese, at the request of South Vietnam we made a decision in this House on 29th April 1965 to commit our troops to active participation in South Vietnam. I remind honourable members that the Australian people were behind this Government when that decision was made. Two or three elections were fought on the issue of our active, participation in South Vietnam and the people of Australia gave this Government a mandate to carry on this participation. The gallup polls at that time indicated clearly that a vast majority of the people of Australia approved our activities in Vietnam.

Mr Keogh:

– What do they indicate now?

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– They indicate differently because of the sabotage of the Labor Party and of the stunts which have been performed - moratorium marches and what have you. In any case, I want to point out briefly but clearly to the House some of the results that have been achieved. I want to emphasise that the bringing home of our combatant troops - of course, we have left some assistance there - is no more a withdrawal from a conflict than the flying home by the Americans of some of their troops is a withdrawal from a conflict. The objective that we sought to achieve by going to Vietnam has been substantially achieved. South Vietnam now has a formidable army. It has well equipped and trained forces which are capable of defending that country. We gave an opportunity to South Vietnam to establish its own freedom. South Vietnam will still need certain assistance, particularly with its air force and with equipping and training its forces.

Perhaps one of the greatest things that has been achieved has been the extraordinary advancement made in the economy of South Vietnam since the days when the South Vietnamese were attacked by the aggressive forces from North Vietnam. The South Vietnamese people went through terror at that time, but today they arc making great strides in their economy. Progress is taking place everywhere and the standard of living is rising. Fear is diminishing, which is of the utmost importance. Hope for a better future has been restored. This has all happened because we contributed our small part to allow this small nation to preserve its freedom and independence.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Many years ago I saw a film entitled ‘Colonel Blimp’, and in the peroration I heard that the Colonel would never die. I now realise that be has not died. The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) presented this statement. This is an Army affair; it is not an external affairs statement. Where is the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen), who is supposed to know something about Vietnam? The Minister for Defence spoke like Colonel Blimp. It is as though the Pentagon Papers had never been published, as though every statement which the honourable member for Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) made tonight had not been thoroughly disproved by official American documents, as though nothing had ever happened.

Now that almost all Australians have been withdrawn from Indo-China and it appears that Americans are being withdrawn, we are being asked to conclude that it was all worth while. But the documents to which I have referred and many others show that the war in Indo-China, carried on by Americans and Australians, has always been an unjustifiable, immoral,, illegal and even criminal war, and it remains so. Since the beginning of the debate about Vietnam in 1961 I have taken one side and the Government and all its supporters have taken another. There were many vital matters in the disagreement between us. Among them were whether what was being fought was aggression from the North or a movement strongly supported by the people of Vietnam and Indo-China; whether the war that began in South Vietnam had been started by the people in South Vietnam oi whether it had been started and carried on by North Vietnam; and then whether the war in South Vietnam had been started by the Diem Government by attacking those it called communists, or whether it had been started by an attack by those called communists upon the Diem Government. Another question was whether the enemy, as the Australian Government and almost no-one else in Australia chose to call them, relied mainly upon terror and intimidation, or whether they had won support genuinely from the people. Another question was whether the Australian Government and American Government, which the

Australian Government merely parroted in any case, had told the truth or lies about the war in Vietnam.

I and other members of the Oppositioncan claim to have taken one side in all these questions and the Australian Government and its supporters took the other. I think I can now claim, on the basis of official American evidence shown in ‘ the Pentagon Papers and elsewhere, to have been right and the Australian Government and its supporters were wrong. Australia was wrong to go into the war in IndoChina, and those who have died in that war have unfortunately died in a bad cause. For this the Australian Government is guilty and should be dealt with for being guilty. Because of its guilt in the war in Indo-China, far more than for any other reason, the Government of Australia should be rejected by the people. This great question about guilt in the war in Indo-China cannot be answered only on the basis of recent years, or on cliches such as those which we have just heard from the honourable member for Bennelong.

The war in Indo-China did not begin in 1965 when Australians were sent there. It did not begin in 1954 when Americans were sent there, or in 1945 when the French returned, or in 1941 when the Japanese invaded Indo-China. It began at least as early as 1847 when a French naval expedition arrived and in 70 minutes killed more people than had been killed in 2 centuries of war in Indo-China before that. The war in Indo-China in which Australians became involved in 1965 and Americans in 1954 can be understood only if we realise that Indo-China had been occupied by foreign powers for over a hundred years and that resistance against them had never ceased. When thinking about Indo-China few people think of events before 1965 or 1954. No honourable member on the Government side ever thinks of events before 1965 or 1954. It is as though they are completely ignorant of history. It is not surprising, therefore, that they are generally wrong.

Throughout the second half of the 19th century there was a mandarin led guerrilla war against the French in which ambushes, assassinations, terror, mass executions, search and destroy missions, concentration camps and tiger cages were as common as in recent years. Does not anybody on the Government side know that? Nothing the Americans or Australians tried to do was not tried by the French over 70 years before. But there was no French victory. Does not anybody opposite know that? The only thing that has changed has been the power of the guns and bombs that the invader used. During all these years French imperialist occupation of IndoChina transformed the country. Rice had to be changed from a food crop, prohibited from export, to a commercial crop for export. A landlord system was created. Much of the security and cohesion of the villages was destroyed. A rural labour force came into being and unemployment became widespread. This is already thoroughly documented by the historians. It was these economic and social conditions, largely created by the French, which became the force behind the 20th century national revolution which Australian and American forces fought in the name of fighting communism. Does not any honourable member opposite know that?

The first stage of the war in Indo-China was at an end by about 1890. Now the Indo-Chinese nationalist middle class, and intellectuals, were no longer able to lead the fight against the French with guns but turned to politics and to Japan and China for aid. It was not until the 1920s that they lost leadership to those who argued that the French could be expelled only by the Indo-Chinese themselves, and that there must be a campaign also against the Indo-Chinese ruling class who shared power with the French. This stage of the war had come to an end by 1931. The historian Harold Isaacs summed up what had happened in this way:

The line of French priests, conquerors and governors is matched by a line no less long of IndoChinese fighters and martyrs and leaders of the people.

Does not any honourable member opposite know that that is the history of Vietnam and of Indo-China?

The fourth stage of the war came with the Japanese invasion of 1941. How many times does a country have to be invaded before it is entitled to fight for itself? The issue which now determined whether a man was a patriot or not was his willing ness to fight against the foreigners. Then the British troops came back and the Chiang Kai-shek forces in the north came back and they differed from the British only in that their pay-off went to their generals and not to big business. The fifth stage of the war began on the morning of 23rd November 1946 when French warships opened fire on Haiphong and later French officials calmly admitted that ‘no more than 6,000 were killed in 2 hours so far as naval bombardment of fleeing civilians was concerned’. How much do people have to take before they are entitled to fight back? Does not any honourable member opposite know anything of this history and recognise these things?

The sixth stage of the war began before the Geneva Agreements had even been signed. The fully documented evidence of the Pentagon Papers shows that the EisenhowerDulles Administration rejected the Geneva Agreement and its election, set up the Diem Government and began immediately to supply it with military power for only one reason - so that it could immediately set out to destroy the communists, as it was put, in South Vietnam and equally as much elsewhere in Indo-China. On the other hand the Pentagon Papers show equally clearly that North Vietnam accepted the Geneva Agreement and told their people in South Vietnam to prepare for the election and began to seek relations with Diem. Understandably, in North Vietnam some showed strong opposition to this but it was only after the Diem-American forces began their campaign to eliminate the communists and extended it to everyone else that there came back into existence a guerilla movement in the South. Douglas Pike states in his book Viet Cong’ - he is the American authority - that they fought because they were forced to fight for their existence. Has the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) ever read Douglas Pike? Has he ever read the Pentagon Papers?

Late in 19S9 North Vietnam changed its policy. It began to send men and arms, in a trickle for well over a year, and it endorsed the military action being taken by the guerillas in the South. As the DiemAmerican forces escalated their attack - largely with helicopters - so North Vietnam sent more aid to the South. The year 1963 showed that Diem had been completely unable to bring about the reforms recognised as necessary because he and his supporters were built into the landlord system and could not bring about reform. The year 1963 also showed that the DiemAmerican forces faced military defeat. Hence the seventh stage of the war began in which the fighting was taken over by the Americans and North Vietnam and Laos were intensively bombed. This was not because of aggression from the North. The Tonkin Bay incident was misused by Johnson so that it became the biggest lie of the war. It was because the Diem-American regime in the South was demoralised and defeated that North Vietnam and Laos were bombed. But North Vietnam, confidently predicted as vulnerable by all the experts, could not be forced to surrender. Laos became the most intensely bombed area in human history. The light at the end of the tunnel never came nearer and American costs and casualties mounted. Finally the Tet offensive, judged impossible, took place. President Johnson for the first time found that to make his decision for negotiations at all credible he must give up what he wanted more than anything else in life - that is to be American President again and not to be the first American President to lose a war.

The eighth and last stage of the war in Indo-China began with Nixon’s hidden war of the automated electronic battlefield. Has not anyone heard of it? General Westmoreland said that the electronic battlefield was a war in which machines replaced men. He said: an integrated area control system that exploits the advanced technology of communications, sensors, fire direction and its required data processing.

Leonard Sullivan, Deputy Director of Research and Development, had told a committee: we can detect anything that perspires, moves, carries metal, makes a noise, or is hotter or colder than its surroundings.

The New York Times’ had discovered:

The landscapes of Vietnam and the border areas are studded with (millions of) electronic sensors that beep information into banks of computers.

Michael Malloy in January 1972 summed it up:

The entire process, ‘from beep to bang’ may take less than 5 minutes.

The Nixon hidden war has been the result of the work of those moral eunuchs that war scientists have become. Professor Pool of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had warned:

  1. . unless it is severely provoked, or unless it succeeds fast, a democracy cannot choose war as an instrument of policy.

Every shred of justification that the war had been provoked by North Vietnam disappeared. Then came the Pentagon Papers to prove that it had been a deliberate policy on the part of the United States all the time and so if the war were to be carried on it had to be carried on, as Professor Huntington of Massachusetts said: reasonably limited, discreet and covert’. It had to be hidden. The automated electronic battlefield was the ideal answer. There is a strange failure of the mass media to report this war. Are they part of a Nixon conspiracy to hide it or have they been unable to find out the facts about it? Professor Huntington put it:

The direct application of mechanical and conventional power now takes place on such a massive scale as to produce a massive migration from countryside to the city.

The automated electronic war admits that the strength of the Vietcong is the people. It admits that if the guerrillas are to be defeated they have to be separated from the people. The guerrillas cannot be hit enough, so the people have to be hit. The guerrilla war is a peoples’ war. The American war is an anti-people’s war. The automated electronic war admits that if the enemy is to be defeated the people have to be driven into towns and cities and become isolated behind the lines of firepower. Hence millions of refugees are created. People are sent into the corruption of the cities to live on the American payroll of sex and Japanese consumption goods. They are brainwashed and indoctrinated. The automated war is an anti-personnel war. It kills. Its bombs are designed to hit people and sometimes not even to kill. The bombs leave the aircraft in one capsule then spray out in hundreds at a time over a wide area. On hitting the ground some of them bounce 5 or 6 feet and then explode so that the spray of metal scraps and fleshettes will be more likely to hit more flesh. Sometimes they are designed to drive into the simple shelters used by the peasants. Sometimes they are small mines which look like a leaf or a piece of soil which, when stepped on, can blow open a bare foot. That is the kind of war honourable members opposite are supporting.

Not only is the automated war a hidden war to perserve the President’s electoral standing but also it is an anti-personnel war. It is a war of a thousand My Lais for which no-one is responsible for there is no Lieutenant Calley pointing his rifle at a woman or a child. It is an anonymous, cowardly war. It is in breach of almost every international convention. The truth is that the automated electronic war is not an effective substitute for men on the ground. It has been described as the most expensive and least effective military endeavour in history. It will be people, not machines, that win the war in Indo-China. America’s people have had little to fight for but money. The Vietnamese people have existence as a nation to fight for. That is the difference that will eventually decide that war. It may be that the war in Indo-China can remain hidden enough for President Nixon to be elected again as President. But it is hardly likely that the war in IndoChina can long continue after that election. The eighth stage of the war in IndoChina is the last stage. There is no other.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Minister for Education and Science · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– It is unfortunate that even now almost in the aftermath of the Vietnam war so far as active intervention and support by allies are concerned, we in this House cannot make some objective judgment of what has occurred and of what the present position might be. The honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) who has just spoken has shown quite clearly that he does not live in this world. He lives in this area with a passion that ill accords with the facts of what has, in fact, taken place. He lives within an interpretation which can only make sense if one is prepared to accept the inevitable march of certain political philosophies. He has shown quite plainly that his memory of the facts does not accord with what will be recorded in history. He talks of the Geneva Accords. He talks of the will of the North for elections. Does anyone in this House, even the honourable member for Lalor, believe - is anyone prepared to state - that there has ever been a free election in a communist dominated country where majorities of 98 per cent and 99 per cent for the government in power are the common thing? Quite plainly with the universal elections foreshadowed by the Geneva Accords of 1954, where the numbers in North Vietnam were greater than those in the South - with a 98 per cent majority in the North - there was no possibility of a fair and impartial judgment over the whole country. When an analogy was drawn between what the French were doing and what the United States tried to do the honourable member for Lalor quite plainly glossed over the fact that the French tried to establish an empire or to re-establish an empire and that the United States and others tried to assist the country to become free.

Is the honourable member for Lalor ignorant of the fact that a Vietnamese ambassador in this country, at the age of 23 years was a battalion commander with the Vietminh against the French and that 2 of his senior officials in the same embassy also fought with the Vietminh against the French? In 1950 or 1951 when the Vietminh put off the cloak of reasonable agrarian reformers and announced themselves as dedicated communists and put the hard word on those who did not wish to be communists what happened as a result to those who were determined to be nationalists but not communists? The Vietnamese ambassador who was in this country for some time found that he and his battalion were sent out on an operation against the French. The communist Vietminh sent a copy of his battle orders to the French. So, the Vietminh nationalist battalion was decimated by the French. That was an example of the kind of war that the North Vietnamese have waged since then and right through time.

It was interesting to hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) agreeing with the Government in several areas. At one stage last Thursday, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said: j

Undoubtedly, some measure of stability has been achieved in South Vietnam and some economic progress has been made.

He went on to say:

The Minister-

That is, the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn): has pvt increased security and an improved economy in strong terms and I accept these claims.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition even gave qualified support to what he called the conventional view of the Government that the cause in Vietnam was just and that time had been ensured to give the South Vietnamese Government the chance to bring stability and economic transformation to the country.

In the early part of this debate, the Deputy Leader had said:

This assessment may be proved to be correct, but the best that can be said is that it is open to grave doubts.

This is in marked contrast to the policies of many 0’her Opposition spokesmen. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the moderate, has been not inconsistent with his earlier views. On 26th May 1967, he said in Saigon that the Australian Labor Party might need to take a hard look at its defence and foreign policies as they applied to South Vietnam, now that he was satisfied that there was a large-scale North Vietnamese invasion of the south. The implication was plain. It was that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanted his Party’s policies changed. The statement that he made in recent times confirms the moderate view that he has taken throughout.

This is in marked contrast to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) or the honourable member for Lalor. Referring to Cambodia on 1st March 1970, the Leader of the Opposition said of the speech by President Nixon on Cambodia:

This is not a turning point in the war. It is a turning back to disaster.

This was in marked contrast to the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) who had been to Cambodia and who had seen the evidence at first sight. In July 1970, the honourable member for Wills urged Australian support for Cambodia against North Vietnamese aggression. This was the opposite of the view of the honourable member for Lalor and of the Leader of the Opposition. The honourable member for Lalor described the attitude of the honourable member for Wills at the time as a ‘short term, rather shallow way of looking at it’.

This debate ought to take on a wider context than what has happened in South Vietnam itself. We need to put it into the context of the total relationship in Indochina and the interaction that the struggles in this area have and are having on the relationships and the significant realignments that have taken place between the world powers. Many people have referred to 3 wars in Vietnam, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, but it has always been one war. It has always been a North Vietnamese objective to establish dominance over the whole territory. The Chinese and the Russians have provided and continue to provide enormous military assistance, the greater proportion of the sophisticated supplies coming from the Soviet Union or Eastern bloc countries.

The problems of a divided Vietnam are not unrelated to the problems of other divided countries. There may be some who now forget the fact of the division of Germany and the several challenges that the Soviet Union made to the independence and integrity of West Berlin which became a symbol of freedom for the Western world and for western Europe in particular. There is only one reason why West Berlin was not absorbed into the East; that was the determination and resolution of the Western powers, having behind them the ultimate sanction of maximum United States support. I instance then Korea and the question of North Korea and South Korea. The South now is a viable and a strong nation, but one which must be constantly on guard against northern encroachments. South Korea survives as an independent State because of the courage and determination of several nations acting this time under United Nations charter to preserve the integrity of South Korea. That challenge from the communist powers was defeated.

There have been other notable occasions when the Western world has shown resolution. One of the most notable occasions was when the Soviet attempted to place missiles in Cuba. President Kennedy showed remarkable courage and determination in the face of the Soviet threat. The courage of the United States President might have been remarkable, but it was very necessary for the preservation of

American integrity and credibility. Whilst there have been differences, Vietnam began in much the same way - aggression, but aggression in a different form; aggression much the same as that which occurred in Malaysia in the 1950s and which took British, Malayan, Singaporean and Australian troops 10 years and much effort to overcome. Many have forgotten that the problems in Vietnam have always been infinitely greater than the problems in Malaysia or Malaya, for the simple reason of geography. In Vietnam there were the sancturaries in and safe supply routes through Laos and Cambodia. The Malay Peninsula was obviously a much easier territory to defend against this kind of aggression.

But the philosphy of wars of liberation has surely been devised to pose a different kind of threat to countries which wish to remain independent and which do not wish to recognise the dominance of either North Vietnam or Peking. It is now fashionable and convenient to forget that there remains a terrorist movement in Malaysia and Sarawak and that the terrorist movement in Thailand and the other 2 countries has been growing in strength. Can we look at these matters with equanimity when we see the Chinese words of the joint communique with President Nixon, reaffirming support for wars of liberation? There is no need for me to quote those words. All honourable members should have read them. What that communique ultimately means and how the Chinese intentions ultimately unfold are matters which, I would imagine, disturb many. But we must take comfort from the fact that the United States has made it plain, although it is not in the communique, that the status of Taiwan will not be changed by force.

With the rundown of the Vietnam war and with the transfer of obligations for military security almost entirely to the Vietnamese, there is a growing view that we can put trouble and difficulty behind us. Ten years ago we were much concerned with what was happening in our own region. We had cause to be. Now, for some strange reason, many appear to be much less concerned. What has changed? Events in countries close to us have been heartening and they augur well for those countries and for us. In Vietnam the South Vietnamese have been given time and an opportunity to survive, but the intention and capacity of the North remain and the determination of Russia and China to arm the North continues, as does the North’s ambition in relation to the whole of IndoChina. Security in Laos and Cambodia is probably worse now than it has been for some time. There is insurgency in many of the countries of the region, and it is perhaps more strongly entrenched than many would want to believe. So, on balance, we have some factors for good and some for ill.

But the marked and dramatic change in the circumstances of South East Asia is that the old certainties have gone. The British defence guarantee, which was absolute and categoric to the MalaysiaSingapore region, has been replaced by an arrangement of equal partnership in which the Australian attitudes are of paramount importance but which the Opposition calls into question. If we were not concerned, New Zealand alone would be too small and the British, on the other side of the world, could not, I believe, be involved without us. So the British link, whereas it was once categoric, is tenuous - welcome, but tenuous. In those earlier days the authority of the United States was unchallenged. She had had a series of successes in the challenges of Berlin, South Korea and Cuba - leaving the American standard and the free world standard flying proudly. But now it is a somewhat difficult world, partly because of the changes and difficulties of Vietnam and partly because of the lack of understanding of the nature of that war and of the importance of international morale, resolution and understanding in the Western world. The paramountry of American power has, with much cause, been replaced by the Nixon doctrine, which is a policy of helping those who can help themselves, as being the only credible means by which United States assistance and backing would be forthcoming. That policy can be understood.

But the changed British and American positions and the realignments that have taken place in the last 12 months, which may not work themselves out for well over a decade, have fundamentally changed the world in which we live and the old certainties have gone. So while we can recognise the progress that has been made in Vietnam, while we can recognise that that country has been given time, for her own people to struggle on more and more alone, no-one can foretell the future. Their present position is relatively good, but as support runs down still further and as Russian and Chinese support continues unabated for the North, one must beware of being too dogmatic about the future.

Our active, military support in Vietnam had to come to an end if for no other reason than that the United States had made its own decision about that. What we sometimes forget is that the world’s greatest free power is the only power that can do many things which must be done if the free and independent world is to remain free and independent, because nobody else has the capacity to achieve them. The United Kingdom carried this burden for perhaps a hundred years; the United States has carried it since 1945. Much of the time she has carried it alone, but not always. But there have been many occasions when other independent nations ought to have rallied to common causes and when they did not, and that is a cause for disillusion in the country carrying the burden. We must admit the reality of great economic and domestic problems which are preoccupying the United States. She has become more, inward looking and it is idle not to recognise that. But the facts of world power require an active and involved and vigorous and powerful United (States and, if that is not so, we will find the frontiers of independence being eroded in many places.

A prime task for Australia must be to do as we did in Vietnam, to do what we can to make the United States involvement in proper and just causes possible, and probable. And this does not necessarily mean primarily a military cause. We are involved in our own region. We will be affected by it. As major policies of our neighbours develop, those policies will have an impact upon us. Nobody argues about our relationships through diplomacy, trade and aid. The difference between our parties is the kind of contribution we also ought to make to military security. Without that involvement, without the involvement of the United States and the credibility of United States determination and resolve, the boundaries of freedom will shrink and the problems of the next decade will become infinite.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– So far on the Government side we have had contributions to this debate from the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) and 2 previous Ministers for the Army. I understand the Government speaker who will follow me is the present Minister for the Army (Mr Katter). This makes one speculate as to whether the Government sees the whole issue in this debate as merely a matter for the military. I am moved to wonder whether if the Department of Foreign Affairs had had anything to say about this we would have heard the same nonsense as is being purveyed by the ex-Ministers for the Army as we have heard so far.

The statement which we are discussing represents an attempt by the Government to rewrite its version of the Vietnam war. It is a pathetic attempt by the Government to justify its criminal intervention in someone else’s civil war. The guilty men are trying to rewrite history. Apparently they think the Australian people have short memories. Let me assure the Government that Australians will remember for a very long time the hysterical attempts in the 1966 election campaign to construe the civil war in Vietnam as part of a Chinese policy of territorial expansionism.

Vietnam is still a very important matter. The bombings continue, the fighting continues and people are still being killed. There are some important lessons to be learnt but they will not be found in the ministerial statement of the Minister for Defence. The Minister’s statement is full of distortions and half-truths and, most importantly of all, seems to indicate that the Government is obstinately taking the position that it did right and would do the same again. I say ‘seems to indicate’ because I believe that in fairness the Government would not send troops back if the situation in South Vietnam returns to what it was in 1965. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) a question on these lines last year and in reply he said it was hypothetical to talk about a situation in which Australian troops would be sent back to Vietnam. I think the truth is that the Government knows that the political situation in Australia is now such that an Australian government could not recommit troops to Vietnam, and the Opposition is glad of that.

The Minister’s statement is grossly distorting in its implications. It claims that the Australian troop commitment allegedly arose from requests from the South Vietnamese Government. Let us look at these so called requests. There is the letter from Prime Minister Khand in July 1964 to 34 heads of state. How could one possibly say that this was a request for troops? How many others of those 34 countries construed it as a request for troops? Not even the United States did so. Even the main United States commitment followed only several months later, in a different context and with a different South Vietnamese Prime Minister.

What a lot of nonsense it is to say that the next Prime Minister of South Vietnam, Mr Huong, made a request through the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson). Even Mr Howson has admitted that the conversation that he had was in broken French. It cannot be suggested seriously that this was the request on which we sent Australian troops to war. It seems to me that the very fact that the Government has invoked this argument shows how feeble is its whole case. The same goes for the interview with the Australian Ambassador, this time with a different South Vietnamese Prime Minister. The facts are again clearly to be seen by the letters tabled by the Prime Minister in this House last year. The fact is that Australia was not asked to send troops. Australia asked to be asked. The South Vietnamese Government then acceded to the Australian request. Furthermore, if we look at the Pentagon Papers it becomes pretty clear that the troop commitment came very soon after the American Ambassador in Saigon had told his Government that it should suggest an Australian troop commitment. Yet the Government tries to imply that the United States Government’s thinking had no influence on the Australian troop commitment. What utter rubbish. We danced to the American tune, and no-one can deny that. I am not suggesting that the Australian Government did not have other reasons for becoming involved, but it cannot expect us to believe that the United States Government had no influence on the decision. Yet this is what we are being asked to believe in the statement by the Minister for Defence.

Another very curious thing about the Minister’s statement is that, according to him, the influence of the Chinese no longer seems to be important. The Minister quoted the speech of Sir Robert Menzies in this House on 29th April 1965 on how the Australian Government did not want troops in Vietnam any longer than was necessary. Why did he not quote from the 2 paragraphs above that? Let me quote from that same speech of Sir Robert Menzies in which he said:

The takeover of South Vietnam would be a direct military threat to Australia and all the countries of South and South East Asia. It must be seen as part of a thrust by Communist China between the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Why was that not mentioned by the Minister on this occasion? Is that no longer the official view? If not, why not? Perhaps this explains why the Prime Minister would not say whether he would recommit troops if Vietnam returned to the 1965 situation. Is there no longer such a threat to Australia? Who knows? We are not told. The Minister has made no reference to it in his speech. The Australian people have a right to know their Government’s view of China’s activities and its intended activities.

I come now to another serious distortion in the Minister’s statement. The Minister states that by 1965 the North Vietnamese military build-up had reached critical proportions. This point is mentioned twice, and we are apparently being asked to believe that there was a steady build-up of North Vietnamese until 1965. In actual fact there were only North Vietnam advisers in South Vietnam until some time in 1965. It was not until then that the first reports came through of North Vietnamese units operating in South Vietnam. According to the Pentagon Papers the first reports of North Vietnamese units operating in South Vietnam came on 21st April 1965. The opposition to the Saigon Government until that time had been almost entirely from the National Liberation Front - the Vietcong - and that was not until the United States began bombing North Vietnam. It was then that the infiltration of North Vietnamese units began. Before the United States started the bombing, the

Saigon Government’s opposition came from the NLF which was, and still is, South Vietnamese.

Another remarkable statement from the Minister is that the North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces were influencing the South Vietnamese population by means of a persistent campaign of terror. He suggested that that was the only reason that the Vietcong received any support from the South Vietnamese population. I draw to the attention of the House an article by Konrad Kellen of the United States Rand Corporation, in which he states at page 10:

  1. . prisoner interrogations revealed that despite some problems that have arisen between the soldiers and the population as a result of the long war, the bond between them has remained close enough to provide physical and emotional support to the soldiers. The reason for this seems to be that despite the rigours of the war the soldiers continue to treat the local population with respect and otherwise attractive behaviour.

This was a study based on interviews with about 1,000 prisoners of the South Vietnamese Government. Why is there no mention of the practices of the Saigon Government?

It appears to me that much of the support enjoyed by the Vietcong is due to repression of dissident elements by the successive governments in Saigon. When I was in Saigon last year with the honourable member for Adelaide I was given accounts of how the Government treated its political dissenters, such as students. There is, according to my information, a very large number of political prisoners in South Vietnam and torture is standard practice. It is this type of treatment which helps the recruiting for the NLF. Anybody in Saigon who talks of negotiating with the Vietcong is ruthlessly dealt with. When I was there 1 heard quite a lot about Sen Chau. who had been imprisoned following an illegal trial. His crime was to have meetings with his brother, a member of the NLF, about how peace could be restored.

Why does the Australian Government not tell us about what happens to the political dissenters in South Vietnam? The Government has tried to deceive the Australian people. If we were to believe this Government, South Vietnam has been made safe for democracy. In fact, the Government of South Vietnam is neither democratic no safe. It is all very well for the Government to give its version of things in South Vietnam, but the honourable member for Adelaide and I got a very different version. We heard that there is a substantial body of non-Communist opposition to the Thieu Government, but that it is suppressed by that Government. There would be a chance for an alternative to Thieu and there are those in South Vietnam who have their ideas on this. One brave deputy, Deputy Duc, proposed a coalition which he said could be composed of people acceptable to 90 per cent of the population. But the Thieu Government will have none of if.

Just how secure is the Government of South Vietnam? We were told that 30,000 NLF sympathisers had infiltrated into government positions. We were told that more government positions were overrun in 1970 than in the previous year. Yet the Minister would have us believe that the NLF and the North Vietnamese are now unable to mount any large offensives. An alternative explanation is that they do not need to mount any such offensives as they are doing quiet well on the political front; besides which they do not want to take any military action which might slow down the American withdrawal. In other words, the Government is trying to pretend that South Vietnam has been saved from Communism and that is why we got out. The facts are really that the United States and Australian Governments have given it away as a bad job.

When I was in Vietnam I was very pleased to interview one Madame Ngo Ba Thanh. Madame Thanh is a very important figure in the peace movement in South Vietnam. She told me that what the peace movement desires in South Vietnam is the withdrawal of all foreign forces. I asked her whether the NLF would try to achieve a military victory if the United States withdrew. She said that she did not think so. She believes that the NLF would cease military tactics if it was not threatened by a Saigon government backed by a foreign power. She believes that withdrawal of United States forces would positively help bring about a political solution rather than a military solution. She believes that all different interests would be represented in any government set up by such a political settlement. Such a government would not be dominated by the NLF to the exclusion of everybody else. It is sad and ironic that I should recall Madame Thanh in this debate. Three nights ago on the Australian Broadcasting Commission I heard that Madame Thanh has been brought to trial by the Saigon Government. In fact, she has now been in prison for 5 months awiating trial.

Towards the end of his statement the Minister said:

The concept of collective security, therefore, continues to be of vital importance to us. If we are to rely on it, as we must, in relation to the deterrents of more serious levels of threat, we must also be prepared to contribute, as we have done in Vietnam.

I hope that this does not mean that the Government has not learnt anything at all. I hope that it does not mean that if there is a recurrence of the 196S situation in Vietnam or a similar civil war situation, such as in Thailand or Sarawak, Australia does not just blunder in as it did last time.

Australians would like many questions answered now that we have got out of Vietnam - questions about things that have happened that we have not heard about in the Minister’s speech. What diplomatic initiatives are we taking to get a peaceful settlement? What are we doing to try to rehabilitate South Vietnam? What is the Australian attitude to the Paris Peace Talks? What are the implications of the Nixon visit on the future of Vietnam? All these things we would like to know but we have not heard about them. We think they are of prime importance at the present time.

Finally, there have been tributes paid in this debate and I would like to pay another tribute. It is to the Opposition speaker who preceded me, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). He has, in my belief, contributed an enormous amount, an unequalled amount towards the peace movement in Australia and I believe that because of the attention he has drawn to the criminal operations of the Australian Government in Vietnam he has brought about a change of heart and a withdrawal of Australian forces. I believe that the Australian people are in his debt.

Mr KATTER:
Minister for the Army · Kennedy · CP

– Just one comment before 1 commence: It is interesting to note that Ambassador Anderson described the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) as the most fluent French speaker in the Australian foreign services; that is just for the record. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the achievements of the Australian forces in Vietnam which have been so clearly and concisely outlined by my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) in his statement to ?he House on 23rd March. As the House will appreciate, I am a relative newcomer to the Army portfolio and of course I have not as yet had the opportunity to visit our forces in Vietnam. Nevertheless, from the outset. I have followed with interest and great pride the outstanding achievements of our servicemen in that theatre of operations. To me it has always been a matter for regret, and in many cases contempt, that members of the Opposition continue to do all in their power to detract from the splendid record which has been established by Australian servicemen in Vietnam. I do not for a moment suggest that the great majority of those opposite deliberately denigrate-

Mr Foster:

– I rise to a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, do I take it from the remarks of the now Minister for the Army, who has abused every country in the world that did not go into Vietnam, that he is saying, in effect, that every man on this side of the House - the Opposition side - has cast reflections on the capability of Australian servicemen?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr KATTER:

– I do not for a moment suggest that the great majority of those opposite deliberately denigrate the fighting soldier as such and in fact I was pleased to note that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) made a point of supporting the tribute paid by the Minister for Defence to all those Australians who participated in the Vietnam conflict. Notwithstanding this members on the other side of the House continue to write down the task which has been accomplished by these servicemen. I have listened with great interest to the comments by members of the Opposition during the course of this debate.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, with all due respect to your ruling I rise to a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the reading of his speech but I feel that I have to get to my feet again because of the fact that the Minister-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– What is the point of order?

Mr Foster:

– If the honourable member for the Northern Territory would listen-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 will deal with him. The honourable member should state his point of order.

Mr Foster:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you gave a ruling a moment ago or not.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I did give a ruling that there was no point of order.

Mr Foster:

– Do I understand that your ruling is that the Opposition is not to be protected in any shape or form against the repeated statements that we on this side of the House cast reflections against the capability of individual soldiers in the field? That is a damned lie and he knows it. Is there to be a ruling on that, or not?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order. I did not take that to be what the Minister said.

Mr Foster:

– Do I take it that a few moments ago when I was on my feet, having felt affronted at the remarks of the Minister, you ruled that he had cast no such reflection?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– There is no point of order.

Mr Foster:

– Have you ruled Mr Deputy Speaker?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Yes, I have ruled. There is no point of order.

page 1277

OBJECTION TO RULING

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I move: Tha the ruling be dissented from.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– WAI the honourable member put his motion in writing?

Mr FOSTER:

– That will be quickly done.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– You will be Leader of the Opposition yet, Normie.

Mr FOSTER:

– Never mind about being Leader of the Opposition. I take personal affront at the statement made by the Minister for the Army (Mr Katter). So far so good, but I cannot take that rubbish. It is a bloody disgrace that a man has to take this course.

Mr Robinson:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, I object to the words just used by the honourable member. They are a reflection on the Chair and on the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member for Sturt to withdraw that remark. It is a disgrace that he should have to be asked to do so. (The honourable member having submitted his motion in writing) -

Mr FOSTER:

– I withdraw the remark if it is offensive to the tender feelings of members on the Government side. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask whether the document I have written and passed through the Clerk of the House to the Chair is in order. I apologise for the writing. I do not have any departmental staff at my disposal to write a speech, as the Minister has.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The document is in order. Is the motion seconded?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I second it.

Mr FOSTER:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, you will note that the written motion deals with words used by the Minister for the Army. I have to rely on my memory of the words that were read by the Minister from a prepared document, but as I understand it he said that members of the Opposition denigrate the capabilities of the Australian soldier. Am I correct in saying that that is what you have in front of you. Sir?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– That is right.

Mr FOSTER:

– I know of no time since I have been in this Parliament when any words have been spoken about-

Mr Katter:

– I raise a point of order. I will repeat my words for the information of the honourable member.

Mr FOSTER:

– You have altered them, mate. I do not accept that from you.

Mr Katter:

– I said:

I do not for a moment suggest that the great majority of those opposite deliberately denigrate the fighting soldier . . .

I would suggest quite the reverse.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt has the call.

Mr FOSTER:

– I should think so.

Mr Katter:

– Why has the honourable member phrased his motion as he has?

Mr FOSTER:

– They are the words the Minister used. That is why I put them in. The Minister for the Army, in Press and radio announcements and when speaking from his previous position as a backbencher in this House a few short months ago, abused every western nation in the world when he referred to Britons and Scandinavians as being cowards because they did not enter the Vietnam conflict on the side of Australians and Americans. Such statements illustrate his sense of integrity.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair, which is a motion that my ruling be dissented from.

Mr FOSTER:

– I would not normally have brought that matter up again but I was forced to do so because the Minister saw fit, in taking a point of order, to change somewhat what he said a few moments ago. I am dissenting from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, because you must have heard what the Minister paid and, because of your long association with this place, you must have deduced that what he said was in fact most insulting to members on this side of the House. We on this side of the House have been most critical of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam. That is not denied and will never be denied. Why should we deny our opposition to this war? I am moving dissent from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we, as a Party or as individuals, have never cast a slur on the individual man in the field. In fact, I would say that if it were not for what honourable members on this side of the House had to say when the battalions were returning from Vietnam, this Government would not have accorded them the welcome they received from the public, belated as it may have been, when they marched through the city streets of the Commonwealth.

Mr Calder:

– What rubbish.

Mr FOSTER:

– That is not rubbish. That is on the record. I must hurt the honourable member to say that because he knows that what I have said is true. I would have thought, without wishing to cast any reflections on the Chair, that the statement of that man was such that you, Sir, as the occupant of the Chair-

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I rise to order. Is lt in order to direct a question to you, Mr Deputy Speaker? I seek your guidance on this point of order. Was it the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) or the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) who called upon the Australian troops in Vietnam to lay down their rifles? I would like your clarification on this point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– Order. No point of order arises.

Mr Daly:

– I rise to order. Is it in order for an honourable member who has shown gross disloyalty to his leader to challenge members of the Australian Labor Party on this question of loyalty?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– I rise to order. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will have heard the honourable member for Sturt using the term ‘that man’ when referring to the Minister for the Army. Is that a parliamentary term to use in the House.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-It is not.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– If it is not, I ask you to call him to order. It is about time someone did.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Sturt and ask him to confine his remarks to the motion before the Chair, that is, his reason for dissenting from my ruling.

Mr FOSTER:

– My reason for moving dissent from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, bluntly is that what the Minister for the Army says is a darned lie. If that is an unparliamentary term, I do not know what other term I can use.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to withdraw the words ‘a lie’.

Mr FOSTER:

– I withdraw it and in doing so I repeat that what the Minister for the Army has said of members of the Opposition in the context in which he has said it is absolutely untrue. I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), who is now climbing to his feet to take yet another point of order against me and to support the Minister for the Army in what that Minister claims to be true, to prove the truth of the statement by showing me where it appears in the records of this House.

Mr Chipp:

– I ask for the indulgence of the Chair, of the House and of the honourable member for Sturt for a moment to enable the Minister to make a statement which I am sure can resolve this matter within 30 seconds.

Mr Foster:

– Provided he withdraws the statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister for Customs and Excise has asked for the indulgence of the House to allow the Minister for the Army to make a statement or to comment on this matter. If the House will grant that indulgence, I will allow the Minister to speak.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I rise to order. Before that indulgence is granted, I do not think what you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, is what the Minister for Customs and Excise said. I think he said that if the House would grant indulgence, the Minister for the Army would withdraw.

Mr Chipp:

– I did not say that.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– If that is not the case, we will not grant any indulgence.

Mr FOSTER:

– In moving dissent from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must reiterate that I am certain it is beyond the capacity of members on the Government side to point to any part of the parliamentary record - honourable members know that every word that is spoken in the House is recorded - where any reference has been made by any honourable member or by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the context of the Minister’s speech which you. Sir, have ruled to be in order. The honourable member for Mallee (Sir Winton Turnbull) has been trying to interject. Why does he not keep quiet and go back to the cows and the dung. Why do you not pull him into line, Mr Deputy Speaker? He should leave the House while I try to address you.

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, the point of order I now raise is as much a point of order as those which have been taken recently. A challenge has been thrown out. The honourable member for Sturt has said: ‘Look at the record’. I ask him to look up the record of what was said about Chiller Blain in this House.

Mr Foster:

– Who was he?

Sir Winton Turnbull:

– The honourable member does not even know who that man was. Yet he is trying to challenge people.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order. 1 ask the honourable member for Sturt to come to the point. I think he is now starting to repeat his initial remarks on the motion before the chair, that is, the motion of dissent from my ruling.

Mr Chipp:

– I again ask for the indulgence of the House to give the Minister an opportunity of settling this matter. If he could be allowed about 10 seconds I am sure that the matter could be resolved as men of goodwill would want it resolved.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I will grant leave for the Minister to be listened to for 10 seconds, or a brief time, but if he does not do what is reasonable and necessary I assume the debate will go on.

Mr KATTER:
CP

– I categorically withdraw any suggestion that any member on the other side of the House would denigrate the Australian soldier. I am merely repeating what was in the speech.

Mr Chipp:

– I suggest that the honourable member for Sturt might now withdraw his motion.

Mr Foster:

– I withdraw the motion in the light of the withdrawal by the Minister and I thank you, Sir, for your tolerance.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Has the honourable member leave to withdraw his motion? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM 1962 to 1972

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed.

Mr KATTER:
CP

– Members on this side of the House continue-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired. (Extension of time granted.)

Mr KATTER:

– Mr Deputy Speaker, is it possible for me to have my complete speech incorporated in Hansard?

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I will agree to the Minister’s having permission to have his speech incorporated in Hansard provided he does not use his extended time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Permission to incorporate a speech is not granted in ordinary circumstances. The Minister has been granted an extension of time.

Mr KATTER:

– Let there be no mistake. Our servicemen in Vietnam have done a magnificent job in achieving the degree of security now prevailing in the province of Phuoc Tuy which has been the major area of our operations. Let us not talk, as do honourable members opposite, in the most gloomy terms of what could conceivably happen in Vietnam in the future. The facts of the matter are that we have come a considerable way in helping to improve the security of the country, and in the process the Australian Army in particular has demonstrated once more its ability to meet a commitment in a challenging and demanding theatre of operations.

Australian soldiers over the years have established an excellent reputation as jungle fighters and this has been recognised quite unequivocally by our allies the Americans. During a recent visit to Australia General Westmoreland, the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, paid tribute to Australian fighting men. He said: We can learn a great deal from Australia in jungle training; there were no better troops in Vietnam than the Australians.’ Inevitably battle and non-battle casualties have arisen from various causes. One such cause I have referred to on a previous occasion but I believe it is worthy of further mention because to me it represents an illuminating example not only of the basic quality of the Australian soldier and his training but also of the general high standard of morale that has existed throughout our force in Vietnam.

I refer to the fact that out of the total number of Australians serving during the full period of Australia’s participation in Vietnam, only 48 became casualties through emotional illness. This represents 0.12 per cent of our force, which was serving under conditions requiring extremely long hours of continual operational alertness. The task of maintaining and supporting a task force of 3 battalions and supporting arms and services has not been an easy one for a country of the size of Australia. There were considerable manpower problems to be overcome, but the overseas force was always fully manned. The strains imposed on the Army as a whole were large indeed, and the role of the Aus-‘ tralian Support Area, including particularly the training organisation but not overlooking the supply and maintenance organisation, was just superb. The Australian Army is now at the stage where it can look back on a most difficult period of active operations and can assess the lessons which have been learned. Inevitably the Vietnam conflict differed from previous campaigns in the way it was fought and publicised. That our operations were successful and that we achieved the goals set down for us was due to the thorough training of officers and men and the professional application of tried and proven doctrine and, of course, the top quality initiative in the soldier himself.

With the withdrawal’ from Vietnam now completed with the exception of the advisory group, the Australian Army is now presented with the opportunity to consolidate the experience gained from Vietnam. To this end the training of the Regular Army and the CMF must, and will, be designed to incorporate all that has been learned from Vietnam and to provide the capacity to produce units and soldiers ready for operational service in the shortest time. In the brief time I have been Minister I have taken every opportunity of finding out for myself how the Army is organised, trained, equipped and administered. It is a most worthwhile and satisfying task, and I have been most impressed by the standard of professional soldiering which is evident in all sections of the

Army. I have made a point of visiting soldiers based at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville in Queensland, at Holsworthy in New South Wales and Puckapunyal in Victoria. Next week I will be visiting Army installations in and around Adelaide and in Perth. In each case I take the opportunity of talking to the troops to find out at the grass roots level what the soldiers think of the Army, acquainting myself with their problems and seeing that something is done where the need is demonstrated.

In speaking of the role played by the Australian Army in Vietnam I must pay special tribute to the part played by our national servicemen and also by the CMF. Irrespective of one’s views on national service, the fact remains that approximately one-third of our soldiers in Vietnam have been national servicemen, but to all intents and purposes it has been one army, due to the policy adopted by this Government in integrating national servicemen in Regular Army units. Clearly we could not have achieved without national service what has been achieved in Vietnam. Nevertheless it is important to recall that national service was not introduced because of Vietnam but because in 1964 the Government assessed that it was not possible to obtain by voluntary means the army strength needed for our security. It must not be forgotten that the CMF also was represented in Vietnam. Apart from a significant number of members of the CMF who volunteered to serve on full time duty in Vietnam there were approximately 600 CMF officers who visited Vietnam since 1967 under a scheme which was designed to improve the operational efficiency of the CMF by providing practical experience in an operational area. The benefits of the experience gained by this number of CMF officers and being incorporated in CMF training in Australia have been felt already, and this influence will continue.

Before I resume my seat I would like to deny categorically the suggestion made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) who has succeeded to some extent in cutting my speech short because he just could not take it. He suggested that I made some speech in the House - this is a pure fairy tale - in which I said that certain people and certain nations - I think he mentioned Scandinavia - were a lot of cowards. This is an absolute unadulterated lie.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

– Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw the word ‘lie’.

Mr KATTER:

– It was somewhat inaccurate, and I very definitely made a statement even approaching that sort of suggestion.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will withdraw that word.

Mr KATTER:

– I most certainly withdraw it against a gentleman of that status and standard.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– If the issues of Vietnam were not so serious it would be humorous to hear the arguments put up tonight by members of the Government and its supporters, particularly the arguments of the Minister for the Army (Mr Katter). I admire the courage of the Minister in trying to defend a hopeless case. I always avail myself of the opportunity of speaking about Vietnam. For over 20 years I prepared and listened to evidence in criminal courts and in that time I never struck a case in which the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favour of one side as it is in favour of the Australian Labor Party in respect of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam. Our involvement will be to our everlasting disgrace. Our history books will record that the Australian Government was never able to live down its commitments of our forces to Vietnam. Future generations will ask: What was the attitude of my parents to that involvement back in 1962?* Our commitment has been a shame and disgrace.

Like the honourable member for Kingston (Dr Gun) I commend the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) for his submissions tonight. I would like to place on the parliamentary records that I always have held the view that no person in the southern hemisphere has a greater knowledge of the history of the war in Vietnam than the honourable member for Lalor. He has written two or three books on the problems of South East Asia.

The arguments of a former Minister for the Army, the honourable member for

Bennelong (Sir John Cramer) were as weak as the arguments of the present Minister for the Army. I was listening in my room to the broadcast of the debate and I heard the honourable gentleman refer to the Geneva Conference of 1954. He said that time would not permit him to spell out the issues of Vietnam. I have never heard a weaker argument. He never mentioned that the North Vietnamese were promised free election in 1954. Their attitude was tame until they woke up to the fact that they were being deprived of free elections in accordance with the principles of the Geneva Accords. When the North Vietnamese were deprived of free elections a right which the Australian people have cherished for many years - they took up arms because they had been deceived.

Mr Donald Cameron:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Tell us about the elections in North Vietnam.

Mr JAMES:

– I will answer the honourable member for Griffith. Elections for the whole of Vietnam were to be supervised by the International Commission. That is borne out by the word of the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison).

Mr Morrison:

– It is true.

Mr JAMES:

– It is true. The elections were to be supervised by the International Commission. The Vietnamese were promised free elections covering the whole of Vietnam under the supervision of the International Commission. The honourable member for Bennelong mentioned the fact that cattle were killed and said that he had to have a bodyguard. Then I heard him say that his death might not have been a great loss. I want to centre my remarks tonight on the use of defoliants by the United States of America. When the wheat crops were destroyed the people had no flour. A person deprived of food will steal or do anything. I guess that when the United States engaged on its anti-food campaign against the Vietcong and destroyed their grain they had to steal cattle in order to keep themselves and their loved ones alive.

The honourable member for Bennelong had the temerity to say that the Australian people were behind the Government’s decision to send troops to Vietnam. He said that this was revealed in a gallup pool. How true was the statement of the hon ourable member for Lalor that the mass media were reluctant to tell the Australian people the truth. When the Australian people discovered the truth the opinion revealed by the gallup polls swung the other way. The mass media no longer could hold back the truth. The same situation existed in the United States. When the bodies of United States servicemen started to flow back to the United States the people of that country began making inquiries about the validity of America’s involvement.

The Deputy Government Whip (Mr Giles) is smiling. He has never reminded the Parliament that 55,000 United States troops have been killed in Vietnam. They represented the cream of American youth. He has also never reminded the Parliament that 15,000 American youths defected to Canada to dodge the draft and that they were granted, amnesty by the Canadian Government. It is to the credit of the Canadian Government that it did so. It is also to the credit of the United Kingdom that it never backed the United States, although I believe that Harold Wilson could have been stronger in that he did not dissociate the British people from the Vietnam war until the Americans started to bomb North Vietnam. Those are some of the facts.

How the Australian Government can now try to justify Australia’s involvement in Vietnam is beyond me. It would be to the credit of this Government if it were to stand up and say that it believed that it was wrong in involving Australia in the conflict in Vietnam. The Australian Government would gain respect if it did that. I accuse every member of the Government parties who was a party to involving Australia in the war in Vietnam of being a murderer of every Australian boy killed there. They will have it on their consciences for every and ever.

The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made reference to the courageous attitude of President Kennedy in demanding that missiles be taken out of Cuba. In some ways I admired President Kennedy for the attitude he adopted under the pressure of American big business. But has the Parliament been told that a part of the agreement to the taking of missiles out of Cuba was that

America was to take its own missiles out of Turkey and Greece and promise the Cuban Government, led by Dr Fidel Castro, that it would not invade Cuba? The honourable member for St George, who is an expert in foreign affairs, assures me that that is correct. The Parliament should know these things.

The Parliament is discussing a ministerial statement entitled ‘Australian Forces in Vietnam - 1962-1972’ that was made last Thursday night by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn). In it the Minister for Defence purported to trace the history of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam from the beginning to the withdrawal of our combat forces in December of last year. Honourable members would know that, like most of my colleagues on this side of the House, I have been a most bitter opponent of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam since its inception. I honestly believe that the Vietnam war will go down in history as the most barbaric in the history of mankind. I hope during the remainder of my speech to make some positive contribution towards proving my argument. It is true to say that Hitler built crematoriums in Eastern Europe during World War II to dispose of his enemies. I believe that it is equally true to say that the United States Government transported its crematoriums to Vietnam to dispose of enemies of the United States, as it thought it was doing, during the Vietnam war.

I would like to place on the record of this Parliament the extent to which chemicals were used by the United States Air Force on areas alleged to be held or used by the enemy. The United States added a new dimension to its use of chemical weapons in 1961, which was the year a plant science laboratory team from Fort Detrick visited Vietnam to test ways of destroying with chemicals the jungle trees and foliage successfully held and used by the Vietcong for concealment. Selected strips of land were used. The team concluded its investigations and reported to its authorities that no serious damage would result from the use of chemicals in this manner. But what started out as a recommendation for the limited application of herbicides and defoliants in narrow strips became the basis for an anti-foliage and anti-food campaign waged against more than 4.5 million acres of Vietnamese countryside.

Let us remind ourselves that chemical defoliants and anti-crop weapons were not developed when the Geneva Protocol ban on chemical and biological warfare was written. There is no specific mention of herbicides or defoliants in the wording of the international agreement. However, in my view reasonably minded men would regard anti-crop and anti-vegetation weapons as clearly falling within the chemical warfare specifications of the Geneva Agreement of 1925. I believe that the United States Army realised this. The United States Army’s manual, under the heading ‘Military Biology and Biological Agents’, refers to this fact. Yet we find that the Minister for Defence in his statement on Vietnam in this House, which we are now debating spoke with some degree of pride about our achievements in Vietnam. In my view - and I repeat this - it is to our everlasting disgrace that the LiberalCountry Party Government of this nation ever allowed us to be a party to the destruction, by the world’s greatest military power, of the land of peasant people who were fighting against corruption, exploitation, serfdom and slavery for a better way of life.

As regards the use of defoliants, the United States Army manual on the subject states that there are no proven defensive measures against these compounds. By the time the symptoms appear nothing can be done to prevent damage. The compounds are detoxified in the soil after a period of several weeks to several months. No Government supporter or even the Minister in his statement on Vietnam made any reference to these facts. I realise that I have only a short time available to me tonight, but I want to refer to the Dow Chemical Co. Forthright Australians, who demonstrated against this company’s subsidiaries in Australia, were charged and locked up. But the Dow Chemical Company’s defoliage spray containers carried this warning:

Do not contaminate irrigation ditches or water used for domestic purposes.

Caution. May cause skin irritation. Avoid contact with eyes, skin and clothing. Keep out of reach of children.

The warning went on to say:

Caution irritation of skin and eyes … In case of contact, flush eyes with plenty ‘ of water for at least IS minutes and get medical attention; wash skin with soap and plenty of water.

In 1962 the United States defoliated 4,940 acres in South Vietnam. In 1967, at the peak, it defoliated 1,486,446 acres. In 1968 it defoliated 1,267,110 acres in South Vietnam. In 1968 63,726 acres of crops were destroyed in South Vietnam. I repeat that if ever the Australian Labor Party and demonstrators in this country were justified in defying a law, it was in connection with our involvement in Vietnam. I hope that the government which is elected at the next elections - whether it be a Labor government or a Liberal-Country Party government - will see fit to remove the stigma of any convictions which have been recorded against any demonstrators in this country who demonstrated against the Vietnam war.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:

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

Debate (on motion by Mr Giles) adjourned.

House adjourned at 11.5 p.m.

page 1285

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Subsidised Medical Scheme (Question No. 4002)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of their members who were enrolled with hospital and medical benefits organisations at 30th June 1971 for the benefits of the Subsidised Medical Services Scheme.
  2. What was the cost of the Scheme to the Commonwealth in 1970-71.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b) As at 30th June 1971 the number of members of hospital and medical benefits organisations who were covered by the Subsidised Health Benefits Plan were as follows:

Hospital- 20,937

Medical- 22,225

These persons represented 0.51 per cent of hospital fund membership and 0.57 per cent of medical fund membership.

It should be noted that these figures relate to the position at a particular point of time and therefore do not give a true indication of the extent to which persons are availing themselves of the benefits provided under the Subsidised Health Benefits Plan. During 1970-71, there were some 121,000 enrolments in health insurance organisations under the Plan and it is considered that, of these some 84,000 would be families on low incomes.

  1. Expenditure under the Plan for 1970-71, by way of Commonwealth benefit, fund benefit and reimbursement of management expenses, was as follows:

Hospital- $4,759,058

Medical- $2,272,941

Sickness Benefits (Question No. 5220)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

How many persons have received long-term sickness benefit since the enabling legislation was passed.

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

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

Long-term sickness benefit was introduced on 28th September 1970, and from that date until 19th February 1972, there have been 33,744 grants made under the long-term sickness benefit provisions.

Health Services (Question No. 4081)

Mr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

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

Can the Minister say what is the estimated percentage of (a) hospital beds occupied, (b) outpatient attendances and (c) costs of treatment in Australian hospitals or representative hospitals in Australia attributable to (i) alcoholism, (ii) peptic ulcer, (iii) chronic bronchitis, (iv) road injuries, (v) other injuries and (vi) hypertensive disorders.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in relation to part (a) of the honourable member’s question:

The most relevant figure available is the percentage of total days stay where the principal condition treated was one of the specified causes. The following table sets out this information for persons discharged from public and private hospitals in Queensland for 1969, Departmental and Board hospitals in Western Australia for 1970, public hospitals in Tasmania for 1970, and from public beds in most public hospitals in Victoria for 1968.

The other items of information requested by the honourable member are not available to me.

Voluntary Health Insurance

Association of Australia (Question No. 4579)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. What is the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia.
  2. Who are the constituent bodies.
  3. From where does it receive its finance.
  4. What are its stated aims.
  5. Does it participate in party political election campaigns.
  6. Does it receive funds from registered benefit organisations.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia is an association consisting of registered health insurance organisations throughout Australia. It was formed by unanimous resolution of a meeting held in Melbourne on 21st April 1971, which was attended by representatives of open health insurance organisations operating in Australia.
  2. Membership of the Association is limited to health insurance organisations registered under the National Health Act 1953-1971. Restricted membership organisations, i.e. organisations whose membership is restricted to members of a particular profession, trade, industry, association or union and the Defence forces, are not eligible for membership of the Association.

The following registered organisations are members of the Association:

New South Wales

Australasian Holy Catholic Guild of St Mary and St Joseph Registered Friendly Benefit Society.

The Bulli District Hospital Contribution Fund.

Cessnock District Hospital Contribution Fund.

Grand United Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society of New South Wales.

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Society of New South Wales.

The Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia.

Kurri Kurri Maitland Hospital Contribution Fund.

Independent Order of Oddfellows of the State of New South Wales.

New South Wales District, No. 85, Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Unity, Friendly Society.

Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society, in New South Wales.

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited.

Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia Grand Council of New South Wales.

United Ancient Order of Druids’ Registered Friendly Society, Grand Lodge of New South Wales.

Victoria

Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society.

Australian Natives’ Association.

Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association.

Grand United Hospital Benefit Society (Incorporating The Grand United Order of Oddfellows) in Victoria Friendly Society.

Grand United Order of Free Gardeners of Australasia.

The Hibernian Australasian Catholic Society, Victoria District No. 1. The Hospital Benefits Association.

Independent Order of Oddfellows of Victoria.

The Irish National Foresters’ Benefit Society.

Latrobe Valley Hospitals and Health Services Association.

The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows in Victoria.

The Mildura District Hospital and Medical Fund.

Order of the Sons of Temperance National Division Friendly Society.

Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia Grand Council of Victoria.

United Ancient Order of Druids.

Yallourn Medical and Hospital Society.

Queensland

Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Societyin Queensland.

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, Queensland District No. 5.

Queensland District, No. 87, Independent Order of Rechabites, Friendly Society.

Queensland Branch of the Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows Friendly Society.

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd.

Protestant Alliance Friendly Society of Australasia in Queensland (The Grand Council)

South Australia

Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society.

Albert District No. 83, Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Unity.

South Australian District, No. 81, Independent Order of Rechabites Friendly Society.

Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows, Friendly Society in South Australia.

Mutual Hospital Association Limited.

National Health Services Association of South Australia.

Tasmania

Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited.

St Luke’s Medical and Hospital Benefits Association.

United Ancient Order of Druids Grand Lodge of Tasmania.

  1. The association receives its finances from initial subscriptions paid by member organisations on the following basis -

  1. The stated objects of the Association are:

    1. To provide an Association for the purpose of considering matters affecting organisations registered under Part VI of the National Health Act 1953-1970, as amended from time to time, with special reference to the interests of contributors.
    2. To foster and promote the principles, practice, development and philosophy of voluntary health insurance as the best method of financing the costs of health care.
    3. To make representations and submissions where deemed necessary or desirable to the appropriate persons or authorities in respect of any matter affecting the interests of members or any member of the Association, subject to prior consideration by the members.
    4. To provide a medium through which opinions of members may be ascertained or expressed.
    5. To formulate a code of ethics for adoption by members.
    6. To do all such things as may be incidental to or conducive to the promotion or carrying out of these objects or any one of them, and to exercise all such powers as are contained in the Third Schedule of the New South Wales Companies Act 1961.
  2. It is understood that the Association has no political affiliations.
  3. The Association has stated that the only funds received from registered benefits organisations are by way of subscription as set out in (3) above.

Subsidised Medical Scheme (Question No. 4387)

Mr Kennedy:

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

  1. Can the Minister state the means by which those enrolled as Class A, B or C beneficiaries in the subsidised medical scheme were enrolled in the scheme.
  2. What (a) number and (b) percentage of those referred to in answer to question No. 2SS0 (Hansard, 16th September 1971, pages 1496-8) as being approved by the Department of Social Services were directed into enrolment in the scheme by (i) a hospital, (ii) a medical practitioner and (iii) the Department of Social Services.
  3. By what other means are beneficiaries directed to the Department of Social Services.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. It is not possible to supply in detail the information requested by the honourable member. Most people enrolled in the Subsidised Health Benefits Plan probably have done so as a result of extensive publicity campaigns conducted by my Department and health insurance organisations, and through - contact with social workers and other welfare organisations.
  2. This information is not available.
  3. The principal avenue through which eligible persons have been advised of the assistance available under the Plan has been the Departmental publicity campaigns. However, it . has been recognised that action supporting these publicity programmes is desirable in assisting eligible persons to participate in the Plan. In this context, my Department is presently examining ways of making greater use of social workers, charitable organisations, and other appropriate welfare groups in motivating and assisting eligible persons to enrol in the Plan.

Subsidised Medical Scheme (Question No. 4625)

Mr Kennedy:

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

  1. What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of (i) migrants, (ii) sickness beneficiaries, (iii) unemployment beneficiaries, (iv) special beneficiaries and (v) non-income families receiving (A) less than $46.50, (B) $46.51 to $49.50 and (C) $49.51 to $52.50 per week who (I) were eligible to enrol in the subsidised medical scheme, (II) had registered with the Department of Social Services for membership in the scheme and (III) had registered with a private health benefits fund in each State and Territory and in the Commonwealth as at 2nd November 1971.
  2. What were the equivalent figures and percentages as at (a) 27th February 1971 and (b) 30th June 1971, and what increase or decrease do the figures and percentages for 2nd November 1971 represent.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable member is not available in the manner requested. Statistics in relation to the Subsidised Health Benefits Plan are compiled in respect of the following groups:

low income families;

unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries; and

migrants.

Furthermore, the statistics that are available are compiled on a quarterly basis and it is not possible to provide the information as at the dates requested. The details provided, therefore, are as at the end of the quarters which are closest to the dates requested by the honourable member.

In regard to the figures provided in this answer there must be certain qualifications made about them which will be relevant to any conclusions that may be drawn.

These qualifications are:

The figures for eligible persons as determined by the Department of Social Services are taken at the last Saturday of each quarter and may not coincide with the enrolment figures as supplied for the end of each quarter by health insurance organisations.

Some health insurance organisations do not maintain detailed membership records and the membership figures which have been supplied are, to some degree, on an estimated basis, for example, some organisations do not take into account changes arising from lapses in individual membership until some time after an individual membership lapse has occurred.

In the case of unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries, the National Health Act provides them with an additional 28 days free entitlement to medical and hospital benefits after their Social Services entitlement expires. An allowance must be made for this factor when comparing the enrolment figures of organisations with the eligibility figures for Social Services Benefits. An adjustment for this factor has been made in the figures supplied in this answer.

I (4) In the case of migrants lt is necessary to take into consideration that the total figures for migrant settlers do not represent the number of persons entitled to be enrolled in the Subsidised Health Benefits Flan because in the case of families, enrolment by the head of the family provides Subsidised Health Benefits entitlements for the whole of the family. The numbers of single persons and of family groups of particular sizes are available for assisted migrants but in the case of unassisted migrants the figures used in this answer represent an estimate recently made by the Department of Immigration.

A further matter to be borne in mind is that in the case of unemployment, sickness and’ special beneficiaries a proportion would already be enrolled as ordinary insured persons with organisations and they may not consider it worthwhile taking the advantage of subsidised benefits because of the possible short period involved.

With the foregoing in mind the following information is provided:

  1. The first part of the question sought infor- marion as at 2nd November 1971. Details as at 30th September 1971 have therefore been provided as the date closest to that requested by the honourable member, as follows:

Low Income Families

The number of such families who may be eligible for assistance under the Plan at any point of time is not known and there is no means of ascertaining the changes which no doubt occur from week to week. The following table shows the number and percentage oi low income families approved as eligible for assistance by the Department of Social Services and those enrolled as members of health insuranse organisations.

Unemployment, Sickness and Special Beneficiaries

Unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries automatically become eligible for assistance under the Plan when their entitlement for the respective Social Service, benefit has been determined. Statistics of membership in health insurance organisations in respect of these separate categories of beneficiaries are not available.

In the following’ table, as mentioned in the qualifications, the number of eligible persons includes not only those currently in receipt of Social Services Benefits but also those whose eligibility expired in the previous 28 days.

Migrants

In respect of migrants, it is not necessary (of separate application for assistance to be made. By joining a health insurance fund and verifying their first date of entry into Australia, migrants are eligible for assistance with medical and/or hospital expenses incurred in the first 2 months from tha date of entry.

The following figures show the total number of migrant settlers arriving in Australia during the i months ending 30th September 1971, the estimated number who would need to enrol as contributors under the Subsidised Health Benefits Plan and the actual number enrolled in health insurance organisations as at that date.

Long Cancer (Question No. 4800)

Mr Webb:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. ls it a fact that the annual death rate from lung cancer is increasing each year.
  2. What has been the average annual death rate from lung cancer in Australia since 1961.
  3. Will the Minister confer with the PostmasterGeneral with a view to the imposition of a complete ban on the advertising of cigarettes on television.
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The Minister for Health has informed that his reply to part (2) of this question, published in Hansard on 7th

March 1972 (P. 668), contained an incorrect figure. The answer to part (2) of the question should read:

  1. The average annual death rate from lung cancer in Australia during the period 1961 to 1970 (inclusive) was 21.9 deaths per 100,000 of the population.’

Mental Health Services: Commonwealth Grants (Question No. 4541)

Mr Jacobi:

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

  1. Will the Government take steps to increase Commonwealth grants to State mental health services with the ultimate aim of extending the same benefits to the mentally ill and handicapped as are applied to the physically ill and handicapped.
  2. Will the Government provide a $2 for SI subsidy to the States for the provision of medical and paramedical staff, clinics, hostels, sheltered workshops and day centres and a per capita grant for associated costs in providing these services.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Medical and hospital benefits are payable for treatment of the mentally ill and handicapped on the same bases as for treatment of the physically ill and handicapped. However, in respect of patients in State mental health institutions, hospital benefits are not payable but Commonwealth medical benefits may be payable where the patient is treated by a private medical practitioner.

Benefits are not generally payable to patients in State mental health institutions because the provision of mental health services is regarded as the responsibility of the States primarily. However, special Commonwealth grants totalling approximately $50m have been provided to the States since 1955 for the construction, extension and equipping of mental health institutions.

The extent and forms of direct and indirect Commonwealth financial assistance to the mentally ill and handicapped are under continuing review by the Government.

Aborigines (Question No. 5122)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. Why were no Aboriginal leaders invited to the Minister’s opening of the Alice Springs Child Health Unit at the old Mount Gillen Motel on 7th February 1972.
  2. Is it a fact that the unit will be used for convalescent Aboriginal children and to teach modern child nutrition to Aboriginal mothers.
  3. Is it considered unnecessary to involve the Aboriginal community in the running of the unit
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Among those invited to the opening of the Unit were Pastor C. Motra, Mrs J. Clague and Mr J. Roberts.
  2. Accommodation and treatment in the unit is available for both Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal children. It will also be used for nutritional training purposes for Aboriginal mothers.
  3. No. Mr J. Roberts (mentioned in (1) above) is a member of the staff of the Unit.

Subsidised Health Benefit Scheme: Foreign Translations (Question No. 5043)

Mr Kennedy:

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

  1. For how long was there a continuation of the delay in the translation of details of migrants’ eligibility to benefits under the subsidised health benefits scheme to which the Minister referred in answer to question No. 4234 (Hansard,9th December 1971, page 4544).
  2. What was involved in the project and what was its estimated cost.
  3. On what date was the project implemented after its suspension.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. Arrangements are at present proceeding towards the publication of another series of advertisements on Subsidised Health Benefits in Australia’s foreign-language press, and towards the translation of information pamphlets in foreign languages. It is expected that the advertisements will begin appearing in April, in some 35 foreignlanguage newspapers, and that the pamphlets will be ready for distribution’ by the middle ofthe year.
  2. The advertising in foreign-language newspapers involves the preparation of copy, the translation of the copy, and the scheduling and placement of the advertisements. The estimated cost of this is approximately $6000.

The preparation of pamphlets in foreign languages involves the translation of the English language leaflet, the printing of pamphlets in several languages, and their distribution. The cost of this is expected to be approximately$2000.

  1. Preliminary preparations for advertising in the foreign-language press began in December. Detailed arrangements for the translation of pamphlets are to be commenced this month.

Contraceptives: Advertising (Question No. 5172)

Dr Klugman:

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

  1. How many applications under section 46 of (he Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinance to permit the advertising of contraceptives have been received during each of thelast 5 years.
  2. When was the last application received.
  3. How many of these applications were granted.
Dr Forbes:
LP

-The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: (1), (2) and (3) One such application was received on 24th February 1972, and is currently under consideration. No other applications have been received.

Colleges of Advanced Education: Enrolments (Question No. 5008)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Which departments of colleges of advanced education were unable to meet enrolment demands at the commencement of the 1972 academic year and what are the details in each case.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

I am advised that details of enrolments and exclusions in colleges of advanced education for 1972 will not be available for some time. The honourable member mightlike to place his question on notice at the beginning of the Budget session.

Social Services: Transferability (Question No. 4984)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

  1. What progress has been made in the discussions on reciprocal social services agreements with Italy, Yugoslavia, Malta, the Federal Republic of Germany and Turkey which commenced in May 1967, July 1967, January 1968, May 1968 and March 1970, respectively (Hansard, 9th December 1971, page 4555).
  2. With which other countries have discussions since been held and when were discussions first held with each country.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. and (2) On 30th January the Prime Minister announced proposals to enable pensioners leaving Australia to receive their social service pensions in other countries, and outlined the conditions under which the scheme wouldbe given effect.

Following the announcement, the Minister for Foreign Affairs informed the Heads of Missions in Canberra representing the main migrant source countries of the Government’s decision and advised them of my intention to initiate discussions with a view to concluding negotiations on agreements for reciprocal portability of pensions. The countries concerned in this first approach vere the Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Ireland, Austria, France, Spain, Yugoslavia, Italy, Germany, Greece, Malta and Turkey. The British and New Zealand High Commissions were similarly informed. All other Missions in Canberra have been apprised of the Prime Minister’s announcement

Medical Benefits Funds Payments (Question No. 3999)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. What payments of (a) fund and (b) Commonwealth benefits were made to or in respect of their members by medical benefits organisations in 1970-71.
  2. How many members (a) made payments to the organisations and (b) received payments from them in 1970-71.
  3. How many claims qualified for (a) fund and (b) Commonwealth benefits in 1970-71.
  4. What was the average amount paid in (a) fund and (b) Commonwealth benefits.
  5. What were the principal reasons for refusing fund benefits and in what percentage of claims did each of these reasons apply.
  6. How many medical benefits organisations were in operation during 1970-71.
  7. What percentage of the population (a) of each State and (b) of the Commonwealth contributed to medical benefits organisations in 1970-71.
  8. What percentage of contributors in (a) each State and (b) the Commonwealth was enrolled in each medical benefit table in 1970-71.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The following payments were made to contributors to medical benefits organisations during 1970-71:

    1. Fund benefits- $83,887,543
    2. Commonwealth benefits - $92,360,582
  2. (a) In 1970-71, the approximate number of contributors to medical benefits organisations was 3,854,000.
  3. (b) The records maintained by medical benefits organisations do not indicate the number of contributors who received payments during any particular period. These records are mainly designed to provide details of services, costs, and benefits during a period, per mean contributor.

  4. The number of claims which qualified for fund and Commonwealth benefits is not available. However, the number of services covered in each of these categories in 1970-71 was as follows:

    1. 38,974,625 services in respect of fund benefit coverage; and
    2. 38,254,818 services in respect of Commonwealth benefit coverage.

  5. The average amounts of benefit paid in respect of the above services were:

    1. services for which fund benefit was payable $2.15
    2. services for which Commonwealth benefit was payable - $2.41
  6. The number of instances in which fund benefit was refused during 1970-71 represented 0.16 per cent of the total number of claims. The most common ground for non-payment of funds benefit was that the medical expense was incurred during an obligatory waiting period. This accounted for 0.03 per cent of the total number of claims. The waiting periods are 2 months, except in accident cases where there is no waiting period, and 9 months in obstetric cases.
  7. The number of registered medical benefits organisations increased from 77 at 30th June 1970 to 81 at 30th June 1971.
  8. Based on preliminary figures from the latest population census, the percentages of the Australian population, in each Stats and in the Commonwealth, covered for medical benefits, either as contributors to registered medical benefits organisations or dependants of contributors, are as follows:
  1. The Health Benefits Plan, which was introduced with effect from 1st July 1970, provides for only one table of medical benefits in each State.

Aged Persons: Housing (Question No. 5032)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

What was the average cost of a (a) single and (b) double unit constructed under the Aged Persons Homes Act in the (i) metropolitan and (ii) non-metropolitan area of each State in each year since the inception of the Scheme?

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

Accommodation subsidised under the Aged Persons Homes Act consists mainly of single units. Where double units are included separate building costs are not required and it is not possible therefore to give separate figures for each type of accommodation.

Figures showing the capital cost of projects were not kept prior to 1968-69 but Table ‘A’ below shows the average amount of Commonwealth subsidy paid for each aged person’s

It should be noted that from 1954 until 22nd October 1957 subsidy was granted on a SI for $1 basis and thereafter at the rate of $2 for $1.

Federal Awards: Breaches by Employers (Question No. 5197) Mr Scholes asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

How many employers have been found by Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectors to be in breach of legally enforceable provisions of Federal awards in each of the last five years.

How many prosecutions have been initiated in respect of these breaches.

On how many occasions has he or the Secretary of his Department refused to authorise prosecutions for alleged breaches.

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

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

  1. The number of establishments at which breaches were found is as follows:
  1. The great majority of breaches of award provisions detected by Inspectors are rectified by

employers without the need to initiate prosecution proceedings. However, over the period concerned proceedings were instituted in respect of 113 breaches.

  1. The policy of the Department is that prosecution is a last resort method of securing compliance with award provisions when all other appropriate steps have been taken. If compliance is secured voluntarily the question of prosecution does not arise.

Departmental procedures require any proposed prosecution to be thoroughly examined. Prosecution is normally approved only where the Department is satisfied there has been a deliberate breach of the award.

Ministerial approval is not required to institute proceedings but I have not refused, or cause to be refused, any authorisations. The Secretary of the Department administers the policy in the manner 1 have described above.

Family Expenditure and General Household Surveys (Question No. 4958)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the Family Expenditure Survey carried out in Great Britain on an annual sample of 10,000 households since 1957.
  2. Can he say whether Great Britain has begun recently a continuous General Household Survey carried out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for the Central Statistical Office with the aim of providing a regular picture of changing social conditions to help the formation and discussion of social policies.
  3. If not, will he obtain information in relation to these surveys.
  4. Will he discuss urgently with the relevant departments the establishment of similar surveys in Australia to enable governments and others to propose or introduce more meaningful social policies.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. This new project is referred to in Social Trends’ No. 1, 1970 published by the United Kingdom Government Statistical Service.
  3. See Above. <4) With regard to a Family (or Household) Expenditure Survey, I have been advised by the Commonwealth Statistician that the Bureau of Census and Statistics completed early in 1971 a feasibility study which showed that successful surveys of household income and expenditure could be carried out in Australia. It also showed, however, that extensive resources would be called for to develop and carry out a full-scale survey, and the Statistician has advised that he can not, without suspending other important projects already entered upon, allocate the skilled resources necessary to proceed with such a survey. The matter will be considered as soon as it appears that the necessary resources could be allocated to the project.

With regard to a General Household Survey, it appears that the type of information being sought in the Survey in the United Kingdom is similar in a number of respects to that already obtained in Australia by means of the Population Survey. This household sample survey, conducted quarterly by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, supplies regular information about the labour force and from time to time includes supplementary surveys on topics such as child care; education; chronic illnesses; injuries and impairments; journey to work; multiple jobholding; and superannuation.

Road Accidents: Cost to Commonwealth (Question No. 3724)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Is it possible to estimate the cost of road accidents to the Commonwealth in (a) rehabilitation of injured persons, (b) pensions to injured and bereaved persons, (c) hospital benefits, (d) payments under the Commonwealth Motor Vehicles (Liability) Act and (e) repair and replacement of Commonwealth vehicles.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

In the interim reply I gave on 9th December 1971 to the honourable member’s question, I indicated that it might not be practicable to supply all the information sought but that a detailed investigation was still proceeding. After examination of the information provided by the various Commonwealth departments, the conclusion to emerge is that the information available is not sufficient to enable meaningful estimates to be provided of the costs to the Commonwealth referred to in parts (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the question. In relation to part (e), the available information suggests that the relevant cost in 1970-71, for civil Commonwealth departments, was of the order of $850,000 (including almost $600,000 for the Postmaster-General’s Department). That estimate should, however, be treated with reserve because it is subject to some definitional problems, e.g. in regard to sale of vehicles in a damaged condition.

Petrol: Excise (Question No. 5070)

Mr COLLARD:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is excise payable on petrol irrespective of Its usage.
  2. If so, will the Government take steps to grant an exemption in respect of petrol used for petrol propelled farm machinery; if not, why not.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. There is no provision in the Excise Tariff for petrol used for particular purposes to be exempted from duty.

However, the Tariff does provide general exemptions from duties in respect to goods, including petrol, which is the property of the Commonwealth or is owned or intended for the official use of other specified bodies - such as overseas diplomatic missions in Australia.

  1. Collections of duty on petrol form part of the Commonwealth’s general revenues from which its commitments are financed, including expenditure on defence, education, social welfare and assistance to rural industry. In this regard the Commonwealth takes the view that the revenue obtained from the duty on petrol is similar to the revenue collected from other revenue duties such as those on cigarettes, potable spirits and beer.

It would be extremely difficult to confine any projected concessions specifically to petrol used in farm machinery or indeed by primary producers. The problems in administering such concessions would because of petrol’s virtually universal use, certainly be very considerable and no doubt costly.

Petrol is the most widely used internal combustion engine fuel and if exemptions were granted from the duty applying to it there could be a significant loss of Commonwealth revenue. Loss of revenue from this source could, of course, necessitate the raising of additional revenue from other taxes or reduction in Commonwealth outlays.

There is a long history of requests to provide partial or total exemption from duties on motor spirit but these have been refused on the ground, in addition to those stated above, that to do so would be to create a precedent which could lead to the erosion of the broad base on which this tax is levied. I view of these considerations the Government has not approved particular exemptions from excise duty on petrol.

Natural Disasters: Assistance Schemes (Question No. 5251)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Despite his view that private insurance against natural disasters is working effectively (Question No. 4441, Hansard, 9th December 1971, page 4632), will the Treasury report which has been in preparation since 1967 (Harsard, 4th October 1967, page 1737) nevertheless include information on official insurance schemes operating in the United States of America, Canada and New Zealand (Hansard, 26th November 1968, page 3289; 26th September 1969, page 2133; 12th June 1970, page 2686 and 9th December 1971, page 4629).

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

All aspects of natural disaster assistance schemes operating in these countries, including official insurance schemes, are being examined for their relevance to the Australian situation.

Essendon Airport (Question No. 5267)

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

  1. Is the area of land known as Essendon Airport owned by the people of Australia.
  2. What are the plans for its future use.
  3. Will the Minister ensure that no change of usage will occur before members of Parliament, as representatives of the people, have the opportunity to discuss the proposed change.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. and (3) The future of Essendon Airport is still under study. Airline facilities are still in the process of transferring to the new Melbourne Airport. It could be some time before the picture clears sufficiently for a firm decision to be made as to the future of Essendon and it follows that it is still not possible to advise whether there will or will not be a change in the use of Essendon.

Tullamarine Airport (Question No. 5268)

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

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

Will the Minister initiate discussion with the Government of Victoria and its Statutory Authorities and Municipalities adjacent to Tullamarine Airport with a view to formulating policy and seeking co-operation in respect of the usage of land surrounding the airport and land affected by noise exposure forecasts.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

There have been discussions in depth with Victorian Government representatives who in turn keep in touch with Statutory Authorities and Municipalities adjacent to the new Melbourne Airport. The policy has been formulated based on the philosophy of co-ordinating the design and operation of the airport and land use zoning nearby. In summary the following are the 7 principles which have been agreed to date and are being applied to the maximum practical degree:

As land use planning is basically of benefit in the longer term it is reasonable to use a long term NEF, e.g. 1983, when air traffic has built up but also when some noise benefits have accrued from quite engine developments. However, it should be accepted that there will be areas which are temporarily noisier during the intervening period.

Consideration is limited to the 25 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contour and above. Below that NEF level, at 20 NEF, for example, the contours are so imprecise as to have limited meaning for planning purposes.

Between 25 and 30 NEF retain existing non-residential zoning but permit areas which are currently zoned as residential to continue to be developed in that form. However, where it is good planning to revise a 25-30 NEF residential zoning, as part of an adjacent 30+ NEF re-zoning to a more noise compatible use, then bracket the 2 areas and re-zone the both. It is noted that ‘green belts’, perhaps with sporting facilities, are particularly appropriate in these areas.

At above 30 NEF preclude being re-zoned to residential those existing areas which are now residential.

At about 30 NEF, where there is a residential zoning which has not been so far used as such, re-zone it to non-residential, namely rural or industrial or some other zoning which is favoured by the State or Territorial Planning Authority and which remains compatible with aircraft noise nuisance.

At above 30 NEF permit existing reasonably well developed residential areas to be filled in’ but seriously consider re-zoning those areas when it is timely for their redevelopment. (One alternative here, which more recently is being sponsored by the Brisbane City Council, is a new building regulation, which will permit 20 per cent to 25 per cent additional flat units or apartments for a given area of land, where that land is at or above 30 NEF and provided that re-developers undertake to soundproof and air-condition the new building. This not only substitutes flats or apartments for homes which are not sound-proofed in these areas but it also takes advantage of the fact that flat dwellers spend little time outside in the garden as compared with home owners. The financial encouragement is that the money saved in land quota per flat unit or apartment can be spent on sound-proofing and air-conditioning and so there should be no loss in return on investment.)

Give maximum publicity to noise levels at above 25 NEF by showing the contours on town plans displayed in State and Territorial Planning and Local Government offices and by endorsing town planning certificates with an advisory note along the lines of Attention is drawn to the possibility of aircraft noise in this area and further enquiries should be made.’ In addition, wherever there is a public road along the airport boundary display the type of notice which is on the southern boundary of Melbourne Airport.

Commonwealth-State Financial Relations: Research Centre (Question No. 5250)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What are the terms of reference of the research centre to be established within the Australian National University to pursue studies in the general field of Commonwealth-State financial relations (Hansard, 7th March 1972, page 587).

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

As I said at the Premiers’ Conference on 14th February and in a Press statement I issued that day, the Government had in mind that the research undertaken in the proposed Centre to be established within the Australian National University should embrace all aspects of CommonwealthState financial relationships, should provide for post-graduate study in this field and that the results of the research be published.

However, I said also that the Centre would act on its own initiative in relation to these matters.

I have since written to the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University to ascertain whether the Government’s proposal to establish the Centre has the approval of the University.

Household Refuse (Question No. 5065)

Dr Everingham:

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

  1. Has his attention been drawn to reports that the Research Division of the United States’ Bureau of Mines has a prototype plant to reduce household refuse to saleable metals, heating oil, gas, glasses, fertiliser and bricks at a profit
  2. If so, will he take steps to see that an Australian authority is set up to advise other public authorities of this economic and ecological advance.
Mr Howson:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. I have seen reports that pyroloysis (destructive distillation) techniques, initially developed at the United States Bureau of Mines to determine the yield and quality of the products from coal, are being translated to convert domestic and industrial refuse into potentially useful solids, liquids and gas.
  2. The Australian Environment Council has commenced an examination, of the financial and technical problems associated with community waste together with ways and means of sharing costs between polluters and the community.

Education: Teacher Trainees (Question No. 4756)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What percentage of students at (a) universities and (b) colleges of advanced education in the States are training to be teachers.
  2. What percentages of teacher trainees is attending (a) universities and (b) colleges of advanced education in the States and hold (i) university and (ii) advanced education scholarships.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following information:

In 1971, 15.7 per cent of students enrolled in undergraduate courses at universities and 5 per cent of students enrolled at colleges of advanced education, were training to become teachers.

The above statistics are preliminary. Private students (students other than those studying under a State education department scholarship or fellowship) enrolled for teacher education courses at universities and colleges of advanced education are included only if they are also enrolled at a teachers college. Qualified or unqualified teachers pursuing further study, students enrolled at kindergarten teachers colleges and students enrolled for teacher courses at the Australian School of Pacific Administration are excluded from the above statistics.

  1. The number of students holding Commonwealth University and Advanced Education scholarships who propose to enter the teaching profession is not known. In 1971 there were 627 students holding Commonwealth University scholarships enrolled in degree and diploma courses in education at universities. A further 577 students holding Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarships were enrolled in courses of teacher education and at government and non-government teachers’ colleges, including kindergarten training colleges. In addition many Commonwealth scholarship holders were in training in courses such as Arts Economics and Science, which are generally regarded as providing a suitable academic background for entry into de teaching profession. In 1971, 6,489 Commonwealth University scholars were enrolled in Arts, 6,585 in Science and 3,539 in Economics courses.

Students holding State Government teacher training awards are subject to the conditions of bonds and because of this are not eligible to hold Commonwealth University or Advanced Education scholarships.

Australian Basketball Players (Question No. 4964)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to letters to the ‘Straits Times’ of 21st August 1971, complaining of degrading behaviour by Australian basketball team members in the Pesta Sukan which was observed by the letter writers.
  2. If so, will he approach the Australian basketball authorities with a view to having them inquire into the alleged behaviour and the ‘Straits Times’ being informed of their conclusions and concern.
  3. Will he take diplomatic action to convey Australia’s regrets if any bad behaviour is brought to his attention as the result of the inquiry.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)I am aware of correspondence in the Singapore Press in August 1971 about incidents involving an Australian club team during a match in the Pesta Sukan (Festival of Sport) Invitation Basketball Championships. The club concerned was not an Australian representative team and its visit at the direct invitation of the Singapore Basketball Association was not sponsored by the Government

  1. and (3) The circumstances surrounding the incident referred to were thoroughly examined at the time by the Australian High Commission. As the matter was closed 6 months ago it is not considered desirable to seek to revive it at this stage.

Diplomatic Representation in Cyprus (Question No. 4977)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Since Australian Ambassadors are resident in Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and the Arab Republicof Egypt, why is one of them not Commissioners resident in Cyprus?
  2. Which countries have Ambassadors or High Commissioners resident in Cyprus?
  3. Which countries have Ambassadors or High Commissioners accredited to Cyprus but resident in other countries, and in which country does each reside?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Australia’s bilateral relations with the Republic of Cyprus have not been considered sufficiently substantial at this stage to justify the dual accreditation of an Australian High Commissioner to Cyprus from another post. However, the Australian Embassy in Athens has a general responsibility for reporting on Cyprus and the staff of the Embassy visit Cyprus at regular intervals.
  2. The following countries have resident missions in Cyprus headed by an Ambassador, High Commissioner or Charge d’Affaires: Britain, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, France, West Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Romania, Syria, Turkey, Soviet Union, United States, Yugoslavia.
  3. The following countries have non-resident Ambassadors or High Commissioners accredited to Cyprus. The country of residence is shown in brackets:

Argentina (Italy)

Austria (Greece)

Belgium (Lebanon)

Brazil (Israel)

Bulgaria (Lebanon)

Canada (Israel)

Colombia (Israel)

Cuba (Charge d’Affaires Lebanon)

Denmark (Lebanon)

Finland (Italy)

Hungary (Greece)

India (Lebanon)

Ivory Coast (Israel)

Japan (Lebanon)

Netherlands (Lebanon)

Nigeria (Italy)

Norway (Israel)

Poland (Lebanon)

Romania (Greece)

Spain (Syria)

Sweden (Lebanon)

Switzerland (Israel)

Commonwealth Office Construction (Question No. 4992)

Mr Morrison:

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

  1. What office buildings have been constructed by or on behalf of the Commonwealth Government in the Sydney metropolitan area since 1966.
  2. What was the cost of each building.
  3. What is the floor space of each building.
Mr Chipp:
LP

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

The only office buildings which have been constructed by or on behalf of the Commonwealth Government in the Sydney metropolitan area since 1966 relate to District Employment Offices for the Department of Labour and National Service. The details are:

In addition a Commonwealth Building at Crows Nest was converted to a District Employment Office at a cost of $34,101 with a floor space of 30.7 squares.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 March 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1972/19720328_reps_27_hor77/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant