Senate
22 August 1967

26th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1967

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alisier McMullin) look the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 79

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Leader, of the Government in the Senate. ( refer to published reports of evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee yesterday that the estimate of the cost to Australia of the F111 strike bombers is now$US237,750,000 compared with the original estimate of$US125m. I ask the Minister: Arc we to take it that the Government has no say whatever in the amount to be paid for these aircraft and no precise information, even now, on what the final cost will be?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

– The Government has made the position quite clear. The American authorities themselves have not a final estimate of the cost of producing these aircraft. A great deal of research and development work on them is still going on. This matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Air. I shall see what information 1 can obtain from my colleague on the matters that the honourable senator has raised, and let him know. This was not a contract made by the Department of Supply.

page 79

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR VIETCONG

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Was the Government aware of the fact that one James was reported to have sent $3,900 to North Vietnam for the relief of civilian distress, including $800 to the National Liberation Front? Is the Government also aware that the said James is reported to have forwarded $10,000 to North Vietnam on Friday last? If the Government knows nothing of these transfers of moneys, what steps is it taking to keep a check on moneys leaving this country for the purpose of aiding the supporters of troops who are engaged in the killing of Australian servicemen?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I understand that the trading banks have a delegated control over the sending of money overseas. I also understand that the Reserve Bank of Australia has now taken steps to close that avenue, awaiting Government advice. That is the situation at the moment.

page 79

QUESTION

PHYSICAL FITNESS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a ques tion to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. By way of preface I refer to the issue of a booklet defining selected physical exercises in the cause of adult physical fitness. As a corollary, to this action, will the Minister seek details: of an exercise schedule introduced by the Medical Director of Cardio-Vascular Services for United Airlines of America which has put pilots, grounded for coronary heart ailments, back on active duty free from these complaints?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall be pleased to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Health.

page 79

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT LOANS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for

Primary Industry: Are re-establishment loans available to a national serviceman where such a loan is necessary to , enable him to re-establish himself in a business, profession or occupation? Are such loans for agricultural purposes limited to $6,000? If so, can the Minister say whether such loans are now available to national service applicants who have been discharged from the Army already? If such loansare not available, will the Minister inform the Senate why there is the delay andindicate when these loans will be available?

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– Yes, reestablishment loans are available. Such loans for agricultural purposes are limited to the amount of $6,000. Some time must elapse, however, between an application’ being made and a loan becoming available. This is because of the necessity to ensure that the application complies with the terms of the relevant Act, to have a valuation made of the security and to have the necessary security documents completed and registered.

page 79

QUESTION

POSTCODE

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware that many commercial and industrial organisations throughout Australia make extensive use of: Addressograph machines? Is he aware also that with the introduction of Postcode, all of the plates used in the machines either will have to be altered or will have to be scrapped, and new plates stamped out? ls he aware further that where Postcode involves the use of a fourth line, many machines will become useless? In the cases where new machines are required and/or new plates have to be stamped or old plates altered, will the Minister favourably consider giving some financial assistance to the organisations concerned?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– In the ultimate part of the question the honourable senator asks the Postmaster-General favourably to consider giving some concession or assistance to organisations concerned with the matter he has raised. Obviously, 1 must ask that this question be put on the notice paper and 1 shall then refer the matter to the Postmaster-General.

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Will the Minister give an assurance to the Senate that, at the earliest opportunity, the Postcode number now in use to designate postal areas will be .available for business enterprises and Government departments to use exclusively in addresses without using the post town prefix?

Senator ANDERSON:

– The situation is that although the Postal Department has suggested that the State or its abbreviation be used in the address, this, in fact, is not mandatory. On the other hand in relation to the use of the Postcode number relating to the town or suburb involved, the fact is that if the town or suburb were hot put on a letter and the Postcode number were wrong, no clue would be available to help postal authorities to get the letter to its ultimate destination. Obviously, such action would not be in the best interests of the people who use the Post Office. So, at present, no plans are being made to exclude this form of address from the new technique of Postcode.

page 80

QUESTION

THERAPY POOL

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has (he attention of the Minister for Repatriation been drawn to a statement appearing in this month’s edition of ‘Reveille’, the official magazine of the New South Wales Branch of the Relumed Services League, that whilst there is a dire need for the therapy pool to be established at No. 2 Base Hospital, Ingleburn, in which pool wounded and degenerated limbs could be properly exercised by sick and wounded servicemen returned from Vietnam, the Government will not expend moneys on the pool because it is intended to move the hospital in three to five years time? Because the estimated cost of the pool is a mere $2,000 will the Minister review this matter immediately and direct that finance be made available for the construction of such a therapy pool?

Senator McKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The question, although addressed to me, has nothing to do with repatriation. The hospital concerned comes under Army control, so I have no control over it. I could refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for the Army to see whether 1 could obtain some information for him.

page 80

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR VIETCONG

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– [ ask the following question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of the statement by Mr Francis James that certain sums for Vietnamese relief have been sent by him for distribution by the Catholic Archbishop of Hanoi, will the Minister note that this week’s issue of the Catholic Melbourne newspaper ‘Tribune’ states that the Archbishop of Hanoi is a virtual prisoner, unable to leave Hanoi even to visit his own parishes; and that furthermore when a delegation of churchmen visited North Vietnam the Catholic representative on that delegation was not permitted to see the Archbishop even though the hotel where the delegation was staying was only around the. corner from the present Archbishop’s home? Will the Minister advise how it is possible for a prisoner to distribute aid throughout North Vietnam?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– 1 saw the statement to which the honourable senator refers. 1 was not aware of the information that has just been made available to the Senate. I suggest that the honourable senator put the question on notice’ and I will see what further information I can obtain for him.

page 81

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Territories: In view of the fact that tourism in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea is essential for establishing economic viability, will the Minister inform the Senate why Ansett.MAL flight No. AL1667 on 26th July 1967 “arrived in Madang approximately three hours late because the plane was delayed at an airport en routs for the purpose of picking up two bulls and about 4 tons of beef? Will the Minister also advise whether the carrying of livestock, meat for human consumption and passengers together in this manner is in the interests of public health and hygiene?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– There are a number of facets to that question, which I will not necessarily take in order. The carriage of goods and people in aircraft in Australia is subject to regulations made by the Department of Civil Aviation. I have no indication from the honourable senator that the regulations were in any way breached in this connection. I would have no knowledge whether the aircraft picked up two bulls and a lot of beef. If the honourable senator assures me that it did, then I lake it that it did. I should have thought that the improvement of herds in Papua and New Guinea was of considerable importance to that Territory. I do not know whether the honourable senator objects lo that. In fact, 1 am not quite clear on what the objection is. A plane arrived late because it picked up some bulls to improve the herds in Papua and New Guinea. In some way this is supposed to upset tourism in Papua and New Guinea. I should like a more explicit question before I give a more explicit answer.

page 81

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– 1 ask the Minister for Housing whether there is any logical reason why the provisions of the War Service Homes Act do not apply to ex-members of the women’s Services on the same basis that they apply to male ex-servicemen. What are the reasons for the apparent discrimination against women in this regard?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– There is no discrimination. The conditions of eligibility are the same for women as for men. Both have to have the condi tions of service and to have a dependant or be married or about to be married.

page 81

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR VIETCONG

Senator CANT:

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen a’ Press report indicating that Mr Francis James has received donations for assistance to the National Liberation Front amounting to approximately $12,000 and that a donation of $10 was attributed to a member .of -the Government parties in the House of Representatives? Will the Minister advise the Senate whether that report is correct, and if it is will he give the name. of the member who made the donation?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I have seen some reference 10 the matter raised by the honourable senator. I have noted that Mr James’ name has been connected .closely with Labor organisations, even with university Labor Clubs. Evidently Mr James gets around a bit. I am not aware of a member of any party having made donations! to Mr James’ fund. I should think that such a thing was most unlikely.

page 81

QUESTION

STANDARDISATION OF RAIL GAUGES

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct the following questions to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport: Is it a fact that the Commonwealth has agreed to the extension of the standard gauge railway line from Midland Junction, which is 12 miles from Perth, to Bassendean, which ‘ is 6 miles from Perth, and that that is as far as the line will go? Is it a fact that the Western Australian government has decided that the line from Sydney shall terminate at East Perth, which is I mile from the centre of the city? Also is it a fact that the Commonwealth Government has refused to share the cost of the Bassendean to East Perth extension with the result that the Western Australian Government will have to provide at least Sim from loan funds which are urgently needed for other purposes? Moreover, ‘without Commonwealth help alterations will. have to be made to the original plans for the terminal, which would have been in keeping with the fine air and sea terminals in Western Australia. Since the provision of the standard gauge railway will bc pf great value to the whole of Australia, will the

Government review its pinchpenny policy so that a worthwhile terminal may be built at East Perth?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-I understand that a question bearing on this matter asked by Senator Drake-Brockman appears on the notice paper. I have a reply which I hope to provide a little later.

page 82

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator DEVITT:

– I direct to the Minis ter Cor Housing a further question relating to the eligibility of ex-members of the women’s services. I do so purely to obtain clarification of a matter which I am not sure about at the moment. Is it not a fact that to become eligible under the provisions of the War Service Homes Act women exmembers of the Services must have served outside Australia whilst male ex-members are eligible whether they have served outside Australia or not but subject only to the condition that they were volunteers, as are all ex-members of the women’s services?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– This is surely a matter of policy. As the honourable senator knows, it is not the practice to provide answers to questions on such matters at question time. To become eligible women ex-members must satisfy conditions relating to service and dependants.

page 82

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General inform the Senate whether the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is now considering the provision of a translator network in lieu of the proposed high power television station at Bellenden Ker to serve the Cairns-north Queensland area? Can the Minister say whether a translator network would serve the area adequately at a fraction of the cost of a high power station?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Quite clearly there are technical aspects involved in this question and, therefore, I ask the honourable senator to put it on the notice paper.

page 82

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator DEVITT:

– I am sorry that, again, I have to direct a question to the Minister for Housing on this subject. I have already directed two questions about it. I now ask: Have women who are ex-members of the armed Services had to serve outside Australia in order to qualify under the provisions of the War Service Homes Act?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I think I had better take a little time and read to the honourable senator the details relating to eligibility. Under the provisions of the War Service Homes Act, eligibility in respect of service in the Australian Forces in the 1939-1945 War is limited to persons ‘enlisted or appointed for or employed on active service outside Australia or on a ship of war’.

In accordance with these principles, members of the Australian Infantry Forces, Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Australian Navy, members of the Nursing Services accepted or appointed for service overseas and members of the Australian Army Medical Women’s Service (AIF) are eligible for the benefits of the Act subject to compliance with the usual requirements of the Act.

On the other hand, members of the Citizen Military Forces, Australian Army Medical Women’s Service (CMF), Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force, Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service, or members of the Nursing Services who were not accepted or appointed for service outside Australia, which forces were raised primarily for home service, do not qualify for benefits unless they actually served overseas. For this purpose, service by a member during a journey from one part of the Commonwealth of Australia to another by sea does not constitute qualifying service outside Australia for war service homes benefits unless the member was actually employed on sea-going service. I think that I have covered the points raised.

page 82

QUESTION

REFERENDUM: ‘NO’ CASE

(Question No. 95)

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

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

  1. What financial arrangements are being made for the presentation of the No case in the forthcoming referendum apart from the official No case pamphlet?
  2. Is the Government mounting : a campaign for the Yes case? If so, is the Government paying for it?
  3. Will an equal amount of money be made available by the Government to those supporting the Yes case and the No case?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– Senator Turnbull was advised by letter from the Minister for the Interior on 26th June 1967 that the answers to these questions are as follows:

  1. I have no knowledge of the financial arrangements being made of the presentation of the No case in the forthcoming referendum.
  2. The sponsors of the two Yes cases did mount a campaign in favour of the proposed laws. To this end, the Government utilised the normal facilities of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for presentation of the cases on television and radio. 1 understand that time was allotted by the ABC on an equal basis to the sponsors of both the Yes and the No cases.
  3. Apart from the cost of the coverage on the ABC referred to above, the only expenditure from Commonwealth funds in connection with publicity, was the cost of the printing and distribution of the pamphlet setting out the arguments for and against the proposed laws.

page 83

QUESTION

SATELLITE TRACKING AND COMMUNICATIONS STATIONS

(Question No. 125)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Will the Prime Minister make available a complete list of satellite tracking and communications stations - both satellite and naval but not including broadcast radio and television or airport control stations - which are operable or under construction in Australia?
  2. What is the specific purpose of each?
  3. Under which control do they operate or will they operate when completed?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer tothe honourable senator’s questions:

The Department of Supply is responsible for the following stations:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Stations:

Carnarvon Tracking Station at Carnarvon, Western Australia, supporting manned space flight and scientific satellites.

Applications Technology Satellite Station at Cooby Creek, Queensland, supporting applications satellites.

Deep Space Station at Woomera, South Australia, supporting unmanned deep space probes.

Deep Space Station at Tidbinbilla, Australian

Capita] Territory, supporting unmanned deep space probes.

STADAN facility at Orroral Valley, Australian Capital Territory, supporting scientific satellites.

Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station at Honeysuckle Creek, Australian Capital Territory, supporting manned space flight.

Mobile equipment is established at Darwin from time to time to support scientific satellite launches.

Other Stations:

Down Range Guidance and Telemetry Station at Gove, Arnhem Land, Northern Territory, supporting the ELDO programme.

TRANET Station at Smithfield, South Australia, supporting geodetic satellite studies by the United States Navy Pacific Missile Range.

The major Royal Australian Navy Communication stations are at Canberra and Darwin, where radio communicationsbetween shore authorities and ships on the Australia Station are conducted. Both radio stations also communicate with allied naval Authorities overseas. These stations arc responsible to local naval authorities for general administration, but are controlled by the Naval Board on operational matters.

One further naval communicationstation is the United States Naval Communication Station at North West Cape, which provides communications for United States naval forces in the Indian and West Pacific Oceans. The facilities of the station are also available to the Australian armed forces. Operational control of the station is exercised by the United Slates Navy in accordance withthe government to government agreement under which the United States Government was granted the right to establish, maintain and’ operate the station. This agreement states in part that there will be, from time to time, at the request of either government, consultation between the two governments on any matters connected with the station and its use.

In addition, as previously announced, a Joint Defence Space Research Facility is being constructed at Alice Springs, which will conduct studies in the general field of defence space research. The facility will be under the joint control of the Australian Department of Defence and the AdvancedResearch Project Agency of the United Slates’ Department of Defense.

There are also two Overseas Telecommunications Commission communication . satellite ground stations, one at Carnarvon, Western Australia, and the other at Moree, New South Wales. These stations service the OTC commercial communications network for the transmission of telegraphic cable and telephone communications in and out of Australia and can relay television programmes.

page 83

QUESTION

F-111 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 127)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

With reference to recent reports that Britain has agreedto pay additional labour and materials costs on the F-111 fighter-bombers on order from the United States of America, (a) has the Government agreed to pay the increases; (b) what is the total amount to he paid for each F-111 fighterbomber on order for the Australian Government; and (c) what is the date of delivery for the first of these aircraft?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The conditions under which our aircraft are being procured provide that the Commonwealth will paya unit price based on the average unit cost of the total F-l 1 1, programme as contemplated at the time of delivery of our twenty-fourth aircraft. In these circumstances variations in labour and material costs will be reflected in the price charged.

The total amount to be paid for each aircraft is at present estimated at$US5.95m, subject to increases in labour and material costs from a base date of 5th April 1965, and the cost of major engineering changes made to the aircraft. The first aircraft is scheduled for delivery in July 1968.

page 84

QUESTION

ALUMINIUM

(Question No. 135)

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. To what extent is the aluminium industry of Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  2. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of (a) mining rights or leases, (b) production, and (c) refining or processing?
  3. What proportion of world production of aluminium is Australian?
  4. What is the estimated world reserve and the Australian reserve, in quantities and intimes?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answers:

  1. There are two integrated aluminium complexes in Australia at present - Alcon of Australia Pty Ltd and Comalco Industries Ply Ltd. These companies carry out bauxite mining at Jarrahdale, Western Australia, and Weipa, Queensland, respectively, process the bauxite to alumina at Kwinana, Western Australia, and Bell Bay, Tasmania, and then to aluminium metal at Point Henry and Bell Bay. They have semi-fabricating facilities. There are a number of fabricating firms, the more important of whichare Alcan Australia Ltd, Dowell Australia Pty Ltd and Kawneer Company Pty Ltd. Queensland Alumina Ltd is engaged in the production of alumina at Gladstone, Queensland. Companies engaged in the development of other activities include Alcan

Australia Ltd (construction of aluminium smelter at Kurri Kurri, New South Wales), Australian Bauxite Co. Pty Ltd (to mine bauxite near Weipa from 1977 and to purchase supplies from Comalco before then), Nabalco Pty Ltd (to produce alumina at Gove) and United States Metals Refining Co. (investigating bauxite occurrences in the Kimberley district. Western Australia).

The degree of overseas ownership of the above companies is shown inthe following table:

  1. The overseas companies concerned, and their degree of control of their Australian subsidiaries are as follows:
  1. Information relating to the terms and conditions of mining rights and leases in the States would be available from the State mines departments. The agreement between the Commonwealth and Nabalco Pty Ltd concerning the development of the Gove, Northern Territory, bauxite deposit is still under negotiation.

  2. and (c) Information on the extent of overseas control of bauxite, alumina and aluminium production, refining and processing is given above.

    1. World production of aluminium during 1965, the latest year for which, comprehensive data is available, is shown below. It is seen that Australian production represented 1.7% of free world production, and 1.3% of total world production.
  1. A recent estimate of world bauxite reserves - United Stales Geological Survey Professional Paper 475-8, Article 41, 1963- showed world measured and indicated reserves of bauxite to be about 5,700m tons. Of these, 5,200m tons were in free world countries.

Total known reserves of bauxite in Australia are about 3,000m tons, measured and indicated, as follows:

Weipa, Queensland - Greater than 2,000m tons. Darling Range, Western Australia - Greater than 500m tons.

Gove, Northern Territory - About 200m tons. Kimberley area, Western Australia - Large but not yet assessed.

Allowing for further world reserves being proved since the 1963 estitmate, in which Australia’s reserves were quoted as 2,000m tons, measured and indicated, Australian measured and indicated reserves appear to be between one-third and onehalf of the world total.

Australian requirements for bauxite in the near future, assuming that domestic alumina refineries operate at capacity, will be about 2.5m tons per annum in 1967-68, 3.6m tons per annum in 1969- 71 and 4.6m tons from 1972. This estimateallows for the expansion of the Kwinana refinery to 610,000 tons per annum, alumina, and the Gladstone refinery to 900,000 tons per annum, alumina, in 1969, and the expected completion of the Gove refinery - 500,000 tons per annum, alumina - by December 1971. As can be seen from Australia’s measured and indicated reserves and the rate of usage indicated above, the expected life of the Australian bauxite reserves, on the basis of the foreseeable extraction rates, is extensive.

World production of bauxite in 1965 was about 36m tons. In the years 1960-65 an average annual growth rate in bauxite production of about 7% wasevident which is in agreement with current projections for world aluminium production and consumption. On this basis, the current measured and indicated reserves of the world would be sufficient for about 75 years.

page 83

QUESTION

SOUTH EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION

(Question No. 180)

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, , upon notice:

In view of the fact that Field Marshal’ Ayub Khan, the President of Pakistan, has described the South East Asia Treaty Organisation asuseless and has intimated that his country will derive no value from its continued membership, what steps is the Australian Government taking to widen the objectives of the Treaty and broaden the membership of the organisation, so that at least one major Asian nation will be a member?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Australian Government is. not aware of. any public statement by President AyubKhan in the terms described by the Honourable Senator.It is, of course, true that Pakistan has on , certain matters and from time to time expressed views at variance with those of other members of SEATO, both within the organisation and outside it. Nevertheless, Pakistan remains a member of SEATO and has continued to participate in its deliberations and in its activities. The Government’s attitude towards suggestions for the broadening of the membership of SEATO is that ‘it is a matter for interested sovereign states to decide upon for themselves.

The SEATO is not the whole framework for the security of the area. So far as Australia is concerned we approve the objectives of the Treaty and feel that SEATO plays a valuable role. I would point out that besides Pakistan there are two other Asian members of SEATO, the Philippines and Thailand, both of which are very active members, and that SEATO headquarters is situated in the Thai capital.

page 83

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FINANCED WORKS IN QUEENSLAND

(Question No. 193)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What was the total amount of Commonwealth money spent on building and construction work in Queensland during the last three years and for each of those years?
  2. What were the respective amounts expended on building structures, earthworks, aerodromes, roads, etc.?
  3. How much of the total amount was expended on buildings and/or constructions for the armed services?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Works has suppled the following information:

Your attention is drawn to the fact that the expenditure figures quoted relate only to the execution of works by the Queensland branch of the Commonwealth Department of Works. The question relates to the amount of Commonwealth money spent, etc., but this Department has no knowledge of like expenditure by Other Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities in Queensland such as the War Service Homes Division. {: .page-start } page 86 {:#debate-20} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-20-0} #### NATIONAL SERVICE (Question No. 209) {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator WHEELDON: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice: >What percentage of national servicemen, who have been discharged from the Army upon their return from Vietnam, have enlisted in the Army? {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator McKELLAR:
CP -- The Minister for the Army has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The first intake of national servicemen did not complete their 2-year obligation until the end of June 1967 and were not eligible for discharge until that time. 1. No national serviceman who had been discharged in this way and who had served in Vietnam has so far re-enlisted in the Regular Army. 2. A national serviceman who wishes to transfer to the Regular Army during his compulsory service is discharged from national service and enlisted in the Regular Army. Four national servicemen from the first intake who have served in Vietnam have been enlisted in the Regular Army in this way. A further fifty-three national servicemen from the first intake have enlisted in the Regular Army. At the time of their enlistment they had not served in Vietnam. {: .page-start } page 86 {:#debate-21} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-21-0} #### ACTS CONSOLIDATION (Question No. 210) {: #subdebate-21-0-s0 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice - >As the practice of binding reprints of consolidated Acts in the annual volumes of Acts has now ceased, and as a general consolidation has not been issued since 1950, will the AttorneyGeneral consider issuing a consolidation similar to the 1950 issue? {: #subdebate-21-0-s1 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer: >I am afraid the question is based on an incorrect assumption. There has been no decision that the practice of including selected reprints of Acts in the annual volume of Acts, or in a companion volume, shall cease. The extent to which reprints of Acts can be included in the annual volume or ina companion volume depends on several questions but principally on the size of the annual volume. Thus, the annual volume of Acts for 1965, which has just been published, comprises 1759 pages and this was only achieved by leaving out 511 pages of an Act that was passed but repealed during the year. The annual volume for 1966, now being prepared, will be very large but a reprint of at least one Act will be included. If the pagination of the 1967 Acts is not too extensive, reprints will be included in the volume for that year or in a companion volume. > >As to a general reprint of Acts in force similar to that issued as at 31st December 1950, this is a matter I am at present considering in conjunction with the Law Council of Australia, law publishers and others. The usefulness of such a reprint has been questioned and other ways of making reprints of Acts available are being studied. I shall be glad to let the honourable senator know in due course what I have decided to do. In the meantime, work is continuing on a Statute Law Revision Bill, which would need to be passed before a general reprint could be undertaken. {: .page-start } page 87 {:#debate-22} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-22-0} #### IMMIGRATION: HOSTELS (Question No. 49) {: #subdebate-22-0-s0 .speaker-K1F} ##### Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many migrant tenants, in the hostels controlled by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd, did not pay the increased tariffs for the month of February 1967? 1. How many summonses have been issued up to and including Saturday, 4th March? 2. How many migrant tenants, in hostels controlled by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd, are in arrears in their tariffs for periods other than the month of February 1967? 3. How many summonses for arrears in tariffs were issued during the year 1966? {: #subdebate-22-0-s1 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- The Ministerfor Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It has been found that no short answer is possible because the numbers paying the new tariff were continuously on the increase during February. On 4th March, of those required to pay tariff accounts, 1.079 were paying the former tariff. 1. To 4th March, 151 summonses had been served for moneys due in respect of the increased tariffs. 2. At 29th January 1967, 500 odd of those required to pay tariff accounts were more than one week's tariffs in arrears. The precise figure cannot be supplied without considerable checking of accounts. Included in this number were those who had made satisfactory arrangements to discharge their debts, those who were absent from work because of illness, etc., new arrivals, and those under notice to quit unless satisfactory arrangements were made to meet their debts. 3. During 1966, 366 summonses were served on former residents. None was served on present residents because all had either made arrangements with Commonwealth Hostels Ltd to discharge their debts or were otherwise being dealt with. {: .page-start } page 87 {:#debate-23} ### RAIL PASSENGER TERMINAL: {: .page-start } page 87 {:#debate-24} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-24-0} #### EAST PERTH (Question No. 224) {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Minister seen recent Press reports that the Western Australian Government will have to sacrifice some of its original plans for the proposed rail passenger terminal at East Perth? 1. Was provision made in the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Act 1961 for. a new passenger terminal together with a new carriage shed at East Perth? 2. Were these plans" altered? If so, why? 3. If the plans were altered, what new arrangements were made between the two Governments in regard to a passenger terminal? {: #subdebate-24-0-s1 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
LP -- The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answers to the honourable senators questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. The 1961 Railway Agreement provided for the establishment at East Perth of a new passenger terminal and new carriage sheds, the estimated cost being $200,000 and $300,000 respectively. 2. Yes. The site at East Perth intended in 1961 is no longer readily available, because of building developments in the area in the interim, and the State Government has indicated a preference for the site at East Perth - further away from the city than the original site - on which the steam locomotive depot now stands. The first site was chosen as part of a decision to bring the standard gauge line to Fremantle via Midland, Bassendean, East Perth and Perth. This decision was abandoned some years ago when the alternative ro ute south of the river to Fremantle and Leighton, via Kewdale, Cockburn Junction and Robb Jetty was selected. In March 1966, Maunsell and Partners, the consulting engineers to the Western Australian Government Railways on this project, recommended that the interstate passenger terminal and the carriage shedsshould be located at Midland, and that the passenger terminal should be combined with the Western Australian Government Railways rapid transit terminal, which will be constructed at that location. 3. The Slate Government has not yet officially advised the Commonwealth Government of its intentions in respect of the location of the interstate passenger terminal and the carriage sheds, but it is likely that the interstate passenger terminal will be located at East Perth, and combined with a new terminal for country passenger trains, and that the carriage sheds will be located at the new Forrestfield marshalling yards, adjacent to the new Kewdale freight yards. {: .page-start } page 88 {:#debate-25} ### PERSONAL EXPLANATION {: #debate-25-s0 .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia -- **Mr President,** I desire to make a personal explanation. In the debate which took place in the Senate on 16th August, at one stage the Minister for Education and Science **(Senator Gorton)** said that on 3rd and 4th July I had spoken at a meeting of the Melbourne University Labor Club. At the time I asked for a withdrawal, and the Minister complied. Subsequently, some confusion seems to have taken place. J will read the report from Hansard which states: {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- The honourable senator addressed the Monash University Labor Club on 17th October last year. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- **Mr Deputy** President,I am asking for another withdrawal. **Senator Gair** said that I addressed the Melbourne University Labor Club on 17th October last year. I have never addressed the Melbourne University Labor Club and I ask you to direct **Senator Gair** to withdraw his statement. {: .speaker-KKP} ##### Senator Gair: -- I did not say Melbourne,I said Monash. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- Then I ask for a withdrawal of that statement. Some honourable senators are laughing.I do not find this amusing. I wish to set the record straight. On 17th October last year I did address the Monash University Labor Club on the subject of Indonesia. {: #debate-25-s1 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- I ask for leave to make a personal explanation. {: #debate-25-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- There being no dissentient voice, leave is granted. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- Regarding the incident to which **Senator Wheeldon** referred, and about which he has quoted from Hansard, I now have no doubt in my mind that he did not, in fact, on the 3rd or 4th July address a meeting of the Melbourne University Labor Club. What he did was to address a meeting, one of the organisers of which was the Melbourne University Labor Club. {: .page-start } page 88 {:#debate-26} ### CHOWILLA DAM PROJECT {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Formal Motion for Adjournment {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I have received from **Senator Bishop** an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of public importance, namely: >The necessity for an urgent meeting of the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the States of > >New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to discuss completion of Chowilla Dam in accordance with the agreement unanimously ratified by the Parliaments of Australia and of those States, and to ensure that adequate water is made available to the State of South Australia. Is the proposed motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) - {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- I move: >That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. The proposed postponement of work on Chowilla Dam has alarmed the people of South Australia and members of the South Australian Parliament. It is a long time since members of the South Australian Parliament have come to a unanimous view on any major question as they have done on this matter. I think the last occasion was in relation to the standardisation of rail gauges. At any rate, the action of Labor senators in this place is occasioned by the action of the South Australian Government and the South Australian Parliament as a whole condemning the decision to postpone work on the Chowilla Dam. This proposal is of great concern to the people of South Australia. Although that State may be fairly reasonably accommodated with water until . 1970 it will be in very dire straits after that time unless the dam is completed. The project has been properly investigated by the River Murray Commission, which has made a number of reports about it. We believe that the cost involved is the real reason for stopping work on the dam, not the number of incidental matters which have been raised following the Commission's decision of 14th August. Let me remind honourable senators that much of the history of this project can be found in the reports of the River Murray Commission. To put the record straight I shall refer first to the Commission's report for the year 1961-62 in which the following appears: >As mentioned in the Annual Report for1960-61, the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, decided to ask the (River Murray Commission to examine and report on the practicability of the construction ofa dam on the River Murray of approximately 4.800.000 acre feet capacity, at Chowilla in South Australia. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- Chowilla is in Victoria. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -- lt is in South Australia. The Commission referred the question of the benefits which would accrue from such a storage to the Technical Committee and, in the report, mentioned the kind of investigations which the Technical Committee, a part of the Commission, would canvass. The issues were investigated and, as appears on page 5 of the report, the Commission resolved that: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. additional regulation of the waters of the River Murray is essential to give greater security in years of drought and to prevent disastrous losses which would otherwise be inevitable; 1. exhaustive investigations have shown that provision of a large storage at Chowilla would be the most effective and economical means of providing this additional regulation, and detailed site investigations have demonstrated the practicability of constructing a dam to provide this storage; 2. it would bc necessary for the contracting parties to the River Murray Waters Agreement to reach agreement in regard to the control of the storage, apportionment of benefits derived therefrom, and the financing of the project before any further action can be taken; 3. further investigation should bc made from the design aspect with a view to providing alternative means for the passage of ships in order to avoid the cost of providing a lock in the structure. Following this report agreements were signed between the Commonwealth and the States concerned which in fact made the construction of the Chowilla Dam a legal obligation. The River Murray Commission, on page 12 of its 1963-64 report, indicated what had been done to that stage. The report stated: >Following a request to the United States Army Corps of Engineers two of their engineers visited South Australia in November 1963 and made an inspection of the dam site. They conferred with engineers of the constructing authority in regard to the location of the sluice ways and lock chamber, and it was agreed to study three alternative layouts. > >Conferences followed with the principals of ' Soil Mechanics Ltd of the United Kingdom, which firm was subsequently engaged to investigate foundation conditions and advise on the design of the bank. The field representatives of Soil Mechanics Ltd commenced work on the site on 19th February 1964 and it is anticipated a preliminary report will be available in September. In addition,. Professor A. W. . Skempton of the Imperial College, London University, a world authority on soil mechanics, has been engaged to work in collaboration with Soil Mechanics > >Ltd. Surveys of the full supply contour, and detailed contours of the basin relevant to aspects of construction at the dam site, were about 80% complete by the end of the year. The report goes on to deal with soil investigations then in progress. In the some year the agreement was signed and since that time work has been in progress. There was no interruption or thought of interruption of the construction of the dam. There had been no challenge from any person at all to the benefits which it was claimed would flow from the construction of the: dam until i-he reference in the decision pf the Commission on 14th August. In our opinion the irrelevant objections which have now been advanced have been brought about by the fact that the estimated cost of the dam had risen from the original planned price. It is true that six years ago a planned price - not an estimate - for the dam was about $28m. In 1965 the expected cost had risen to $43m. By May pf this year, after $5m had been spent on preliminary work for the dam and after an examination of the lenders, the estimated cost rose to about $70m. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator Toohey: -- What was the first estimate? {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -- The first estimate was S43m. but when the agreement was first signed the planned price was about $28m. I put to the Senate that escalation of costs occurs with every major project. 1 remind honourable senators of the rise in costs of mil standardisation above the original estimates. The estimates of costs have almost doubled since the project commenced some years ago. In the report of the Auditor-General for the year ' ended 30th June 1967, which is now available to honourable senators, reference is made to the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Act of 1961. The .report states: >When the Railway Agreement (Western Australia) Act 1961 was passed, the estimated cost of the project, as shown in the second schedule to the Agreement, was $82,420,000. A Commonwealth/State revision of project estimates now indicates that the likely costs will be in the vicinity of $130m. From that simple statement it is clear that there is very good reason to believe that that amount will be exceeded. I suggest that the question of increased costs is always a matter to be confronted in respect of major projects. In the case of the Chowilla Dam. the project is important not only to three States but also in a national sense. The longer we delay the considerations surrounding the decision of 14th August the more will we become involved with increased costs. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- What was the tender price? Sena.or BISHOP - The tender price was about $70m - between $68m and S70m. 1 am told that specialists from the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority checked the tenders which ranged within the area I have stated. There is reason to believe that with minor modifications the tender price could be reduced by millions of dollars. But that is by the way. The first point 1 want to make is that the question of rising costs always impinges upon discussions of projects of great national importance. The Chowilla Dam is such a project. It is more important, of course, to South Australia, which is in the position that it has to rely greatly on River Murray waters. The current opinion of people who ought to know is that while we will be reasonably able to satisfy demand until 1970 after this we will be in some difficulty unless construction of the dam continues. There have been some alternative suggestions to which I shall refer later. The important thing to remember is that the South Australian Government and the South Australian Opposition have unanimously stated that the project should continue. It is our job, not only because they are putting this point of view, to do all that we can to protect the State of South Australia. We are not satisfied that this is being done by engaging in the sort of studies which have been occasioned following the report. I suggest that the real reason for the reaction and the real reason for the stop is that the costs have frightened a number of people. There ought to be a way to analyse the whole position. We propose - I say it early - that there be, as requested by the Slate Parliament and the State Labor Government, an urgent meeting of the Prime Minister **(Mr Harold Holt),** the Premier of South Australia and the Premiers of the other States concerned. This body could evaluate the whole position and could go over the history of the agreements which were signed to see to what extent work could be proceeded with, because once you stop this sort of activity you get demands for compensation, and you get great disappointment amongst the people in the area who are dependent upon the construction of the dam. lt is very urgent that this should be done. The constructing authority in South Australia, which is headed by **Mr Beaney,** who is Engineer in Chief of the South Australian Engineering and Water Supply Department, has made it very clear in the reports which have been available to the South Australian Parliament that whatever special computer studies are made in relation to particular phases between now and when the matter has to bc determined will not alter the basic concept of Chowilla. It has been a requirement and a practice of the Commission that there be unanimous decisions on these major questions. **Mr Beaney** supported the report of 14th August but he makes it clear in his report to the State Government, which has been submitted to the State Parliament, that these studies will not alter in any way the original manual processes. I have already reported on the methods which were used in the first place in relation to feasibility studies and later in relation to the more important engineering studies and investigations which have been proven. The people involved have been top specialists in the field throughout the world. These people who are mentioned in the River Murray Commission report support what has been done up to now. In addition there has been an exchange of information with top United States professors in the field, so there is every reason to believe that the proper processes have been carried out. Nobody in fact now challenges the basic concept. I suggest that the reasons which have been put up are simply reasons to avoid the expense which is involved. Already of course, a great deal of work has been done on the site. An 18-mile road has been built from Paringa. I have mentioned the extensive soil tests. There have been compacting experiments and research that has cost a lot of money. There have been tests in relation to bituminous surfacing. There have been water tests for salinity. A portion of the pipeline to take salty water from the dam to an area some 5 miles from the project has been built. A certain amount of railway work has been done. Sixty men are employed on the site. Housing has been provided for the employees on the site. In addition, we are obviously committed in respect of the work that has been done by specialists. We will have to pay compensation if the work does not proceed. I suggest that it should not be necessary to bring these matters before the Parliament. It seems to me that there should be a ready response from the Government, the Prime Minister and the Minister for National Development **(Mr Fairbairn)** himself to the requests by the State Premier for an urgent meeting. I know that the talks between the Prime Minister and the Premier, by telephone and letter, have been cordial. But we are most concerned - as is the South Australian Parliament - about having this urgent meeting which could canvass these issues properly and accept the legal obligation to build the dam. I do not think anybody - even the Minister - denies that in fact there is that legal obligation. I have referred to **Mr Beaney,** who has represented the constructing authority all the time and who, on behalf of the Commission, has spent the $Sm. I propose to refer to his report which was read to the State Parliament. I refer to these matters in order to get them on the record. This is what he said to the Government in his report on 14th August- {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- Is this report available to the Senate? {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -- Yes. These reports can be found in the South Australian Hansard. I am putting them on the record for the benefit of honourable senators, who can evaluate them themselves. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- The South Australian Hansard is not available in the Library. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP: -- I cannot help that. I can only tell the Senate that this information has been given to the State Parliament by the State Minister of Works. He raised these matters of special studies and costs compared with benefits. As I have said, I believe that this decision has been taken only because the wages and other costs have become magnified. I am quoting this report in order to make very clear what **Mr Beaney's** position is and what the actual position is. In his report to the Government **Mr Beaney** said: >The new studies took advantage of a computer programme system that had latterly been evolved by the executive staff of the Commission ' in association with the Technical Committee. This programme does not make a study of river behaviour any more effectively than the former manual processes, but it enables studies to be made rapidly (7 minutes machine time) against many hours formerly. As a consequence of this, quite a large number of conditions were looked at in 'the new series, some twenty-four in all. So a series of computer tests were made. The changed conditions that were taken as a basis for the tests included: >A revised scale of river losses (upper river); > >Kew storage capacities from tributaries; , > >A new scale of releases for the Snowy Mountains Scheme; and > >Increased evaporation allowances for Chowilla based on observations on Victorian lakes. **Mr Beaney** went on to say: >None of these are regarded by me as greatly affecting the benefits from Chowilla, and all are logical and necessary for a realistic study. He also said: >The Commission has now requested that the whole river system be studied in a comprehensive series of computer runs, and that the results be assembled and analysed to see where the greatest benefits lie. There is a very strong desire in this to equate benefit against cost and not necessarily to take the greatest water gain as the criteria of the best scheme . . . > >In submitting the above, 1 can see no alternative to accepting the situation. I am confident that a storage at Chowilla offers the greatest security to South Australia's share of the River Murray waters and expect to have this view vindicated by the studies. That is the basis of the recommendation by the person who, along with the other experts, is probably the best qualified person to make a recommendation. He has been in the field and has been associated with all the feasibility and specialist studies that have been made since the project was first considered and later confirmed by a legal agreement. It is evident to people who have read and listened to the information given in the South Australian Parliament that there is no good reason for .stopping construction of the dam, except perhaps the fear of some body or some government that the cost is too much to handle. At this stage in our national development, we should not worry about the question of costs because the longer we put off this work the more money we will have to provide ,for the project when it finally has to bc considered. 1 wish to refer now to the result that would flow from the acceptance by the Commonwealth Government and the other Slate governments involved of the report of 14th August. **Mr Beaney** said: >To reject the tenders and close down our present activities, apart from considerable disruption of me Department's general activities, would also require: > >The cancellation of the Contract with Soletanche and negotiations with them of compensation for costs involved to date. > >Closing down site works. This should not be absolute, as certain investigations in association with our consultants are in progress and should continue. > >Formally advising the Victorian and New South Wales Authorities to suspend further land acquisition, but to hold under best terms available, all land purchased. > >Advise, our consultants, Soil Mechanics Ltd, that the extension of the agreement beyond 31st January 1968 will not be made unless work is approved to resume on the project. **Mr Beaney** also refers to the need for the Department to negotiate with the South Australian Railways to determine what sort of arrangement could be made with it as to the progress of the works which had been occasioned. This, of course, is a most drastic thing. There should be no early consideration of this matter without an urgent meeting between the Prime Minister and the representatives of the States. That is the logical step. The subject is not one for a technical committee of the Commission. It is not even a subject, I suggest, for the Commission itself. It is a matter upon which the top parliamentarians and officials of the governments concerned should confer. This is not an extravagant request. It seems a most modest request and the Commonwealth should support the State Government in relation to it. There has been, of course, some attempt to create a deviation from the matter involved. There are incidental arguments about salinity. T want to quote what was said only last week by **Mr C.** Warren Bonython, the Chairman of a South Australian body called the Water Research Foundation of Australia. He had this to say: >Salinity in the River Murray will bc a more serious future problem for SA than total water available. > >There i« only an indefinite and inadequate safeguard for SA against salinity in the Murray River Waters Agreement. > >The. Chowilla Dam would be a great improvement, here because it would have *a* strong ameliorating effect on salinity downstream from it. > >Although it has been stated that, because of extra evaporation, Chowilla will increase river salinity, I believe that the advantage, conferred by the dam, of depressing the seasonal high salinity peak would considerably outweigh this disadvantage. > >Dams located farther upstream towards the headwaters of the Murray would not do this. > >The only sure way of dealing with salinity slugs coming down the river is to have a large capacity storage, like Chowilla, between SA and the source of the slugs. Some honourable members have read the reports of references made in the South Australian Parliament to these slugs. I wish to mention only one such statement; it was made not by a member of the Australian Labor Party - I have already mentioned the decision of the South Australian Government - but by **Mr Pearson** who was a former Minister. In the 'Advertiser' of 17th August 1967, this report appears: >The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Pearson),** in the Assembly yesterday, referring to the slug of saline water reported coming down the River Murray from Victoria, said it could not have come at a more unfortunate time for SA. > >Whether it came deliberately from Victoria or not I am just not prepared to canvass', he said . . . 'But if anybody wanted to sabotage the Chowilla project at this moment there could not have been a better way of doing it'. > >Every possible obstruction which could be suggested to the Chowilla project seems to have been concentrated upon the discussions in these past weeks', he said. > >It seems to me that there is some determination on the part of other States to deny us what has already been agreed upon by our Government and others'. I am not giving any credence to this opinion. I am just saying this: I support the claim that every little objection which may be taken has been raised in connection with this matter. Not only members of the Opposition are concerned; the people living in these affected areas and, indeed, the rest of South Australia are concerned with this matter. Let me refer quickly, Madam Acting Deputy President, to what seems to me to be the position of the Minister for National Development. Last week the Minister made a statement dealing with the matters that I have mentioned today. A report in the Adelaide 'News' of 14th August 1967 reads: >There is no need for any panic in South Australia,' said **Mr Fairbairn.** > >Your State has a guarantee of water from the River, and this will be honoured.' > >He said he did not think at this stage the whole plan was 'bungled', but added: 'We will have to wait for the reassessment of the Commission's Technical Committee." 1 have already given the reasons that the Opposition sees for not deferring this scheme. To defer it without canvassing the issues at the meeting we propose would probably mean millions of dollars in extra costs later on. In another place on 17th August **Mr Birrell,** the member for Port Adelaide, asked the Prime Minister **(Mr Harold Holt):** >Can the Prime Minister give the House a definite assurance that the terms of the River Murray Waters Agreement in respect of the Chowilla project, will be carried out in accordance with that Agreement? 1 point out that that Agreement was unanimously endorsed by this Parliament. In reply the Prime Minister said: >My colleague, the Minister for National Development, will answer the question. **Mr Fairbairn** then said: >The answer is: Yes. {: type="A" start="I"} 0. urge that all members of this Senate support to the full the unanimous request of the South Australian Parliament' for an urgent meeting of the Prime Minister wilh the Premiers of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. I am satisfied that this meeting could properly evaluate the national questions involved in the postponement of this scheme. It is not a matter for any technical committee. The special computer studies are, after all, only devices to avoid a commitment that involves, 1 know, the spending of a large amount of money. But I make the point, which I made earlier: If honourable senators looked at every major project in Australia of State and national importance they would find that we are faced with the same escalation of costs because of increased wages and prices paid for new processes, new machines and new techniques. We have to face this escalation and continue to cope with the programme and not put it aside. If the project is put aside the proper development of the particular State in which I am interested, and the advantages to the other States, suffer. Not only that, but the people do not get the best out of the country as a whole. {: #subdebate-26-0-s2 .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP -- The first point I want to make on this particular aspect is one of protest. Late last week a notice from the Opposition was received stating that it proposed to move as a notice of motion, which would normally come on some time within the next week or two, this Chowilla Dam project. Now we have it suddenly brought in as an urgency matter. This is a highly technical matter. The Minister for National Development **(Mr Fairbairn)** is not in this House. To assess the technicalities and the reports which have been furnished on this subject is impossible without much longer notice than we have had. 1 received notice of this motion only at 2.45 p.m. today. I protest against this kind of action. It is completely wrong. If the Opposition wants this project debated on an informed basis then it has a duty to give to every member of this Parliament an opportunity to study this very technical matter s6 as to be able to give a proper consideration to the points raised by the Opposition. The Opposition has not treated this as a technical matter at all. The Opposition has disregarded its technical aspects. In this Senate the Opposition is endeavouring to rescue the. .South Australian Government, whose representative on the River Murray Commission has agreed with the decision of the Commission that a further investigation should be made before the scheme is continued. The River Murray Commission has asked for a deferment to enable it to investigate some of the technical problems that have arisen, one being salinity as a result of evaporation which it is estimated will be 500 acre feet per annum. This is a unanimous decision. The Act provides that in the absence of a unanimous decision an umpire shall consider the matter, the umpire being the Chief1 Justice of Tasmania. This is a very sensible arrangement, because Tasmania is noted , for its independent outlook. The Chief Justice of Tasmania would be a very competent umpire. But as 1 have indicated, there is no disagreement. One thing that hats become apparent is that the evaporation oyer this vast area will be much greater than was originally expected. This decision has not been taken merely because of an increase in cost. The escalation of cost lies right outside the provisions of the Act. The legislation provides that $28m was to be spent on the project. Of this sum, $5m has been spent. The Commission re-assessed the cost and estimated that it had risen from $28m to $43m. It called tenders, only to discover that the tender price was $70m. Any responsible Minister would do as did the Minister for National Development anil would say: 'I cannot accept this rise from $28m to S70m without having a responsible investigation made'. The Minister asked the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority to examine the tenders. The Authority said that, taking into account the work to be done, the tenders were competitive and that the sum of $70m was a fair estimate of the cost. South Australia's need of water is well known to every honourable senator. Moreover, South Australia needs clean water. The River Murray Commission is not satisfied that the water impounded by the Chowilla Dam and which will flow into the Murray will not have a greater degree of salinity than was at first expected and it is not prepared to take the risk of this occurring. The Commission wants to 'have an evaluation of the situation and to have the facts put before it. I believe that such an investigation should be made. I can establish - I do not think I will have to do so - the bona fides of the Commonwealth Government in relation to this project. When the proposal for the construction of this dam was first put to us by the then Premier pf South Australia, it was agreed that the cost of $28m should be shared by Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and the Commonwealth. It was then discovered that New South Wales could not find its share of the cost. So the Commonwealth Government said that it would lend the money to the State. Wrapped up with this project was the construction of the huge Blowering Dam. New South Wales said that it could not find the money to build the Blowering Dam so the Commonwealth Government came to the rescue. The Commonwealth did so because the Blowering Dam was an integral part of the scheme to control the waters flowing to South Australia. The Commonwealth said that it would find half the money by way of loan funds for the New South Wales Government so that it could construct the Blowering Dam. This has been done and therefore noone can challenge the bona fides of the Commonwealth Government in this regard. Noone would suggest that a responsible authority should spend the taxpayers' money on the Chowilla project without a proper investigation now that the estimated cost has risen from S28m to 870m. This point is emphasised because the authority responsible for the Chowilla Dam - the River Murray Commission, upon which South Australia is represented - agrees that at this stage there should be a new evaluation of the project before this enormous job is proceeded with. The Commission's report stales that al this stage a smaller dam may provide just as much benefit to South Australia, and, indeed, it may be of even more benefit, because there would be cleaner water provided than that which would come from the immense dam proposed. The Chowilla Dam project would mean that there would be great areas where the water was shallow, and one can well understand why evaporation in that area would be so high. Perhaps if a smaller dam were built upstream there would not be as much evaporation as normally takes place in South Australia. I do not think any honourable senator would want to deny South Australia 1 additional gallon of water; but what South Australian senators opposite are saying is that this huge expenditure should be undertaken without any consideration of the fact that the South Australian Government is only one of four contributors to the cost. Victoria, New South Wales and the Commonwealth are equal partners with South Australia and are entitled to express their alarm, if they so wish, at the escalation of cost, and, even more, to express their great alarm at the deterioration of the waters of the Murray River. **Senator Bishop** quoted the words of **Mr Bonython** and passages from the South Australian Hansard. The Government has not had time to examine documents relating to the Chowilla Dam in order to combat or to support the evidence which **Senator Bishop** has put before us. The Opposition wants this matter to be discussed upon a political basis, I am afraid that is all it does want. This matter has been raised in an attempt to get the Premier of South Australia off the hook. He is well and truly on the hook over this subject, as his representative agreed to the construction of the Chowilla Dam being deferred, having agreed also to the report in relation to it. The Premier, too, is endeavouring to get himself off the hook. If the Opposition wanted this topic to be discussed responsibly - as it should be discussed - then it was unjust and unfair to bring it up as a matter of urgency today. Sufficient notice should have been given to allow honourable senators on the Government side the opportunity of amassing the necessary information and statistics relating to the deferment of this scheme. The representative of the Opposition should not have handed me, at 2.45 pm today, a notice saying that it was proposed to discuss this topic as a matter of urgency this afternoon. 1 say that the Opposition does not want this subject to be discussed on a proper basis. 1,'he Opposition does nol want the facts to be known, otherwise it would not have taken this course. There are Opposition senators who represent New South Wales and Victoria and they are entitled to discuss the matter with the Governments of their respective States. They are entitled to say to those State Governments: 'This is a proposition which involves NSW and Victoria in additional expenditure of millions of dollars. What do you think of the fact that our team mates are putting up this proposition on behalf of South Australia?' If the Senate is to be a States House and to represent the States, then senators from those other States have every right to confer with their respective State Governments and ask for an evaluation of the situation. Victorian senators should have the opportunity to ask the Victorian Government: What should we say, as Victorians, about this situation when it is raised in the Senate?' That is what those honourable senators would do if it were not for the fact that this matter is raised hastily today in this chamber as a political proposition, without time being given to enable honourable senators to discuss the subject and amass the necessary technical information which is available.. In other circumstances, this matter could lead to a debate of consequence because this is a mighty important matter for South Australia. Everybody in this place realises that it is. The fact is that investigations may prove that another dam site may be found which would guarantee a flow of .1.254 million acre feet of water. South Australia might then be able to put forward a case to the commission for an additional water supply. {: .speaker-K2N} ##### Senator Ridley: -- Pigs might fly. {: .speaker-KOW} ##### Senator HENTY: -- The Opposition is adopting a pig-headed attitude to this subject. The Opposition does not want the matter to be discussed properly. It wants merely a political evaluation of it - a cheap gibe evaluation if I may so call it - in order to get the Premier of South Australia off the hook. A senior technical officer of the Commission has told me that one of the benefits which may flow from this reevaluation may mean that a case can be established so that South Australia will hot receive merely 1.254 million acre feet of water as under the present scheme. There may well be a case in support of exceeding that figure. The State could then request that more water be released. Facts Such as these could come out if sufficient time had been given to the Senate to investigate the Chowilla Dam project fully. This technical subject, which is of such importance to South Australia, as every honourable senator realises, should not be discussed on 3 State party basis. j Under present conditions the construction of the Chowilla Dam would make no difference to the flow of water down the Murray River. Water can be released upstream to cover any shortage in South Australia. Often it has been found that water which has been released is not used. Also, there are leaks in some of the locks. Under the examination made in the last few years, the Commission has found other uses for water from the river. It has found now that 1.254 million acre feet ofl water will be released whether or not the Chowilla Dam is built. This is another matter that should be looked at. I have seen Press reports - the position may not be as dangerous as perhaps they implied - that the base of the dam is suspect because the soil is permeable and water may seep through it. However I believe this is a matter which could he dealt with reasonably cheaply and is nol the big problem that has been suggested. Honourable senators have not had time to prepare for a proper debate on all those matters. They have not had time to obtain the facts, to consult the various State Governments involved and to get a complete evaluation. If we had been given time!, a discussion on this subject would have been of real value. The Senate could have done a real job. Instead it is being rushed. We had only half an hour's notice of the Opposition's intention to raise the matter this afternoon. I should like a senator from South Australia to rise and tell me why time could not be given to the senators on this side of the House to obtain the facts. Why could not we be given the same opportunity to investigate this matter as has been taken by Opposition senators? Why is this subject rushed in? The Opposition suggested that there should be a meeting between the Prime Minister and the various State Premiers. The River Murray Commission's current investigations are complete on the hydrological and engineering aspects of a smaller Chowilla Dam with or without additional storage upstream, and when the report of the consultants becomes available it is not doubted that a meeting of the governments concerned will be worth while. However, prior to that time such a meeting would be premature. The Commonwealth Government has shown its bona fides in this instance. It has gone out of its way to provide large sums of money so that South Australia can receive the clean water it needs, and no political stunt in this House will influence me to go beyond the report of the River Murray Commission, the technical authority in charge of this project. The Commission said that we may be causing great damage to South Australia if we go ahead with this project before making this technical evaluation. I think it is in the interests of South Australia that all these facts should come out. This matter should not be decided on a cheap political basis; it should be decided on the basis of what the River Murray Commission tells us. I understand that its report will be with us before the end of the year and all the relevant facts and figures should be known by then. Then, and only then, can a proper, sound and responsible judgment be made in the interests of South Australia. {: #subdebate-26-0-s3 .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY:
South Australia -- Before **Senator Henty** entered this debate I, as a South Australian, was very concerned at the decision to shelve temporarily the Chowilla Dam project, but after listening to what I consider to be a most intemperate speech by the Minister I am more concerned than ever because, apart from defending the Commonwealth Government from an attack which has not been made, he contributed nothing to allay my fears in respect of the future of the Chowilla Dam. In fact, I think it can be fairly said by those who listened to him closely that he was giving reasons why the project should be shelved altogether. It seems to me amazing that he should say that he did not understand what this is all about. 1 think I should remind the Senate, as **Senator Bishop** did when he read the terms of his motion, that all we are asking is for an urgent meeting between the Prime Minister **(Mr Harold Holt)** and the Premiers of the States concerned to ensure that adequate water is made available to the State of South Australia. I should not think it would be necessary for anyone engaging in this debate to restate to the Minister the purpose of it. **Senator Henty** said that this was introduced in haste. This is a matter of urgency for the people of South Australia. We admit that we are hasty about it, and I think we have every reason to be hasty. I remind the Minister, as did **Senator Bishop,** that the people of South Australia are very gravely concerned about the future of the project because, unlike other States which are more fortunate in their rainfall, to us the flow of water down the Murray is our lifeline and anything which holds up any project connected with the supply of water will inevitably hold up the development of South Australia. I do not think I have ever heard anything so childish, so petulant and so wrong as the Minister's statement that we are trying to get the Premier of South Australia off the hook. I think I am quite reasonable in asking what the devil he is talking about. **Mr Dunstan** has been Premier of South Australia for some six months. We have had a Labor Government in South Australia only since 1965. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- Too long. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY: -- lt will be much longer, I can assure you. South Australia's signatory to the Chowilla Dam agreement was **Sir Thomas** Playford. I am amazed to hear **Senator Henty** now finding such grave faults with the dam and all sorts of reasons why we should not proceed with it at this time. I remember vividly, as would other honourable senators, when **Sir William** Spooner, then Minister for National Development, introduced this proposal into the Senate. Its virtues were extolled and we were informed and believed - we still believe - that this was a magnificent project which would benefit not only South Australia but also all States which were signatories to the agreement. I suggest that the question of cost is a red herring which has been introduced to discolour the scheme of things and to prevent a proper evaluation of what is behind this agitation to stop South Australia participating in the scheme. It is not my intention to cover again the ground that **Senator Bishop** covered but. in view of some of the erratic statements made by the Minister representing the Minister for National Development **(Mr Fairbairn),** 1 want to point out to the Senate that in the report of the River Murray Commission relating to the Chowilla Dam it was mentioned that investigation in 1962 showed how vital the project was and that this was the subject of unanimous agreement by the original signatories who were the then Prime Minister, **Sir Robert** Menzies, the Hon. J. J. Cahill, **Sir Henry** Bolte and **Sir Thomas** Playford. I do not know whom we are getting off the hook. I think **Sir Thomas** Playford has been off for some time. It was stated unequivocally al that time that without the Chowilla Dam not only South Australia but also all States bordering the Murray would be subject to severe restrictions in drought years. The Senate was told that when the report which brought the Chowilla Dam project into existence was presented. Now it seems we are to be told that this was not the case, that this is a lot of nonsense and that something has happened in the meantime which has rendered all of this a matter which should not be accepted. **Senator Bishop** has made the point ; I do not think there is need for me to stress it - that this agreement is valid and should be honoured. What I am concerned about, and what concerns the South Australian Parliament, are the newspaper statements attributed to the Prime Minister and, in particular, to **Sir Henry** Bolte, because they have an ominous ring for South Australia. I want to deal with those statements because, to us at least, they may indicate some of the reasons why this project is being held up. The 'Canberra Times' of Tuesday, 15th August carried the following report: >The future of the Chowilla Dam project in South Australia will be considered by the Prime > >Minister, **Mr Holt,** a spokesman said in Canberra today. > >The future of the $70m dam on the Murray River near Renmark is uncertain .following last week's decision to defer construction pending further investigations. The 'Canberra Times' also carried a report with a Melbourne dateline which is in these terms: >New information concerning salinity had put a completely different light on the Chowilla Dam project, the Victorian Premier, **Sir Henry** Bolte, said today. > > **Sir Henry** said technical problems as well as the high cost had made the project 'well-nigh impossible'. > > **Sir Henry** said the area to bc flooded by the dam was greater than first expected. This, would mean a larger area of water and increased evaporation, which would accentuate the problem of salinity in the dam. > >If the dam is feasible and practicable and financially obtainable we are all for it', he 'said. But the sting is in the tail, because he went on to say: >But on current information there appears to be little hope". {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Whose statement is that? {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY: -- It was made by **Sir Henry** Bolte. **Sir Henry** at least did qualify the statement by saying that he would be very disappointed if the project were dropped. But this does not give much comfort to South Australia when one considers that on current information there appears to be little hope of the project continuing. Surely the Senate will understand why senators from South Australia are concerned about the decision to hold up work. **Senator Henty** may have had some justification for complaining about the short notice given to the Opposition's proposal. But by the same token, practically every week that this Parliament is in session we have to contend with Bills of great importance being brought into the Senate on the spur of the moment. We have to proceed to debate them at short notice and it is a lot of nonsense to say that the Opposition's action today in moving a motion for the adjournment of the Senate in order to discuss a matter of urgency inhibits any honourable senator opposite from taking an intelligent part in this debate if he feels strongly enough about it. It must have been obvious to all honourable senators that since the statement was made by the Commission indicating that there was to be a stoppage of work on the Chowilla Dam senators from South Australia would be involved and would want an immediate discussion of the matter. It must have been clear that South Australian senators would not leave it till next week or the week after or next month. Indeed, the honourable member for Angas **(Mr Giles)** did not waste any time in placing a series of questions on the notice paper of the House of Representatives in respect of the same matter. I commend him for that action. I come now to the matter of salinity. This may interest the Senate because there has been a lot of talk to the effect that salinity has suddenly been found and that if the Chowilla Dam is proceeded with the salinity of the Murray River will be increased as a result. This is one of the major reasons for the halting of the project. **Senator Henty** had a lot to say about salinity. It is interesting to study the views of some of the people who know the Murray River. Before I quote the views of people who comprise the Executive Board of the Australian Dried Fruits Association, I should admit that they are not experts in a scientific sense, but as South Australian senators appreciate, they are men who know the Murray River. They know its characteristics and the factors connected with it. Perhaps I would be more inclined to accept their advice about the Murray River and its behaviour in certain circumstances than the advice of some of the more scientific minds. In the Dried Fruits Journal of June 1967 the Executive of the Australian Dried Fruits Association said: >The. fact that the River Murray Commission has no jurisdiction over the waters of the tributaries of the Murray is particularly important. The degree of salinity entering the Murray River from its own headwaters is very low, and the natural feed back into the river from sub-stratum streams would, in itself, not be serious. The main source of salinity is undoubtedly the tributaries, the Goulburn and Loddon Rivers and Cohuna Creek in particular, and it is the salinity of these streams which must be controlled. On its own admission the River Murray Commission has no power to control these waters. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- What about the slug of salt that came down the river? {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY: -- As **Senator Hannaford** reminds me, it was reported in the South Australian Press within the last fortnight that a slug of salt had come down the Loddon River. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- And they took a test as it was coming down. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY: -- Yes. This was posing the possibility of great danger for the fruit growers in the area along the Murray. 1 think the Senate should take note of the fact that when we talk of salinity as it applies to the Chowilla Dam, we should give consideration to the matters so pertinently raised by the Executive of the ADFA about the real culprits in regard to the salinity content of the Murray. It may well be that legislation should be introduced in whichever House has the authority to do so, either to grant to the River Murray Commission the right to control the rivers affecting the Murray, or at least to set in motion machinery to enable this to be done. We should not by any means ignore what I and probably other honourable senators consider is a very vital factor in the question of salinity. I come now to the question of costs, another matter about which **Senator Henty** had a great deal to say. I suppose that as the original suggestion of the cost was $28m, and it escalated from that to $43m, and then to a final estimate of about $70m, these rises must concern the people who were signatories to the agreement. I am prepared to admit that, but I suggest to honourable senators that it was not until late in 1965 that any reliable estimate of the cost of construction of the Chowilla Dam could possibly be made. We were considering square miles of land in the original concept without any other consideration. For somebody to pluck a figure out of the air and say that $2Sm ought adequately to cover construction costs seems to me to be nonsense. I believe that the only practicable assessment of cost could be made when the actual structure of the dam commenced. I think that is a fair way of putting the situation. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- But the feasibility study was carried out by the engineering and water services of South Australia. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator TOOHEY: -- Let us assume that the feasibility studies were not as good as they should have been. {: .speaker-KSN} ##### Senator Marriott: -- Yet you are complaining about the rising costs of the Fill aircraft. I **Senator TOOHEY** - I thought that the [last matter honourable senators opposite would want to refer to in this debate would be the Fill aircraft. Talking in terms of increased costs above the original estimates, that is a classic example and leaves the Chowilla Dam for dead. But I am not concerned about that. I am suggesting to the Senate that the original suggestion of S28m had no substance and no reality. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ridley)** - Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-26-0-s4 .speaker-JTT} ##### Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia -- I wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to the terms of the proposal put forward by **Senator Bishop** and to the terms of the notices of motion appearing on the Senate notice paper for today. **Senator Bishop's** proposal states: >That the Senate at its rising adjourn till tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing - Then follow details which have been spelled out by speakers before me in this debate. In short, **Senator Bishop** has asked the Senate lo discuss a matter of urgency, namely, the necessity for an urgent meeting of the Prime Minister **(Mr Harold Holt)** and the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, to discuss the completion of the Chowilla Dam in accordance with the agreement unanimously ratified by the Parliaments of Australia and of those States. Item 5 on the notice paper for today lists the names of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate **(Senator Murphy), Senator Bishop, Senator Cavanagh, Senator Drury, Senator Nicholls, Senator Ridley** and **Senator Toohey** in giving notice of a motion that the Senate consider that the construction of the Chowilla Dam should proceed without delay. The proposed motion proceeds to elaborate along those lines. The machinery, the mechanics and the processes of the Senate have provided for an adequate discussion of this matter in due course, leaving an opportunity to honourable senators to gather material and conduct a debate in proper circumstances. Yet without even waiting for due consideration to be given, **Senator Bishop** has moved his urgency motion in which he calls for a meeting of the Prime Minister and certain Slate Premiers, although he knows perfectly well that the matter is still in the hands of the River Murray Commission. I imagine that the honourable senator would be the first to cry out very loudly if in other circumstances the Prime Minister or State Premiers intruded into the business and other affairs of a commission charged with carrying out certain duties. On all sides, in statements made both by the Minister and by others it is made abundantly clear that the matter is receiving urgent consideration. 1 cannot help but go along with some of the ideas that the Minister for Supply **(Senator Henty)** mentioned a few moments ago. This is a vehicle which is being used just as a kind of political gimmick to try to justify certain sweeping statements which the South Australian Premier has made upon this matter, as if to draw attention away from a general downturn in the economy and in employment, and from the other things that are wrong in the present situation in South Australia, lt is an attempt to divert attention away from the real troubles in South Australia i that are due to the mismanagement of the South Australian Government, to try to associate them with a dry year, a shortage of water down the Murray, and this wicked Commonwealth Government's shelving of the Chowilla Dam, when in every official comment it is stated that there is no intention whatsoever to shelve the Chowilla Dam. As the honourable senator says, the Minister himself has stated that there is no need for panic in South Australia on this matter. After all, it has been repeated here in many ways that the matter is receiving further investigation, and every indication is given that the matter is to receive attention. For no reason whatsoever other than these political reasons the honourable senator has brought on for discussion what he calls a matter of urgency. Might I turn back to some statements from the River Murray Commission itself which have been reported. In particular, [ draw attention to the fact that the South Australian Government representative on the River Murray Commission agreed to the deferment. He emphasised that he . saw no alternative to accepting the Commission's decision, but by the same token he also said that he was confident that the Chowilla Dam would afford to South Australia its greatest security and he expected his view to be vindicated by the study that is now taking place. In the face of this, the honourable senator brings forward a proposal that the Prime Minister and a few of the Premiers should meet, in short, that they should intrude into the events which are now properly taking place under the authority, under the Act, and in every other way. The Premier of South Australia blasts away at the Commonwealth, blames the Commonwealth for all of this delay, and implies that the Commonwealth is to shelve the whole matter, when he knows that his own representative not only agreed to the deferment of the whole of the Chowilla Dam project for the time being but also expected that his view regarding our security would be vindicated. A question that might well be asked is: Did the South Australian representative refer the matter to his Government? Did he ask what the situation might be? In the face of all this, **Senator Bishop** brings on for discussion this proposal which, I. suggest, has no chance of success in its present wording, because it has no relevance to the present situation. It cannot achieve anything, when already proper steps are being taken for the matter to receive attention. Indeed, in accordance with the processes of the Senate the matter will be considered fully in this chamber in the course of time. I am very much at one with all other South Australian senators in their concern for the Chowilla Dam. Indeed, my colleague **Senator Laught** was first on his feet' on the first sitting day after the announcement was made about deferment, to seek information on this matter. Following that, the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Senator Anderson)** made a statement. It would be well to put on record again some extracts from the Minister's statement. He said that on Friday, 1 1th August the River Murray Commission at its meeting resolved that: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . having regard to the changed relationship between costs and benefits of the Chowilla project since it was previously assessed in 1962 the River Murray Commission recommends to contracting governments that the project be deferred pending further investigations. Further, in view of the fact that the South Australian constructing authority is holding tenders for this work, it be asked not to accept any tender currently held and arrange to reduce all expenditure on the Chowilla project to a minimum as rapidly as possible. lt sets out a number of reasons for this. The major ones are cost and salinity, which have been referred to, but there are other side events which should not be overlooked. One of these is a requirement to maintain certain minimum flows at Mildura to reduce the saline content of the river. Another is that the evaporation loss from Chowilla is now estimated as much greater than was assumed in 1962. A third reason is that the capacity of the Blowering Dam on the Mumimbidgee River system has been increased from 0.8 to 1.3 million acre feet. Many new studies have been made and many new devices have been worked out since 1961 when the original plans in connection with the Chowilla Dam were being made. If any statement is required concerning this matter surely it is to be found in the last paragraph of the Minister's statement in which he said: The Commission is pursuing urgently- Let me underline this: its studies to provide the best solution to the problem of River Murray regulation. These will include further consideration of a storage at Chowilla in conjunction with other potential storages in the river basin. The honourable senator raises this subject as a matter of urgency when only a few days ago the Minister declared before the Senate that it was a subject of urgency and that the Government was giving ils urgent attention to it. If **Senator Bishop** were to get his proposal through the Senate, what would a meeting of the Prime Minister and the State Premiers do? They would immediately foregather and say: This is still in the hands of the River Murray Commission. The Chairman of the River Murray Commission, who is the Minister for National Development **(Mr Fairbairn),** has said that the matter is being pursued urgently.' They could only await the report of the River Murray Commission. Indeed, the South Australian Premier referred in the South Australian Parliament the other day to 'six months' time'. Earlier today the Minister for Supply said that he expected the report to be in before Christmas, which is three or four months away. So while we are, of course, anxious that the Chowilla Dam project should go on, I do not think that **Senator Bishop** or the Opposition gets any marks or will do anything by introducing a proposal of this kind, especially in this particular way. We are interested in the Chowilla Dam. As I said a moment ago, I have a rather more than passing personal interest in it. Nobody will remember this, but when i first came into the Senate and came across the necessity to make a maiden speech in 1961 - this was at the time of the announcement of the Chewilla project - I chose this subject. 1 directed attention amongst other things to the fact that we were urgently in need of the Chowilla project, that we needed water storage and the facilities that it provided. I made the point that by 1970 South Australia would be at the mercy of the seasons and that Chowilla Dam was of high importance to the total development of South Australia. I move beyond the South Australian border, because the matter of water is one of major importance to Australia. Its rainfall pattern is such that two-thirds of the continent receives less than 15 inches of rain. Some half of the continent receives less than 20 inches and we have an overall average rainfall of about 16 inches compared with a world average of 26 inches. Might I compare Australia's average with the average of 29 inches in the United States. So this is a matter of utmost importance to Australia and especially to South Australia, because the River Murray is our only major river. While I disagree with the manner in which this matter has been raised, like all other South Australian senators I am an enthusiast for the whole project. I have been to the site more than once and seen many of the surveys and plans. I have walked down into the river area and watched the soil tests being made. I have seen the plans for the railway and the housing. I have been into the township of Renmark and felt something of the anticipation in relation to what the construction of this dam is to bring to the area. I would hope that in due course it will proceed so that not only can the water supply for South Australia be maintained but also the benefits at various areas and various levels can be implemented. 1 draw attention to the matter of cost, which has been referred to. In particular I draw attention to the outcry of the Opposition that .the cost issue is a red herring. In any situation in the parliamentary or governmental structure, if there was an escalation of cost to the extent that there appears to have been in this instance, surely the people who would be in the van in protesting would be members of the Opposition. That would be understood. If the Government allowed such a change in cost to go by without question, surely the, Minister concerned would stand condemned. In this instance the Minister has called for a deferment so that the matter may be studied in the light of certain new developments. In addition to the question of cost there is the question of salinity. There is a wide variety of opinion on this question. A wide variety of research is being done on it. I would have been very surprised if, in the space of the six or seven years for which this project has been in the process of movement,, there had not been quite, a considerable advance not only in studies of salinity but also in ways of dealing with it and costs relating to it. It has become of great concern in the Murray areas iri recent years. The evaporating surface of the Chowilla Dam - about 500 square miles - could well add to the salinity problem. It is advisable to have advice from consultants on the salinity question generally and on the influence of the Chowilla storage in particular. I hold the view that this vast quantity of water would provide a flushing capacity to move sludge or areas of salinity further downstream. All of these matters are receiving attention. They have to receive attention because the Chowilla area is the most difficult of all in this regard. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Da,ne Ivy Wedgwood)-** >Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-26-0-s5 .speaker-JXX} ##### Senator DRURY:
South Australia -- The holier than thou attitude adopted by members of the Liberal Party when they protest against the Labor Party bringing forward a motion at short notice, really amazes me. It appears to me that it is quite in order for anybody other than a member of the Labor Party to bring forward such motions and that those that are brought forward by somebody other than a member of the Labor Party always receive the support of the Government. It is amazing that there should be so much protest against this motion of urgency which has been moved by my colleague, **Senator Bishop.** Honourable senators opposite talk about this decision on the Chowilla Dam being used as a political issue. I believe that **Senator Davidson** is the one who is using it as a political issue. He says that the Premier of South Australia **Mr Dunstan,** is using this to cover up some of the things that are happening in his State. If anybody is playing politics it is the members of the Liberal Party who have spoken against this motion. I ask **Senator Davidson** whether he is opposed to the unanimous decision of the South Australian Parliament which supported a motion similar to this one up to the hilt. Is he repudiating the attitude of the Liberal Party in South Australia? I would like him to answer those questions. All that the Labor Party is asking is that an urgent meeting be held between the Prime Minister **(Mr Harold Holt)** and the Premiers of the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to discuss completion of the Chowilla Dam in accordance with the agreement unanimously ratified by the parliaments of Australia and those States and, most important of all, to ensure that adequate water is made available to the State of South Austraia. Anybody who looks at the history of the Chowilla Dam will realise how important this dam is to South Australia. We hear it said that the taxpayers' money must be looked after. That was said in relation to the Snowy Mountains scheme before it was instituted. It was said that that scheme would cost the taxpayers of Australia too much money and that it would never be a success. It was bitterly opposed by members of the Liberal Party when it was first suggested. But what a wonderful scheme it has turned out to be. The Chowilla Dam is just as important to South Australia as the Snowy Mountains scheme was to the rest of Australia. Honourable -senators opposite say that we are trying to get the South Australian Premier off the hook. That statement does not reflect a great deal of credit on members of the Liberal Party. As **Senator Toohey** pointed out, **Mr Dunstan** has been Premier for only 6 months or so. This scheme was first suggested in 1962. At that time members of the Liberal Party stood up and supported it. They said that the Chowilla Dam would be a great thing and that it would be a monument to **Sir Thomas** Playford. This is the question that I ask: Why were not these technical difficulties that are being found at the pesent time - about 5 years after the project was first suggested - talked about before now? It seems to me that some investigation could be made of why this matter was not brought to a head before this. Already almost §3m has been spent on this project. What will happen to that money? The South Australian Government wants the Chowilla Dam completed. **Sir Thomas** Playford pointed out in the South Australian Parliament in 1962 that the State would face a water crisis by 1970 if this dam was not completed. The purpose of this project was not to give the people of South Australia any more water. All that it was intended to do was to catch the water that came down during the wet months and hold it in storage instead of allowing it to go out into the sea. The need for water is not so great in the wet months. The idea was to hold the water for use in the dry months. Also, by keeping the river up to a certain level, the dam would assure a flow of water for the irrigation projects in South Australia and for domestic purposes. In addition, it would keep down the salinity of the river. At that time it was said that if the River Murray was kept up to a certain level there would not be any danger of salinity. All honourable senators, but particularly those from South Australia, know what a necessity an adequate supply of water is. Water is necessary for the continued development of South Australia. In fact, it plays a very important part in the development of any State. But South Australia is one of the driest States in the Commonwealth. The decision of the River Murray Commission to defer the Chowilla Dam project is a matter of very grave concern to the State that I represent. As I said previously, when the dam was first suggested it was understood by all that South Australia would not gain any more water. The idea was that the water coming down the river during the wet months would be conserved instead of being allowed to run away into the sea, and then would be used in the dry months. I believe that this would have had a twofold effect on South Australia. It would have meant that .the level could be maintained and it would have given sufficient water for irrigation. It would have helped to keep down the salinity also. Everybody knows - the experts have told us - that if the level of the River Murray falls the salinity increases. The Senate does not need to be told what a tragic effect water with a high salinity content has on vines, citrus trees and other fruit trees which are growing along the banks of the River Murray at the present time. As I said previously, the cost that has been incurred on the investigation of the dam already must be taken into consideration and assessed according to its merits. The River Murray is the lifeline of South Australia. It is interesting to note that in the year 1965-66 350,750 acre feet of water were taken out of the river for use in South Australia. The Chowilla Dam project was designed not only to continue development in the River Murray areas but also to ensure an adequate water supply to enable industrial development to proceed throughout South Australia. I feel that honourable senators know just how important this project is to South Australia. 1 now refer honourable senators to page 12 of the report of the River Murray Commission for the year 1965-66 where we read of the Chowilla Dam and the work that has already been carried out on the site. Some of the information was quoted by my colleague, **Senator Bishop.** One can understand that it has taken a great deal of money and work to get to the point of investigation that has been reached today. Yet we are told now that the project will have to be deferred for the time being for further investigation to take place. I cannot understand why, if this was only found out in 1967, these facts could not have been discovered earlier because so much investigation has already been done in connection with the project. It is interesting to note that the total expenditure on the Chowilla Dam project during 1965-66 was $1,117,136. The estimates for the following year were much greater again. This point was made earlier. The total cost of the project to this stage of development is in the vicinity of $3m. It amazes me to hear honourable senators on the Government side condemning the South Australian Government after the unanimous decision of the South Australian Parliament to ask for this meeting between the Prime Minister and the State Premiers concerned. Because this matter is brought up for discussion in the Senate at this time we are told that the subject is being raised for political purposes only. I wish to refer honourable senators now to an analysis of the salinity content of the waters of the River Murray. The analysis is to be found at page 26 of the report of the River Murray Commission for 1965-66. The salinity of the water has increased. I have not had time to express the various increases as percentages, but honourable senator will note from the table on page 26 that in July 1965 at Lock 9 there were 141 parts of dissolved solids per : million acre feet. At Goolwa, which is much lower down the river, there were, in July 1965, 609 parts of dissolved solids per million acre feet. In June 1 966, the analysis showed that Lock 9 contained 279 parts of dissolved solids per million acre feet while at Goolwa at the same time the number of parts of dissolved solids per million acre feet was 1,131. Probably this was due to the drought which had occurred in parts of Victoria a -J New South Wales because the flow of water was reduced). Less water came down the River Murray in 1965-66 than came down in 1964455. The amount of water taken out of the river by South Australia was much greater in 1965-66 than it was the previous year. The amount of water taken out of the aver for irrigation areas of over 1 acre was 271,585 acre feet while the amount of water taken out for stock, domestic and town supplies was 79,165 acre feet, making a total of 350,750 acre feet. This shows just how important the River Murray is to South Australia. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-26-0-s6 .speaker-KQQ} ##### Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia -- Madam Acting Deputy President, I desire to debate the matter now before the Senate. I hope that I can do so without a lot of the heat that was engendered particularly by the recent speaker. First of all, I am at a loss to understand really some of the facts contained in the subject that has been put forward by **Senator '** Bishop for discussion. The honourable .senator referred to: >The necessity for an urgent meeting of the Prime Minister and Premiers of the States of N4w South Wales, Victoria and South Australia to: discuss completion of Chowilla Dam in accordance with the agreement unanimously ratified by the Parliaments of Australia and of those States. Obviously, there will be no completion in accordance with that agreement because the costs that are shown by the tenders have more than doubled. So, that agreement as such cannot usefully be looked at further. Also, I feel that the technical questions that have been thrown up 'by the recent report of the River Murray Commission should be considered in rather a dispassionate and calm manner. **Senator Bishop** read from the report that the Minister of Works in South Australia has received. He explained that the contents of this report were revealed in the State Parliament. I wish to take a minute or two to refer to the report of **Mr Beaney,** a very senior officer of the South Australian administration. **Mr Beaney** took the matter very quietly. He said: >The new studies took advantage of a computer programme system that had latterly been evolved by the executive staff of the commission in association with the technical committee. This programme docs not make a study of river behaviour any more effectively than the former manual processes, but it enables studies to be made rapidly (seven minutes machine time) against many hours formerly. As a consequence of this quite a large number of conditions were looked at in the new series, some twenty-four in all. Of the changed conditions introduced over the early studies, the most significant were: A revised scale of river losses (upper river); new storage capacities from tributaries (Menindee Lakes and Blowering); a new scale of releases for Snowy Mountains Scheme; and increased evaporation allowance for Chowilla based on observations on Victorian lakes. None of these things is regarded by me as greatly affecting the benefits from Chowilla, and all are logical and necessary for a realistic study. This is **Mr Beaney,** the scientist, the South Australian Premier's right hand man, talking. He continued: >The greatest single factor was a new concept ' of river operation, and this is the provision of a base flow at Mildura at all times. The reason for this lies with the salinity problem that has started to show itself there over the last season or two. and this constant augmentation there must have some advantages to South Australia. It also acts adversely to the need for Chowilla as far as the Upper States are concerned. I should like this debate to proceed along the lines of the reports made by the technical people. As **Senator Bishop** and other speakers have pointed out, **Mr Beaney** cast his vote for the deferment of the scheme for the sole purpose of enabling this further detailed scientific consideration to be carried out. Consequently, **Mr President,** no matter how well meant this urgency motion may he in the minds of the mover and his supporters, an urgent meeting of the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia could not at this point of time usefully dis cuss the completion of the Chowilla Dam,when all the problems associated with the project, which **Mr Beaney** said should be deferred, have not been considered. I consider that this is a matter requiring an absolute, careful study at the highest level possible. I believe, and I fervently hope, that the result may well be that the Chowilla Dam will proceed in the way in which it was originally designed and which, for six years, we in this Parliament have been encouraged to consider it will proceed. But I strike a note of caution, and I am encouraged to do this by the very statement made by **Mr Beaney** to his Minister and, if I may say so, by the cautious approach of the South Australian Premier when he placed the statement before the South Australian Parliament last week. I believe that this is not just a matter of politics or even of finance. This scheme must, in my opinion, be vetted thoroughly in the way that **Mr Beaney,** the South Australian representative *on* the River Murray Commission, has suggested. I agree with what honourable senators on both sides have said about the importance of salinity. Like **Senator Drury,** I was interested in the salinity table at page 26 of the report of the River Murray Commission for the year 1965-66. The table shows that the registrations of salinity are greatest when the flow of the river is lowest. It could well be that the completion of the Chowilla Dam would be the greatest safeguard against these salt slugs in South Australia because there the salt slug would be dissipated as a result of the vast area of the Chowilla project. Consequently the effect below the dam would be considerably lower. But the whole point has to be considered in the light of evaporation. I understand that the evaporation in this huge area of 500 square miles of water would be a contributing factor towards salinity. On the other hand the vast quantity of water further upstream could reduce the amount of salinity in the water available to the South Australian citrus growers. I understand that a ratio of solids of 600 parts in 1 million causes a defoliation of citrus trees. 1 am warned, as I read the table in the report for the year 1965, that this ratio of 600 to 1 million was approached rather dangerously at a place called Morgan, which is near the Kadell area, in 1966; in April the ratio there was 579, in May it was 507, in June it was 521. Downstream, at Murray Bridge and Mannum, for instance, month after month it is over 600. As **Senator Drury** pointed out, it reached 1,297 at Goolwa in April 1966. The present salinity problem is great. I hope that the studies will show that there is less risk of salinity wilh Chowilla than without Chowilla. But all these matters have to be gone into. I am aware of the speed with which the River Murray Commission is investigating salinity. I understand that a firm of consultants has been appointed, that both Australian and British people are involved. Until those studies are completed, as recommended by **Mr Beaney** from South Australia - and I regard him, as honourable senators opposite do, as the chief authority in these technical matters - I cannot see the desirability or use of the suggested meeting with the Premiers because, after all, the Premiers will have to apply their minds to the money question above all. The Bill was passed to meet a cost of $28m. The cost is now estimated at about $70m. 1 therefore think that the Premiers and the Prime Minister should have the latest and fullest information in their possession before they apply their minds to this tremendously important question of additional money. An increase of $42m is involved. That would mean $10m from the Commonwealth and from each of the three States. The reluctance of the New South Wales Government to meet ils $10m share would have to be discussed. But until we get the technical side completely in the clear, a meeting of the Premiers and the Prime Minister would not be as useful as it would otherwise be. Consequently, although I believe that the motion is useful to enable honourable senators to put their point of view I do not think it is sufficiently well thought out to make an appeal to this Senate. {: #subdebate-26-0-s7 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- It is unfortunate that this debate has taken the course that it has. It may seem unusual for the matter to have been introduced as one of urgency when already notice had been given of a motion that the Senate should consider whether the construction of the Chowilla Dam should not proceed without delay. The fact that the matter has been raised in this way 1 today indicates the degree of urgency that the Opposition, especially senators from South Australia, attach to it. I can understand fears being expressed by those who are of suspicious mind about politics being introduced. I point out that the politics, were, introduced by **Senator Henty.** A much better approach to the matter was adopted by **Senator Laught,** who tried to justify the action that has been taken by referring to technical issues which need to be resolved but which we are not competent to resolve. This project is not being deferred for technical reasons; political issues enter into the matter. That is why we want it io be considered urgently. A firm contract had been entered into to build the Chowilla Dam - not a contract to build it if the cost is $28m. The three Slates concerned, plus the Commonwealth, have agreed to build a dam, the cost to be shared by them all. This was stated by the late **Senator Spooner** - whom we all knew to be very keen about development - when he introduced the Chowilla Reservoir Agreement Bill on 24th October 1963. According to Hansard of that date, he said: >On the basis of the tentative cost estimate of £14m for the Chowilla project the extent of Commonwealth assistance under the agreement will be £3,500,000.- The agreement does not. however,, limit the amount of Commonwealth assistance lo > >I his figure: the Stale will be entitled to assistance equal to one-quarter of the actual cost mf the project. So at rio time was the sum of £l4m. or S28m, necessarily lo be the cost of the project. That was the estimate. Th-.' Commonwealth ratified the agreement, under which it agreed to pay one-quarter of the; total cost. **Senator Spooner** added: >The Commonwealth will thus bc financing, in the first instance, one-half of the cost- It was lending to New South Wales its share - a fact which indicates (he great national importance attached by [he Government to » major project for further conservation of the waters of Australia's foremost river system. Even though, possibly because of di.'lay between the time of estimating and the time of calling tenders, the cost is now expected lo exceed the original estimate, we note that the agreement to build the dam was ratified. All that the River Murray Commission could do was to recommend, because of the cost factor amongst other things, deferment and not cancellation of the project. It now becomes the responsibility of the governments concerned to decide whether they will proceed with the scheme in the light of the increased cost and possibly the report of representatives of the River Murray Commission. Obviously South Australia is eager to proceed with the scheme, because it is part of that State's lifeline. Originally New South Wales did not have the necessary funds to finance the scheme and had to get a loan from the Commonwealth. Naturally that State would not be eager to proceed. The statement read by **Senator Toohey** indicates that the Premier of Victoria is opposed to the scheme being proceeded with. The matter has been raised in this way today in an effort to put it on a political level and to ensure that the importance of the project to South Australia is conveyed to the various heads of government. We are seeking to encourage discussion on the political level with a view to ascertaining whether the heads of government arc prepared to proceed with the scheme despite the increased cost. The volume of Hansard to which I referred a little earlier contains reference to the agreement relating to the Menindee Lakes under which water has been supplied to South Australia from the beginning of 1963. That agreement was to last for seven years, which means that it will expire in 1970. It was expected that, with the construction of the Chowilla Dam, water from the Menindee Lakes storage would not be required after 1970. Following the expiration of the Menindee Lakes Agreement where will South Australia get its water? This emphasises the urgency of the Chowilla Dam project. It might be suggested that other proposals could be advanced. Let me remind honourable senators of the following statement made by **Senator Spooner** when he introduced the River Murray Waters Bill on 22nd October 1963: >The Commission examined possibilities of other storages and a number of ways in which the water might be shared. It came to the conclusion that a major storage at Chowilla constructed and operated as it River Murray Commission work was the best solution. It will be noted that other areas were considered by the Commission but that it decided that Chowilla was the best area in which to construct a major storage. Now because of increased cost the representatives of the State governments, and possibly the Commonwealth Government, have asked for a deferment of the project to consider alternative sites which have already been considered. If it is desirable that the Chowilla scheme should be proceeded with, then it should be considered at the political level by the various heads of government. That is why the matter has been raised today. With the knowledge that the agreement under which water is at present supplied to South Australia from the Menindee Lakes will expire in 1970, Liberal members in the South Australian Parliament asked for the matter to be discussed by the Premiers. But **Senator Davidson** and **Senator Laught** have repudiated their colleagues in the State House. Everybody knows that this subject will be talked out this afternoon. We can understand **Senator Henty** being somewhat suspicious of the Labor Party's action. Even though they knew that no vote would be taken and that the Government would not be embarrassed, two South Australian senators have repudiated not only State Liberal members but also their own State, the Parliament of which as a whole regards this as being an important matter. **Senator Drury** told us quite adequately just how essential this scheme is to South Australia. The scheme must be considered not in isolation but as part of the conservation of the nation's water resources. In view of the time still available to me, I want to refer now to the matter of salinity in case I cannot get back to it. At the time that we discussed the Chowilla Reservoir Agreement Bill **Senator Hannaford** read a letter from a person named Hannaford who lived in Kingston, South Australia. The honourable senator said that this man was a distant relative. The man mentioned the fear that because of salinity all the river orchards in South Australia would be killed within five years and that within seven years it would poison the water consumed by the people living in the city of Adelaide. All the fears about the saline content of the water were expressed at the time we were discussing the Chowilla Reservoir Agreement Bill. The experts decided then that the dangers were not real, and nothing new in relation to the matter has been brought up today. The acreage of water involved has not been increased in the meantime. I believe that at the present time some 5 feet of water a year are evaporated. If there were dangers of evaporation increasing the salt content of the water, then these were known at that time, yet the experts decided to proceed with the scheme. We are faced now with the reluctance of State Premiers to proceed with the project because of the high cost. But this scheme is essential not only to South Australia but to Australia. It is part of a national water conservation scheme and it is part of a scheme to preserve and develop water resources for South Australia. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator Toohey: -- AH the other things are red herrings. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- They are all red herrings. I now want to read what the late **Senator Sir William** Spooner said about the Chowilla Reservoir Agreement Bill on 28th October 1963. He said: I should think that the valley of the river Murray is one of the richest parts of Australia. Sometimes not sufficient attention is given to the transformation which has occurred over the past decade, with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority putting about 1,750,000 acre-feet of additional water into the Murray and Mumimbidgee, with the enlargement of the Hume weir to its present capacity of 2,500,000 acre-feet, with the approval by the Parliament of the proposal for the completion of the Blowering dam which will store 1,300,000 acre-feet, and with this further proposal in respect of Chowilla. Later, **Senator Spooner** referred to the saline content of this water. He said: **Senator Hannaford** mentioned evaporation. That was one of the matters that were examined closely by the River Murray Commission. It is inevitable that with the storage spread over such a vast area, evaporation will be greater than if the storage were deeper and more compact. That is just one of the facts of life. **Senator Spooner** went on to say: Everybody wanted to see Chowilla go ahead. The proposal was examined in detail and one of the interesting facts that emerged was that in drought periods New South Wales would obtain greater benefit from the use of Menindee waters as part of the River Murray Commission's control system than by retaining them for its own use. An analysis made by the River Murray Commission revealed that we had fourteen dry seasons in a period of fifty-one years. That means that we have a dry period about once in every four seasons. The Chowilla Dam was designed to overcome the effects of these dry seasons. But in South Australia at the present time the people rely on the River Murray water for household use and for industrial use in the metropolitan area. No longer is this water required only for irrigation. We have reached the stage at which restrictions are being placed on land development along the River Murray because of the lack of water and the necessity to preserve it for drinking purposes for the metropolitan area of Adelaide. These are all-important questions affecting South Australia. According to the report of the River Murray Commission for 1965-66, already $2,849,242 has been spent on preparations for the Chowilla Dam scheme. The report details some of the work involved in preparing for the construction of the dam. More important, perhaps, than the waste of that money is the fact that a start had been made on a scheme which would preserve this water and would meet the drastic situation in which South Australia will find itself by 1970 unless something is done. The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)** - Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. 1 {: #subdebate-26-0-s8 .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK:
Victoria **- Mr President,** I enter this debate with an understanding of the national problems involved and a deep understanding of the problems confronting the State of: South Australia. I spent my formative years as a child in South Australia. I know ve'ry well that it is a State where areas and geographical positions are often marked by a mound of despair indicating where some man died because of a lack of water. It is a dry State. It is the most arid State in Australia. As was truthfully said by honourable senators opposite, the water of the River Murray determines the well being of South Australia at the present time and will do so in the future. Having said that, I now turn my attention to the suggestion made by **Senator Bishop,** which is that the Premiers of each Stale which is represented on the River Murray Commission - New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia - and the Prime Minister **(Mr . Harold Holt)** should meet iri order to find means by which work on the Chowilla Dam may be proceeded with. There has been a mixture of arguments put forward by honourable senators opposite but. from their remarks I have not yet been able to determine whether South Australia wants a dam or whether it wants water. Sou th Australia's problem, of course, is lack of water, and the problem of the construction of the Chowilla Dam is incidental to the provision of water. The question is not that Chowilla must be proceeded with at all costs. What is wanted by the Government of South Australia, properly, is that that State shall be sustained by having sufficient water. If it can bo discovered, after a feasibility study, that construction of the Chowilla Dam will be too expensive in order to provide this water then it is proper that alternative means should be investigated to discover whether additional water can be obtained economically by other means for that State. I think it is pertinent, just the same, to examine the circumstances which led to the amendments to the Murray River Agreement. These amendments can be found in the seventh schedule of that Agreement, which relates to Chowilla. The contributing States of Victoria and New South Wales agreed to the construction of the Chowilla Dam because it was discovered that approximately 5,000,000 acre-feet of water could be stored at a cost of $28m, according to the feasibility study put forward by South Australia. It is curious that we have not heard from any of the supporters of this urgency debate why it was that the South Australian contracting authority made, such a botch of its feasibility study that when tenders were called for the work the price had risen from $28m to nearly $78m. Under the Murray River Agreement South Australia must be the contracting authority for all works downstream from Mildura. I only mention this next matter to illustrate how badly the South Australian contracting authority carried out their feasibility study. When an examination was made of the earthworks which were to hold back the water it was found that the ground was permeable and that a bituminous seal 12 inches thick and 120 feet deep would have to be sunk into the soil in order to provide a shelf and enable a core to be established and thus prevent the water dammed by the earthwork from seeping away. This is an illustration of how badly the feasibility study was carried out. lt is proper A this stage that a second look should be taken at this dam. Surely the construction of it must be analysed on a cost-benefit basis. When this is done one discovers that because the area to be covered by water has been increased from 430 square miles to something like 535 square miles, 1m acre-feet of water a year will be lost by evaporation. In other words, the loss of water from the Chowilla Dam alone will be 1 million acre feet a year. There have been a lot of rude comments by implication about the State which 1 have the honour to represent in this Parliament. In fact, Victoria entered cordially into the agreement in 1963 because this was an obvious way of harvesting water at a fairly cheap rate. Now we have come to the situation where this 4 million or 5 million acre feet of water - depending on the year, I suppose - will cost something of the order of $70m. All things taken into consideration, I think the River Murray Commission was entitled to say on a cost-benefit analysis: Can we get this water at a cheaper rate?' I have spoken to one of the Commissioners about this and I have learned that there are indications that water higher up the river, indeed at the Murray gates, can be harvested at a dam there at a much lower cost and with a very low evaporation rate. Victoria has not abandoned Chowilla lightly, because it has been involved in the expenditure of substantial sums of money in the acquisition of land to provide sites for the contracting authority, the South Australian Government. Victoria had a vested interest financially in seeing that work on the dam was proceeded with or, alternatively, that work on the dam. was stopped. The River Murray Commission is charged with the authority to supervise the work, although the contracting authority in the State of South Australia. It is probably right that if South Australia pursued the Commonwealth and the States of Victoria and New South Wales through the High Court it would get damages, but I do not think it can be as sure of that as the Premier indicated when addressing the South Australian House of Assembly on 15th August, because the matter remains in the hands of the River Murray Commission. It is embedded in the seventh schedule to the agreement that the Commission has the right to make these decisions. In the interests of the people who live in the Murray valley and who draw their sustenance from the water provided by the River Murray, I think it is proper that the matter be re-examined. There are two other matters involved in this. **Senator Cavanagh** mentioned one. As the Act stands at present the Commission is authorised to spend the sum of $68m on works which include the Chowilla Dam. Some $34m has already been spent on other works apart from the preliminary works on the Chowilla Dam, so approximately $34m remains under the authority of the River Murray Commission. But the contract price for Chowilla is nearly $70m, so the River Murray Commission cannot proceed with the work on the dam because the statutory authority for the payment of the costs involved does not lie within its hands. Not only the question of feasibility in terms of engineering is involved in this; the River Murray Commission cannot proceed with work on the dam unless there is a basic alteration to the seventh schedule of the Murray River Agreement. It is unfair for any honourable senator entering this debate to use some of the arguments which have been used this afternoon. We turn to the incidence of salt because 1 believe this is central to the whole problem of water control in the River Murray valley. Even at this late stage it must be understood by honourable senators that the River Murray valley is, to a substantial degree, an old river gulf and therefore the problem of salt is inherent there. As was mentioned by an honourable senator opposite, a great amount of salt comes out of the tributaries on the Victorian side of the Murray. Historically this is due to the fact that in the early days before Federation, when States did as they wished, we had in Victoria what were known as irrigation leagues, one such league being in the Kerang area, where most of the salting takes place. There is no question that salt is discharged into the Murray from some irrigation areas in Victoria. There is only one cure for this: Associated with the harvesting of the waters of the River Murray, Victoria, the State I represent, must establish evaporating pans so that salt does not go into the Murray and reduce the amount of water available further downstream which maintains the proper level of salinity in the river. This is a maximum of 300 parts to 1,000,000. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- It has no obligation to do that. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- There is a moral obligation which I think will be accepted. The establishment of evaporating pans in Victoria must be related to the impounding of water in Chowilla. Perhaps the evaporating pans could be located in some Victorian irrigation areas, thus providing addi tional water for South Australia instead of incurring the expense of proceeding with the Chowilla Dam. These are some pf the matters which should be under consideration and, in fact, are under consideration. {: .speaker-K2N} ##### Senator Ridley: -- When did the change take place? Three months ago? {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- No change has taken place. This has been known for some time. It is a matter of a cost-benefit analysts to find the cheapest way of providing the additional water South Australia needs. 1'his can be done either by spending $70m on Chowilla or on other works, by establishing dams higher on the Hume catchment or by establishing evaporating pans in some irrigation areas in Victoria where water is being discharged. There is another matter which has not been examined. The amount of salt which will be seeped out of the proposed irrigation areas below the Blowering Dam when water from Blowering flows into the Murrumbidgee and Lachlan Rivers and then into the Murray has not yet been discovered. Perhaps the Snowy water coming down the Tooma and Tumut Rivers into the Blowering Dam will bring further salt to the Murray and will exacerbate the already distressing problem of the effective total use of the water available in the Murray River valley. Perhaps New South Wales, or the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority which produces this huge volume of water which is of great benefit to New South Wales, may have to answer for some of this. The hydrology of the Mumimbidgee Irrigation Area is an aspect which has not been properly examined. I think I should tell the honourable senator how the salt came to be in the River Murray. The Victorian Government has freely admitted that the salt came from the Victorian area as a result of a curious accident for which I think the River Murray Commission must accept some responsibility. When irrigation was needed this salt was impounded in Barr's Creek, which is a small creek joining what is known as the Little Murray. When irrigation was not needed the salt was discharged into the Murray and it found its way to the sea without doing damage. However, on one occasion the level of the Murray fell suddenly and the water ran backwards into it That is the actual management explanation of how the salt slug got into the Murray. Not only has Victoria met all of its (financial commitments, which have been substantial; it has also been subsidising New South Wales on the Menindee Lakes scheme, for example, at the rate of $80,000 a year plus maintenance. New South Wales should do something about this. I do not think that any accusing finger should be pointed at Victoria. {: .speaker-K2N} ##### Senator Ridley: -- The Victorians will go to heaven. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator CORMACK: -- I hope they do. At least we have always taken a national outlook and have always understood the problems of South Australia. I was talking only yesterday to the Victorian Minister responsible for the administration of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. He said that there was no question, even in a drought year, of South Australia not getting its quota of water because it would be discharged from one of Victoria's own storages, say, the Eildon Weir. In order that South Australia might have adequate water, Victoria would release it from the storage to enable South Australia to carry on. I entered this debate in the hope that I might take some of the heat out of it and I hope that I have succeeded. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-26-0-s9 .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER:
South Australia -- I agree with many of **Senator Cormack's** remarks, particularly those that stressed the importance of harnessing water. He said that South Australia's need for water is one of many, and I agree. I understand from his speech that he is convinced that South Australia needs extra water. {: .speaker-JQQ} ##### Senator Cormack: -- An entitlement to water. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- I do not wish to split hairs about an entitlement to water. I do not think that point has cropped up in the debate, and I do not think it is relevant. South Australia in the future will need extra water for its development. From that I proceed to some of the arguments adduced in this debate, one of which relates to the use of bitumen in the construction of the Chowilla Dam. I am informed that bitumen is the cheapest method of proceed ing with the dam; it is cheaper than rock. The areas where attention is needed are well known. As to South Australia's need for water it is relevant to ask where it is possible for South Australia to store or harness more water for its needs. Various water schemes have been discussed in the Senate. In 1961 **Sir Thomas** Playford, then Premier of South Australia, convinced the Commonwealth Government and the State governments - particularly the Victorian and New South Wales Governments - that South Australia needed more water for its industrial and agricultural programmes. He convinced the other governments that South Australia's needs were growing. He felt that in a time of severe drought there would not be sufficient water obtainable from the Murray River to supply South Australia's needs. It is delightful to hear **Senator Cormack** tell us how Victoria will release water from Eildon Weir. I do appreciate that point very much, but the point at issue is this: Why should South Australia go cap in hand to receive from Victoria water so urgently needed in South Australia? It is for the very obvious reason that South Australia does not wish to tax Victoria's generosity to such an extent by being a mendicant State that we searched around everywhere for a dam site. The only possible site for a dam to supply our needs is Chowilla, as everybody has agreed. To my knowledge there is no other possible site in South Australia to store the extra water. The suggestion I am about to make may sound absurd, but 1. have often wondered whether it would be possible to pump a great deal of water out of the Murray into enormous catchment areas at a height sufficient to supply Adelaide and other parts of South Australia by gravitation. It is only a thought. I have several areas in mind where the water could be stored. Height above sea level could be a determining factor. It would be almost revolutionary to divert the Murray into enormous storage basins, if they could be found at sufficient height. But first the levels must be determined, and pumping costs estimated. Diversions could not be made by gravitation to take flood waters from the Murray, because of the relatively low height of the Murray above sea level in South Australia. Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- Prior to the suspension I was stressing the importance of water to South Australia, particularly if development is to occur in the future. I want to be specific on the question of our entitlement under the River Murray Waters Agreement. No-one would ever question the entitlement. The question at issue is the amount of water that South Australia requires to be provided in the future. I will not recapitulate the story of how, after research, it was decided that a dam should be constructed at Chowilla. In the initial stages it was to be a South Australian project and, of course. **Sir Thomas** Playford had to go to the Federal Government for finance. Then it was decided by agreement that as this project would possibly be advantageous also to other states, particularly to New South Wales and Victoria, the three states together with the Commonwealth would come into the deal, as it were, and share the cost of construction of the dam which at that time was believed to be in the vicinity of £l4m. At that price Chowilla was a bargain. We know that costs have risen. Had the cost of Chowilla been relatively stationary at around £l4m to £20m this question of whether it should be built would never have arisen. The dam would have been on the way; it would have been under actual construction. Many mcn who are experts at assessing the value of water say that at $70m Chowilla is still cheap, and not one word has been said in this chamber to show that it is not cheap at £35m. I would have thought that anyone who was opposing the scheme and wanted to see it shelved or held up for a time would produce facts and figures to show that this expenditure is not justified. Experts may say this and that and we have had all sorts of ideas propounded. The question of salinity was brought into the consideration. With all due respect to this matter of salinity, I say that the simple question is whether, if there are opportunities elsewhere to conserve water from the Murray, that water will not be almost as saline, as it would be similar water to the water that would go into Chowilla Dam. There would be no difference in the quality of water that went into Chowilla, whether it was 5 million acre feet or less. It is true that with this supply of water we would flush the lower reaches of the Murray quite effectively. So what ever way one looks at it, this dam, in my opinion, must be constructed. If there are other suitable sites, why have they not been shown to us? We heard a great deal about the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority. No-one questioned the expenditure of money on the Snowy Mountains scheme? Why? Because it was to conserve water, to harvest, water, the most valuable thing that we have. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator Hannaford: -- We got power. {: .speaker-KSS} ##### Senator MATTNER: -- It was to conserve water and to permit the use of water. This proposal is to conserve water and allow for the use of it particularly by South Australia. We need it for our future use. Something has been said about the River Murray Waters Agreement. Of course, the original agreement provided for the expenditure of a certain amount of money by the River Murray Commission. Certainly one can interpret this agreement as he wishes, but for goodness sake do not let us get lost amongst the trees. The question is whether or not this dam can be constructed. In my humble opinion we cannot afford not to construct it. Let us see what the River Murray Commission had to do. The agreement authorised the Commission to spend £19m on certain listed works. Fair enough. It cost the Commission at least £22m to do these works. This was not a very great increase, I admit, but there was no query about the extra cost. We have started many of our great national projects in this way. I could mention some in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. Initially they were supposed to cost a certain amount and they finished up costing more than double the estimate. Why pick on this particular i'tem in national development and say because the expected expenditure has increased we should forget all about it for the time being? I do not agree with that. The: longer we delay the more it will cost us. The amending agreement authorised the River Murray Commission to spend £36m, of which £14m was for the Chowilla Dam. As I said earlier, we can interpret this in whichever way we wish. I agree that the late **Senator Sir William** Spooner did modify this amount somewhat. This amount of £14m was set, as he said, as a guideline for the commitments of the four Governments. 1 repeat that it is all very well to say that a certain quantity of water comes down the Murray. The Snowy Mountains Authority has impounded vast quantities of water. It is very interesting that at the present time we have the lowest amount of run-off in the Snowy Mountains area that we have had for sixty years. This is something that was never expected. We have not been in Australia many years and this is occurring now. What guarantee have we that we may not have less water to impound in the Snowy Mountains? Honourable senators will pardon me if I make a personal explanation on this subject. The water harvest is the best crop that we have in Australia. I believed that I was absolutely certain to have supplies of stored water sufficient for all purposes. Do not talk to me about the sinking of bores because boring for water is costly and unsuccessful. I believed that I had impounded so much water that I would never be short on my property, but this year there is a situation that was unheard of before. For irrigating pastures in July we do not have enough water to do an acre. Did anyone think that in our district such a thing would happen? 1 repeat that even in the Snowy Mountains, where we seemed to be assured of such a large amount of water, at the present time we have the lowest run-off that we have ever had. Let us get to work on this dam. I will not go into the question of salinity. I will not go into the question of whether a mistake was made. I am told that the present estimate is fair and correct. I am told by people who know something about conserving water that we cannot afford not to put Chowilla in. At f 14m it was a bargain. At $70m it is still a bargain and an absolute necessity for South Australia. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman)** - Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-26-0-s10 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
Tasmania -- I am very pleased to follow **Senator Mattner** in this debate. Not only has he confirmed the views that I have held on this matter, but has acquitted himself as a good South Australian and a good Australian who thinks on a national plane on this matter. It is rather interesting to note that, in the event of a dispute between the parties concerned with the River Murray Commission, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Tasmania may be called in as adjudicator. I do not want to usurp his functions, but I do wish to make a few comments from the point of view of an independent observer. I remember very well the tenacity and unity of purpose of the South Australians, particularly the then Premier, **Sir Thomas** Playford, when they impressed upon this Parliament, personally through correspondence and in Press statements, that the Chowilla Dam was of vital importance to their State. **Sir Thomas** pointed out in great detail that the River Murray was the lifeblood of South Australia and that the conservation of water at all points along the river, but specifically at Chowilla, could mean the difference between increased development and stagnation for that State. I agree that this is a bigger problem than just one for South Australia; it is a national problem. Water conservation should have No. 1 priority in Australia. The whole eastern area of Australia is either in the middle of an abnormally dry season or just recovering from one. In Tasmania conditions are the worst they have been for 100 years. All records of low rainfall have been surpassed. The Tasmanian hydro-electric power position is such that within three months, unless we have rain, the wheels of industry will stop. Only 16% of the total water storage capacity in our lake areas remains. The western district of Victoria - one of the safest areas of that State - has had three abnormal seasons of low rainfall, including a dry autumn. Not only lambs but grown stock are dying there. Other parts of eastern Australia are recovering from one of the worst droughts in history. The effect of inflation on the original estimated cost of a project such as the Chowilla project is only a matter of proportion. Today $70m will buy only what $28m would buy five years ago. Inflation has been of such proportions that we would receive roughly the same value for $70m today as we would have received from the original estimated expenditure on this project. I have pointed out that South Australia must conserve water. Proportionately, with its narrow margin of fertile soil along the Murray River, its hinterland is very arid. Proportionately, South Australia can be classified as the most arid State of the Commonwealth. We have to view this matter from the standpoint of South Australia being a member of the family of States of the Commonwealth. Its problems eventually become the problems of all of us. Whether or not the River Murray Commission is considering the deferment of this project, the purpose behind the whole concept of conserving water is so great that minor points should be put aside. It is rather interesting to note that excuses were made in the Senate today. I refer back to a debate in the Senate on 27th and 28th March 1962. On 27th March 1962 **Senator Buttfield** said: i am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the annual report of the River Murray Commission. She concluded her speech with these words: >Let us get ahead with the building of this clam. Let us acknowledge that South Australia is gravely disadvantaged because of the lack of suitable rivers. Let us as a nation say: 'South Australia is to have a bigger allocation'. South Australia quite gladly joined the other States in paying for the Snowy Mountains scheme, which will benefit mainly New South Wales and Victoria in the allocation of water and in the production of power. 1 do not think anybody has any regrets about that scheme on the score of costs. On 28th March 1962 **Senator Laught,** in his contribution to the debate, said: 1 agree with **Senator Hannaford** that there should be a broad national outlook. The saving of water anywhere is of great importance to Australia. In the same debate **Senator Davidson** said: >Therefore, the task of maintaining the State not only as a society but in such a way that it will contribute to the national structure is one of great difficulty. The provision of services, so far as the supply of water is concerned, is acutely difficult and certainly very challenging. Therefore, the proposed water storage scheme at Chowilla, as referred to in the report of the River Murray Commission, is of prime importance and great urgency for South Australia. It is very interesting to note the change of tone and approach by some honourable senators opposite who are making an excuse for the deferment of this very important scheme. The reason may be that there has been a change of government in South Australia. I would not like to imply that because that State has a new Premier - a vigorous, young and progressive Premier who looks as though he will lead South Australia forward on the way to great prosperity - party politics are entering into the matter and some people are wanting to make things difficult for him. If that is the view of anyone in a position of authority today, it is a very poor view. The principle involved here should be far beyond party politics. We have a national responsibility to conserve water in this dry continent. Matters such as engineering problems and distance from the proper kind of rock have been raised. But in this day and age scientists, engineers and other technical people can find a way around these problems, if they wish to. On the subject of salination, this dam could be used to good effect in that at opportune times, such as at times of high rainfall, the gates of the dam could be opened and a lot of saline water could be flushed away. Of course, there is also the flood mitigation effect. I merely wish to add to what has been said already by other honourable senators, particularly **Senator Bishop.** 1 congratulate him on raising this matter. It is truly a matter to which not only the Senate but the whole Parliament should be directing its attention. To delay this very important national project would represent an attitude or policy of defeat. Not only would the waters of the River Murray flow away without being used to their fullest extent, but the longer the project is deferred the more expensive it will become. The history of this scheme extends over some 50 or 60 years. If honourable senators care to look at the records, they will see that this project has been a cherished idea in the minds of many far sighted and forward thinking people. I recall that similar negotiations led up to the final decision to implement the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Scheme. After all, it was a matter of negotiations between individual Slates each with its own case to press, and also a matter of economics. Finally, the Commonwealth Government and the Commonwealth Parliament itself made a gesture and promised the States that the Commonwealth would participate on the financial side. Exactly the same process should be followed in this matter of the erection of the; Chowilla Dam. I hope that better judgment will prevail and that the River Murray Commission will find a way out of its technical difficulties. I hope also that the Commission will take time by the forelock and go ahead to implement this scheme on which a tremendous amount of work has already been done. According to the 1965-66 report of the River Murray Commission, in relation to the Chowilla Dam and reservoir, the Commission found: >During the year investigation at the site and design work entered their final stage. So, a lot of work has taken place on this project. The Commission continued: >The foundation investigation is well advanced. The boring programme for sampling foundations is continuing with the over-water boring complete. Plate loading tests have been carried out for both lock and spillway structure foundations. Pump tests to further define the permeability range of the foundation material are continuing. > >The newer valley deposits which will provide both blanket and core material have been the subject for consolidation tests and the borrow areas are being surveyed by auger drilling to define acceptable borrow areas. > >Tests have been made on procedures for consolidating sand to fill the river channels as a foundation to the main embankment, covering sluicing, vibration and dewatering and rolling, and satisfactory methods defined. > >A tender was accepted from Soletanche of France for the construction of test-cut panels. These were built in box form using a hot mix bituminous concrete placed by tremie in a bentonite slurry trench. The panels are 60 feet deep. Examination and testing of the panels is proceeding. > >The main road to the dam site from Paringa to the Sturt Highway is being reconstructed to give an adequate all-weather surface. A ferry has been installed on the River Murray and bridges over the other channels now provide for vehicular movement across the valley. Survey of road deviation around the storage is under way and negotiations for land resumption are proceeding. > >Telephone, electricity, water supply and sewerage facilities have kept place with the installation of buildings at the camp. So, **Mr President,** those points from the report of the River Murray Commission lead me to say that the deferring of the construction of the Chowilla Dam would be a calamity not only for South Australia but also for Australia as a nation. I hope that the decision will be reached to proceed with the project with all care and all speed. {: #subdebate-26-0-s11 .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator HANNAFORD:
South Australia -- **Mr President,** I will take only a few minutes to make my comments on the matter raised by **Senator Bishop.** I think the debate has been a very profitable one. We have heard many and varied points of view. All sides of the Senate do not seem to have arrived at a unanimous decision but at least some aspects of this very important matter have been ventilated. The urgent matter to which **Senator Bishop** refers is: the necessity for an urgent meeting of the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the States of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, to discuss completion of the Chowilla Dam in accordance with the agreement unanimously ratified by the Parliaments of Australia and of those States . . . I feel that the element of urgency in this matter is being quite well looked after by the Commonwealth Government at the present time. I do not see that any meeting of the nature that **Senator Bishop** suggested would add one iota to the situation. For instance, each State Government and the Commonwealth Government is represented on the River Murray Commission. For the life of me, I cannot see any one of those gentlemen mentioned by **Senator Bishop** - namely, the Prime Minister **(Mr Harold Holt)** and the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia - differing in the slightest degree from the decision that has been arrived at by the gentlemen who represent the States and the Commonwealth on the River Murray Commission. {: .speaker-K2N} ##### Senator Ridley: -- It might clear the air a little, though. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator HANNAFORD: -- Possibly that is so. As **Senator Ridley** says, such a meeting might clear the air a little. But a final decision is very unlikely because every gentle^ man mentioned by **Senator Bishop** is adequately represented by his nominee on the River Murray Commission. I do not think that any of those gentlemen would differ from the decision that has been arrived at already. Chowilla Dam, as we all well know, is the conception of **Sir Thomas** Playford. It seemed a vast project at the time it was first mentioned. {: .speaker-K2N} ##### Senator Ridley: -- **Senator O'Byrne** mentioned that the Chowilla Dam project was put forward fifty years ago. {: .speaker-KNR} ##### Senator HANNAFORD: -- I will not argue with **Senator Ridley** on that point. The fact is that the possibility was brought into reality by a movement from **Sir Thomas** Playford for the erection of this dam at Chowilla. I had the opportunity to see the site. I thought a great deal of the idea that a dam could be erected on that site. We saw the difficulties that ensued. This was natural because, as we know, the River Murray is not confined to South Australia and this dam would extend back for very many miles into, and cover a great acreage of, Victoria and New South Wales. Consequently, **Sir Thomas** Playford's idea was that it should be a joint scheme. His original idea was that Chowilla would be a South Australian dam. In other words, it would be brought into being for the benefit and future existence of South Australia. This was impractical for the simple reason that other States were involved. Consequently, the other States came into the scheme. They entered the scheme, as far as I could judge, with a certain amount of enthusiasm for the great concept. We have seen difficulties arise. The point that has been mentioned so frequently today is the cost of the project. The cost is enormous. But I am inclined to agree with **Senator Mattner** that the construction of the dam is well worth the expenditure of $70m in terms of today's money values. The benefit that would accrue to a State like South Australia, not forgetting New South Wales and Victoria, in completing this project would justify the expenditure involved. This would be an expenditure that we can afford and it would represent an insurance for the continuance of our prosperity, particularly in South Australia. So, in that regard, I am inclined to agree with **Senator Mattner** that we should not be deterred by the expenditure of $70m. We can well afford to provide the asset. It is an asset that is worthy of the expenditure of $70m. I think that some pretty hazy calculations have been made regarding the original cost of the dam. This is one matter about which I feel a little dissatisfied. The scheme in the first place was estimated to cost $28m, then $43m. Now, the estimate is $70m. I cannot excuse anybody, including those people who have promoted this scheme, for these estimates being so wide of the mark. New South Wales and, in particular, Victoria have raised their voices against the scheme. Those States may be justified in doing so. I do not think that anybody can entertain the idea of the expenditure of a vast amount of money such as this without giving the matter fairly close scrutiny. **Sir Henry** Bolte has been quite forthright in his opposition to the Chowilla Dam project. Whether he has the facts of the matter at his disposal to justify his speaking in that way remains to be seen. In the past South Australia has had support from these two States and the Commonwealth, even though the Commonwealth had to come to the aid of the wealthiest State, New South Wales, by lending the money for its part of the scheme.' Up to date Victoria has been quite satisfied that the scheme would be to its benefit. Apart from the cost of the scheme there is the question of salinity. I have spoken about salinity in the past. Today **Senator Cavanagh** mentioned that a certain gentleman, who enjoys the same surname as mine, **Mr H.** O. Hannaford, of Bellair in South Australia, raised his voice a long time ago on this question of salinity. **Mr Hannaford** was a fairly practical man, and I gave some consideration to his ideas on the subject. In fact I spoke with **Mr Julian** Dridan, South Australia's chief engineer of water resources. He discounted the idea, I was prepared to accept his view, that of a man with an engineering background, as, against the reports that salinity would bc troublesome. Now the question of salinity has been raised by responsible people, even 1 by the River Murray Commission, and féar has been expressed as to the Chowilla project being a menace to the continuation of the purity of the water in South Australia and elsewhere along the river. It is difficult to make up one's mind on all these issues. I speak as a layman but, while I do not discount that Chowilla would provide a vast stretch of water with a high evaporation rate which would contribute to the salinity to some degree, at the same time, when slugs of saline water come down the Murray into a big dam like that the salinity will be averaged out. Thus peak periods of salinity would he reduced considerably. The scheme is one to which all honourable senators should give very close consideration. I support the South Australian Government in its desire to see this scheme proceeded with. The Commonwealth Government is the arbiter in whether or not the scheme will be deferred. The Commonwealth supplies the money. In the final analysis the Commissioner's report will have to be observed, and there wm be a deferment. At the same time I raise my voice in support of proceeding with this project as soon as possible, because I realise how vital it is to our land. {: #subdebate-26-0-s12 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- The motion before the Senate is that at its rising the Senate adjourn until 3.30 tomorrow afternoon. This would not in any way advance the requirements of those who moved this motion. Nevertheless, it is a very proper method of using parliamentary procedures to enable something of significance and public importance, not only to South Australia but to the rest of Australia, to be discussed. I have no complaint against this method of raising the subject for discussion. But the Senate should be quite clear as to what the question before us really is. The question is not whether South Australia needs a more assured supply of water than it has at present. All honourable senators realise that if Adelaide, in particular, is to grow, its water requirements for industrial purposes and for those who will increase the population of that city will have to be assured; a more assured supply is essential. If it is not provided Adelaide will have imposed on it a level beyond which it could not grow. No argument has been advanced by either side that Adelaide and South Australia should not have a more assured supply of water. Nor can it be said that other governments, realising what I have just said to be true, have hung, back 2nd not been willing to assist in the provision of a more assured water supply to South Australia. The Commonwealth and the State of Victoria in particular, and the State of New South Wales - provided that the Commonwealth would lend it the money - have been prepared to join in providing a more assured water supply to South Australia. At the time of this decision to help, the best way of ensuring that supply of water was the building of the Chowilla Dam. There is no question but that there is a requirement for a more assured water supply to South Australia. There is no question but that the Commonwealth and State Governments have been and are prepared to assist in the provision of a more assured water supply.- The question before the Senate is how we can see that South Australia does get a more assured water supply, and a water supply of the purity which is essential if the water is to be of use to that State. What was previously thought to be the way to do this, the building of the Chowilla Dam, has come under considerable attack, not from governments but from technical experts. {: .speaker-K2N} ##### Senator Ridley: -- When? {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- I cannot give **Senator Ridley** the date. No-one would contest that it has come under considerable attack from the River Murray Commission and its technical experts. {: .speaker-K2N} ##### Senator Ridley: -- Nobody challenges the first experts. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- I think they do. Surely the honourable senator must be wrong when he says that nobody challenges the first experts. The River Murray Commission and its technical experts have now raised serious doubts as to whether the building of the Chowilla Dam is the best and most economic method of supplying water or whether it is the way in which water of the proper purity will be assured. Indeed, the South Australian Commissioner has been affected by these technical arguments to the point of saying: 'I think, myself, it ought to be looked into'. {: .speaker-K8N} ##### Senator Toohey: -- What came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the experts' opinion come first or did the question of costs come first? That is the important thing. {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- I am asked which was the most important thing, and I am not here prepared to say, because I do not know. If it were a question of costs alone, that would be one thing. It could then be argued whether the project was valuable enough for this amount of money to be spent on it. It is not a question of costs alone. Whether the chicken or the egg came first, these technical questions have been raised, not by governments but by the technical people in the Commission. These technical questions need to be looked into. What advantage would it be to South Australia or Australia to go ahead now before the resolution of these technical doubts and build this particular dam in this place, and then discover that the technical doubts which are now raised were valid and that the amount of water which it was hoped would be provided would not be provided, and that the purity of water which it was hoped would be provided would not be provided because the water would be saline? To ignore these technical questions and proceed before they have been properly reported on and properly resolved would be to say, in effect: 'Regardless of what these people have said the dam must be built now in the original way'. To proceed now could do great harm to South Australia. I do not say that it would do great harm, but I do say that it would be prudent and sensible to allow a proper and full technical investigation so that these doubts, which the technicians have raised, can be resolved. If water could be better assured to South Australia by two or more different dams in different places surely that would be a better solution to what is really required, which is that a supply of purer water should be provided to South Australia, than to proceed- {: .speaker-K2N} ##### Senator Ridley: -- Was not that considered before? {: .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP -- Yes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The time allotted for consideration of this motion under standing order 64 has expired. {: .page-start } page 117 {:#debate-27} ### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items {: #debate-27-s0 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- I present the following reports by the Tariff Board: >Aluminium powders, flakes, pastes etc. > >Alumina, unwrought aluminium and aluminium products. > >Band-pass crystal filters. > >Calf veal leather (By-law). > >Cheese other than cheddar. Only the first two reports call for legislative action. Pursuant to statute I also present Special Advisory Authority reports on the following subjects: >High tenacity man-made fibre yarns; staple fibre, tow and raw normal tenacity yarns of polyester; polyamide and polyester waste. > >Sodium dichromate and chromic acid. {: .page-start } page 117 {:#debate-28} ### LEAVE OF ABSENCE Motion (by **Senator Henry)** - by leave - agreed to - >That **Senator Breen** be granted leave of absence for one month on account of family ill health. {: .page-start } page 117 {:#debate-29} ### INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- by leave - I propose to read a statement that was made by the Minister for External Affairs **(Mr Hasluck)** in another place on Thursday, 17th August. Where in the statement the first person personal pronoun appears it is to be taken as referring to the Minister himself. The statement is as follows: During the last period of sittings of Parliament I made a comprehensive statement on international affairs on 28th February, and a number of shorter statements on particular matters, including a statement on 13th April dealing largely with economic problems of Asia and my visit to Japan. Later in April,I led Australiandelations to meetings in Washington of the SEATO Council, the ANZUS Council and a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the seven nations contributing forces to Vietnam. I also paid a very successful visit to Mexico. The communiques issued after these meetings and the texts of statements made by me have already been published in 'Current Notes on International Affairs', which is distributed to all members. I would ask the House the accept the reference to these published documents as a report to it on these missions. In passing, may I commend this publication, 'Current Notes' 'to the attention of honourable members as an essential part of the record of Australian foreign policy. Yesterday I tabled for the information of honourable members a report of the recent ministerial meeting of the Asian and Pacific Council in Bangkok. I also wish to inform honourable members that, at my request, the Department of External Affairs has revived a long-discarded practice of making an annual report on its work and it is hoped that it will be possible for me to table that report before the debate on the Estimates. In the three months during which the House has been in recess great and critical events touching directly on Australian interests have occurred. The full effect of some of these events may not be felt immediately but in years to come. Listing them in the order in which they rise in my mind, they are the internal struggle in Communist China; the announcements by Great Britain on defence and economic policies; the conflict in the Middle East, regarded as both a period of difficulty and danger for the nations directly involved and as a testing ground of great power relationships; the trends in French foreign policy; the moves towards regional organisations in Asia and, as part of it, the increasingly useful and significant role being played by Japan; measures taken for the economic rehabilitation of Indonesia; the continuance of the war in Vietnam and, at the same time, the constitutional progress being made in South Vietnam and the advancement of the programme of revolutionary development for the improvement of life in the villages; the anxieties on the frontiers of Burma, Nepal, and Thailand resulting from Chinese pressure, and the determined Communist efforts to disrupt life in Hong Kong; recent and impending international discussions on trade, particularly as they affect the less-developed countries; the consequences for Malaysia and Singapore of the British announcement of new defence policy; the continued stress and strain and, in places, disorder in the African continent; the peaceful uses of outer space; the continuing world problem of hunger. These problems and many more have been constantly engaging the attention of my Department and myself during the recess and will continue to do so. It will not be possible for me to deal in this statement with al] of them, let alone with several current questions that I have not mentioned. I should wish, however, to establish in the minds of honourable members the simple proposition that foreign affairs is much more extensive than any particular crisis, and when our gaze is fixed on the dramatic waterfalls of history we should not cease to be aware of the hundreds of miles of river that flow above the falls and the hundreds of miles below. {: .page-start } page 118 {:#debate-30} ### BRITISH DEFENCE POLICY I shall refer first to the British announcements on defence policy east of Suez and of a renewed British intention to seek to enter the European Economic Community. These are not simply statements on defence and economic policy; they are new statements on British foreign policy. Up to date our own foreign policy has been based on certain assumptions regarding British foreign policy. To the extent to which British foreign policy changes, so we will have to change the assumptions on which our own policy rests. I have asked my Department to engage in this reassessment - not an emotional or a tendentious exercise but a hard-headed practical one in the interests of Australia to assess clearly the intentions and capacity of a nation with which Australia will wish to continue to work as closely as possible to serve common aims. We have to learn to work, not wilh the Britain that used to be, but with what Britain chooses to be in the future. One point that has become clearer is that Great Britain today sees her interests in a closer association with Europe more clearly than she sees her interests in participation in world affairs. This is a view contrary to that of Australia and one which has been in the area of debate between our two governments for some time. I recall ministerial discussions in London in which I took part on this theme in 1964. Over the past three years successive governments have repeatedly urged on Britain, as on other Western European powers, our view of the global inter-relationship of all problems of peace and security and of economic development and trade, and the urgency and importance in world affairs of events in Asia. We have expressed this view for some years in matters of foreign policy, of trade and of defence. More particularly, at a succession of talks at different levels during the past two years, both before and after the ending of the confrontation of Malaysia, we have urged the view that events in Asia are part of a world crisis and not only regional happenings; that a lessening of interest in Asian events is a lessening of interest in world events in favour of a European regionalism; that Britain has a continuing role to play in Asia. Speaking to this House in February, 1 was able to welcome certain assurances by Britain. The latest phase of the debate - and 1 stress again that it is only the latest phase of a debate which had been going on for some time - commenced in Washington at the end of April when, taking advantage of our presence there for the SEATO Council meeting, the British Foreign Secretary was authorised by his Government to inform the United States Secretary of State, the New Zealand Minister for External Affairs and myself of the latest British proposals regarding the withdrawal of forces from Malaysia and Singapore so as to give the opportunity to our Governments to express views. All three of us expressed our Governments' views there and then and our Governments continued to express them, at various levels, the discussions rising to a climax with the visit of our Prime Minister to London for talks with **Mr Wilson** in June. The British announcement was made on 18th July, lt means that Britain is planning a total withdrawal of British military forces from the British bases in Malaysia and Singapore by the midle of the 1970s. What does this mean for Australia? Ever since the Menzies Government came to power in 1949, it steadily developed policies and arrangements for co-operation with Britain, the United States of America and other states for defence in South East Asia. In the early 1950s, besides ANZUS and SEATO, Australia established an intimate relationship with the British in their military planning and arrangements in this region. This relationship has been based on the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve, stationed in Malaysia and Singapore, to which Australia contributes forces from all three Services; and on regular meetings of senior Service representatives from Britain, New Zealand and Australia. These arrangements, in which Britain carried the chief responsibility, have made a notable contribution to security and stability in the region. In particular they have provided an effective framework within which the governments and peoples of Malaysia and Singapore have been able to make impressive progress in their economic and social programmes. The new British plans to withdraw from Malaysia and Singapore will affect this situation. Our own military arrangements, for example, have been closely interwoven with British arrangements. The legal basis of our presence in Malaysia has been our association with those provisions of the AngloMalaysian Defence Agreement that relate to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve. The Government is engaged on a thorough appraisal of the implications of the British decisions for our position and our policies, to see what adjustments and new decisions will become necessary. I am not able tonight to anticipate the outcome of these deliberations, which involve a wide range of important and cogent considerations, and indeed the primary ministerial responsibility for many of them lies with my colleague the Minister for Defence **(Mr** Fairhall). There are, however, two aspects of the matter on which I wish to comment now. First, it is important that we see the British decisions in correct perspective. The changes do not come overnight but will take effect over about a decade. They will be gradual and there will be time to adapt. Certainly, it is important for us to determine as quickly as we can what Australia's best course of action will be. We should not allow any impression to grow that in the area directly concerned, in Malaysia and Singapore, there is going to be a sudden withdrawal of protection. The fact is that, through to the mid 1970s, the British will remain in the area. After their withdrawal they will maintain some military capacity for use in the area - primarily, air and sea forces to complement the improved national forces of Malaysia and Singapore winch are to be further developed over the next ten years; and, secondarily, a mobile force based in Britain but available in major emergencies. The second point I wish to touch on is our own position. Clearly this is going to change and it could change in various ways. I am not at this stage going to canvass the possibilities that might be open to us or to try to anticipate the decisions arising from our current studies and consultations,' but I want to repeat what I said to the House last February, that it is not a case either of Britain continuing to play its old role but, as we hoped in February, of Britain developing its own distinctive role for the future; and certainly not a case of Australia taking over Britain's role but of Australia also developing its own distinctive role. Whatever course of action is finally decided upon, we shall continue to attach importance to the close relationships that have grown up over the years between Australia and Malaysia and Singapore, and shall be looking for practical ways of helping them to preserve all that they had achieved through sound and sensible management. Our approach must recognise that the central problem in regard to security is essentially that of the massive and persistent pressure of Communist China on the region, and its declared policy of overthrowing by subversion, by insurgency and by so-called wars of liberation', the established regimes in the independent states of the region. There are, I know, different views about the sharpness and immediacy of this threat. But no independent government can afford to neglect it, and, in fact, all governments in the region have a very lively sense of the degree to which their independence is at risk. Some states may seek to avoid or minimise pressure by diplomacy and political moves. Others, however, recognising that no state in the region is large enough or powerful enough to stand alone, seek to deter aggression and to increase their capacity to defend themselves by co-operation with other friendly states, in the military or political or economic fields, and sometimes in all three. In the Austraiian Government's view - and we are associated with the region in all three ways - such regional arrangements are a necessary expression of the will and capacity for independence. {: .page-start } page 120 {:#debate-31} ### REGIONAL CO-OPERATION Australia's forward defence strategy is not to be looked at only in the selfish terms of trying to ensure that any fighting is as far away from Australian soil as possible. A major part of its purpose is to give the independent countries of the region the assurance and confidence they want while they are developing their economies, evolving their political institutions and building co-operative arrangements with one another. By assisting a country of the region which is the victim of aggression, Australia is playing a part in maintaining what, in the last resort, is the only sound basis for security in the region and for Australia's own security, namely independent states with the opportunity for sound economic advancement and working together for common purposes. The constant theme I have advanced in speaking of Australian foreign policy is that the buttress of our security and welfare is the security and welfare of the region. The next few years should be used wisely and constructively in the development of regional co-operation and understanding. This will take many forms. Given the different policies of countries of the region and the wish of some of them not to enter into alliances, it would bc wrong-headed at this stage to think in terms of one allembracing regional security arrangement. Some countries of the region are already members of security arrangements, either bilateral or multilateral, but others wish to keep out of such pacts. Yet it should be possible to achieve a situation where, in the field of security, none of the countries of the region is working against the security interests of others and where there is an understanding both of common interests and of individual national interests. Countries from outside the region can participate in some of the arrangements or, while not being themselves parties to all the security arrangements, might give backing or guarantees. I shall not speak in more definite terms at present, because these things will have to evolve inside the region and their development will be influence J by thu growth of greater mutual understanding and cooperation. We cannot expect too much to happen quickly. For example, in thinking of the new security arrangements that will have to evolve as the British presence in Asia runs down, and thinking of the new relationships that will develop between Australia and Malaysia and Singapore, it would be premature and unrealistic to think immediately of an alliance including Indonesia, whose Government has declared that it does not favour military alliances. Indonesia is Australia's closest neighbour, and one with which we have good relations and a desire for close co-operation. Any security arrangements to which Australia becomes a party should therefore be such as to be understood by the Indonesian Government as serving objectives which are in the interests of Indonesia, too, even though Indonesia may not bc a party to them. The Australian Government has welcomed the recent moves that have brought into being the new Association of South-East Asian Nations, in which Indonesia has accepted membership along with Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, and whose membership has prospects of increasing. This coming together is particularly welcome because it is a further step in Indonesia's co-operative association with the region, and also because it associates Singapore with her neighbours. {: .page-start } page 120 {:#debate-32} ### MIDDLE EAST I turn now to the Middle East. The Government watched with great concern the tension in the Middle East during April and May, culminating on 5th June in the outbreak of hostilities between Arab and Israeli forces. Australia still has important interests in the Middle East, especially in trade and communications. We have worked for years to maintain good relations with all countries of the region. Moreover we know that the Middle East is still a place where local tension may quickly bring a crisis between the great powers. In a statmeent on 25th May, when tension was growing, I stressed the need for a period of forbearance in which diplomacy and existing international machinery might bring about a diminution of tension and contribute towards the permanent peaceful settlement for which the international community has so long been searching'. With respect to the critical question of the blockade of Israel in the Gulf of Aqaba, I affirmed the Government's belief that redress of grieveances should be sought in the first instance by making full use of United Nations organs and machinery. On the substantive question of the status of the Straits of Tiran, I said that Australia held now 'as it has always done, and reaffirmed in 1957 and on other occasions, that the Straits of Tiran must be regarded as an international waterway through which the vessels of all nations have a right to passage'. Little purpose would be served now by discussing who fired the first shot on the 5th June. That kind of argument would lessen the chances of achieving a settlement. In any case defining aggression is not simply a matter of the first shot but also involves what caused the shot to be fired. It was unfortunate that the United Nations Security Council was unable to reach agreement in time to prevent the conflict. Under the terms of the Charter, positive action for the enforcement of peace can only be taken if there is agreement among the permanent members of the Security Council, and this was not forthcoming until after the fighting had begun, when a call by the Council for a cease-fire ultimately brought active hostilities to an end on 11th June. At the request of the Soviet Union, a special session of the United Nations General Assembly was convened on 17th June to consider the Middle East situation. The session continued for several weeks, but it cannot be said that any appreciable contribution was made towards a settlement. No substantive resolution could command the necessary majority, and the session adjourned with a procedural resolution which merely recorded the fact that the problem would continue to be in the, hands of the Security Council. But there is perhaps one comfort to be drawn from the proceedings of this special session, and that is that it demonstrated that none of the great powers was prepared to support extreme courses. Although the debates were marked by propaganda statements of an unusually vituperative kind, the outcome tends to reduce the fear of any warlike participation by the great powers and indeed to encourage the hope that they may have a restraining influence. It is perhaps not inconceivable that, in the light of the attitudes revealed by the great powers at the special General Assembly, a measure of agreement might ultimately be achieved in the Security Council. In this case the Council could make a useful contribution to a final settlement. It would however be unwise to i overestimate its role. The best hope lies, in my view, in direct negotiation between the principal parties. How can that be brought about and how can it succeed? On the one hand it will certainly require recognition of the state of Israel and its right to continue to exist in security with access to the Red Sea, and on the other hand it will require a reasonable approach by Israel to territorial questions. The situation on the ground in the Middle East at the time of the cease-fire was that Israeli forces occupied virtually the whole of the Sinai Peninsula, the whole of the territory of Jordan on the west bank of the River Jordan, including the whole of the city of Jerusalem, and a small but strategically important border area of Syria. I do not believe that Israel plans to; retain all these areas permanently but, at the most, to seek adjustments by agreement. At this stage it would not be helpful for nations other than the principal parties to lay down the lines of settlement and, on behalf of Australia, I say no more than that any arrangement relating to the Old City of Jerusalem should pay respect to the special place which Jerusalem holds for Christian, Moslem and Jew. We shall be watching developments in regard to Jerusalem with particular interest. We, of course, still affirm the principle of freedom of international waterways which is vital to all trading nations, and believe this principle, which was at issue immediately before hostilities broke out, should be respected. {: .page-start } page 122 {:#debate-33} ### HONG KONG Another cause of great anxiety in the past few montths has been the series of Communist-organised strikes and acts of violence in Hong Kong. Early in May a strike at two artificial flower factories in Kowloon led to a clash with the Hong Kong police and disorders spreading over several days. The Communists demanded public apologies and compensation from the British authorities in Hong Kong in a way that was reminiscent of the demands made earlier in the year upon the Portuguese authorities in Macao. These demands were supported by Peking and on 15th May an abusive note was delivered by the Chinese Communist regime to the British Government. In the following weeks the Communist elements called strikes in the transport services, public utilities and the dockyards. Bomb-throwing, acts of terrorism and intimidation, blocking of food imports and other efforts to disrupt services brought danger, inconvenience, and loss to the people of Hong Kong. There have been a number of deaths and some hundreds have been injured. What has been happening in Hong Kong is guerrilla warfare in an urban area. But these efforts have largely failed to achieve their objectives. The British authorities have countered the Communist tactics by raiding premises used by the militant groups. They have uncovered evidence of preparations for sustained violence, including stocks of weapons and explosives, and in one case, a casualty hospital. These strong-points were discovered in premises which purported to be union headquarters or commercial houses, and they are clear evidence that the Communists have been preparing in depth for insurrection in the colony. The extent to which the initiative in creating the disturbances in Hong Kong is being taken by the Hong Kong Communist themselves is not clear. They are, however, being given full propaganda support by Peking and they are also receiving substantial financial assistance. The All-China Federation of Trade Unions gave $HK10m - approximately $ A 1.5m - to Communist clements in Hong Kong in June, and a further $HK1Om in July. There have also been disturbances on the border between the mainland and the colony which have been instigated by elements on the mainland side. Whether Peking is planning other, more direct, forms of intervention in Hong Kong is however at the present time difficult to predict. Meanwhile it should be said that British authorities have dealt with the situation with wisdom and efficiency, and there is no lack of confidence in their ability to deal with the internal Communist threat. The past months in Hong Kong have been a period of strain and anxiety for the citizens of the colony, and they are deserving of our sympathy. Extremist elements have received little support from the Chinese people in the colony, who clearly have no wish to exchange their present circumstances for the irrational tyranny of Mao. The Hong Kong police force, consisting largely of Chinese, has dealt with the disorder with great firmness and skill and the courage and discipline of its members deserve the highest praise. I need hardly say that Australia has a deep interest in the maintenance of British rule in Hong Kong. {: .page-start } page 122 {:#debate-34} ### COMMUNIST CHINA There will not be time this evening to give an account of the complex and, in some respects', confusing reports of the situation inside mainland China. This situation is under close and constant study by us, but I doubt whether this is a useful time for making pronouncements on it. There is certainly evidence of widespread resistance to the Maoists, particularly in central and southern China, but from available information it is difficult to assess the strength of the resistance. It seems clear, however, that the struggle between Maoists and anti-Maoists has led to deterioration in economic and social conditions in many areas. At the same time China's foreign policies, at any rate in their expression, have become more extreme. {: .page-start } page 123 {:#debate-35} ### VIETNAM The military outlook in Vietnam has shown steady and continued improvement since my last statement to the House. This has occurred in the face of an increasing build-up of North Vietnamese regular forces to a point where there are now more than 50,000 North Vietnamese regular troops fighting in South Vietnam. In addition, there has been a heavy build-up of North Vietnamese forces in and just north of the Demilitarised Zone, posing a threat to the northern privinces of Quang Tri and Thua Thien. The infiltration of military supplies into South Vietnam has also continued at a high rate. There has been no sign that Hanoi has yet given up its aim of conquering South Vietnam by force. The increased enemy build-up has been met by further increases in the Allied forces, including the deployment of greater Allied strength to the northern provinces. There has also been a further increase in the size of the armed forces of the Republic of Vietnam, with more forces directly deployed in support of the Revolutionary Development Programme. The Allied forces have successfully contained and repelled the enemy threat in the northern provinces, inflicting heavy casualties in the process. Elsewhere in South Vietnam they have maintained heavy pressure on the enemy, attacking and destroying long-established enemy bases and driving enemy main force units further back from the populated areas. Although the infiltration from the North continues, there has been growing evidence that the Vietcong is no longer able to replace its own losses by local recruitment :n the South. The South Vietnamese forces continue to oppose the enemy vigorously. They continue to sustain heavy losses at an annual rate of some 10,000 men killed in action; and in recent months their performance has been increasingly effective. Communist terrorist activity against civilians has not lessened. The Vietcong has initiated a systematic campaign of terror designed to destroy the Revolutionary Development Programme. Already in this calendar year alone 1,700 civilians, many of them Revolutionary Development personnel, have been murdered by the Vietcong. Over 3,000 have been wounded and 2,000 captured. This campaign of terror, deliberately designed to eliminate the men and women who provide leadership and assistance to the people in the countryside, is one of the most tragic and difficult aspects of the situation, and one which is all too often overlooked or minimised by those who are critical of the efforts of the Government and Administration of South Vietnam. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of those Vietcong supporters and conscripts who, for one reason or another, have abandoned the ranks pf the Vietcong for the Government side. Almost 20,000 Vietcong, military and political, have rallied so far this year under the Chieu Hoi or 'Open Arms' programme, a figure roughly twice that for the same period last year. The total includes 11,560 military defectors for the first six months of 1967. The most significant achievement of the period, however, has been the rapid strides made - despite the pressures and strains of a war situation - towards constitutional and representative government in South Vietnam. In my February statement I described how the Constituent Assembly had been elected in September 1966 by some 80% of the enrolled electorate, and how this Assembly had begun the task of drafting a constitution for the Republic of Vietnam. This constitution, which was promulgated in April 1967, provides for a presidential executive with a bicameral national assembly. Elections are to be held on 3rd September for the presidency, the vicepresidency and the Upper House, while elections for the Lower House will be held on 22nd October. At the close Of nominations for the presidential and vicepresidential elections on 30th June there were eighteen lists of candidates. As provided in the constitution, the Constituent Assembly then examined the credentials of the eighteen lists and rejected seven of them on various grounds. In view of some critical Press references to the rejection df the seven candidates, I should like to make it clear that it was the Assembly, itself an elected body, which was the only organ empowered to accept or reject candidates. A similar examination of the Upper House lists is at present under study by the; Constituent Assembly. The eleven remaining candidates represent a broad cross-section of Vietnamese political life and reflect a variety of political viewpoints and interests. The Vietnamese electors are in fact offered a wider range of choice than in many other countries where free elections are held. With these important elections now at hand, much interest is naturally centred on the conduct of the electoral campaigns and of the elections themselves. Both the Chief of State, Lieutenant-General Thieu, and the Prime Minister, Air Vice-Marshal Ky. who are running on one of the eleven presidential tickets, have undertaken to do their utmost to ensure that the elections are fair and free, bearing in mind the difficult security situation in many parts of South Vietnam. Their Government has decreed that each candidate for the presidential elec7 tions should have equal transport, broadcast, television and other facilities, and has made equal grants of funds to each presidential ticket and to each upper house ticket for election costs. In addition, the Government is contributing to the cost of printing leaflets and pamphlets on the same basis of equality. It is important to remember that the election is taking place in a war situation. At a time when the Vietcong are very active both militarily and in seeking to disrupt civilian life, the fact that the election is being held at all is in itself a considerable achievement. The Vietnamese Government invited the Secretary-General of the United Nations to send United Nations observers to Vietnam for the elections. The Secretary-General is reported to have declined this invitation. Australia and thirty-five other countries with which Vietnam has diplomatic relations have also been invited to send observers. For our part, we have accepted the invitation and will shortly be appointing our observers. In addition, the large international Press community in Saigon can be expected, as it did during the Constituent Assembly elections, to watch the elections closely. Honourable senators will recall that the broad consensus of the international Press was that those elections were fair and free. Important progress has also been made in the field of local government. Between the beginning of April and the end of June, elections for local government bodies were held in nearly 1,000 villages and 4,500 hamlets throughout South Vietnam. In these elections, out of a total of just over 6 million electors, approximately 4.8 million men and women voted to elect some 14,000 local officials from almost 25,000 candidates. The importance of these elections was underlined not only by the large number who voted in defiance of Vietcong threats and boycotts, but, still more significantly, by the large number of local leaders who stood for positions which they know involve extreme personal danger. Local elections are planned in a further 275 villages and 1,500 hamlets by the end of the year, as the Revolutionary Development Programme extends security to additional areas. Progress has also been made on the Revolutionary Development Programme. New areas have been brought under effective government control, and have benefited from improved education, health and welfare services. Progress has not yet been as rapid as we would like to see, but a number of initial problems are now being overcome and more fruitful results can be expected in the future. On the economic side, despite the extreme difficulties caused by the war, including severe inflationary pressures, the Government has succeeded in maintaining a large measure of economic stability and in curbing the worst effects of inflation. Difficulties in the production and distribution of rice and other key commodities, caused by Vietcong sabotage and the exigencies of war, have been successfully overcome. I also mentioned in my February speech the significant progress which has been made in consultation and co-operation among the Vietnam allies. This trend has been strengthened by a meeting in April this year in Washington of the Foreign Ministers of the seven Manila Summit nations, followed by meetings of the Ambassadors of the seven countries in Saigon. Further meetings are planned. The recent tour made by **Mr Clark** Clifford and General Maxwell Taylor, the two special representatives of President Johnson, afforded a most valuable opportunity to exchange assessments and review the progress being made in South Vietnam. The Australian Government welcomed their visit to Canberra as a further practical expression of the known desire of the United States Government to conduct its policies in relation to Vietnam in full consultation with the Government of the Republic of Vietnam and its allies. I should now like to turn to the prospects for negotiations. Here the immediate outlook is not encouraging. The allied countries have affirmed and reaffirmed their readiness to pursue any avenue that might lead to a just and secure peace, and have responded positively to the constructive efforts which have been made during the period by a number of governments and organisations. The United States has repeatedly affirmed that, even if full peace negotiations do not yet seem feasible, it is ready to enter into unconditional discussions with North Vietnam, or alternatively to stop bombing targets in the North, provided some reciprocal gesture is made by the Hanoi authorities. The United States has likewise declared its readiness to discuss arrangements under which the bombing might be stopped as a preliminary to negotiations or to discussion about negotiations. To date, however, no response has been forthcoming to these offers from the leaders of North Vietnam, who have continued to demand an unconditional cessation of the bombing without giving any indication that this would be followed by any reduction in their military activities against the South. Their attitude seeks to maintain the right of North Vietnam to continue to commit aggression against South Vietnam, while denying to South Vietnam and its allies the right to strike back at the source of that aggression. This assessment is backed by documents and tapes captured in South Vietnam this year, which have provided important new evidence that the direction and control of the war is firmly in the hands of the North. Letters and speeches from such prominent North Vietnamese leaders as Le Duan, First Secretary of the North Vietnamese Communist Party, General Nguyen Van Vinh, North Vietnamese Deputy Chief of Staff, and General Tran Do, a North Vietnamese Major-General who is also a Deputy Commander of the Vietcong forces, underline North Vietnamese determination to continue fighting in the South. These documents indicate that, even if for tactical reasons it were decided at some future time to engage in a form of negotiation, the fighting should be continued while the talks went on. The captured material asserts that the time is not yet ripe for negotiations, and it includes the statement, in a particularly revealing speech by General Tran Do, that our basic intention is to win militarily . . . we mean to end the war through military victories . . . '. In these circumstances, it is clear that the Vietnam allies must maintain their present efforts at every level of this complex and difficult conflict until the enemy comes to realise that he cannot achieve his objectives by force. When that times comes, he must abandon his aggression or seek through honourable negotiations a reconciliation of legitimate interests. {: .page-start } page 125 {:#debate-36} ### INDONESIA Honourable members will recall that I visited Indonesia in January last. Among those who accompanied me on that visit were **Mr McGrath, Chairman** of the Export Development Council, **Mr Hawley,** Commissioner of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, and **Mr Paltridge,** head of the Export Development Division of the Department of Trade and Industry. Their presence in my party indicated the importance Australia places on the improvement and consolidation of its trading and economic relations with Indonesia. During our time in Djakarta we were able tq have valuable exploratory talks with Ministers and officials on economic matters and a most helpful exchange of information. We were particularly interested in learning from the Indonesians how they proposed to grapple with their grave economic problems; we have been encouraged by what they told us then and by what they have since done. Last October the Indonesian Government, in close consultation with the International Monetary Fund, launched an economic recovery programme. This programme called, inter alia, for international co-operation from Indonesia's creditors in rescheduling Indonesia's debt repayments to alleviate the crippling burden accumulated in past years, and for joint consideration by aid-giving countries of what new aid COuld he provided in 1967 to ease Indonesia's balance of payments difficulties. The first debt rescheduling meeting took place in Tokyo in July of last year, and was followed by another in September in Paris, where a further meeting is to be held in October of this year. The result of the entire operation is not yet final, but on present trends it seems probable that Indonesia will receive from most creditor countries sufficient grace to permit a more manageable distribution of repayments and so gain some breathing space to start rebuilding its economy. Australia, although not a creditor of Indonesia, was represented at these meetings and gave support to those countries which favoured easier terms. Tha debt rescheduling meetings gave rise to a succession of meetings amongst the creditor countries to consider Indonesia's needs for further emergency aid. The IMF estimated Indonesia's foreign exchange requirements in 1967 at some $US180m In the course of two meetings convened by the Netherlands Government, one in Amsterdam in February and another at Scheveningen in June of this year, pledges and commitments for the greater part of this amount were received. The Australian Government was also represented at these meetings. It is against this background thai the Government has agreed to make available $5.2m this year to Indonesia as a special grant of emergency aid. The object of this grant will be to assist the flow of essential imports needed by Indonesia to restore the productive base of its economy and so help to ease its balance of payments problems by eventually increasing her export capacity. This grant of $5.2m will be utilised through what has come to be known as the Bonus Export system, or the BE system. Briefly, the system is a mechanism devised by the Indonesian Government to allocate the proceeds of foreign exchange receipts to Indonesian importers. Other donor countries are already providing aid through the BE system, which is designed to liberate the Indonesian economy from an excessive accumulation of bureaucratic controls and to enable free market forces to come into play and help to create a realistic exchange rate for the rupiah by linking the Indonesian market with the outside world. I am glad to be able to say that Australian interest in the economic recovery of Indonesia is by no means confined to the Commonwealth Government. At the beginning of this month some fifty distinguished representatives from all the major Australian business enterprises attended the first meeting in Djakarta of the Pacific Indonesia Business Association, established under the auspices of the Stanford Research Institute following the Pacific Industrial Conference in Sydney last April, to study at first hand the way in which private enterprise can assist Indonesia in its economic rehabilitation. The Government welcomes this kind of private initiative and will look forward with interest to subsequent developments. There has also been useful work on Indonesia by some of our universities. I would particularly like to mention studies which have their visible result in the Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, produced by the Department of Economics of the Research School of Pacific Studies at the Australian National University. {: .page-start } page 126 {:#debate-37} ### RHODESIA I have time to refer briefly to only two of the troubled situations in Africa. In Rhodesia during recent weeks the British Government made a further attempt to explore the possibility of reaching an acceptable agreement with the regime of **Mr Ian** Smith. In mid-June the British Prime Minister sent Lord Alport, a former Minister of Slate for Commonwealth Relations and High Commissioner in Rhodesia, to Salisbury to see whether the Rhodesian regime might be willing to resume a dialogue on a return to constitutional government. **Mr Wilson** said in the House of Commons on 25th July that, although he could not regard Lord Alport's report on his visit as providing conclusive evidence that **Mr Smith** was prepared to enter into meaningful discussions, he had accepted Lord Alport's recommendations that an attempt should be made to clarify what changes the Rhodesians wished to see in the proposals drawn up in December 1966 at the talks on HMS 'Tiger', and that the Governor of Rhodesia had been authorised by the British Government to undertake this task. {: .page-start } page 127 {:#debate-38} ### NIGERIA In Nigeria there has been a succession of tragic events since January 1966. The present position is that the Federal Military Government of Nigeria headed by MajorGeneral Gowon is engaged in a military operation against the eastern region of the country. The Federal Government's action followed a declaration by LieutenantColonel Ojukwu, the commander of the eastern region, on 30th May 1967, that the eastern region had seceded from the federation and had been proclaimed the sovereign independent republic of Biafra. On 31st May Major-General Gowon declared that the eastern proclamation was an act of rebellion and would be crushed. As a fellow member of the Commonwealth of Nations we arc saddened by the loss of life, disruption and instability which has come to a country which had been regarded as one of the stronger and more hopeful of the newly independent nations of Africa. {: .page-start } page 127 {:#debate-39} ### AID AND TRADE 1 have not touched on questions of external economic assistance because I hope to rind an opportunity in the Budget debate to inform the Senate of the role of Au,tralia in this field. One of my earliest tasks in assuming this portfolio was to devote myself to promoting further this very valuable phase of our foreign policy, and strengthening its administration. Considerable progress has been made and the Treasurer referred in his Budget speech to the growing financial commitment. 1 also have not expanded on economic questions, although we recognise very clearly the need for development of resources in Asia and the many complex problems thai have to be overcome so that economic progress may be achieved and so that it may go hand in hand with social advancement and rising living standards for the people. We are co-operating with our Asian neighbours in many activities towards this end, including practical work at the technical and administrative level. Three forthcoming high-level meetings in this field will be the meeting of Trade Ministers sponsored by the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, to be held in Bangkok in January next; the second conference of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development to held in New Delhi in February; followed by the 24th session of ECAFE to be held in Canberra in, April. My colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr McEwen),** as is well known, has been actively and successfully engaged in international discussions in this field and the departments of government chiefly concerned are working closely together to help shape a constructive Australian contribution at these meetings. I permit myself one observation. A great number of people on the fringes of government and outside government in Australia talk in general terms of economic progress, of the problems of hunger and the pressures of population. We have to pass beyond general expressions of concern to the realities of international economic relations - the realities of sources of investment, application of technology and managerial skills and, above, all, the marketing aspects of economic production. The accomplishment of the.se practical tasks, and not the wish to do better or the scolding of governments for not doing better, will be what really brings a difference to the economic life of nations and the welfare of peoples in Asia. Just as in another field too many people talk piously of peace without, facing the practical problem of security, so in this field too many talk of economic progress without facing the practical problems of international trade. {: .page-start } page 127 {:#debate-40} ### CONCLUSION I shall conclude with a final word about our relations with Asia. What 1 have said in this statement illustrates that Asia has to be looked at both as a whole and in its constituent parts. There is even more diversity in Asia than there is in Europe, and it is a dangerous oversimplification to think that all Asian countries have an identical Outlook on every problem. But, on the other hand, it would bc equally a mistake not to see the community of interest that exists in many matters. What I have said earlier tonight; about regional co-operation in matters of security applies equally to other forms of regional co-operation: The objective is not 'one of all-embracing regional organisation, including all countries and all fields of activity, but a number of co-operative arrangements in different fields and including different members. Australia will be a member of some and not of others. Countries of the region that do not belong to a particular organisation or arrangement, such as the Association of South East Asian Nations or the Asian and Pacific Council, can nevertheless show an understanding of it and cooperate with it. These organisations, in turn, can be hoped to show an understanding of the interests of countries that are not members. The recognition of diversity inside the region goes alongside respect for the national integrity and independence of the states of the region. We all have our separate problems and we all have our mutual interests. Year by year the free countries of Asia are growing in understanding of each other and in readiness to co-operate with each other to serve common aims and to bring a better life for all the people of our region. In both respects I am confident that Australia has become part of a great forward movement and is so accepted in friendship by her neighbours. I present the following paper: >International Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 22 August 1967- and move: > >That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by **Senator Murphy)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 128 {:#debate-41} ### COMMONWEALTH PRISONERS BILL 1967 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Gorton)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- I move: This Bill relates to persons who are sentenced to imprisonment for offences against laws of the Commonwealth. It provides for the application to those persons of State or Territory laws empowering a court to fix a minimum term of imprisonment which must be served by a prisoner before he is eligible to be released on parole. It also provides a system for the release on parole of such prisoners. Three States at present have enacted laws providing for the fixing of minimum terms of imprisonment. They are Victoria, Western Australia and, more recently, New South Wales. In Victoria a court is required to fix a minimum term of imprisonment if it imposes a sentence of imprisonment of not less than two years. The court may fix a minimum term if it imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years but not less than one year. In each case the minimum term must be at least six months less than the term of the sentence. The Western Australian and the New South Wales provisions differ somewhat from these provisions. In Western Australia a court is required to fix a minimum term if the sentence is not less than one year's imprisonment. If it imposes a sentence of less than one year, it may fix a minimum term. The New South Wales provisions are similar, except that the court may not fix a minimum term of less than six months. Each State has provisions requiring a court, in certain circumstances, to fix one minimum term in respect of aggregate periods of imprisonment. In each State the court is not required to fix a minimum term if it considers that the nature of the offence and the antecedents of the offender render the fixing of a minimum term inappropriate. After service by the prisoner of the minimum term, the decision concerning his release rests with a parole board, and, if released on parole, he is to be subject to the supervision of a parole officer. The Full Court of the Victorian Supreme Court has held that the Victorian provisions relating to minimum sentences do not apply to Commonwealth offenders. The Government considers that the minimum sentencing system has much to commend it. It enables the Court to make a judgment as to the period that, in the public interest, a prisoner should be required to serve before becoming eligible for release under supervision. It also provides an incentive to the prisoner to make a positive effort to rehabilitate himself and become a useful member of society. In addition, the submission of the prisoner to supervision after his release is designed to assist in his social rehabilitation and provide at the same time a proper measure of protection to the community. The Bill therefore provides that the law in force in a State with regard to the fixing of a minimum sentence in relation to a term of imprisonment is to be applied by State courts and by Federal courts to a person who is convicted' in the State for an offence against a Commonwealth law. Similarly, a law in force in a mainland Territory with regard to the fixing of a minimum sentence in relation to a term of imprisonment is to bc applied by Federal courts and by courts of that Territory to a person who is convicted in the Territory for an offence against a Commonwealth law. The Bill generally expresses the policy that a person who is being sentenced to imprisonment for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth should be treated in the same way as if he were being sentenced for an offence against the law of the State or Territory in which the trial takes place. It has been found necessary to make two exceptions to this general policy. I have already mentioned that the State laws provide, in certain circumstances, for the Court to fix one minimum term of imprisonment in respect of the aggregate of a number of terms of imprisonment. These provisions are not the same in all States. It is not practicable to apply these provisions to Federal offenders. They could not bc applied to an offender sentenced to terms of imprisonment in respect of both State and Commonwealth offences. Consequently, I foreshadow that an amendment to clause 3 of the Bill will be introduced to provide that a separate minimum term is to be fixed in respect of each term of imprisonment to which a Federal offender is sentenced, in each case in which it is appropriate for a minimum term to be fixed. The second exception relates to the order in which a prisoner is to serve a number of terms of imprisonment. It is not sufficient simply to apply State law. When a person is under sentence for imprisonment in respect of both Commonwealth and State offences Commonwealth law cannot specify the order in which the State terms are to be served, or provide when a State term of imprisonment is to commence. It is proposed that the Commonwealth law should provide only for the order in which several terms of imprisonment for Federal offences are to be served in the cases where the prisoner is under a sentence of imprisonment for which a minimum term has been fixed. It will be necessary to introduce an amendment to sub-clause (4.) of clause 3 of the Bill to this effect. The Bill is drafted to apply to both present and future laws, if similar provisions are introduced in the other States, the Bill will therefore apply to them. There are no provisions in present Territory laws with regard to minimum sentences. The Government has decided that minimum sentence systems should be established for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory at an early date. As I have mentioned in Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales the decision to release a prisoner after service of the minimum term rests with a parole board. The decision regarding the release of the Commonwealth prisoner who has served a minimum term is properly one not for the State authorities but for the Commonwealth itself. The Bill accordingly provides that, after service of a minimum term, the decision concerning his release rests with the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Attorney-General. It is proposed that the Governor-General will, in practice, have the benefit of the views of the relevant State parole authority. When proposals for the present legislation were being prepared, consideration was given to whether a Commonwealth parole board should be set up to deal with all Commonwealth prisoners. The numbers of Commonwealth prisoners that would be eligible for parole would not, however, justify separate Commonwealth parole machinery. I have already mentioned that the Governor-General will have the benefit of the views of the relevant State parole authority. In addition, the services of State parole officers will be available for the supervision of Commonwealth prisoners released on parole. The Bill provides that the parole order made by the Governor-General is. to be subject to such conditions as are specified in the order, including the conditions that the person is to be subject to the supervision of a parole officer. The Bill authorises the Governor-General to arrange with the Governor of a State for the performance by State officers of the functions of a parole officer under the Act and parole officer' is defined to include a State officer in respect of whom such an arrangement is applicable. The Commonwealth has had much valuable assistance in the past from State prison, probation and parole authorities with respect to Federal offenders. The Attorney-General has informed the State Attorneys-General of the scheme which is embodied in the Bill and they have expressed general approval of it. The Bill sets out in some detail the procedures to be followed in the event of a person failing to comply with provisions of a parole order. The procedures are quite intricate, and I propose to describe briefly how they will operate. The Bill provides that the Governor-General may revoke a parole order. It also provides a procedure for cancelling a parole order if the person on parole has broken a condition of the parole order. Where a parole order is revoked or there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has failed to comply with a condition of a parole order, a constable may, without warrant, arrest the person. The constable is to take the person before a prescribed authority, namely, a magistrate of the State or Territory in which the person is arrested. If the magistrate is satisfied that the parole order has been revoked he is to issue a warrant of commitment for the person's imprisonment. If he is satisfied that the person failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a condition of the parole order, he is to cancel the parole order and issue a warrant of commitment for the person's imprisonment. Where the parole order is cancelled, the person will have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which he was arrested. Where an appeal is instituted, the magistrate may order the person's release on recognizance. Where a person is released in one State or Territory and dealt with by a magistrate in another State or Territory, the magistrate is to issue a warrant for the person's imprisonment either in the original State or, if requested by the Attorney-General, in the State in which he is being dealt with. A parole order is to be automatically terminated if a person on parole is sentenced to a further term of imprisonment in respect of some other offence. After the person has served the term of imprisonment for the subsequent offence he is to be detained in prison to undergo imprisonment for the balance of his original sentence. Where he is detained in a State or Territory other than the State or Territory in which he was imprisoned for the original offence, a warrant may be issued for his return to the original State or Territory to serve the balance of his sentence. In conclusion, I mention two further matters dealt with in the Bill. In the first place, the Bill places beyond doubt the validity of the practice that has been followed in the past of granting the same remissions of sentence for good conduct to a Federal offender serving his sentence in a State prison as would be granted to him if he were serving a sentence for an offence against a law of the State in which he is imprisoned. Secondly, the legislation is not to affect the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy. I commend the Bill to the consideration of the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator Murphy)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 130 {:#debate-42} ### NAVIGATION BILL 1967 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Gorton)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-KH5} ##### Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP -- I move - >That the Bill be now read a second time. An International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea was convened at London in 1960 by IMCO - the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization - at which Australia was represented by officers of the Department of Shipping and Transport and the Postmaster-General's Department. This Conference adopted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1960, which came into force internationally on 26th May 1965 and which is to be given effect to, so far as Australia is concerned, by this Bill to amend the Navigation Act. It is most significant that 45 countries sent delegations to the 1960 Conference whereas the number at the previous Safety Conference in 1948 was only 30. This reflects the degree of appreciation that exists internationally of the importance of the subject and the need for keeping the Safety Convention abreast of the diverse technological advances which are continually affecting the construction, machinery and equipment of ships. The arrangement of the 1960 Convention is very similar to that of the 1948 Convention, which it supersedes. It consists of 14 Articles to which are annexed regulations grouped into eight chapters, dealing with general administrative provisions, construction of ships, life-saving and fire appliances, radio, safety of navigation, carriage of grain and dangerous goods, and nuclear ships. The full text of the Convention is contained in the schedule to the Bill. In scope and content the Convention is essentially a revision and extension of the 1948 Convention. One significant change is the requirement that inflatable or other liferafts capable of accommodating 25% of the persons on board must be carried on all ships in addition to the lifeboat requirements. In certain circumstances, however, passenger ships may be permitted to substitute further additional liferafts for part of the lifeboat accommodation previously prescribed. Standards for the subdivision and stability of ships are raised, and a new chapter dealing with safety of nuclear ships is included. One of the most important changes is the extension of the application of Convention requirements on construction to cargo ships, with the responsibility for the condition of the hull and machinery devolving primarily upon the Governments. The Convention has not covered this aspect in the past, which has in general been left in the hands of the various classification societies. The 1960 Convention does not entail any very radical departures from existing procedures and requirements in Australia. Most of the provisions of the Convention apply only to ships on international voyages, and as far as cargo ships are concerned, to those of 500 tons gross and over. As was the case in respect of the 1948 Convention it is proposed that the Navigation Act will extend the Convention provisions to ships registered in Australia and to ships licensed to engage in the interstate coasting trade including, as far as is practicable, ships of less than 500 tons. This action will ensure that ships operating around the extensive coastline will conform substantially with standards of safety required of foreign-going ships. I shall not devote any time at this stage to the various clauses in the Bill that are of a minor or consequential nature, but I would like to outline briefly the more; important clauses for the information of the Senate. Clause 28, which repeals existing Division 2b of Part IV of the Act and replaces it with two Divisions. 2b and 2c, is by far the most lengthy clause in the Bill. The new Division 2b deals with the issue of certificates under the new Convention and new Division 2c spells out the certificates which ships are required to hold and to produce when required, thus providing a clearer and more logical arrangement of the requirements. Whereas, previously, the survey of constructional features of ships was confined to passenger ships, one of the most significant changes under the 1960 Convention is, as I have mentioned, that its survey and inspection provisions extend to the construction as well as the equipment of cargo ships of over 500 tons gross. This change has necessitated an entirely new class of certificate, to be known as a cargo ship safety construction certificate. Such a certificate, together with a cargo ship safety equipment certificate and a safety radio certificate, will be the equivalent of a full certificate of survey or of a classification certificate accompanied by safety equipment and radio certificates. In practice it is expected that most of these new certificates will be issued by authorised ship classification societies acting under Government direction, and whilst they will not replace the classification certificate for purposes such as insurance, etc., they will do so insofar as ensuring that the hull, equipment and machinery of a ship conform to adequate safety standards. Also, the tonnage above which cargo ships on international voyages are required to be in possession of either a cargo ship safety radiotelegraphy or a cargo ship safety radiotelephony certificate, is reduced from 500 to 300 tons. Two additional classes of certificate now being prescribed under the Bill are the nuclear passenger ship safety certificate and the nuclear cargo ship safety certificate. which form part of the special 1960 Convention provisions distinguishing between nuclear ships and ships propelled by other means, to ensure that necessary special safety precautions are applied in respect of nuclear ships. The Convention requires that, before a nuclear ship can visit one of its ports, a contracting government must be provided with a safety assessment from which it can decide whether or not it will admit the ship. New section 192c being inserted by clause 17 applies this requirement and the other necessary safety precautions, providing power for the making of regulations to ensure that nuclear ships do not cause unreasonable radiation or other nuclear hazards to the crews or passengers of such ships, or to other persons, or to any waterways or food or water resources. The transitional provisions clauses of the Bill provide for the continuing validity of existing 1948 Convention certificates issued either to Australian or overseas-registered Convention ships until a proclaimed date, which is to be twelve months after the date on which the amending Act comes into force, which will allow an adequate period for the change over to the new certificates. For a period of two years, however, from the date of coming into force of the Act it is proposed that, unless its classification certificate expires in the meantime, a ship registered in Australia will not be required to have, either for international or local voyages, a cargo ship safety construction certificate provided it holds a classification certificate issued by one of the classification societies recognised as a survey authority under the Act - namely, at present, 'Lloyd's Register of Shipping' and the American Bureau of Shipping. The opportunity has been taken to include in the Bill one or two amendments of the Act which are of a minor but nevertheless urgent nature. In particular, section 17 is being amended to allow persons who are not British subjects to sit for the lower grades of examinations for certificates of competency without complying with the twelve months residential requirement of that section. A distinction is being made between certain survey forms issued in respect of Australian passenger ships, and some drafting adjustments are being effected. In order to ensure that all necessary regulation-making powers were included, the final drafting of the Bill was deferred until the various sets of complex, and in many cases voluminous, regulations necessary to give effect to it had been substantially drafted. No less than twenty such sets of regulations will be necessary. When the amending Act has been passed it should therefore be possible to proclaim it, and have the regulations made, without substantial delay. It is proposed that Australia's instrument of acceptance of the Convention be deposited at a time which will enable the legislation to be brought into force at the same time as the acceptance becomes effective. This Bill is of particular importance to the merchant seamen who man the ships which provide such a vital service to this country. I am sure that honourable senators wish to see all proper steps taken to ensure their safety and the safety of passengers and cargo and indeed of the ships themselves. I therefore trust the Senate will give this Bill the support which it merits. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Byrne)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 132 {:#debate-43} ### NATURAL GAS PIPELINE (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) AGREEMENT BILL 1967 {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 16 August (vide page 75), on motion by **Senator Anderson:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -- The Opposition supports this Bill, which is designed to obtain approval of an agreement between the Commonwealth and South Australia for the provision of financial assistance to construct a pipeline to carry natural gas to Adelaide from the GidgealpaMoomba region, a distance of about 480 miles. The estimated cost is $35m. The Commonwealth supported an application by South Australia to the Australian Loan Council to borrow up to $20m for a period commencing in 1966-67 and ending on 30th June 1972. To bridge the gap between the borrowing and the estimated cost of construction the Commonwealth will lend to the State a sum of $15m. The conclusion of this agreement means that South Australia will be the first State to supply natural gas to a general industrial community. This is a very creditable performance and we of the Opposition compliment the South Australian Government upon its initiative. The agreement provides also that South Australia shall accept responsibility in the event of any shortfall in semi-governmental borrowings below the sum of 520m and for financing any increase in actual contruction costs above S35m. The sum of SI 5m to be provided by the Commonwealth will be repaid in half yearly instalments over a period of eight years. We think that the action of the South Australian Government in setting up a semi-governmental authority to construct and operate the pipeline is quite good, because State organisations ought to be connected to the natural gas supply. This will provide the State Parliament and the Federal Parliament with an opportunity to observe price trends. Following upon reports that the field had been proved, the Government asked the Bechtel Pacific organisation, which is one of the more prominent organisations in this and other engineering fields, to investigate the shortest possible route to Adelaide. The Government had in mind the thought that to get such a project launched it was important to ensure that the gas was carried to a centre where consumers could use it. Having received the assessment of this organisation, the Government approached the Commonwealth with a view to concluding the financial arrangements that I have mentioned. **Mr Frank** Walsh,' the then Premier of South Australia, made it clear in the State Parliament when application was being made the the Commonwealth that it was proposed to follow the shortest possible route and that subsequently when it was established that there was a market in country areas spurlines would be established. This was a sensible arrangement, because it meant that the pipeline would be an economic proposition. If the South Australian Government had decided otherwise, it would have found itself saddled with a great liability and would have been severely criticised. So that his remarks will be included in the Senate record, I propose to read what **Mr Walsh** said about spurlines in the State Parliament on 5th October 1966, as reported at page 2053 of the South Australian Hansard. He said: >If it is an economic proposition to deliver gas to Wallaroo, Port Pirie or Whyalla, gas will be sent there when the main trunk line is delivering gas to Adelaide. Also, if the people or, Broken Hill determine that they need natural gas, a subsidiary line will be taken there. All these matters are associated with the economics of the proposition. This principle was followed very 'closely when the Morgan to Whyalla water pipeline was established. It was argued then that instead of establishing this link to Whyalla we should make arrangements to route the pipeline to a number of country centres. The principle that is being adopted by the present South Australian Government was followed by the Playford Government in that case. It was on this basis that the agreement now before us was entered into. Before the decision was taken the Mines Department of South Australia canvassed enterprises like the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd at Whyalla and Broken Hill Associated Smelters Pty Ltd at Port Pirie and1 asked whether there was any chance of their using natural gas. They said that there was not. The same thing happened with the Electricity Trust. Its undertaking is linked with the Leigh Creek Coalfield and its equipment is designed to operate with brown coal. The Trust said that at that stage it was not in a position to make a demand for natural gas. This fortified the South Australian Government in its view that the pipeline should follow a direct route. However, I am pleased to be able to say that since then - indeed quite recently - **Mr Dunstan,** the Premier of South Australia, has reported that the people at Wallaroo have asked the constructing authority to consider establishing a pipeline to that town because there is a potential market there. A United! States fertiliser company has taken up a site there and is interested in using natural gas. Investigations are now being made to see whether it will be possible to establish this connection to Wallaroo. We are hoping that as time goes by other markets will be established in the northern parts of South Australia. A number of people in another place have argued from the standpoint of the need for decentralisation. They have argued that links ought to be established on the basis that they will attract demand. What I said earlier indicates that the South Australian Government had been activated by economic considerations. However, I do think that the Commonwealth Government could assist the process of decentralisation. Frequently I have argued in this place for the establishment of a new Commonwealth Railways workshop at Port Augusta. The existing Commonwealth Railways workshop is not designed to construct the kind of cars that we are importing. It might be a good idea if the Commonwealth Government were to adjust its planning and to build a new workshop using natural gas as a source of power. Another interesting development is that an agreement has been entered into between the Delhi Santos group and the Electricity Trust of South Australia covering the next twenty years, the amount involved in the contract being about Si 40m. This has been reported to the public, and the Premier of South Australia has made some comments about it. When compared with the prices of other fuels, the price of natural gas is a competitive one. What was claimed to be an experiment is now a practical achievement in South Australia. The Electricity Trust recently was engaged in negotiations about the price of this fuel, and the subject was a matter of public interest in the State. The price has now been settled. The sum of $140m has now grown to about $200m. Sales contracts entered into by the South Australian Gas Co., the cement company and other industrial interests have guaranteed that this project will get away to a good start. Unquestionably the natural gas fields will become most important sources of power in Australia. I am pleased to see what the South Australian Government has done. It has been applauded by all sections of the Community. We know that natural gas will become a much more important matter in Australia in the future. Many millions of dollars have already been spent on exploration in most of the States and particularly in off-shore areas. We also know of the experience overseas where the discovery of natural gas has accelerated the establishment of associated industries and the expansion of old industries in nearby communities. New industries, such as the chemical and plastic industries, have been expanded. This is a great thing. I do not intend to speak for very long on this Bill because I think the sooner we get this legislation launched the better. We recognise that we are in business in this field. It is a good thing that the Government of South Australia is associated with this industry. I think that we shall have to formulate some sort of overall plan for the use of our national natural gas resouces. A general plan should be adopted by the Commonwealth Government in relation to our resources and how they should be developed. A national government ought to be interested in such a matter as the price at which gas is reticulated to the consumer. The United States Government has more control over such matters than we have. I shall mention briefly the advances that have been made overseas in connection with natural gas, but before doing so I emphasise that we in Australia have a great future, not only because of the exploration and development which are proceeding but also because we are building some of the equipment used in those spheres. I have pride in saying that at Whyalla in South Australia the first Australian built offshore drilling rig was constructed in the workshops of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. That is a great achievement. The rig is now in use in another part of Australia. But the experience overseas, **Mr President,** has been that not only is the development and consumption of natural gas increasing but this in turn is having a great effect on old industries as well as new industries. In the Netherlands, natural gas resources have been developed to a great extent, and gas is being exported to West Germany. We know of the tests which have been carried out in the North Sea by a number of interests. In West Pakistan 40% of all electric power is generated by the use of natural gas. The production of natural gas in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics rose by 24% between 1959 and 1965. According to the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica Year Book *96G* the USSR in 1965 commenced the construction of the world's largest and longest pipeline in order to reticulate natural gas. The pipeline has a diameter of 47 inches and is 2,130 miles long. In Canada and in the United States there has been a great increase in the production and consumption of natura] gas. In the United States customers served during 1965 averaged 37,440,000, which was 1 million more than in 1964. Customers for natural gas in Canada numbered 1,578,000 at the end of 1965, which was an increase of 5% on the figure for 1964. Gas sales to ultimate consumers in the United Stales during 1965 totalled 124 billion therms, an increase of 6.9% over the figure for 1964. I could go on relating instances of the use of this great new power and I could give figures to illustrate the extent of its use throughout the world. Natural gas undoubtedly has a great future. I conclude by saying that the Government of South Australia, being the first in the race in Australia, is to be complimented on the arrangements which it has made to have natural gas supplied to the metropolitan area, to the immediate consumers. I think that the discussions between the Commonwealth Government and the South Australian Government have been satisfactory. {: #subdebate-43-0-s1 .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia -- **Mr President,** I was pleased to hear **Senator Bishop,** on behalf of the Opposition, say that the Opposition does not intend to oppose this Bill. It is a very important Bill to South Australia and, indeed, to Australia. The Bill contains measures relating to the harnessing of natural gas for use in a capital city. It follows the encouragement given by the Commonwealth Government, by way of drilling subsidies to oil search companies operating in Australia, to search for oil and/or gas. If it had not been for these drilling subsidies, which were given so lavishly by this Government, the companies searching for oil and gas might not at this stage have discovered sufficient gas to warrant the building of a pipeline from Gidgealpa to Adelaide. Following the discovery of gas in commercial quantities at Gidgealpa and Moomba, it has been found that there are reserves exceeding 800m cubic feet, and probable reserves of another 1,140m cubic feet. This is a considerable quantity of gas. The discoveries are of considerable significance to South Australia because that State is not endowed with rich coal fields. But for this discovery South Australia would have to import coal or oil within a very few years in order to generate electricity to meet State requirements. Having discovered gas in these commercial quantities the: State Government of South Australia drew up a scheme to construct this pipeline which would cost $35m. It approached the Commonwealth for support for its application to the Australian Loan Council for approval to borrow S20m for the construction work. The Commonwealth Government agreed to support the South Australian plan. When the matter was put to the Loan Council last February approval for the loan was granted unanimously. So South Australia is to seek a loan of .$20m, and this will be supported by a loan of SI 5m from the Commonwealth Government while the pipeline is being constructed. The Commonwealth and State have agreed that any short fall in the $20m loan will be found by the South Australian Government, and any increase in cost above a total of $35m will also be found by the State. So the Commonwealth, having been recommended to come to the party, to join in and help finance the scheme, knows exactly where it stands. In no circumstances is it envisaged that the Commonwealth will have to find any more than SI 5m, as outlined in the proposal, because the State has agreed that in regard to any increase in this amount- {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- Who will control the pipeline? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- I understand it will be controlled by an authority set up by the South Australian Government. It has been found that a pipeline 18 inches in diameter is the best size to build. The Government believes that with one pumping station this will supply sufficient gas to meet the requirements of a 200-megawatt electric power station and the commercial requirements of Adelaide and surrounding districts, ft is thought that the power station will require for domestic users about 48 million cubic feet of gas and for commercial users about 12 million cubic feet. A 200-megawatt power station to . generate electricity would cost about $4.5m. Electricity generated by atomic energy costs slightly less than electricity generated from gas, and electricity generated from coal from Leigh Creek costs slightly more due to the distance the coal has to be carried. We as a nation must watch this matter very carefully because, as I mentioned in a speech during the last sessional period, it is evident that the cheapest source of. power available for generating electricity for large power stations is uranium. {: .speaker-JZU} ##### Senator Ormonde: -- Or closely associated with coal, as in New South Wales. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- Not necessarily associated with coal, because the cheapest coalburning station at present in Australia cannot get the cost down to less than *Ac* a unit whereas in the Tennessee Valley in the United States where uranium is used as a source of power the cost is down to something like . 25c a unit. Two large power stations capable of generating in excess of 1,000 megawatts each are being built side by side in the Tennessee Valley. These will be two of the largest power stations in the world, so the larger the power station the cheaper it is to use atomic energy. Besides having large gas fields at Gidgealpa and Moomba we also have the largest known gas fields in Australia at Mereenie, some 400 miles to the west. Unfortunately, because those gas fields are so far from any centre of activity and because of the discovery of large quantities of gas off the Gippsland coast, it is doubtful whether the large fields at Mereenie will be exploited to the fullest for commercial use in the capital cities of Australia. The gas may be used in the early stages for Central Australia and probably will be taken to Tennant Creek and Mt Isa and to any other mining ventures should they start in the area. Undoubtedly there is a continuing demand for gas as a source of power. I think the largest user of gas today is the United States which uses something like 40% of the gas that is produced in the world. The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe come next using about 18% or 20% of the world's known resources. We in Australia are just starting. This proposed pipeline will service Adelaide. I hope that another will be built to service Brisbane, and no doubt within the next 1 or 2 years we will have gas piped from the Gippsland field to the mainland to service Melbourne and surrounding areas. {: .speaker-K1T} ##### Senator Benn: -- Will an American company own the pipeline? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- No. I answered that question earlier. I said that the pipeline will be owned by an authority set up by the South Australian Government. The authority will construct and administer the pipeline. I presume the gas will be bought from the producers and sold to the gas organisations and the electricity commission in South Australia for the generation of electricity. It is good that we as a Commonwealth, anxious to develop Australia, have come to the party to the extent of lending South Australia some $15m. In addition, the State will be able to finance the balance of the cost, having received the approval of the Loan Council to borrow $20m. {: .speaker-K3W} ##### Senator Cant: -- Is not that Socialism? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- I think I mentioned some time ago that Labor's policy is the nationalisation of industry, distribution and exchange, and South Australia has a Labor government. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- The honourable senator is not quoting our policy correctly. The booklet containing Labor's policy can be purchased quite cheaply. Why does not the honourable senator buy one and then he will be able to quote our policy correctly? {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- I said that is what I mentioned. {: .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus: -- Labor's policy is Socialism except at election time. {: .speaker-K5K} ##### Senator SCOTT: -- That is correct. I am speaking in support of this proposal, which the Opposition is also supporting. It is a measure which will help Adelaide and South Australia to get a source of power which, if it were not for the good offices of this Government, it would not be able to obtain. This is the direct result of the Commonwealth Government's generosity in providing a subsidy to those engaged in the search for oil. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 136 {:#debate-44} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Senator Tangney's Parliamentary Service - {:#subdebate-44-1} #### Dr Takman: Television Interview The **PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin)** - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-44-1-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition -- I would not like this occasion to pass without putting on record that **Senator Dorothy** Tangney has now served in this Parliament for twenty-four years. 1 think we should celebrate her twenty-fourth birthday in this chamber. She was elected as a senator for Western Australia on 21st August 1943. At that time the Curtin wartime Labor Government was in office. She has continued to represent Western Australia in the Senate without a break until the present time. Leaving politics aside, I think all honourable senators would wish her many years here. She has represented the Senate on many committees. She has been a member of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, the Library Committee, the Printing Committee, and the Joint Committee on Social Security. She was Chairman of the Committee on the Difficulties Involved in the Possession by Husbands and Wives of Different Nationalities and was a member of the Australian Delegation to the Empire Parliamentary Association Conference in London. She was and is now a member of the Council of the Australian National University. She was a member of the Senate Select Committee on the Development of Canberra, the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory and the House Committee. She was the first woman to be sworn in the Australian Parliament and the first woman to speak in this Parliament. She spoke here on the same day on which she was sworn in the Senate. She was the first woman to be elected as a Temporary Chairman of Committees. She has served in many other ways on behalf of the Senate and of the Parliament, and on behalf of her Party. I think I speak on behalf of all honourable senators in wishing her a happy birthday and many happy birthdays to come. {: #subdebate-44-1-s1 .speaker-JZQ} ##### Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP -- I would like to join **Senator Murphy** in his expression of goodwill to **Senator Tangney.** I am only a relative newcomer to the Senate. I have been here only 15 years. During that time I have regarded **Senator Tangney** as a very kindly, lovable and highly intelligent senator who has been able to bring to debates a point of view which all honourable senators have appre ciated. I think we all recognise that at times she has not enjoyed good health but when she has returned to the Senate after absences she has had the courage to keep her chin up and not to complain. She has carried on and has shown a spirit which has earned the admiration of us all. 1 would like to say on behalf of honourable senators on this side of the chamber - and it may not necessarily be exclusive - that we want to join in offering through you, **Mr President,** our congratulations to **Senator Tangney** and to express the wish that now she is obviously enjoying better health she will continue to do so. We look forward to her spirited approach to future debates in the Senate. I also personally offer my congratulations to **Senator Tangney.** {: #subdebate-44-1-s2 .speaker-KTL} ##### Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP [10.36) - On behalf of the Australian Country Party I offer sincere congratulations to **Senator Tangney** on reaching an additional , milestone. I remember the occasion of her twenty-first birthday here. She certainly had some very humorous comments to make on that occasion. As the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate **(Senator Murphy)** has said, she has shown herself to be a great humanitarian. She has been very interested in matters affecting universities, as **Senator Murphy** also pointed out, and in particular she has always taken a great interest in deserted wives. During the period I have been in the Senate she has displayed a keen sense of humour. As **Senator Anderson** has said, she has acquitted herself very well in debates here. She is a good debater. On behalf of the Party I represent here, I offer hearty congratulations to **Senator Tangney.** We are glad to see her restored to good health and we hope to see her here for a long time to come. {: #subdebate-44-1-s3 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McMANUS:
Victoria -- This is one of the rare occasions on which the Senate is unanimous. I wish to express to **Senator Dorothy** Tangney, whom I have known for many years, my congratulations. I know that **Senator Gair** joins me on this very auspicious occasion. **Senator Tangney** has been a member of the Senate for many years. She has adorned the Senate and has proved that women can play a most effective part in the political life of this country We all rejoice to see her here in good health. We have always appreciated out association with her and we wish her everything that is good for the future. I want now to refer to a statement that was made about a week ago when I was speaking in the Senate. I said that there was freedom of speech in Australia even on the question of Vietnam. I referred to the fact that an overseas visitor had been featured on 'People', the well known Australian Broadcasting Commission programme. He had been given the opportunity to speak as an authority on napalm bombing without any opposition. I did not name him because I said to honourable senators that I had been informed that he was a prominent Communist propagandist from abroad. I said that 1 was making inquiries and that I would wait until I had the result of those inquiries. Some honourable senators on this side of the chamber - I think **Senator Wheeldon** was one - said they felt that I should tell them the result of my inquiries. I propose to do that now. I think it was a fair request on their part. I now have the information andI propose to give it. The man concerned was **Dr Takman.** He came here as the featured speaker at the Hiroshima Day celebrations. He is the chief medical officer of the Child Welfare Board of Stockholm City. He is a member of the Swedish Communist Party and is a member of the Central Committee of the Swedish Communist Party. In 1950 he was refused admittance to the United Kingdom to attend the Sheffield Peace Congress. Early this year he visited North Vietnam to gain medical evidence for use at the Russell Tribunal which sat at Stockholm in May, and also to collect evidence for a book he is publishing on napalm bombing. He has attended various Communist Party conferences and has participated in other activities concerned with Vietnam. Since September 1966 **Dr Takman** has been a Communist Party member of the Stockholm City Council. Honourable senators may wonder why this well-known international Communist propagandist obtained admittance to Australia, because it is the policy of the Government not to admit these people. However, he obtained admittance in this way: A business visa was issued to him on 3rd August. In his application he explained that the object of his visit was mainly scientific and that he was engaged in a social and medical study of Swedish gypsy minorities for the Uppsala University. He said that for these purposes he needed direct information about aboriginals and other minorities, particularly in Australia and Japan. To those people who say, as they sometimes do, that Australia is a police state and that there is no opportunity for people to present an opposing point of view, I would merely say that this gentleman to whom I am referring was only about five minutes in this country before he was featured on a very popular Australian Broadcasting Commission programme, paid for by public money, in opposition to the views of the Government. I do not think that anybody can say truly that Australia is a police state or that there is no opportunity for dissent, in view of the circumstances I have detailed. **Dr Takman** obtained admittance to this country on an untrue subterfuge. In no time he was on a Government programme putting a point' of view in opposition to that of the Government and with nobody to oppose him. I merely say that anybody who suggests that Australia is a police State and that there is no room for dissent has, after hearing **Dr Takman's** form, to withdraw any such suggestion. {: #subdebate-44-1-s4 .speaker-K7Y} ##### Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia -- I would just like to take this opportunity to say thank you most sincerely to **Senator Murphy, Senator Anderson, Senator McKellar** and **Senator McManus** for the very kind thoughts that they have expressed. I appreciate their action very deeply. I feel very humble and unworthy of these sentiments. I hope that in the time that is left to me in this chamber I will continue to have their goodwill and their confidence. I thank you all. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 10.41 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 August 1967, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1967/19670822_senate_26_s35/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant