View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
5 October 1967

26^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- F111 AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH. SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION
QUESTION
- ADELAIDE AIRPORT
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
QUESTION
- PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA
QUESTION
- QUARANTINE
QUESTION
- MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT
QUESTION
- MEAT WORKERS
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- SHIPS GARBAGE
QUESTION
- MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT
QUESTION
- DISTRIBUTION OF THE SEXES
QUESTION
- PRAWNS
QUESTION
- GERALDTON HARBOUR
QUESTION
- DESTRUCTION OF SHIPS GARBAGE
QUESTION
- REMITTANCE OF MONEY ABROAD
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION BENEFITS
QUESTION
- BUSH FIRE RELIEF
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- TARIFF BOARD
REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE
- Reports
REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE
SENATE ELECTIONS
- Ministerial Statement
CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION BILL 1967
- Second Reading
QUESTION
- GENERAL BUSINESS
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VIP FLIGHT
- Ministerial Statement
ADJOURNMENT
QUESTION
- ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VIP FLIGHT
GENERAL BUSINESS
NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE
PRINTING COMMITTEE
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1181

QUESTION

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he can confirm to the Senate an announcement by the Prime Minister in another place relating to the forthcoming visits to Australia of the Prime Minister of India, Mrs Gandhi, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Lester Pearson. Recognising the impositions of the time factor, will steps be taken to ensure that future visits by at least some Prime Ministers or heads of state include States of the Commonwealth other than New South Wales and Victoria, especially as so many Prime Ministers seem to be planning very welcome visits to Australia? Will the Minister note the dates of the coming Adelaide Festival of Arts - from 9th to 23rd March - and suggest that the dates of one of the proposed visits coincide with them?

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable senator is referring to a matter which he has raised in the Senate before. It relates to an action in which a judge, exercising his discretion, directed that some information should not be published. I think the first thing I should do is to repeat what I have already said in this chamber in reply to the statement made by Senator Turnbull in the debate on the adjournment. The honourable senator is referring to the Matrimonial Causes Act which is the result of the introduction of a private member’s Bill passed by both Houses of this Parliament on a completely non-party basis. The Act states that the names, addresses and occupations of parties and witnesses, the names of members of the court, counsel and solicitors, and various other pieces of information may be published. The Act also gives the court a discretion if it thinks fit in any particular proceedings to order that none of the matters to which I have referred may be printed or published.

The first point that I seek to make is that by an Act of this Parliament the court has been given the discretion to publish or not to publish matters which come before it. In those circumstances I should have thought that the suggestion which came from the honourable senator that a member of the Executive should question - or cross examine a judge on why it was that he exercised a discretion that was given to him by law had very serious implications for the relationship between an executive and the judiciary which has been built up with considerable struggle over a long period of years. It would appear to me to be completely wrong to suggest that a member of the Executive - as the honourable senator asks should happen - should go to the judge and ask what reasons he had for exercising a discretion that was given to him by an Act of Parliament to exercise as he saw fit.

I am unable to answer as to the personal beliefs of the Attorney-General. In any case, I would have thought that the use of question time to ask a Minister about the personal beliefs of another Minister would be out of order. If the honourable senator wants to know, he might ask the AttorneyGeneral himself in which case he might or might not get an answer.

page 1183

QUESTION

MEAT WORKERS

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. What are the requirements of Commonwealth law for clothing to be worn by meat operatives engaged in the preparation of meat for export? Is there any relationship between these requirements and the conditions of the employment of the men?

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

– Recently, amendments to the Commonwealth export meat regulations were promulgated to clarify the requirements of the Commonwealth in respect of clothing which should be worn by personnel engaged in the preparation of meat for export. I would stress that there has always been provision in those regulations on this matter and the amendments were introduced primarily for the purpose of clarification of those requirements. Briefly, the regulations require all personnel engaged in the slaughter and dressing of animals and the preparation of meat for export to be dressed in clean clothing - a necessary hygienic protection which I do not think anyone disputes. As to the relationship of this requirement to the conditions of employment of the men, this is a matter between the employees and their employers. The men have access to appropriate arbitration tribunals. It is not a matter for the Commonwealth; nor is it an appropriate subject for Commonwealth regulations.

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and follows on the question asked by Senator Bull. I ask the Minister: Is he aware that in most export abattoirs in most States equipment and overalls are supplied free to the slaughtermen and operators and that the responsibility for the observance of proper clothing conditions and proper health conditions is placed upon the employer? In view of this fact, will the Minister give consideration to the regulations which impose on the employees the responsibility for observance and the penalty for nonobservance?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I thought that my answer to the question asked by Senator Bull made the position plain. I said: ‘It is not a matter for the Commonwealth; nor is it an appropriate subject for Commonwealth regulations’.

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry is supplementary to previous questions relating to meatworks. Is it a fact that the regulation recently gazetted in relation to the clothing of employees in meatworks applies only to certain employees?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I have not examined the regulation and would like an opportunity to do so before replying to the honourable senator. I will transmit the question to the Minister for Primary Industry and see whether he can provide an answer for the honourable senator.

page 1183

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport seen a statement made by Mr G.D’A. Chislett, the economist of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, when addressing a seminar of the International Cargo Handling Co-ordination Association, to the effect that when the United Kingdom-Australia container trade starts in 1969 the Conference lines will have a monopoly? In view of the fact that the very basis of the Conference line type of shipping service is the avoidance of competition amongst members, will the Minister state whether the Government is committed to condoning the extension and perpetuation of this monopoly, or will careful consideration be given to bringing the Australian National Line into competition with the Conference vessels.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– No, I have not seen the statement in the detail mentioned by the honourable senator and for that reason I ask that the question be placed on the notice paper so that I can refer it to the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 1184

QUESTION

SHIPS GARBAGE

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. As it is understood that Victoria has rejected the Commonwealth’s offer to provide the cost of constructing incinerators for the disposal of ships garbage, is the Minister satisfied that adequate quarantine precautions are being taken in that State to dispose of ships garbage in such a way that there is no risk of foot and mouth disease and similar diseases being introduced into Australia?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– [ have noticed this comment in the Press and ] will bring the question to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Health.

page 1184

QUESTION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT

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

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General by stating that time and time again we have been told by Ministers in this chamber that they will take queries to the Minister concerned in another place. I have raised the matter of the Matrimonial Causes Act on many occasions. Apparently the Minister, in reply to a previous question, stated that he did not know the opinion of the Attorney-General on the aspect raised. Why has he not discussed this matter with the Attorney-General and learned the Attorney-General’s views? After all, he is the Minister representing the Attorney-General in this place. Will he find out whether the Attorney-General believes that the discretion given to judges by this Parliament should be withdrawn by this Parliament?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable senator knows, or should know, that when he has raised this general matter on previous occasions I have discussed it with the Attorney-General and have brought the Attorney-General’s answer back here to pass on to him. It is not my fault if he was not here when those answers were brought back, but I point out that they appear in Hansard. As to the second point, I say to the honourable senator that this and the other House of the Parliament have passed legislation giving members of the judiciary discretion in certain respects. I do not propose to ask the Attorney-General whether, in his personal opinion, the legislation agreed to by both these Houses is good, bad, wrong or anything else. If the honourable senator wants to get a persona] opinion of that kind, let him go and ask the Attorney-General.

page 1184

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SEXES

Senator TANGNEY:

– Is the Minister for Science and Education aware that Canberra has once again established a claim to be a unique city in that last year, contrary to the trend in other Australian and American cities, female births in the Australian Capital Territory were in excess of male births and that scientists are suggesting that climatic factors may be the cause of this most desirable result? Has any research on this matter been done by officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation? Does the Minister not think that this is a most worthy subject of research, or do not the researches of the CSIRO extend to human beings?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– I do not know of any research’ that has been engaged in by the CSIRO or any other scientific organisation to discover why more females than males are born in the ACT.

(Question No. 226)

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What powers has the Government to control or prohibit the sending of moneys out of Australia?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer:

The remittance of money abroad is subject to the provisions of Part III of the Banking Act 1959-1966 and to the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations in force under that Part. In addition, it is an offence under the Defence Force Protection Act 1967 to take or send money abroad to certain specified bodies.

page 1185

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

(Question No. 271)

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minis ter for Repatriation, upon notice:

How many persons, who have served in the (a) Citizen Military Forces (b) National Service (c) Air Force and (d) Navy have applied for Repatriation benefits during the past two years?
How many applications for benefits have been granted, refused or deferred during that period?
How many applications have been rejected under Section 47 of the Repatriation Act?
What is the Minister’s definition of the word doubt’ in Section 47 (1.) of the Act?
Has any fresh approach or inquiry been made over the last two years in the study of war neurosis?
When applications for war disability benefits are rejected, will the Minister give consideration to having reasons for the rejection made known to the applicant?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

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

and 2. Statistics are not maintained according to the service of which a claimant was a member. Hence the information is not available in the form sought by the honourable senator. However, during the 2 years ended 30.6.67, 75,111 claims were lodged. In the same period 31,488 claims were accepted and 43,521 were not accepted. There were 7,130 claims awaiting attention at the beginning of the 2 year period and 7,232 at its conclusion.
All claims must be determined in accordance with the relevant repatriation legislation of which section 47 forms a part. Thus a determining authority is bound by the section in every case to the extent that it is relevant to a particular set of facts.
The meaning of the word ‘doubt’ as used in section 47 has been explained by a former Attorney-General, now the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. The former Attorney’s opinion has been incorporated in Hansard (pages 694 to 696 of the 1963 Senate Hansard) and I have also arranged to provide a copy for the honourable senator.
The question covers a wide area of medical science. The causes, prevention and treatment of war neurosis are constantly under review by psychiatrists and psychologists, including psychiatrists in the Repatriation Department who keep in close touch with developments in other countries.
Determining authorities under the Repatriation Act are not required to give reasons for their decisions and in practice do not do so. I do not think a change in these arrangements would be practicable.

page 1186

QUESTION

BUSH FIRE RELIEF

(Question No. 290)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

How much finance has been granted by the Commonwealth Government to the States since 1957 for bush fire relief?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– -The Treasurer has supplied the following answer:

The following payments have been made to the States for bush fire relief since 1957:

page 1186

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

(Question No. 316)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Do Australians who reside in a foreign country, and who qualify for and vote in that country’s elections, forfeit Australian citizenship? If so, does the Government propose to follow the example of the United States Government which is reviewing its existing policy on this matter?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer:

Section 17 of the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948-1967. provides that an Australian citizen of full age and of full capacity who, while outside Australia and New Guinea, by some voluntary and formal act other than marriage, acquires the nationality or citizenship of a country other than Australia, shall thereupon cease to be an Australian citizen.

The Department of Immigration is not aware of any case in which an Australian citizen has lost Australian citizenship solely by voluntarily enrolling for or voting at elections in a foreign country.

page 1186

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 332)

Senator TANGNEY:

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

Is there a high rate of mental illness among migrant women in Victoria? If so, what steps are being taken to alleviate the position and the conditions which give rise to this unhappy situation?
Has any investigation been made as. to the position in other States, and among national groups other than those reported in Victoria?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer:

My Department is extremely interested in the question of mental illness among migrants, and in particular among migrant women. The statistics held in the Department, however, are not in a form which would enable a comprehensive answer to the questions raised by the honourable senator.

The honourable senator will know that the treatment of mental illness is a responsibility of the State governments. I am therefore seeking the necessary data from these authorities.

page 1187

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 365)

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

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

Was a direct flight scheduled from Melbourne to Launceston and return recently cancelled because Trans-Australia Airlines required the aircraft for another service, resulting in 30 passengers at Launceston, who wished to travel to Melbourne having to travel to that city via Hobart, and causing several of them to miss their onward connection from Melbourne?
Is the cancellation of scheduled flights by airway companies becoming a common practice?
Will the Minister make a general statement as to the rights of airway companies to cancel flights arbitrarily without considering the convenience of passengers?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

On the particular day to which the honourable senator refers, TAA experienced schedule disruptions affecting a number of routes and some revision of services was necessary to minimise passenger inconvenience.

The morning Electra service MelbourneLauncestonHobartMelbourne was delayed for mechanical reasons to the extent that it could not leave Melbourne until approximately the same time as the Melbourne-Launceston-Melbourne Viscount service. As the Viscount was needed to substitute on another route because of the disruptions I have mentioned, Launceston passengers destined for Melbourne were embarked in the Electra and travelled via Hobart to their destination. Unfortunately this meant that Sydney bound passengers missed the normal connection and had a wait of approximately 11/2 hours at Melbourne.

The possibility of transferring the LauncestonMelbourne passengers to Ansett-ANA was considered but not adopted because their flight did not arrive in Melbourne until a few minutes after the TAA Electra service.

Where delays occur, they invariably affect more than one route and the airlines rearrange services so as to minimise the inconvenience caused to the travelling public. Wherever possible passengers are notified as much in advance as possible and the services of the other carrier are used if this would assist the situation.

The management of TAA expressed regret to the passengers for the inconvenience caused and, where possible, advised passengers in advance of the changed arrangements. In the case of the honourable senator I understand advance notice was not possible and for this the management of TAA extends an apology.

I cannot agree with the generalisation that the cancelling of scheduled flights by the airlines has reached significant proportions. The airlines are most anxious to maintain schedules as published but, where for operational or mechanical reasons the flight has to be delayed, safety becomes the paramount consideration. I accept the assurances given by both airlines that they are doingall within their power to give to the public the high standard of regular, safe and efficient air services to which Australia has become accustomed. From our comparison of Australian records with those overseas, it is clear that our airlines can claim a most satisfactory record.

As to the last aspect of the honourable senator’s question, from what I have already said it is clear that the convenience of passengers is second only to safety as a consideration in determining the scheduling of air services.

page 1187

QUESTION

TARIFF BOARD

Report on Items

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I present a report by the Tariff Board on the following subjects:

Whisky, gin and vodka.

I ask leave to make a statement in respect of this report.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator ANDERSON:

– In conducting this inquiry, which arose from representations by the Association of Distillers of Australian Whisky, Gin and Vodka, the Tariff Board exercised the discretion allowed under the terms of reference and accepted evidence relating to all potable spirits. The Board found that local whisky had been experiencing a declining share of the local potable spirits market especially in comparison with local brandy and imported whisky. The Board also observed that the profitability of Australian whisky was generally lower than that of other potable spirits.

There is at present an excise differential of $3.10 per proof gallon in favour of brandy when compared with whisky. The Board recommended that this differential be reduced by $1.50 to $1.60 per proof gallon and also that the protective margin for local whisky against imported whisky be increased by $1.50 per proof gallon. The present protective margins are general $1.70 and preferential $1.40 per proof gallon. The Board also proposed that these duty changes should be effected in two stages of 75c per proof gallon each in 1969 and 1971.

There are, however, other matters to be considered, The excise differential in favour of brandy, which was introduced by the Government in 19S4, is achieving its purpose in ensuring the absorption of Australian wine grape production. However, since the Tariff Board presented its report to the Government the Australian grape growing industry has suffered some loss of preferences on dried fruits and brandy exports. This uncertainty of the future competitive position overseas could lead to the industry facing difficulties in disposing of its crop. The brandy industry is also a major outlet for wine grape production and the Government is concerned that any reduction in the existing brandy differential could add to these difficulties.

The Government also considered the proposal for an increase in the protective margin accorded local whisky; In the light of consumer preference, this proposal seems unlikely to improve significantly the pattern of potable liquor consumption in favour of the Australian whisky producers. In view of these other factors it has been decided that the existing protective margins and relative’ excise duties applying to potable spirits, should remain unaltered.

page 1188

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I present the twenty-third report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, together with minutes of evidence.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1188

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Reports

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee I present the following reports of the Committee:

Ninety-first Report - Treasury Minutes on Seventy-third, Seventy-fifth and Eighty-seventh Reports.

Ninety-second Report - Index to First- to Eightyninth Reports.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– The ninety-first report contains Treasury minutes on your Committee’s seventy-third report relative to the Department of Social Services, the seventy-fifth report which relates to expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund 1964-65, and the eighty-seventh report relative to the report of the Auditor-General for the financial year 1965-66. The observations of your Committee on these Treasury minutes are contained in Chapter 5 of the ninety-first report. In particular, the attention of honourable senators is invited to our remarks concerning the qualifications of internal audit staff and the re-organisation of internal audit establishments in the Department of Social Services.

The ninety-second report comprises an index of the first to the eighty-ninth reports of the Public Accounts Committee and relates to the reports of the first six committees. The need to provide members of the Parliament, departments, universities and other institutes of research and learning with a current index of reports has been recognised by successive committees over the years. With this in mind, index reports have been presented by your Committee in 1958, 1959, 1962 and 1965. Since the previous index report was tabled, however, there has been a very marked increase in the demand for your Committee’s reports in Australia as the public interest in our work has quickened and as new universities and other research organisations have been established. Concurrently there has also been a sharp rise in the demand for our reports by like committees and institutes of learning in overseas countries. Whilst your Committee regards these trends with considerable satisfaction, they point to a growing need to service a widening area of interest with a current index of reports. I commend the reports to honourable senators.

Ordered to be printed.

page 1188

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I present the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

Ordered to be printed.

Senator BISHOP (South Australia)- byleave -I move:

That the Senate take note of the twenty-fourth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1189

SENATE ELECTIONS

Ministerial Statement

Senator HENTY (Tasmania - Minister for Supply - by leave - When announcing in the Senate last week that the Government proposes that the next Senate election should be held on Saturday, 25th November, I said that when all States had agreed on the timetable for the election I would inform the Senate of the details.

I am now able to say that all States are in agreement on the timetable, which is as follows:

The issue of writs, Friday, 13th October 1967;

Close of nominations, Friday, 27th October 1967;

Polling date, Saturday, 25th November 1967;

Date for the return of writs, on or before Thursday, 11th January 1968.

page 1189

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION BILL 1967

Motion (by Senator Gorton) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish a College of Advanced Education in the Australian Capital Territory.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill before the Senate is to give effect to the Government’s decision to establish in Canberra a tertiary institution to be called the Canberra College of Advanced Education. The College will be an autonomous institution, responsible to the Minister for Education and Science but governed by its own Council. Till now advice on the establishment of this institution has been given by an Interim Council which was appointed last December and I should like at this point to express the Government’s thanks to the nine members of the Interim Council whose intensive preliminary work has culminated in the presentation of this Bill. I propose to re-appoint the Interim Council until the new Council is established and begins to operate, which, under the provisions of this Bill, it must do within 12 months of the date on which the Act comes into force.

The Bill sets out what the functions of the College will be. It will be an autonomous institution charged with providing in the Australian Capital Territory courses appropriate for professional and other occupations which by their nature require tertiary education. Courses provided by the College need the approval of the Minister to be provided, and the College is to provide particular courses, if required to do so by the Minister. The detail and method of providing courses are, however, the responsibility of the Council itself. The Council is charged with concern for the welfare of students, with the duty to advance, develop and apply knowledge and skills which are relevant to the work of the College, and with providing adequate facilities for those persons admitted to undertake the various courses it will be providing. The College will award its own diplomas and certificates, these words diplomas’ and ‘certificates’ being understood in their generic sense as referring to qualifications and not in the sense in which the words are used in every day conversation.

As the College is to be a corporate body the normal provisions to achieve this are incorporated in the legislation. Provision is also made for the custody and use of a common seal. In general terms, the Council of the College is so constituted that its members will be representative of a wide area of interests, academic and otherwise, in much the same way as is the Council of the Australian National University. They will bring to their task a broad selection of skills and a wealth of varied experience and knowledge.

Honourable senators will note that the ViceChancellor of the Australian National University or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor is to be a member of the Council of the

College. This is a deliberate decision aimed at providing from the outset a link between the College and the National University. The legislation provides that if the ViceChancellor does not choose to accept appointment to the Council, then the Deputy Vice-Chancellor may be appointed by the Minister. It is not intended that the ViceChancellor, if a member, should have the Deputy Vice-Chancellor attend those meetings of the Council which he himself cannot attend. Two members of the academic staff of the College are to be elected to the Council and provision is made for the Governor-General to appoint eight members to it. It is the Government’s intention, in recommending initial appointments to the Governor-General, to ensure that not all members so appointed are appointed for the same period of office. This will provide the desirable ‘staggering’ for the future. Pour persons may be co-opted as members by the Council. If it should happen that the person chosen as chairman of the Council is not already a member, then the Bill provides that such a person selected as chairman will be an additional member of the Council for his term of office as chairman only.

The Bill makes provision for tenure of office of Council members. Our intention is that ex-officio members will continue as long as they hold their substantive offices. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, if appointed, will be so appointed for a maximum of 1 year. The members elected by the academic staff will hold office for 2 years. One of these members will be elected each year and the Bill therefore provides that one of such members to be determined by lot will be elected initially for one year only. It also provides that at least one of those members will be elected from the senior teaching staff of the College. The determination of seniority is a matter for the Council to decide. Other members will hold office for a period of up to 4 years; the initial periods of appointment will be made so as to provide in effect, a staggering of the period of office.

At this point I think it appropriate to refer to some of the specific powers which this Bill seeks to give to the College Council. It gives it power to appoint its own committees, to manage and control the affairs and property of the College, to appoint and dismiss staff, to award diplomas and certificates, to determine the organisation of courses, and to control by statute the use of the land leased to it by the Commonwealth Government. This power covers matters such as the siting of buildings and the control of traffic and parking. It enables the Council to control the admission and enrolment of students, to determine fees, subject to Ministerial approval, and to exempt certain classes of students and staff from payment of fees. The Bill authorises the establishment of internal organisations of students and staff, the making of rules under College statutes, except in matters of traffic and parking, and allows the Council to act in the way best suited to promote the objects and interests of the College. In order to ensure that both the Parliament and the responsible Minister are kept fully aware of the activities of the College a clause has been included in the Bill to make it obligatory for the College authorities to present annually to the Minister a report of its activities, with financial statements for tabling in the Parliament. The financial and auditing provisions in general are similar to those in modern legislation. An example is the Act governing the Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

The Senate will note that the Bill includes a clause which prohibits discrimination against students or staff on religious grounds. This is a common provision in the legislation establishing our Australian universities. There is, for example, a similar provision in the Australian National University Act. The Commonwealth Government will bear much the same relationship to the Canberra College of Advanced Education as it does to the Australian National University. Financial provisions for the needs of the College will be made through the annual estimates of the responsible Department and the necessary financial provisions to this end, and for all desirable control of the College’s financial activities, are included in the Bill.

The Government has no doubt that the establishment of this institution will serve a real need in the tertiary education field in the Australian Capital Territory. It and the National University will complement each other, and it will, in its own right, develop into a college which will provide the range and standard of predominantly vocational education which is essential in this dramatically growing and developing area. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Tangney) adjourned.

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE i VIP FLIGHT

Ministerial Statement

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - Yesterday in the House of Representatives the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) made a statement in relation to the VIP flight which I now propose to make to the Senate on his behalf, lt will be understood that where the singular pronoun in the first person is used, I refer to the Prime Minister. The statement is as follows: lt would have become obvious, 1 think, to all members of the Parliament that in recent times lines of criticism have have developed in certain sections of the Press and also amongst some members of the Parliament directed against the conduct of the VIP flight. This criticism has been directed in such a way as to give quite a distorted picture to the public of the way in which the flight operates and the extent and nature of its use. I felt that the Parliament should have an authoritative statement before it so that any comment that might be made in future would at least be made against the background of an accurate and comprehensive statement of the recent history of this flight. I propose in the course of my statement to give the House some facts showing how the flight has developed over recent years. I use the term ‘developed’ in the context of the aircraft currently employed. There were nine aircraft in the flight in 1958. When the replacements have been received and the planes that they replace have been removed there will be nine aircraft operating again in the flight. Recent history will show that this is not a matter which has suddenly leapt ahead in recent times and indeed it will show that for several years Cabinet has been giving consideration to the problem which was arising with the obsolescence of some elements of the flight - the need to replace some and the need to have a more diverse range of aircraft for the changing and varying conditions to be found around the continent of Australia.

The VIP flight has actually been in operation for somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 years, but it is over more recent times that criticism of its use has intensified. I, therefore, put these facts before the Parliament. I go back to November 1962 when the Cabinet decided to appoint a Cabinet committee to consider the replacement of the flight with modern aircraft. By April 1963 the committee had carried on its own investigation and had decided that there was a need, not only for replacement but for a more ready availability of aircraft to assist Ministers and to deal with the increasing VIP traffic coming to this country. The committee authorised the Minister for Air to investigate the possibility of immediate replacement of or additions to the existing flight pending the introduction of pure jets. It was decided to recommend to Cabinet that an order be placed for three DH125 aircraft at that time and that civil aviation aircraft supplement the operations of the Royal Australian Air Force flight. In point of fact, while Cabinet endorsed the recommendation in June 1963 for the purchase of the three aircraft to replace three Dakotas and agreed that consideration should next be given to the replacement of the ageing Convair Metropolitans by aircraft of the BACIII type, it did not go ahead with the order of the DH125 aircraft because in January 1964 it decided in favour of Mysteres as being more suitable for Australian circumstances. It also at that time agreed that the suitability of adding Viscounts to the VIP flight be immediately investigated.

This consideration went on through 1964 - when Cabinet decided to buy two Viscount aircraft to supplement the existing Convairs and Dakotas and to leave in abeyance the purchase of any jet aircraft. The Minister for Air was to keep the requirements of the flight under review, and in November 1965 Cabinet considered the whole question and authorised the purchase of three Mystere aircraft and two Hawker Siddeley 748 aircraft. These five aircraft were to replace five Dakotas which, at that point of time, were 20 years old. Orders were to be placed for two BACIII aircraft to replace two Convair Metropolitans which, at that time, were 9 years old.

It will bc seen from this recital of the facts that no aircraft actually has been ordered in the life of my own Government. I say that not because I do not accept full responsibility for, or approve of, the decisions which were taken earlier but because a picture seems to have been conjured up in the public mind that we have suddenly leapt into some expansion of the service here in Australia whereas, in fact, the decisions on which orders were placed were taken back in November 1965. I do not think that anybody who had any contact with my predecessor. Sir Robert Menzies, would ever argue that he was a spendthrift of the public money. I know of no public leader in my time who had greater regard for the careful use of public funds. I made the point that the fleet we now have was ordered back in November 1965. It replaced very old aircraft. In fact, my colleague the Minister for Air reported to Cabinet that the Chief of the Air Staff had told him that the Dakota aircraft had reached a point at which they were below reasonably safe operating conditions for use as VIP aircraft and that in a short space of time would have had to be declared unfit for such use.

As to the capital cost of these aircraft - again there has been an attempt to conjure Up a picture of a great splurge of expenditure in one year - this was spread over a period of three financial years commencing in 1965-66. It is perhaps typical of the kind of criticism we have had to face that one newspaper I saw recently stated that to increase the age pension by 50c would cost about $20m a year whereas we were spending $2 1.6m On these aircraft. Not only were the payments spread over 3 years; normally one can expect these aircraft to have an operational life of 10 to 15 years.

They cost $2 1.6m. I will refer to that matter in a moment. This was the cost of the aircraft only, the fly away cost, and included the price of spares and matters of that sort. I do not need to go into too much detail about the Dakota aircraft. They are well known to honourable members. They were great work horses in their time. When the time came for them to be replaced, the Minister pointed out that for our VIP aircraft there were two principal requirements. In the majority of cases the use of VIP aircraft involves the carriage of small numbers of passengers over the main routes of Australia. This is their role for a good deal of the time and for this purpose we need a small, fast reasonably comfortable aircraft. Secondly, there is a small but significant number of operations which involve the use of relatively undeveloped airfields of limited length. For these operations an aircraft equipped with turbo propeller engines was required; an aircraft with better takeoff and landing performances. The Mystere met the first requirement and the Hawker Siddeley 748 met the second requirement.

The Mystere is described customarily in the Press and by some of our parliamentary critics as a luxury jet.. I have flown in this aircraft several times. It has the great merit of speed. When I heard a member from another place talking about the chicken and bubbly and so forth which were available in the aircraft I wished he had been with me on Monday. We were flying over the Australian Alps. He would have had great difficulty in controlling either of those commodities at that time. The standards of catering are similar to those which have always existed in the aircraft. I am sure some could paint a pretty picture of the services and standards provided. But as one who has been a very regular user of the VIP flight, I find that salad, in which the ice has not been quite thawed out, and lacking the flavour of a home cooked meal, soon loses its appeal. .When we were coming back from Western Australia recently, after attending the opening of the North West Cape naval communication establishment, my wife thought that, in order to secure a change of diet for us. she should order some pies and sausage rolls. That was the luxury meal that we had on that occasion.

For the replacement of the two Convair Metropolitan aircraft, the Minister recommended the BACIII which was somewhat cheaper than the generally comparable DC9. As I have said, the need for special air transport available to the Commonwealth Government has been recognised for some 20 years and the business of Government would be certainly less efficient if the most senior Ministers had their work and travel restricted to the rigid timetables of the commercial airlines. I illustrate this point by a look at the Canberra airline schedules’. There were no commercial flights to Sydney today between 9.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. There is a 3-hour gap in the morning and a 4-hour gap in the afternoon on most days to Melbourne. There are no daily flights to Sydney after 9.15 p.m. or to Melbourne after 6 p.m. There are no daily flights into Canberra from Sydney after 8.15 p.m. and none from Melbourne after 6.30 p.m. At weekends, when the business of government, certainly in my own case, and in the case of most of my other Ministers, still goes on, the normal schedules are even more limiting. The schedules to other capital cities are even more restricted.

The work of government goes on around the clock and I think I can fairly claim to average an 80-hour working week. Work must continue even while we are flying to a destination. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) could confirm this from his own experience. The aircraft serves as a flying office, with staff available. The use of executive - aircraft is common to governments of most other countries. This is particularly the case in the United States of America and Canada, where industrial development and distances provide comparable problems with those experienced in Australia; and the availability is certainly no less in Great Britain and other European countries. 1 mentioned earlier that when the decision was made in 1965 to re-equip, the VIP flight then consisted of nine aircraft, as indeed it has since 1958. We purchased two Vickers Viscounts second hand that were built in 1959 and 1960, two Convair Metropolitans and five Dakotas. The Convair Metropolitans and the Vickers Viscounts are no longer in production, so that even had we chosen to replace the ageing aircraft with others of the same type we would not have been able to procure them. The VIP flight remains a flight of nine aircraft, and For some time still it will include the two Vickers . Viscounts, which however have only a limited operating life to run.

I can give the House some idea of the extent of use, and, indeed, the character of use of the aircraft. From January to June of this year the aircraft were used by the Governor-General of Australia on forty-one occasions, by myself on forty-six occasions, by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) on thirty occasions and by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) on twenty-two occasions. It will be seen that apart from those relating to the Governor-General - who is required to make frequent journeys for ceremonial purposes - those figures relate to the three most senior members of Cabinet. No other Minister reached double figures in his use of the aircraft, and seven Ministers did not use the flight at all. Other users were visiting VIPS. The service is available to, and has been used by, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and by officials, including the Service chiefs.

It might be of some interest to the House to have an indication of the actual VIP use of this flight in the past 12 months. The users included Prince Charles, the Prime Minister of Thailand, the Queen Mother, the New Zealand Minister of Defence, the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister, the Canadian Secretary of State, the British Secretary for the Colonies, the President of the British Board of Trade, the Prime Minister of Malta, the Prime Minister of South Vietnam, the Governor of the National Bank of Cambodia, the Malaysian Minister of Defence, the British Secretary for Commonwealth Affairs, Princess Alexandra, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Foreign Minister of Israel, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, the SecretaryGeneral of the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Indian and Pakistani parliamentary delegations. Some of these visitors had large retinues and official staff. For instance, on one occasion it was necessary for us to provide two Viscounts and one DC3 in order to transport a visiting party around Australia. For ceremonial visits there is always a large number of persons to be carried and a large quantity of luggage, and this often necessitates the provision of more than one aircraft.

Particularly in relation to VIP users of the service, the serviceability of the aircraft at the time is a matter of importance. These people are holding to tight schedules on significant public occasions. I found, in arranging to welcome the Prime Minister of New Zealand, that two of the aircraft we had sought to make available to him were unserviceable, and a third aircraft had to be found. Last Friday, when I had to attend in Sydney with the President of Italy, I found that two of the Mystere jets, one of which I would have normally used, were unserviceable, and a third aircraft had to bc made available. In other words, some margin of utility has to be available if these tight schedules are to be met. In the case of visiting VIPs in particular we usually have to have standby aircraft - this applies most certainly in the cases of members of the Royal Family and visiting Prime Ministers - in case they would otherwise be unable to carry out their commitments.

The use of these aircraft is strictly limited and controlled, and only two Ministers have authority in relation to this. Other than in my own case and that of the GovernorGeneral or a member of the Royal Family, the use of the aircraft is part of the responsibility and exercise of ministerial authority of the Minister for Air. In cases where he entertains some doubt as to an application he consults with me, so that, between us, we exercise, on behalf of the Government, the responsibility in relation to this service.

In simple terms, thanks to this service, Ministers can travel long distances quickly, they can work on their way in reasonable comfort and with security for classified documents, and when they travel together they have useful opportunities for continuing discussions and for consultations. The use of executive aircraft is common these days, not only with governments but with large companies in various parts of the world. I know of one European company with a turnover smaller than the defence vote of this country which maintains a flight of the same dimension as ours. There would be at least half a dozen American companies that maintain a flight of the same dimension as our own. Proportionately. I would say without hesitation, the flights maintained by the governments of the United States of America, Canada and the United Kingdom would all be considerably larger - even taking the difference of population into account - than the Australian flight.

What is often lost sight of, quite apart from the service provided for Ministers, officials, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others, is the role that the flight plays in the training of Air Force personnel. It provides a valuable training medium in a variety of directions, and many transport pilots have received a course of training in VIP aircraft before passing on to the work of transport pilot in the Air Force proper. The hours flown count towards the qualification of airmen in various aspects of their air service. It is this training role which makes the problem of costing, to which I will refer in a moment, complex if a clear and not misleading picture is to be available to the public.

As to the use of these aircraft by VIPs coming to Australia, it will be a matter of common knowledge that the number of such persons is increasing considerably as Australia’s significance and economic importance grow throughout the world. I am sure that all honourable members will have been struck by the increase in interest which heads of government, senior political figures and senior industrial figures from other parts of the world are manifesting in Australia these days. Aircraft of the VIP flight, as I have indicated, are available to Royal Australian Air Force pilots from all branches. These aircraft provide training for pilots in modern aircraft and a necessary opportunity to build up their flying time to the level required by the Service.

The test as to whether a reasonable use is made of the flight is, 1 suggest to the House, a matter of the responsibility of those directly concerned, and they are the Minister for Air and myself. If 1 felt that the Minister for Air was not behaving responsibly in relation to the service, 1 could take action. If the public thought that I was not behaving responsibly in the role which I play in relation to the service I have no doubt that it would take action against me. This has a bearing on the problem of costs. I have looked into this matter to see whether a dissection of costs is feasible as between uses of the aircraft, including training purposes for which the aircraft are used, and to make a dissection in such a way as to present a realistic picture. I have no doubt that the Air Force could come up with a figure showing the total cost of operating the service, but if you wanted a realistic picture there would necessarily have to be some division between the training role of the aircraft and its ether uses. The training costs would vary, in respect of a particular aircraft, almost from flight to flight, depending on which members of the crew are undergoing training and the duration of that training. If there were several Ministers in one aircraft, should the cost be spread over the various departments which they administer? If there were in the one aircraft three or four senior Service officials - perhaps the three Chiefs of Staff-is the cost spread through each of the Services?

It is my understanding that the Public Accounts Committee, having looked at this general problem in other directions, has come to the conclusion that it is not satisfactory to try to spread over a number of departments the cost carried by a particular department for services rendered to those other departments. But I have no wish to deny to the public or to the Parliament information which should reasonably be available to them. It has never been my practice to do so. This flight operates as an essential element in the structure of government. If ways and means could be found of determining costs in a realistic way - not a misleading way which would present a false picture to the public - I would be only too willing to see that course pursued. I do not know which would be the most appropriate body to do this. I imagine that the Treasury contains more expertise on these matters than any other area of government that I could point to and I would be willing to have the matter examined there.

Before I conclude perhaps I could deal with what I might term some of the mythology that has developed around this subject. I have already given one or two illustrations of how far fetched some of the criticism has been. Seeing that I have been involved in one or two of these criticisms perhaps I could give the facts. I know that a picture has been conjured up in the public mind of frequent use of these aircraft by members of my family. There has been only one instance since I became Prime Minister on which members of my family have travelled on an aircraft which was not an aircraft carrying me to my destination. In that instance the aircraft was proceeding to Melbourne to pick up four Ministers for the return journey to Canberra.

May I interpolate here to say that I was one of those Ministers. The statement continues: That was the extent of the incident about which criticism was raised on that occasion.

One or two of my friends opposite have’ been making gibes about the use of an aircraft for a fishing trip. The facts of the matter are that being in Rockhampton - nobody has challenged my use of the aircraft to go to Rockhampton - I proceeded in the aircraft to Townsville. It was not necessary for me to proceed to Townsville in that aircraft. I was picked up in Townsville in a privately owned aircraft and taken to my destination, which was Dunk Island. The aircraft belonged to a friend, who had come from Sydney earlier, and he could just as easily have picked me up at Rockhampton as at Townsville.

What critics overlook is that a Prime Minister is never able to divorce himself from his job. He is never in a real sense absent from his duty. I had to have staff with me from Rockhampton to Townsville. Wherever I go my staff must be available. They have to keep in touch with the enormous machine that runs the business of this country. They were stationed by me. I repeat that in a very real sense a Prime Minister is never off duty. I only wish that sometimes I could be. That particular weekend was the first in three on which I had not been tied up with official functions. I hope that not too many honourable members opposite will begrudge me an opportunity to have a little recreation and fresh air occasionally at the weekend. That is the extent of the incident for which they would level criticism.

The other matter about which I would like to clear the air is what I regard as a malicious and cruel presentation of an episode in which my colleague, the Treasurer, was involved when his young daughter was seriously burned. His doctor advised that she should be taken as speedily as possible to a Sydney hospital in case skin grafting had to be carried out. The allegation was made that an aircraft was specially provided for this purpose. An aircraft had been previously ordered for the Treasurer, as was his entitlement. He travels around with a mass of classified documents and normally works while on his journeys. All that he did on this occasion was advance the aircraft’s departure time by half an hour in order to see that his young daughter was given a proper opportunity to have hospital treatment. Some of the newspaper editorials directed towards this episode showed how malicious and unreasonable some elements of the Press can be when a public figure or a politician is involved in a matter. I take this opportunity to put the facts before the House.

I hope that I have given honourable members enough detailed material to enable them to see the operation of the service in its true perspective. If there are to be criticisms let them be honest criticisms, not politically motivated or designed to demean the politician in the eyes of those who are always too ready to accept criticisms of those of us who sit in this place. With this background I hope that honourable senators will be better qualified to deal with comments about this matter when they come under their notice.

I present the following paper:

Royal Australian Air Force VIP Flight - Ministerial Statement, 4 October 1967 - and move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– We are discussing not only the question as to whether there has been an over-use of and indulgence by members of the Government parties in the use of VIP aircraft. We are also discussing parliamentary supervision and control of . public expenditure. The Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) claims in his statement that a distorted picture has been put to the public of the way in which the VIP flight operates and the extent and nature of its use. If a distorted picture has been put to the public it is the fault of the Government because in the Senate the Government has consistently refused to answer questions put on the notice paper as to the way in which the flight operates, and the extent of its use. The Prime Minister says in his statement:

But I have no wish to deny to the public or to the Parliament information which should reasonably be available to them. It has never been my practice to do so.

How does that statement stand up against the fact that on 8th March last Senator Turnbull gave notice of a question which since has remained unanswered on the notice paper? The honourable senator asked the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar), who represents the Minister for Air (Mr Howson) in this chamber:

How many applications have been received by the Minister for- Air for the use of VIP aircraft for the period 1st January 1957 to 8th March 1967?
For each application -
1. who were the applicants;
2. at which airport did they embark;
3. what were their ports of call;
4. at which airport was the VIP aircraft stationed at the time of application;
5. how many passengers were carried; and
6. how many crew members were on each flight?

That question has never been answered. Similar questions were placed on the notice paper on 5th April, 19th April, 4th May, and 19th May. Other questions have been put by members of this Parliament relating to the use of VIP aircraft but no answers have been forthcoming from the Prime Minister. So how can it fairly be said that the Prime Minister is not denying to the public or to the Parliament information which should reasonably be available? Who is responsible if a distorted picture has been built up of the way in which the flight operates and the extent and nature of its use? Why will not the Government answer the questions which have been placed on the notice paper as to the nature and extent of the use of the flight? The Prime Minister has not answered the questions asked by Senator Turnbull.

If the Government has nothing to hide in this matter, if all has been fair and above board, and if it can justify the way in which the flight has operated and the use of a fleet of nine aircraft for VIP purposes, then let the Government agree to the motion which appears on the notice paper of the Senate- that the accounts and papers relating to the flight be tabled in the Senate. If there is nothing to hide, the Government will agree to the motion; there will be no attempt to delay or defeat it. That will be the test of sincerity of the Government and of the Prime Minister. Honourable senators know that the arrangement has been made that at the conclusion of this debate the motion for the tabling of the accounts and papers relating to the VIP flight will be called on for discussion. We will see then what is the attitude of the Government.

I repeat that we are discussing the parliamentary supervision and control of public expenditure. The Opposition will never accept the view that the Government is entitled to keep from the Parliament accounts and details which will enable us to determine whether expenditure is justified and whether there has been an abuse of facilities. Both Houses of the Parliament have a duty to supervise the administration of the Government. The Government, by its refusal to answer the questions which have been asked in the Senate, is clearly frustrating the Senate in the exercise of that duty. If the Government can keep from the Parliament details of use and costs of the flights of VIP aircraft - I am not referring to the broad statement that the Prime Minister has made - we have reached in Australia an era of irresponsible government.

Mr President, some questions have not been satisfactorily answered even in the broad outlines given by the Prime Minister. Seven new aircraft are being purchased for the VIP flight- 2 BAC111 commercial jet aircraft; 3 Mystere 20’s; and 2 Hawker Siddeley aircraft. The fleet is said to consist of nine aircraft. The Prime Minister has never satisfactorily explained why there needs to be a fleet of nine aircraft for the purpose for which he has said they are to be used. Why are there to be nine aircraft? Why does there have to be a great fleet of aircraft? An analysis of the figures of use of the VIP aircraft by Ministers shows that 3 senior Ministers have had 98 flights in about 6 months and the other Ministers have made a maximum of 171 flights, making a total of 269 flights. On those figures each Minister has made on the average one flight a week during that period.

– It is wrong that that should have happened. The Prime Minister said: ‘Everybody thinks that this has only just happened, but I want to say it has been going on for some years’. The Senate and the people of Australia are entitled to know why this great sum should be spent at a time when we are not able to afford any increases for the pensioners and when we have to pinch and scrape in the sphere of public activities. Honourable senators will remember that the Treasurer (Mr McMahon), in his Budget speech, said that even on matters of high national priority we had to curb public expenditure. That was the implication.

Why should this sphere of activity be regarded as predominating over other fields of public expenditure such as national development, conservation and expenditure through the States on essential public services such as the provision of power, water, sewerage, roads, education and hospitals? Why should those matters have to suffer in order that this vast sum of money may be spent on building up a flight of aircraft for very important persons? No-one has to go to the extreme to which honourable senators opposite apparently want to go; namely, of saying that we have to accept this either entirely or not at all, or that what the Opposition is saying is that the Prime Minister is to be denied any facilities and other persons are to be denied proper facilities. No-one has said that. No-one will say that.

But where is the justification for the expenditure of this vast sum of money? We have not heard it from the Prime Minister, and I doubt whether we will hear it in the Senate today. If the justification existed and if there was nothing to hide, let honourable senators opposite - particularly the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) when he stands up to’ answer - say why the questions on this matter were not answered. If what the Prime Minister says - namely, that he has no wish to deny to the public or the Parliament information that should be reasonably available to them - is correct, why have not the questions been answered? If what he says is true, does the Government propose to agree to the motion for the tabling of the accounts and papers so that everyone will be able to see what has happened; so that we will have not some details that are given to us by the Prime Minister - he said that he would give ‘some facts’ - but all the facts relating to this matter; and so that we will see what the extent of the use of these aircraft is.

We should be given answers to all the questions that have been asked, quite apart from Senator Turnbull’s questions. Why should not the Sena;e know how many VIP aircraft were purchased in earlier years; the date of each purchase and the purchase price of each aircraft; what was done with the aircraft; when they were sold; to whom they were sold; what prices were obtained for them; what personnel are responsible for their operation, care and maintenance: which members of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Public Service and the armed forces are entitled to use them; when they have been used; and what the costs of the flights are?

One of the matters that any parliament is entitled to know is the cost of such facilities. Has the Senate ever heard such a childish explanation as was advanced by the Prime Minister when he said, in effect, that the costs of the flights could not be worked out or that it would be too difficult to work them out. He indicated that he would let someone try to do that. He said:

If ways and means could be found of determining costs in a realistic way- not a misleading way which would present a false picture to the public - I would be only too willing to see that course pursued. I do not know which would be the most appropriate body to do this. I imagine that the Treasury contains more expertise on these matters than any other area of government that I could point’ to and I would be willing to have the matter examined there.

He also said:

I have no doubt that the Air Force could come up with a figure showing the total cost of operating the service, but if you wanted a realistic picture there would necessarily have to be some division between the training role of the aircraft and its other uses.

Many honourable senators have had business experience. I put this to the Senate: Is not that a common thing that has to be done throughout industry? Does not industry have cost accountants to work out these matters; to make the necessary divisions in order to arrive at a proper estimate of the cost of operating any facility? This is well within the wit of the accountants. It is an insult to the efficiency of the people in the government departments to say that they could not work out a figure on the cost of the flights undertaken by these very important persons. That would be so if we were restricted to the use of the natural talent and acquired experience of the accountants. But we have available to us the marvels of this modern age, such as the computer complexes that have been built up in government departments. My recollection is that this year about $6m is being spent on automatic data processing. To <late approximately $30m has been spent on the acquisition and installation of equipment for this purpose. No one familiar with the use of these machines could deny that answers to these questions could be obtained simply by the use of proper accounting procedures and the use of the computer complexes which are now under the control of the Government. My recollection is that some criticism has been expressed to the effect that sufficient use is not being made of the existing automatic data processing facilities in government departments.

All that the Opposition seeks is the best answer that the Government can give. If the Government comes across difficulties, the difficulties can be explained. Why is not the Parliament entitled to the best answer that can be given by the Government to these questions, instead of no answer at all? The Senate and the people of Australia are entitled to know whether bona fide users of VIP aircraft are restricted in any way as to the passengers who may accompany them on flights. Can a bona fide user of a VIP aircraft use such aircraft for other than his own transportation? If so, in what circumstances? We are entitled to know what insurance arrangements cover the use of such aircraft.

The Senate has sat for many weeks since last March, but no answers have been received to these questions. The Prime Minister has obviously come forth with a statement on this matter only because of developments in this chamber on Wednesday last, when the Minister for Repatriation, who represents the Minister for Air, made it plain that no answers would be forthcoming. Only when it was indicated that, if necessary, steps would be taken in the Senate to compel answers to these questions - this was announced publicly - did the Prime Minister come forth with a general statement as to what was happening with the aircraft. That statement does not satisfy the Opposition at all; we intend to persist with the motion for the tabling of all accounts and papers. This issue has been magnified not only because of suspicion in the public mind that there has been over-indulgence in the use of these aircraft, that they have been used on unwarranted occasions, but because of the contempt shown to the Parliament by the Government and in particular the Minister for Air in refusing to answer reasonable questions on this subject.

I would like an early indication from the Government as lo whether it is prepared to agree to the motion for the tabling of all accounts and papers. Honourable senators may recall the terms of the motion. They arc:

That there bc laid on the table of the Senate, all accounts and papers relating to the use of VIP aircraft by Ministers and other members of

Parliament during the period of 1st January 1967 to 27th September 1967-

The clay on which I gave notice of the motion -

In particular all accounts and papers containing records of -

applicants and applications,

airports of embarkation and of call,

times and distances of flights, including waiting times, in connection with flights and any flights necessary to fulfil engagements,

the passengers,

crew members,

the cost of and incidental to each flight, and

(he Department or service to which the flight was charged.

Senator Turnbull had asked questions relating to the matters contained in items (a) to (g)?

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator MURPHY:

– The critical question here, apart from parliamentary supervision and control, is whether -the expenditure of this vast sum of money is justified at this time. We condemn it as not being justified. We do not say that some proper facilities should not be made available, but we do say that the Government has over-indulged itself unfairly in providing these VIP aircraft for itself in these numbers and at this great expense at a time when the rest of the community, especially those in poor economic circumstances, have been denied reasonable treatment.

How can the Government justify this when expenditure from the National Welfare Fund, from which payments are made in respect of age, invalid and widows pensions, child endowment, unemployment and sickness benefits, medical and hospital benefits, homes savings grants and so on has been increased by only $40m? The Government has incurred an expenditure of $2 1. 6m on these aircraft. Whether payment is spread over 1 year or 3 years does not matter; the point is that this amount of money should not have been spent on these aircraft.

There has been no. stinting in providing luxury travel for very important persons. This may be all right at a time when we are able to deal fairly with other people in the community, but what justification is there for this over-indulgence when our pensioners, for example, are told: ‘The community cannot afford to give you anything more al this time. You have to put up with the increased cost of living; you have’ to put up with all the other disadvantages you have been experiencing; you have to live in conditions that are below the level of decency and dignity*. On the other hand, however, very important persons are entitled to the use of a fleet of aircraft so that there will be no limitations on their comfort and convenience. What is the excuse for this splurging? That is the Prime Minister’s word, and it is the correct one in this instance. The ordinary citizen may try to keep up with the Joneses; it is obvious that the Prime Minister is trying to keep up with the Johnsons.

One thing is clear: Had it not been for the actions of the Senate and of the Press no statement would have been made on the use of these aircraft. The Press was criticised by the Prime Minister in his statement. I, for one, reject that criticism. If we reach the stage in Australia where the Government can spend vast sums of money not only on the purchase of this huge fleet of aircraft for the use of members of the Government but also on maintaining those aircraft, and can do that without revealing the details to the Parliament, then we will be in a sorry position. If we did not have a free Press in Australia it would not matter what the Senate tried to do. It is obvious that the Government has shown contempt for the House of Representatives and for the Senate, and it is only because of the prodding by the national Press that the Prime Minister of Australia has been forced to come out with some kind of statement, unsatisfactory as it is.

We condemn this over-indulgence by the Government. On behalf of the Opposition I say that we take note of the statement. We do so with disappointment and dissatisfaction at its contents and the omission of such vital matters as the cost of maintenance of this great fleet, quite apart from the cost of setting it up in the first place. We reject the suggestions that have been made that because the Government had a fleet of minor aircraft - Avro Ansons - and because there were nine of the one type the Government was entitled to substitute jets and say: *We are not really doing anything different’. We regard this as a completely unsatisfactory statement in all respects. If the Government has any intention of allowing the matter to remain there, we have no such intention because-

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

– What is the alternative?

Senator MURPHY:

– The alternative is that the Government should see to it that answers are given to the questions which have been asked by honourable senators. If the Government is honest in its claim that it does not want to hide anything in relation to this matter, let it come forth and answer the questions which have been asked; let it bring the relevant accounts and papers into the Senate; let them become public property and let the Senate and the people satisfy themselves that there is a proper accounting for public expenditure and no abuse of the facilities which have been provided at tremendous cost for members of the Government and other very important persons at a time when the whole community has to be denied the education, the hospitals and the pensions that it should have.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– It is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) saw fit to use the extravagant language he used. However, that is something for him to decide for himself. It has been alleged that questions have not been answered. The Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) felt that the correct position could not be stated in answers to questions and that is the reason for his statement yesterday.

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

– Why was it not made 6 months ago?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I have just told the honourable senator.

Senator Keeffe:

– Why wait until now?

Senator McKELLAR:

Senator Cant:

– What about the-

Senator McKELLAR:

– I know that the crows are bad in Western Australia and I think the honourable senator is one of the worst. The Minister examined the total flying hours of the Squadron over the years. Those flying hours included, of course, the training tasks of the Squadron and other communication requirements in addition to the carriage of VIPs. Over the 5-year period from 1962 to 1967 the average rate of increase in flying hour requirements has been 14% a year. Strangely enough, this is comparable with the growth rate of general aviation in Australia. In this field, the Government, as usual, is keeping up with the rate of progress in Australia. What a good thing it is for the country that we have a government that does not hinder the progress of the nation as the Australian Labor Party would’ have done had it been in office. It is believed likely that we will have the same rate of growth over the next few years.

It was realised that the Squadron had three separate tasks to perform. Firstly, there was the need to visit relatively undeveloped parts of Australia, particularly in the north, and- to visit Papua and New Guinea where the runways are short and of low standard. It is in respect of such areas that the Government’s critics would have come a bit of a thud if DC9s had been purchased. In the past the DC3 was used for this purpose. Those of us who are familiar with the DC3 recognise what a wonderful aircraft it has been. It was capable of landing on short airstrips and taking off again; it had a low stalling speed. It was a great old plane. However, it had its day and the time came when it had to be replaced.

The Minister and his Department then examined the new types of aircraft coming into service and eventually recommended that the Government purchase two Hawker Siddeley 748s. Those aircraft had the additional advantage of being compatible with the type of aircraft ordered for navigation training in the Royal Australian Air Force. So honourable senators will see that the Government has paid attention to certain other aspects of the Squadron. This is one of the additional reasons for buying these aircraft: They had been ordered for navigation training in the RAAF. The aircraft have now been in service for some months. They have demonstrated their suitability for the task for which they were purchased.

Secondly, the Squadron needed a small aircraft capable of flying rapidly between the major airports of Australia, carrying up to 7 or 8 passengers, in all types of weather, lt was required for journeys between Canberra, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart and other places.

Senator Wright:

– How many passengers?

Senator McKELLAR:

– They carry seven or eight passengers. I have had a trip in one of these aircraft and I enjoyed the experience very much. To give honourable senators an idea of their capabilities-

Senator Gair:

– Did the Minister have chicken and bubbly?

Senator McKELLAR:

– No, I did not. Nobody else did, either. I was able to fly from Sydney to Canberra in half an hour. What is more, I have been told - not by the Minister for Air or the Prime Minister, but by mcn in the RAAF who know what they are talking about - that it is also a very economical aircraft. For these purposes it was considered that either the Mystere or the DH125 should be purchased. The Mystere - which was the aircraft I had the pleasure of flying in - was somewhat more expensive but it had a 30% better range and payload capacity and fitted ideally into the Air Staff requirements. After all, what is the good of having an aircraft capable of carrying 60 or 80 passengers, such as the DC9, when one needs to carry only 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8. In this regard the Government again showed wisdom in purchasing an aircraft of this type. Three such aircraft were purchased and I think most honourable senators know that they are now in service and are fulfilling our requirements. It is interesting to note that the first business executive aircraft charter company to be established in Australia also chose this aircraft as being the most suitable for this type of operation.

Finally, it was realised that the number of official overseas visitors to Australia was increasing considerably and that provision had to be made for their transport requirements. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) informed the Senate of the identities of some of the overseas visitors who have been in Australia and required transport and I will not repeat the names. Furthermore, there have been increasing opportunities to ask the Squadron to undertake visits to overseas countries. I believe that this requirement will grow in importance, because the success of these international missions has shown their importance to Australia and to the people of this country and have demonstrated the efficient performance of our international obligations. It was for this reason that the Air Staff was instructed to prepare a requirement for a larger aircraft than those at present in service. The two aircraft considered were the DC9 and the BACIII. The BACIII had a slightly longer range, a slightly higher top speed and the ability to take off from shorter runways. In addition it was much cheaper than the DC9. The Department recommended the BAC1 11 for those reasons. Yet today the Opposition says that we should have bought DC9s.

Critics have suggested that we have not taken into account the savings that might have been made by purchasing aircraft comparable with those operated by the civil airlines. On examination it was found that these savings were more theoretical than real. For instance, on occasions during the last few years we had asked one of the civil aircraft companies to carry out fourth line maintenance on one of our Viscounts. It was found that whenever that company had pressure on its own maintenance staffs to carry out emergency tasks on its own aircraft, work on the RAAF aircraft ceased and the time taken for overhauls became inordinately long. We did not achieve the savings which might be expected by having compatibility with civil aircraft. It is obvious that if we are to run an efficient service we must have our own range of spares and our own capacity for aircraft overhaul.

There has been some criticism of the cost of the aircraft. That criticism was uninformed, as usual. I remind the Senate that the cost of aircraft purchased for the RAAF is made up of two factors: The flyaway cost of the aircraft itself and the cost of an initial range of spares and ground handling equipment.

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

– Tell us about the Fill.

Senator McKELLAR:

– The honourable senator will hear about that later. The Minister announced to the House in December 1965 the flyaway cost of. the aircraft at that time. He did not have the full cost of the range of spares and ground handling equipment but as soon as this information became available it was conveyed to the Parliament, in the middle of 1966, in the Auditor-General’s report. The figures have not altered since. Furthermore, I would like honourable senators to note that whereas it was indicated to the House in 1965 that the flyaway cost of the two HS748s and the three Mysteres, would be $5.4m, the actual flyaway price that we have now paid for the five aircraft, which were delivered in the last few months, was $5.584m. The original estimate was very close to the actual price paid.

– That is what the honourable senator is saying. Certainly we have ordered the correct number of aircraft for the Squadron and we have selected the right types of aircraft to perform the tasks required. The Royal Australian Air Force has had long experience of maintaining aircraft as economically and efficiently as anyone else in Australia. We believe that the RAAF can carry out these tasks more economically and more efficiently than can any other organisation. Honourable senators should not forget that at the same time members of the Air Force are receiving training. I do not believe that either of the civil aviation companies in Australia could carry out the maintenance more economically than can the RAAF. It is not enough, for instance, to look only at the possibility of chartering aircraft for individual flights. I shall give one example as an illustration. When we are required to carry out a ceremonial task and the Government decides that aircraft must be obtained for the purpose, it is necessary beforehand to carry out a route survey in order to check the liming for the programme. It is usual for the forces to carry out dress rehearsals with the other Services taking part. We have to provide, of course, reserve aircraft in case of sudden and unexpected unserviceability. All these factors add considerably to the cost but must be taken into account in the planning of normal operations.

I repeat that Australia is now an important nation with definite responsibilities. We are a growing nation. Earlier I pointed out that in replacing the planes of No. 34 Transport Squadron that have given good service but which are no longer fit for the use for which we need them, the only proper thing to do is to buy modern aircraft. I think a very petty and narrow outlook is adopted by those people who criticise the purchase of the planes selected for this Squadron. I believe I have given the Senate sufficient information to indicate that controls exercised in the use of VIP aircraft ensure that they are used only in the national interest. I have proved that there is no waste or inefficiency in their operation and that the task could not be carried out more efficiently or economically in any other way. These are the questions that I think should be asked by the Parliament, and I have had pleasure in giving the answers that the Parliament is entitled to receive.

– At 1st December 1965, the date of the ministerial statement that was made on this matter in the House of Representatives.

Senator Branson:

– The Minister said that the Mysteres would cost $5. 4m.

Senator McCLELLAND:

– I suggest that the honourable senator look at the ministerial statement, from which I propose to quote. The Auditor-General, in his report for the year ended 30th June 1967, tells us that, including initial support equipment and spares, supplies and services, the two Hawker Siddeley 748s are estimated to cost $4.4m; the Mystere 20s are estimated to cost$6m; and the two BAC111s are estimated to cost $11.2m. In other words, in a period of about 20 months the total estimated purchase price has jumped from $ 10.4m to $21.6m. But what is the explanation for this increase?

Let us have a look at some of the other facts. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the two Hawker Siddeley aircraft, as well as being used for VIP purposes, would be used for trainer purposes for the Royal Australian Air Force. But the Minister for Air, in the ministerial statement that he made in another place on 1st December 1965, said that all told eight Hawker Siddeley aircraft were being purchased for navigation and electronics purposes. He went on to say:

At the same time the Government has reviewed the requirements for VIP aircraft operated by the RAAF in 34 Squadron. The Chief of the Air Staff has made a recommendation to me that the Dakota aircraft, which have been in RAAF service since the early days of World War 11, should be retired from VIP service. .

Senator Cormack:

– Was this statement made to the honourable senator or to the Prime Minister?

Senator McCLELLAND:

– This statement was made by the Minister for Air on 1st December 1965, as the honourable senator would know if he were prepared to listen. The Minister for Air went on to say:

As a decision has been made to buy HS748s as navigation trainers, the opportunity is being taken to purchase two further HS748s for the VIP service. The VIP version is considerably cheaper than the navigation trainer and can be purchased at a cost of approximately £600,000.

Now the Prime Minister; in his ministerial statement, tells us that the HS748s in the VIP flight are also to be used in part for trainer purposes. Apparently, after a great deal of public discussion and questions in this chamber, these two additional aircraft of the type that was required for VIP purposes are now found to be required also for trainer purposes in the RAAF. Why? What is the explanation?

I come now to the BAC111. It will be recalled that at the time of the purchase of this aircraft the Australian internal airlines were being given approval to purchase DC9 aircraft for their operations. Recently an article written by a Mr Macdonald, the aviation writer for the Melbourne ‘Age’, appeared in that newspaper. Among other things, this is what he said about the purchase of the BAC111:

The airline industry attributes the huge increase inthe cost of spares for the RAAF’s BAC111 to the Government’s decision to buy a British aircraft little known in this part of the world.

The industry says the BAC111 was bought to keep faith’ with the British industry, following the rejection of the aircraft in favour of the American DC9 by the two domestic airlines.

Hud the Government bought the same aircraft as the domestic airlines, it would have saved more than $5m in spares.

In the same article Mr Macdonald said:

When new aircraft are purchased in large numbersfor airline use, the stock of spares purchased to go with them can be as high as one-third of the basic cost of the aircraft.

But when only two aircraft are bought (and the only other BAC111s in service in this part of the world are in the Philippines), the value of spares required increases considerably.

It is puzzling why the Government did not assess (at least more accurately) the value of spares required when it ordered the BAC111s - one of the basic bookkeeping tasks associated with buying new aircraft

If DC9s had been purchased, the needs could have been rationalised between the RAAF and the two domestic airlines.

Both Ansett-ANA and TAA work to this system now.

The DC9 has a work capacity very similar to that of the BAC111, and could have been used in exactly the same way.

Senator Branson:

– Is the honourable senator talking of the stretched version?

Senator McCLELLAND:

-I am talking of the version cited by Mr Macdonald, the aviation writer. Obviously he is talking about the version purchased by the Australian Government, It will be very interesting to see, having regard to the statement made by the Minister for Air on 1st December 1965, whether these aircraft will be used for ministerial trips overseas as well as VIP use in Australia. One of the reasons given by the Minister for Air on 1st December 1 965 as to why the two BAC111s were being, purchased was this:

They will be ableto fly non-stop to any part of the Australian mainland and at the same time their range is sufficient to facilitate contact with countries adjoining Australia, as, for instance, New Zealand and countries of South East Asia. It is expected that the first BAC111 aircraft will be delivered in 1968 and the second in 1969. They will cos! about £l.5m each.

That, to my understanding, is $3m each. The Auditor-General’s report shows that the estimated cost for the two BAC111s now is $1 1,200,000.

There is one other matter that I must raise. 1 rather hesitate to do so, because I do not like bringing personal family affairs into the public arena. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that his family used the VIP aircraft on one occasion only and that the same aircraft had brought back four Cabinet Ministers from Melbourne. That was the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday.

Senator Branson:

– He said: ‘Without me being present’. The honourable senator will remember that.

Senator McCLELLAND:

– That is so. On 8th March 1967, in another place, the Prime Minister was asked a question about the use of VIP aircraft by members of his own family. The right honourable gentleman replied:

If I am not acting in a responsible way in the eyes of the people, they will know howto take out on me any displeasure that they feel. It so happens that in this country there are many people, officials and others, who wish to get to know the family of a Prime Minister. This is very natural. It does not suit the convenience of members of my family to give up time from their professions or businesses and bring their families here with them simply because I say: ‘I want you here in Canberra for this occasion or for that purpose’. Frequently they’ travel at their own expense or at my expense, and 1 do not begrudge that at all. But there are occasions when 1 think it proper that they should be associated with me and should enjoy the same travelling arrangements as 1 enjoy when I am on official business for the Commonwealth.

Is not it interesting to note that on 8th March 1967, which was obviously the time to which the Prime Minister was referring yesterday, nothing was said by him about the aircraft returning to Canberra with four Cabinet Ministers.

I now wish to make some comment about the adequate and proper use of Air Force personnel. A lot has been said by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Minister representing the Minister for Air about the use of this flight for the training of Air Force personnel. In July last the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ published a series of articles on the life of the Prime Minister. One article, published on 19th July last, was headed ‘Mr Holt takes time off and talks about politics in his Portsea-bound red Pontiac’. In this article it was stated that the right honourable gentleman had flown from Canberra to Melbourne for the purpose of going to Portsea for the weekend, and no honourable senator would begrudge him the right to go to Portsea. But in the article this passage appears:

Wing Commander Addison is the Prime Minis,ter’s personal pilot, but he also flics other patrons of 34 Squadron. On Tuesday he had taken Lord and Lady Casey to Geraldton in Western Australia, on Wednesday he had brought the Holts from Melbourne to Canberra, and on Thursday - to keep up his flying hours - he had flown to New Guinea and back.

If Air Force personnel of No. 34 Transport Squadron have to fly from Canberra to New Guinea and back merely for the purpose of keeping up their flying hours, 1 ask whether they are being used adequately and efficiently in the best interests of the nation.

I suggest that on all counts the Government certainly could he accused of withholding information from the Parliament and the Australian people. It is certainly guilty of not answering legitimate questions that have been put by members in another place and by honourable senators. The Government, obviously because it has been embarrassed by public clamour for more information on the use of these aircraft, is now trying to get itself off the hook. Members of the Parliament are entitled to obtain for the Australian people the information which they seek, and which has been sought since as long ago as 8th March last. Therefore I support the motion proposed by Senator Murphy for the tabling of all accounts and papers.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– For Senator McClelland’s information, the motion proposed by Senator Murphy was that the Senate take note of the paper. This debate has nothing whatever to do with the tabling of all accounts and papers. That matter should be straighened out before the debate proceeds too far. It would appear to me that because of recent Press statements and the worry of some honourable members it was right and proper for the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) to make his statement in another place yesterday. It was right and proper, because a molehill can very surely be made into a mountain if it is not checked. I believe that the intention of members of the. Opposition is to use their influence to make a mountain out of this matter for one reason and one reason only - that is, that within a few short weeks the Government will have to face a Senate election. Members of the Opposition are trying to pull out odd things which they believe will give them an extra vote or two.

The VIP flight has been in existence for 20 years. It was not started by the present Government; it .was started by the Labor Party when it was in office. I do not decry that at all. I think the Labor Party showed great wisdom in starting it. I am right behind it, because if anything is essential in a land the size of Australia it is a method of quick transport so that people in responsible positions may avail themselves of it to go from place to place within the country that they run.

I mention these things because there seemed to be the thought in the minds of the two honourable senators who have spoken on the Opposition side that aircraft should not be used by Ministers and important people coming to visit our country to enable them to get round and see our country. Recently the very low frequency radio base at North West Cape was officially opened. A method of quick transport was available, through this squadron, to enable the Prime Minister and others to attend the opening, and was availed of by them. I point out, however, that very few, if any members of the Opposition, although invited, would take advantage of this way of getting to the opening ceremony. Imagine what would be the position when some , such ceremony took place at some place in Western Australia a little distant from the metropolitan area if we did not have these VIP planes which the Opposition seems to be opposed to our using. Say, for example, a mine at Marble Bar was to be opened officially. We are very rich in minerals, and such an event could easily happen. The Prime Minister could be asked to open the mine officially. Without VIP aircraft, without the opportunity to charter a plane, and having to take the ordinary methods of transport provided by the commercial companies operating in Australia, it would take him 8 days to get from Canberra to there and back. The very reason why we are operating VIP aircraft today is to enable the important functions of Government and decisions relating thereto to be carried out as quickly as possible.

– That is why we are having this kefuffle in the Senate today. Senator Murphy is not entitled to use a VIP aircraft. There must be a split within the Labor movement. Senator Cant says in horror: ‘Isn’t Senator Murphy allowed a VIP plane?’ The answer is no. That is why this debate is taking place here today. The Leader of the Opposition in another place is allowed the use of a VIP plane. I understand that he has taken with him people belonging to his Party throughout the length and breadth of Australia - to the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. I do not know that he has supplied a list of the people who went with him. I have heard some rumours.

I wish to continue with my comparison concerning the use of motor cars and VIP aircraft. What happened when the former Leader of the Opposition in another place, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) was in Sydney, when Marshal Ky visited Australia, heading those demonstration marchers promoted by the Communists and others in Australia against the visit of Marshal Ky7 Where was the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Leader of the Opposition in another place? I understand that he was taking a fortnight’s holiday on the Gold Coast with his wife. He had the use of a VIP car and driver.

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

– Do not all the

– So are ours costed out. Does the honourable senator think that we do not know what these aircraft will cost? The Opposition does not understand the position. All it seems to be interested in is telling the Senate that the cost originally was Slim and now it will be $21m. The Opposition docs not realise that two things must be taken into consideration. The first is that the original price quoted for these planes in 1965 was their fly-away cost. The second point, which is of considerable interest, is the requirement for additional finance for the initial range of spares and ground handling equipment which must be supplied at a later date in respect of every aircraft. There were two quotes, but the Opposition is running on only one. It is interesting to note that the fly-away price was within a couple of hundred thousand dollars - a comparatively small margin - of the initial price as mentioned by the Minister in another place.

– No, I got closer than that. The Prime Minister very generously stated some weeks before the election that he proposed to make a VIP aircraft available to the Leader of the Opposition - then Mr Calwell - and to the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party - myself. I thought: ‘This looks all right. He is very generous’. I did not think I would need it. However, I am told, when Mr Calwell was asked whether he was going to use a VIP plane he said: ‘Oh, no, no. The commercial planes will suit my convenience very well’. He carried out that intention till near the end of the campaign when he was forced into a VIP plane; I concede -him that. As an afterthought he said to his questioner: I will try to get by with the commercial planes. If I say I will accept a VIP plane,

Gair will get it’. So Gair did not get it because Mr Calwell would not have it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– A pretty good reason, too.

Senator GAIR:

– A pretty good reason. I did not think he feared me that much. I knew he was bitter but I did not think he feared me. However, that was how close I got to getting a VIP plane. Whether I will ever get close again, 1 do not know. The fact remains that we members of the Democratic Labor Party recognise the necessity for having some aircraft such as these for the convenience of the leaders of our Government and visiting VIPs. But do our needs warrant nine aircraft? Do they warrant aircraft capable of carrying 60 to 100 passengers? All the aircraft surely do not have to be big enough to carry a couple of football teams. It is at this point that the people start to complain about the abuse of these things; about living above our means.

I said a while ago that this debate became inevitable because of the circumstances and the way the matter had been handled by the Government. It became inevitable because of the publicity given to the purchase of these seven replacement aircraft at a time when the Government was displaying such a miserly, miserable and mean attitude to the indigent section of our community. It happened at a time when the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) was saying: ‘I could not consider increasing the pensions, not even by 20c, because this would involve mammoth figures’. But $2 1.6m for the replacement of seven aircraft was just a bagatelle. To say that the cost is to be spread over 3 years does not appease the man in the street. At the same time the Government took $16m or thereabouts oil the man in the street by way of increased postal charges. We managed to cut that sum down a little bit. In the light of all this, the Government could not expect to get away without having this matter publicly aired and debated.

I think there is something to be said for the resolution that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) intends to submit later. I think it is a good thing not only for the public interest but for the Government so that it can show that it has clean hands in this matter. The Government should not say what it said to me: That there was no record of the passengers carried. There must be a record.

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

– They tear the records up now.

Senator GAIR:

It is only logic and common sense that the public get crossgrained about this matter and set out to give -the Government a rub-up with the aid of the Press, particularly when we employ expressions that give to the Press a good line for its headlines and to the cartoonists good material for their drawings. Had the Government been more forthright in this matter and had it shown less desire to cover up I believe we would not have had the necessity for this debate. The information would have been supplied to us and I think the curiosity of honourable senators in this connection would have been appeased.

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

– I wish to make only a short incursion into this debate to which I have listened for a considerable time, either here in the chamber or through the loudspeaker underneath my desk. I am not sure of the precise attitude that is being adopted by the Opposition, or even by Senator Gair. I heard the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) say, or I believe I heard him say, that in principle he was not expressing any objection to the government of a country such as this maintaining a flight of aeroplanes for the conveyance of those people whom they do convey. I gathered that that was the basis of bis remarks. Senator Gair has indicated much the same idea.

Senator Gair:

– We are tolerant, but we will not stand abuse.

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– Yes. Yet a great deal of the debate has in fact comprised of speakers’ saying: ‘Yes, it is all right to have the VIP aircraft; but we should not really have them, or if we do really have them we should have something not as efficient or as effective, or it should not be done now because now the Government is spending money which we say would be better spent on pensioners.’ Let us get perfectly clear at least what is my own belief in this matter. I believe that in a country such as Australia it is necessary to maintain and to run a flight of fast and efficient aircraft to transport not only the Royal family, the Governor-General and visiting Heads of State, but also the Prime Minister, Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament. Canberra is not located in the centre of Australia. It is a very great country indeed, in terms of distance. At any given time functions are held which the people concerned wish to have attended by appropriate Ministers or the Leader of the Opposition. The opening of the North West Cape communication station is an example in point, although the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) did not attend that function.

Senator McClelland:

– Some sort of answer is expected.

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

– That is true. The first question was asked on 8th March this year. I had to ask succeeding questions. I did that for a specific purpose. I had heard that the passenger lists on these aircraft were being thrown away. That was stated in another chamber. So I kept asking. The Minister knew that these questions would be asked, and he should have been able to obtain the list of people travelling on these planes.

Last night on a television interview it was stated that some government members believe that I have been raising the cost of VIP flights as propaganda because I have a shaky Senate seat. Let me say that every senator has a shaky seat except those in the first and second positions on the ballot paper in each State, and they are returned not because the people want them but because the people vote for a particular party.

Senator Webster:

– That is not true.

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

– I do not want to enter into a debate about the Australian Country Party’s No. 2 position in Victoria. The point is that I raised this question on 8th March. At that time there was no talk of an impending Senate election; it was thought that it might be held at the end of the year. I even went as far as speaking to a very senior Government Minister. I said to him: ‘You do not know how politically stupid you are. All you have to do is to answer the question and that will be the end of it. But if you do not answer the question I propose to keep raising it.’ Senator Sim, or somebody on that side of the House, tried to say that there will be no outcry from the public.

Senator Sim:

– I did not mention that.

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

– It may not have been Senator Sim. Apparently this debate has been engineered by the Press, the Opposition, some independent senators and the Democratic Labor Party because of the forthcoming Senate election. I ask every Liberal Party senator and every Country Party senator whether he has mentioned to the public in his own State the cost of the VIP planes. Has any honourable senator opposite approached someone who did not know that he was a senator? Do not honourable senators opposite believe that there is an outcry against the abuse of the flight? If honourable senators opposite do not worry about the outcry why should they worry because we raise the matter in this chamber? Obviously if the public is with honourable senators opposite it does not matter what the Opposition or I do; it will not help us one iota. I do not believe honourable senators opposite for one moment. They know as weil as I do that the public is completely against the misuse of VIP planes.

Senator Gorton is not in the House at the moment, but he may be tuned in on the speaker in his room. I would like him to know that I approve of VIP planes. At no time have I said that I disapprove of VIP planes. I said that they are a necessity in this country. All I asked for were guide lines. There must be guide lines as to who will use the aircraft. Yesterday the guide lines were given, but bow long will they last? Once upon a time motor vehicles were made available for Ministers, then for members, then for the whole Public Service. Senator Gair is worrying about a popsy entering a car after SO minutes. At an interstate airport one sees at least ten or twenty Commonwealth car drivers wait to pick up public servants. I do not have the use of a Commonwealth car, even though I am travelling on a free pass on Senate business. Public servants have the use of Commonwealth cars. This provision was extended further, as was seen only last year when honourable senators were provided with a car to travel to and from their homes to the aerodrome. The same will happen with the VIP flights; the privilege will be extended.

Senator Sim:

– The honourable senator has no proof of that statement.

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

– No? Originally the VIP planes were just for the Prime Minister and probably the GovernorGeneral. Now they are used by junior Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff. If the Chief of the Air Force, the Chief of the Army and the Chief of the Navy use these planes, why cannot departmental heads use them? Then their use will be extended and the flights will be open to everyone. All we ask is that the Government tell us the guide lines and that it keep to them. That is what we were asking for in the beginning. Now let me come to this question of chicken and bubbly. I did not say they had chicken and bubbly. I spoke of what were designated chicken and champagne dinners. In the House of Representatives yesterday, tears actually poured down my cheek as I sat there listening to the Prime Minister telling us of the sorrows of himself and his poor wife being bumped about over the Alps, braving gastronomic hazards. I thought to myself: ‘This is the real pioneering spirit. Here we have them going up there nibbling at their frozen lettuce and braving it throughout this terriffic flight.’

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– This is irrelevant.

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

– No, it is not.

This is what he told us. It is in his statement. If the honourable senator thinks it is irrelevant, I do not. I am coming to the point. You just wait.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! The honourable senator will address the Chair.

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

– So they were up there eating their poor pies and sausages - I hope with tomato sauce.

Senator Cormack:

– I rise to order. The honourable senator said that tears were pouring down his cheeks. I was sitting beside him and there were no tears pouring down his cheeks.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! The point raised is invalid.

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

– All I can say is that they were very wet. Let me come back to this question of chicken and champagne. The Prime Minister stated that on this one occasion of the forty-six occasions there was no champagne. He forgot to mention that there were forty-five other occasions. It could well be that on those other fortyfive occasions there was chicken. The Prime Minister might not like champagne, but that term was used to indicate that there is any amount of drink available. I have been told by members who have travelled on this plane that this is so. What we are trying to get at is the cost of catering.

What I have been objecting to all along is the fact - we have not mentioned this today, and it is most important - that the cost of the VIP plane is charged against our defence vote. That is a disgrace to this country. It is a disgrace to members of the Government that they should allow this to happen. It is a disgrace that they should support an attitude so niggardly towards the defence vote as to charge it with the cost of our VIP planes.

Senator Webster:

– How is this handled in other countries?

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

– I do not know how it is done in other countries, and I could not care less. Here, in a country which is supposed to be fighting Communism throughout South East Asia, we are so niggardly in our defence vote that it has risen from only 1% to 2% and then 3% and, this year, 5% of the gross national product, and if it were not for the fact that advance payments were made it would not now be 5% of the gross national product. And we charge our defence vote with the cost of the VIP planes. I think we should be so ashamed of this that the Government should be shedding genuine tears over it. That has been the basis of my attack on the VIP planes. I have never said there should not be VIP planes.

Another point is that information about them should not be secret, but it is. I do understand that the cost of catering is actually accounted for separately, but we have to talk in the dark because no-one so far would give us an answer to anything. When I asked 2 days ago for Air Board order, section E, part 27/6, 3 (d), paragraph 26, which defines the policy on catering, I was told that this is a secret document and I cannot have it. The policy with regard to catering is secret. This is information that the enemy is itching for, and here am I, a traitor to the cause of Australia, demanding it. I do not know whether it is secret or not, but I am not allowed to see it. I am not even allowed to look at this secret document, but I have been told by an authority that this section for which I ask does define the policy with regard to catering.

Senator McManus:

– Does it prescribe the ingredients for sausages?

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

Senator Prowse:

– Does that apply to the Opposition too?

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

– Exactly. I was asked last night whether I thought the Australian Labor Party, if it was in office, would be doing the same thing. I said yes, that I thought it would and that I would be attacking it too. That answers the honourable senator’s question. Let us look at what happened during the Dawson by-election. I do not know whether members of this Parliament think it is an abuse of the privilege of the use of VIP aircraft - I do - when a Minister takes two planes for electioneering. I have given this instance twice in the Senate before, so do not say that I have never given any instance of abuse. Apparently the Minister for Air cannot read or does not want to read. I have mentioned this matter twice before. Do honourable senators think that this is the right and proper use for a VIP aircraft, the cost of which is charged against the Defence vote?

Senator Branson:

– Was there not t Minister in New Guinea?

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

– The fact thai there was a Minister in New Guinea is incidental. The Minister who was in New Guinea should have offered the three members who were there a lift back on the VIP aircraft to save expense.

Senator McManus:

– Who was the Minister?

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

– I think that it was Mr McEwen, the Minister for Trade and Industry.

Senator McManus:

– He had two planes in Dawson?

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

– Yes, a plane for himself and a DC3 to go to smaller airfields. This matter has been mentioned twice. Noone has denied it. If it is not true, deny it; if it is true, tell us. That is why I have asked this question. The Government does not answer. If it did it could say that this was not true. If it had the guts to do so, it would have answered the question. Then again, a Minister came to Hobart and Launceston. He spent 3i days in Tasmania. He used a Viscount for himself and two departmental officers. Is that not an abuse of the VIP service? Was there any emergency? Was there any hurry about the visit which meant that he had to have a special plane? Do not honourable senators regard that as an abuse of the system?

The Prime Minister in his statement did not include ex-Prime Ministers, who are entitled to use the VIP flight. I have mentioned in the Senate twice that the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, on two occasions was given a VIP plane. Once, a plane was sent from Melbourne to Sydney to pick him up and take him back to Melbourne. Do honourable senators think that this is necessary? When the ex-Prime Minister went to a test match in Adelaide, he had a VIP plane also. Was that necessary?

I turn now to the famous case involving the Treasurer, Mr McMahon. I have nothing whatever to say about the question of his child being ill. People can have opinions one way or the other on that matter.

Senator Hannaford:

– There is an efficient hospital here.

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

– Yes. There are two arguments about the matter. There is a hospital here. I often wonder whether any of us, if we had sick children, would be able to obtain a plane.

Senator Sim:

– It was not a private plane.

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

Senator Wright:

– Well, I do not want to see Air Force planes used for the conveyance of members of the Press for money.

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

– The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) is to speak next. He may have the answer to this matter. Again I point out that I think it is quite wrong for the Prime Minister to take a back-up plane which is used then as a commercial vehicle for members of the Press when they .could have used other means of transport. It may be that we have been castigating the Government for its attitude towards the use of VIP planes. I have always felt that commercial airlines should be used.

I have always advocated that our commercial airlines should buy British planes, but unfortunately they have chosen to buy American planes. But I think the Government was wrong to buy two British planes out of the blue, so to speak, for the VIP flight. Much as I prefer the British plane, I think that step was economically unwise.

Secondly, I believe that the airline companies should each have been allocated one of the two BAC aircraft. It is of no use telling us the story that when a repair is necessary on a VIP plane Ansett-ANA or TAA - I presume it is TAA, being a government concern-

Senator Devitt:

– Ansett-ANA does repair work. ‘ ‘ ‘

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

– Does it? The Government could put pressure on both airlines, if necessary and say: ‘We’ want our plane repaired’. After all, both airlines are completely within the Government’s control. It is nonsense to say that whenever a VIP plane needs attention it cannot be repaired by the private airlines because of pressure of work. If the two BAC planes had been allocated to the airlines they could have been used commercially and also as a standby for the VIP flight.

Now let me raise the question whether we should have so many smaller planes such as the 10-seaters. I believe that some that we have are not small enough. I am not sure what the Government is paying in interest on the money advanced to purchase these aircraft, but let me assume that it is 5% seeing that the normal commercial rate is 6i% or 7%. On that basis our interest bill would be $lm a year. A lot of planes could be chartered for Sim a year.

Senator Wright:

– The depreciation rate on aircraft for taxation purposes is 12)%. Until 2 years ago it was 25%.

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

– The amount that we have to pay is the point, and in my opinion that amount could well be used to charter aircraft. We have the companies here from which we could charter aircraft.

Senator Branson:

– How would the 20- year old DC3s go on that basis?

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

– No-one has said that we should have 20-year old DC3s. Now I come to the question of the operating cost of these planes. We just cannot get down to the basis of cost. Someone has told me that maintenance, including the’ cost of providing Air Force personnel, two stewards and so on, could amount to Si Om a year.

Senator Devitt:

– What about depreciation?

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

– It would have to include depreciation. I should like to know the cost of maintaining this flight. No-one has yet told us, and I hope that Senator Anderson or the next Minister to enter the debate will give us the information, because I think it is vital. This is a cost which must be ascertained. Even if the Government cannot find out how much a spare tyre costs it should not go far wrong in making an assessment of operational costs including dep.reciation

No-one has yet told us what the BAC aircraft are for. Senator Scott has suggested that they are to be used for overseas trips. These planes hold anything from 60 to 100 passengers depending on the seating arrangements.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Say 60.

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

– I could not care less whether it was 100, 60 or 40. How often will a party of 60 be leaving Australia, or even be transported within Australia? Obviously these planes can only be used outside Australia. On his last trip 1 think the Prime Minister took nineteen people with him.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Is there any significance in the fact that there are sixty senators?

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

– I do not think so. Will someone tell us why we need two 60-passenger planes? I do not care whether they are DC9s or BACs. Why do we need two 60-passenger planes? I think this is an absolute waste of money.

I agree entirely with Senator Gair who said that this debate would never have occurred had it not been for the arrogance of Ministers who have refused to reply to questions. Most of us approve of having VIP planes. It is of the operating costs of those planes that we disapprove, together with the fact that those costs are charged to the Defence vote. That is a blot on the Government.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I am bound to involve myself in an oldfashioned preliminary, before I reply to Senator Murphy and Senator Turnbull, by following a custom which seems to have disappeared from the Parliament and saying that I wish to express my interest, or lack of interest, in this subject. I have never had the pleasure of travelling in one of the Air Force aircraft allocated to its communications squadron. I intervene in this debate on the basis of the conditions laid down by the Leader of the Opposition who forecast that the debate was to take place on a split level basis, as it were. This afternoon the debate would be on the motion that the Senate take note of a statement by the Leader of the Government (Senator Henty) which, in essence, is a second reading speech, and the debate this evening would be along the lines of a Committee debate with a motion being moved, under the heading of General Business, for the tabling of papers in relation to the operations of the Government’s communications squadron.

I am using the term ‘communications squadron’ or ‘communications flight’ because it seems to me that the whole issue has been clouded by political use of the words very important persons’ - VIP. That is an old Army or Air Force expression which earned some currency prior to the last war and was used quite freely during the war. Now it has been translated into the civil field. I agree with Senator Turnbull that in the minds of people in our basically egalitarian society it connotes a class distinction which arouses, or tends to arouse, resentment. The term ‘VIP’ has that effect. It is not a very important people’s flight of Air Force planes; it is a communications squadron for transporting people, whether they be Ministers, Service chiefs or other appropriate and proper people, from place to place in the pursuit of the duties that the government and the well-being of this country place upon them.

Senator Wright:

– Is that definition laid down in any statute?

Senator CORMACK:

– It is a definition laid down by common usage amongst people who have been accustomed to the operation of communications squadrons. I am one of them. Many years ago I was responsible for transporting almost as many people in a week as Australian civil airlines carry in a year. I was also responsible for the alloction of communications aircraft. That is the name by which they have always been known in my experience. The VIP flight is a communications squadron. It. is no different from any other communications fleet. I remind the Senate that the Department of Supply transports Ministers and members of Parliament from place to place, either meeting them when they reach Canberra or providing a motor car with a Department of Supply driver - in the case of Canberra it is a Department of the Interior driver - to transport them from one place to another.

– I am a very detached and objective man. The President agrees with me. This is not a new problem. I am indebted to one of my colleagues on this side who has an historical sense and has looked into the question of communication aircraft. Apparently it is an area of history in which Senator Turnbull himself has been browsing, because there is a curious equation between some historical evidence and the questions that Senator Turnbull has placed on the notice paper and which have been taken up with such glee by Senator Murphy. I refer honourable senators to Hansard of 27th February 1948, wherein on page 308 there is an interesting series of questions which had been placed on notice and which appear under the heading ‘Royal Australian Air Force: Use of Aircraft by Minister’. Honourable senators may relate these questions to those on the notice paper that they have in front of them. Mr White asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

What Royal Australian Air Force aircraft does the Minister use in travelling to and from Parliament and Melbourne?
What is (a) the number of aircrew employed on this aeroplane, and (b) their total monthly pay?
What gallonage of petrol is used by the Minister’s aircraft during a return trip MelbourneCanberra?
What would be the dollar value of the petrol used per trip?
What has been the aircraft’s passenger loading per single trip?
Is there any reason why bookings cannot be made on airliners or railways by the Minister and his staff?

Senator Branson:

– Did Senator Turnbull ask those questions?

Senator CORMACK:

– No, these questions were asked on 27th February 1948 of Mr Drakeford, the then Minister for Air. They continued:

What is the number of flying hours covered by the above aircraft when flying the Minister or at his direction?
What was the approximate cost of any special alterations- to the Minister’s aircraft to suit bis convenience?

Senator Poyser will be interested in that because he has such a question on the notice paper. The final question was:

Was the above Royal Australian Air Force aircraft taken to Tasmania during the recent visit of the Minister to a union conference as reported in the Tasmanian Press?

I do not read out these questions as a matter of derision. There is no derision in me at all. But is it not a curious coincidence that these matters were reported in the Tasmanian Press on 27th February 1948 and the honourable senator from Tasmania who has been entertaining us for the last half hour or so asks exactly the same questions and has been consistently asking them?

Let me pass on. There has now evolved in the course of this debate some sort of apology. Honourable senators on the other side are now saying: ‘We believe in the principle of a communication squadron. We believe Ministers should have means of moving from place to place. We are not arguing against the fact that there is a communication squadron.’ But in fact they spend all day arguing against a communication squadron. The debate was not enhanced by the Leader of the Opposition who began this morning by arguing on terms of the highest parliamentary propriety that no-one had attempted to answer the question of Senator Turnbull of Tasmania and, therefore, he had taken it upon himself to place on the notice paper a question in terms exactly the same as the question that had been asked by Senator Turnbull.

I think Senator Turnbull is entitled to make some electoral mileage. He is an independent senator who is to stand in the forthcoming Senate election in Tasmania as an independent. As an independent, he has no policy. He therefore has to create a sort of side effect by which he can go to the people in Tasmania during the Senate election campaign and say: ‘I am the great tribune of the people.’ It is ‘Wilkes and liberty’. The ‘North Briton’ will come out in Tasmania. Senator Turnbull Wilkes will stump around saying Turnbull and liberty?. This is interesting, because it leads me automatically to this deductive process: Why is it that, this matter having been raised in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister having made a statement, and the Leader of the Opposition in another place having moved for the adjournment of the debate, on the succeeding day - today - in the Senate the Leader of the Opposition informs the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty) that the matter is to be brought on in the Senate, it is so brought on, and the Leader of the Opposition moves that the Senate takes note of the statement of the Leader of the Government in the Senate? Pursuing the deduction still further, one reaches the interesting conclusion that it is worthwhile for the Australian Labor Party to reinforce the efforts of Senator Turnbull so that it is possible - it is hoped - that Senator Turnbull will be re-elected as an independent senator from Tasmania by the support of the Australian Labor Party. That is what all of this business that has taken place all day has been about This is a delightful political conspiracy worthy of the Borgias at their best and Senator Murphy, I think, has displayed a political talent of that order.

We have now come to the bottom of the heap. This is not a genuine interest. It is not, as Senator Murphy and that spinner of words, Senator McClelland, claim, a matter of high parliamentary principle. No high parliamentary principle is involved in this at all. What is involved in this is an outrageous political attempt to ensure that in the forthcoming election an independent senator from Tasmania, who will be beholden to the Australian Labor Party for his return to the Parliament, will be elected. That is the reason, Mr President, why this debate was transferred from another place to this place. It was transferred to this place for this specific political purpose.

Senator Ridley:

– That is as logical as Bugs Bunny.

Senator CORMACK:

– Senator Ridley can stand and argue about that. Part of this facet, part of this farrago of word spinning, was contributed by Senator Murphy who, unfortunately, ran out of gas a bit before 1 o’clock and laboured over the last 10 minutes while trying to fill in time. Part of the word spinning was done by Senator McClelland who could not produce facts. We are now involved in a repetitive process whereby a senator on this side of the chamber has to stand and make the facts quite clear. The re-equipping of this communications squadron was due to the fact - as has already been said - that every C47 or Dakota, whatever one calls them, was over 20 years of age. In other words, those aircraft have reached the end of their useful life. I understand from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is also the Minister for Supply, that these old C47s or Dakotas have been handed over to the Department of Supply which will be charged with the responsibility of getting rid of them. All I hope is that they are not got rid of to anybody who will operate them inside Australia because they are unsafe aircraft. lt is also clear that sometime in the middle 1950s the Government, because the Dakotas did not have the range and the necessary capacity, had to put into this communications squadron two additional aircraft. The Government purchased two Convair Metropolitans. They were the only effective aircraft available at that time to extend the range of the communications squadron. Those aircraft, of course, displayed some problems that are associated with all aircraft; that is, if the load is lightened and more fuel is put on board the range is increased; but if more fuel is added the passenger carrying capacity is reduced. The Convair Metropolitans have a relatively short range whereas in this country an aircraft with a range in the vicinity of 2,500 miles is required in order to get from Canberra to Western Australia, shall we say. The Convairs are nearly 10 years old and have come to the end of their life. In buying aircraft the Government had to consider various problems such as the size of Australia, short haul aircraft requirements and, finally, long range aircraft requirements.

In terms of a reasonable and rational analysis we required three separate types of aircraft to be introduced as new equipage into the communications squadron. That is why the Government, acting in accordance with the best technical advice available to it, purchased three Mystere aircraft. The Mystere is an eight to tenpassenger aircraft. It is very fast but has a short range. In addition, the Government purchased two Hawker Siddeleys and these phase in with Royal Australian Air Force equipage. Finally we come to the problem of the two BACH ls.

Earlier this afternoon Senator Scott made quite clear the reason for the introduction of the BACH ls into this fleet. It is true that they appear to be the aircraft orphans according to the Press, according to argument and according to this debate. Senator McClelland was one of the most vociferous advocates today in support of the purchase of DC9s, a ninety-passenger aircraft, instead of BACH ls. Senator Scott gave the clear answer to this suggestion. The capital of Australia is Canberra. The airport of this city is small relative to modern aircraft, and as Senator Scott stated, it is impossible to get a DC9, fully laden, out of Canberra. In hot weather, the load on the aircraft has to be reduced. The BACIII has a range of 2,500 miles. It can take the Prime Minister, officials or Ministers from Canberra to Western Australia - to Hamersley for example. This aircraft can take off from Canberra airport, fully loaded, and can be flown nonstop to such a destination.

Senator Tangney:

– How about taking Western Australian senators some time?

Senator CORMACK:

– Senator Tangney has introduced openly a matter that interests a substantial number of members of Parliament. The resentment against the communications squadron is not that the Ministers are using it but that members of Parliament are not being invited to use it. This is true. As the Prime Minister made quite clear, the BACIII is an aircraft capable of carrying the Prime Minister and his staff - the people who sometimes have to encipher the communications he has to handle, his private secretaries and stenographers and the people who handle his communications and intercommunications whilst the aircraft is in flight. It has to be capable of carrying a pretty substantial staff.

When the Convairs and the Viscounts are disposed of there will be seven aircraft in this communications squadron. To the best of my knowledge Canada, which is comparable in size with Australia although it has a population of some millions more, has a communications squadron of twenty or twenty-three aircraft. The United Kingdom, which is a small island and is no longer an imperial power, has a communications squadron of various sorts and components, mixed up in the various Command structures, of about twenty-two aircraft. France, which is not much larger than New South Wales, has a fleet of about twenty-three communications aircraft. Australia, when the surplus aircraft are sold, will have seven aircraft in its communications squadron.

Finally I want to deal with the argument that charter aircraft can more effectively, more efficiently and more economically perform the functions of a communications squadron. Let us consider the United States of America which operates on a slightly different system from that in Australia. Pan American Airways has what it describes as an executive fleet which is available for charter. Pan American, for its initial order of Mystere aircraft - these much despised’ and adversely commented upon Mysteres - ordered fifty-six as its first order from Dassault. Those aircraft are equivalent of the three that we have in our communications squadron. They are exactly the same model as the one that is in some -disrepute in this debate. Pan American not only placed an initial provisional order for fifty-six of these aircraft but also has ordered a further 100.

I think it could be readily understood that no charter airline operator could afford to have three Mystere aircraft sitting in its hangars and hoping that it would be able to charter them often enough on sufficiently satisfactory terms to enable them to be profitable. I do not think Ansett Transport Industries Ltd would have a bar of such an enterprise. I am quite sure Trans-Australia Airlines would not have a bar of it. In the absence of such a system as operates in the United States there was no course open to the Government but to purchase its own aircraft in order to provide for the communication needs of Australia.

I have involved myself in two levels of arguments: One level was to display a rational understanding of the problem that the Government encountered regarding the re-equipage of this communications squadron; the other level is, in the circum stances, equally as important, and that was to show that this debate is nothing more nor less than a political ramp manoeuvred by Senator Murphy in the interests of Senator Turnbull and in the interests of the Australian Labor Party for the forthcoming Senate election. I reject the proposition that Senator Murphy advocated earlier in the day.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– We have just had from Senator Cormack a replica of the stand taken by the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt), the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Henty), who is also Minister for Supply, and the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar). They have evaded completely the issue which is the subject matter cf this debate. The Government was requested to give information to the Senate and to the people of Australia on such matters as the maintenance costs and the running costs of these aircraft, and associated items that should be made available to the Parliament. In order to gain some information I have been studying the reports of the AuditorGeneral. I have found that he has been remiss in supplying scanty information to the Parliament. At page 162 of his report for 1965-66 the Auditor-General said:

In November 1965, the Government approved the purchase of new aircraft to replace the Dakota and Convair Metropolitan aircraft of No. 34 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force Base, Fairbairn. The approval also covered the purchase of associated support equipment and an initial range of spare parts to support one year’s operations. Types of aircraft and the current estimates of costs are -

Certain items of equipment, the cost of which is included in the estimates, are to be procured in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Expenditure during 196S-66 on the purchase of these aircraft amounted to $6,423,845. In addition, an amount of $136,068 was expended on the purchase of the two second-hand Viscount aircraft referred to in paragraph 202 of my Report for 1964-65. . . .

Senator Wright:

– All calculated to conceal the real purpose of the aircraft.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is the information that the Senate and the people of

Australia are trying to get. This Parliament is the only instrumentality available to the people to get this information for them. The Government and the Ministers, right up to the Prime Minister, have shown contempt. They are treating the Senate and the people of Australia with contempt by completely evading the issue. Senator Cormack referred to Senator McClelland as a word spinner, but he only attempted to repeat the evasions of other speakers in support of the Government. Although four or five honourable senators opposite have spoken in this debate, still no sign has been given that anything will be done to clear up the matter. Senator Cormack referred to word spinning, but all I heard from him was a mumbling of nothings in an ersatz Oxford accent which conveyed nothing to me. When he made his main points-

Senator Devitt:

– Which main points?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is it. He summed up his speech in two main points that actually meant nothing. He imputed that this matter has been raised only for political motives. He said that we were questioning the right to re-equip No. 34 Transport Squadron. We have every right to criticise the re-equipping of No. 34 Transport Squadron at the standard and expense that this country has been involved in. We of the Opposition believe that the VIP flight has become a very handsome and elegant status symbol and that the aircraft that have been procured, plus the minor ones, will become the foundation of a respectable little private airline - an international airline, for that matter. I can picture the Prime Minister and other Ministers arriving at Thailand and being met by a squadron of motor cyclists. I can see one BACIII arriving right on time with the VIPs and another one arriving with the baggage. That is really going all the way with LBJ. We saw a dummy run when LBJ arrived in this country. The Government is engaging in the same sort of attempt to impress the public and to win friends and influence people. Unfortunately it is taking place at a time when there is a call for economies and there is difficulty with our overseas balances.

Senator Murphy pointed out that at present we are borrowing from Germany marks of an amount equivalent to that necessary to pay for the fleet of VIP air craft. By simple arithmetic, at an interest rate of 5% it will cost $1.2m a year to pay the interest alone. There is no record of that in the Auditor-General’s report and we cannot find in the Budget papers any mention of where that amount is to be charged. Who is to pay the bill? After all, most other departments are required to give details of their expenditure right to the very smallest figure. The accounting systems of most other departments are most meticulous. The best equipped department to work out what the final costs will be is the electronic data processing section of the Royal Australian Air Force. It is far ahead of other departments. It has developed a very good programming technique in using very technical equipment. If it were given the job of calculating the costs that would be the simplest thing for it to compute. But evidently the Government is suffering from what I call the arrogance of numbers. It has been too long in office. That is the trouble with this Government. Government supporters have their feet, off the ground. They have gone into orbit, so to speak, in the matter of prestige. Ministers give their time and energy. They have a full time job. I admire the work of Ministers, who have an 80-hour week. But they are still Ken Anderson, Denham Henty and Dame Annabelle. They are not getting so far into the sky that they certainly cannot be as ordinary mortals and have to have this great fleet of aircraft. I believe that a lot of money is being wasted on prestige and status in the purchase of these very sophisticated aircra’ft.

The costs of running the VIP fleet have been combined in the defence vote for the last 20 years. We say the time has come for the Government to be forced by public opinion or by the Senate to divulge the figures relating to the VIP flight. After all, the figures are getting into a very high bracket. The interest amounts to over $lm a year, and 70% of $2 1.6m is to go for spares and other things, plus maintenance charges and whatever is associated with the running of a fleet of aircraft such as this. The time has come when the costs cannot be tucked away in a corner of the defence vote. They have to be separated. That is the purpose of this exercise in the Senate today. The Prime Minister has said in one of his statements on VIP aircraft that in the past Ministers have been inhibited in their use

Of such aircraft by fear of criticism. The criticism has come. I have never heard of them being inhibited, and the figures given by the Prime Minister do not reflect such a situation. He had over forty trips in 6 months and the Governor-General had a number. I would like to ask why the Prime Minister gave figures for only 6 months. Why could he not give the figures for 12 months, or for the past three years? He said that Ministers were inhibited by fear of criticism. They would have to do some powerful travelling to average more than two trips a week. Ministers have averaged a trip every 4 days or about two trips a week over the period, so they have not been inhibited. The criticism is only just starting. I do not know whether it will have any effect in reducing the opportunity for flights or whether Ministers think they can evade the criticism and can increase the number of trips. The Government has developed an arrogant attitude towards the Parliament and the people of this country.

This problem could have been solved very simply months ago. The ability to obtain the required figures must exist in the highly sophisticated Services of today. They must have the ability to cost all of their equipment and to find out minute details about their administration and personnel. Anything other than the highest level of efficiency would not be good enough. If that is the position in respect of their other activities, it could quite easily be the position in respect of this matter. Details connected with the VIP squadron could be separated from other matters. The Prime Minister said that he could not see any way of separating the costs of various activities and therefore the costs of the VIP squadron were charged to the defence vote.

When asked whether some method of accounting could be used to prevent the extravagant use of VIP aircraft, his reply was that in the long run the public interest is the responsibility of Ministers and ultimately of the Prime Minister himself. That is exactly the point that we are making. The explanation of the actions of members of the Government is that they are in the public interest. This debate has never reached the stage where the availability of aircraft for special occasions has been criticised. The evasion of questions and the economics of this squadron are matters of public interest. Members of the public are entitled to obtain information. I believe that honourable senators will persist in asking questions and using whatever forms of the Senate are necessary to have those questions answered. Someone has to jump up off his tail and bring up the answers. The business of the Senate is being interrupted. When we consider the hours that are being spent today and the time and cost involved in the printing of, and other things associated with, questions on the notice paper over a period of 6 months or more, we see that this has become quite a serious matter. It could be settled very simply. It should be settled forthwith.

I read an article that appeared in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 22nd August. It was written by Mr Hugh Armfield. He said that the Federal Government had decided that it would give full details of the cost of aircraft, spares and servicing facilities when the decision was made to buy new military aircraft. I do not know where he obtained his information. But if these details will be available when we buy new military aircraft, why are they not available now? The Mysteres are in use and the BACH ls are coming into use. As Mr Armfield pointed out and as has been mentioned in this debate today, we know the flyaway cost of these aircraft. We know what it costs in actual cash to buy the aircraft. But the other incidental charges are the expensive items. The Minister for Air (Mr Howson) has stated that the incidental costs run to about 70% of the cost of the aircraft. Seventy per cent of $21. 6m is about $15m. So this is a very important item.

I believe that there was a bungle in the estimating of the cost of these aircraft and that it has been covered up. I do not think the Ministers who made this decision would have been able to sell this idea to the other Ministers or to the Parliamentary Liberal and Country Parties had it been known that the prices of these aircraft would sky rocket. In 1965, at an estimated cost of $11.4m, perhaps it was reasonable to replace the VIP flight. By the sale of the Convairs and Dakotas the Government might have been able to amortise the expenditure. But the increase in the cost of these aircraft has been on “a scale equivalent to that in the cost of the Fill aircraft. It has increased from $11.4m to $21. 6m. It has almost doubled.

The Minister said that he did not intend to keep the costs of these aircraft secret. They have been divulged. They are public property. I suppose they would have been ascertainable from other sources. But there has been secrecy in that information has not been revealed to the Parliament in the appropriate form during the Estimates debates, when the accounts are presented for consideration by the auditors of the country and to be passed for payment, as in any ordinary business. This is the only section of the Budget in which it is obvious that that practice has not been followed. Therefore members of the Government have to accept the responsibility for the criticism that they have brought on their own heads.

In the course of this debate the Government will have learnt that a watchful eye must be kept on the privilege list as it expands. These matters have a tendency to become wider and wider. A few more people are added to the list from time to time. For instance, Senator Cormack and other honourable senators have implied today that senators arc jealous of a member of the House of Representatives who can travel in a VIP aircraft because he represents a specific electorate whereas a senator represents a whole State and therefore is not eligible to travel in a VIP aircraft.

Senator Wood:

– It shows his stupid mind, if he thinks like that.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is what Senator Cormack implied. Perhaps the fact that senators are excluded is good because it does not compromise them. Because they are not participants, they can view the scene from a distance. People often see things more clearly and in perspective when they stand back and are not involved in those things. When one is compromised his position is delicate. One of the great things about Australian parliamentary life is that members arc not compromised too much in business or other affairs and they can devote their parliamentary work exclusively to the good of the country. When one is compromised in relation to a certain issue, one becomes part of it and cannot disengage oneself. Here in the Senate we can disengage ourselves from issues. Minis ters are entitled to their transport facilities. But other honourable senators who are not compromised can come into the chamber and speak their minds. That is one of the great things about this chamber.

I believe that it is very important that we pursue this matter. It is obviously one to which we should apply ourselves. I mentioned before the prestige and status seeking that is going on in the world today. It is going on not just here in Australia. There seem to be competitions in many countries in which people try to outdo each other and try to show how sophisticated they are. When I was in South East Asia I was surprised by the amount of disturbance to ordinary public life that visitors can cause. I saw a host of motor cycles driving through crowds of people like the bow of a boat ploughing through waves. People going about their ordinary business, jogging along with balancing sticks across their shoulders, parted into the throngs on the side of the road because if they did not do that they would be knocked over.

Senator Hannaford:

– It started in Germany.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is right. There was the image of the Fuehrer and everything had to move aside for him and his VIPs. I do not like to see humanbeings being pushed aside like that. These people all had their little jobs of work to do, but they had to be disturbed because some visitors to their country wanted to drive along the road. I believe that this VIP treatment is being overdone when it requires the clearing of the roads and a host of police officers, who could be engaged on traffic control work, turning a drive along a road into a sideshow with their bright, shiny motor cycles.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. (General business taking precedence of Government business)

page 1235

QUESTION

GENERAL BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Murphy) - by leave - proposed:

That consideration of intervening General Business be postponed until after the further consideration of the motion to take note of the statement on VIP aircraft and Notice of Motion No. 7. General Business.

Senator SCOTT:
Western Australia

– Do I understand from the Leader of the

Opposition (Senator Murphy) that the motion relates to two subjects, the continuation of the debate and Notice of Motion No. 7, or does it mean that we go on with the debate as it was proceeding before the suspension of the sitting and after that is completed proceed to Notice of Motion No. 7?

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– The intention is that we proceed with the motion that has been under consideration by the Senate today and if that debate finishes before the Senate adjourns we then go on, as was agreed between the Government and the Opposition, with the motion under General Business of which notice has been given, which is Notice of Motion No. 7, for the tabling of certain accounts and papers concerning VIP aircraft.

page 1236

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VIP FLIGHT

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed (vide page 1235).

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– When the sitting was suspended I had been trying to make the main point of my argument that the Government and even the Auditor-General had not given information which the Senate and the people of Australia were seeking. It has long been a tradition in the parliament of this Commonwealth that when a matter such as this comes up for consideration there is no effort to conceal, and obviously to conceal, the costs. I do not like to see this precedent created. I believe that if out of this debate comes an open policy of giving to the Senate the figures that it requires, it will be worthwhile. There is obviously, as Government supporters have contended and as we realise, nothing fundamentally wrong with the whole of this fleet from the point of view of abuse. I think the Senate generally agrees that these facilities have to be provided. There is, perhaps, contention about the standard of the fleet and whether we should try to compete with other countries or to exceed the standards that this country can afford.

The principle that I am putting is that we should be able to obtain all of the information that is available on a matter of expenditure of public funds. For the Senate to pursue the matter in this case is, I believe, warranted and in accordance with a long established tradition in this parliament. Comparisons have been made of the standards of the VIP flight of No. 34 Squadron. It seems perhaps a bit elaborate to have two flagships in the fleet and that, as Senator Murphy said, we not only keep up with the Joneses but also try to keep up with the Johnsons. The BACH ls are very sophisticated aircraft.

Senator Branson:

– On a point of order, Mr President, I ask for your guidance and a ruling in respect of this- debate which is, I gather, on a motion for the tabling of the papers.

The PRESIDENT:

– No. The motion is that the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I believe that it is implicit in the whole question that we should be able to keep a check on expenditure on matters of this nature when a large amount of money is involved. The general public has been asked to accept the Government’s view that we must economise in the domestic field, that there are tremendous responsibilities on the Government’s shoulders in relation to the war in Vietnam, building up our defence forces, proceeding with national development, meeting crises that face us in so many fields, including education, and the justifiable demands of people who are dependent on social service payments for a fair share of the national income. A comparison has been made of the standard of our VIP aircraft- of the BACIII with all of its luxurious appointments - and the Hercules transport aircraft that are bringing wounded troops back from Vietnam. The Hercules is a noisy aircraft. It is expected that the wounded will wear earphones through which they will hear music on their way back to Australia. To the public at large it is quite justifiable that this comparison be made.

We believe that the first priority should be given to the area where it is most effective. If the Government has a sophisticated VIP transport fleet, the contrast between that fleet and the transport provided for our wounded soldiers should not be so great. There should not be any complaints about the standard of transport for our troops. As an argument for the selection of this particular fleet it was stated that the aircraft were capable of landing in Canberra with its limited airstrip facilities. This

Is the national capital and as a matter of priority an airstrip capable of taking any of the large international airliners should be provided in Canberra. In the ‘Sun’ of 23rd August 1967 Mr Fairhall is reported as having said that Boeing 707s could not operate from the airport near the hospital base at Bung Tau so their use would require the transfer of passengers at Saigon. He admitted that the C130E, the Hercules, was noisy and that improvements were being sought. Officials said at the time that the development of a pre-fabricated lined unit to fit into the Hercules was being investigated.

I mention this matter in order to show the difference between the matter of the Hercules and the approach to the highest level of sophistication in transport for our VIPs - the very important people. After all, the VIPs are our fellow men. They are greatly honoured by being selected to represent the people of Australia in this Parliament. But I do not think that the VIPs should allow this selection to go too much to their heads. I think they still ought to have the measure of humility which the Australian expects. All honourable senators know about the Australian characteristic. Australians are prone to regard the criticism of members of Parliament as a national sport. It has been an old Australian custom - I was going to say an old Spanish custom - and it is the responsibility of members of Parliament to try to restrict this criticism or to confine justifiable criticism to as narrow a field as possible.

I think it is right that the people whom we represent should have some type of rein on their representatives. Prestige, privilege and status seeking are involved in this very expensive fleet of aircraft. All those matters have arisen in this debate. In this Senate particularly we should be helping to maintain between the public and the Parliament the bridge which has existed for so long. Honourable senators should have ready access to accounts and details of the expenditure of public funds. That is the simple essence of the demand being made on the Government today: That it present an account of its economic stewardship in respect of the VIP aircraft. It is as simple as that. The Government has assured us that it can produce the figures and justify the expenditure. It is up to the Government to produce these details. Honourable senators on the Government side say that it is too difficult to sort out the details but they should apply themselves to the task in order to overcome the difficulty. Difficult problems take quite a time to solve and the impossible ones take a bit longer. If the Government feels that this is an impossible task it should spend some time on the job, do the necessary homework and then produce the figures to the Senate.

A strong argument has been put forward that the VIP fleet could be run by the private airlines in Australia - by one or, if necessary, by both. It was good enough for the President of Italy, a man of international stature, to hire an aircraft in order to travel about the country. I do not think it would be degrading for, or beneath the dignity of, our own Ministers to avail themselves of the same facilities. Mention has been made of spare parts and the like which are so expensive for these aircraft. The costs have been hidden from us. But such costs could be absorbed in a wider field - in the bigger fleets owned by the private airlines. I think some thought could be given to the private fleet being run by TransAustralia Airlines. I put this matter forward for consideration by the Senate.

Qantas Airways Ltd and the Department of Civil Aviation needed a similar type of aircraft to those in our VIP fleet but they purchased the British HS125. The performance of this aircraft is only slightly different from that of the very sophisticated aircraft that we have in the VIP fleet yet those concerns saved $150,000 on each of the lower priced aircraft that they bought.

These are matters that do, and should, occupy the minds of the people throughout Australia. There is no doubt that the Australian people are being asked to make sacrifices. I refer to people on fixed incomes; people such as retired bank managers who thought earlier in life that they were providing security for themselves and their wives in their retirement because they paid into superannuation funds or invested their savings. Now they find that the value of their savings and investments is diminishing because of the continuing inflationary process. They are now looking for value for their money. They are even looking for a supplement to their income. If this is happening to such people, how much more is it happening to those relying entirely on what is now almost a pittance? Any honourable senator who does the shopping as part of his family responsibilities realises how the cost of living is galloping ahead. We just have to look at the inflated prices of the ordinary commodities like milk, meat, bread and other everyday necessaries. They have become inflated over a short period, even since the introduction of the dollar currency. Incidentally, I think we were sold a pup over dollar currency. If the people to whom I refer have to make a sacrifice, it should be shared. They would not be able to indulge in the popular pastime of criticising parliamentarians if parliamentarians were fair dinkum and gave the answers.

The simple question being asked of the Government tonight in this Senate is that it come clean; that it put the papers on the table and show where these costs were incurred. If difficulties arose in compiling the costs the Government could allow for contingencies. It could say that it could not differentiate between a case of an Army General which cost $75, a case of an Air Vice-Marshal which cost $66 and a case involving a Rear-Admiral which cost $82. In selecting those figures I gave the Navy seniority as is its due. Even allowing for differentials the Government could present the figures to the Senate. If it did so the public would understand that whatever had been spent on the VIP fleet could be justified. Whatever the claim by the Opposition may be, the public is entitled to have the truth about matters of public importance and interest.

I support the opposition to the Government’s refusal to do so. I hope the Government will realise that it is under scrutiny. A searchlight is on the Government. The simple remedy is to assure the Senate that this matter will be completely cleared. The Government should show that it has nothing to hide; that it has only taken this attitude because of advice that there would be difficulty in sorting out these matters. I think that the Government, if it took this course, would not only do itself a lot of good but also add to the prestige of the Parliament of this country. The Government should do everything possible at every opportunity to enhance the prestige of the “Parliament.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– The motion before us is that the Senate take note of the paper relating to the VIP Squadron, although one would hardly realise it from listening to the contributions made today to this debate. It has been an extraordinary debate. It has become increasingly apparent throughout the day that it is an election campaign debate, aimed at the Senate election to be held on 25th November.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We have heard that before.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The truth can always bear repetition. I propose to refer in a very gentle way to some of the elements of this debate. My inclination at the outset was not to take part in the debate, but since I have travelled in VIP aircraft to a limited extent I believe I have a responsibility at least to stand up to be counted. Throughout the debate there has been a clear pattern of jumping on the bandwagon. It is the story all over again of the debates on the increased postal charges. The Opposition got to the point of discovering that somebody on the cross benches was making progress, or attempting to make progress in a certain debate. The Opposition then decided that it should attempt to seize the initiative and take it away from the cross benches. The pattern has been very evident to people listening to the debate.

As long ago as March Senator Turnbull set about making inquiries through questions and follow up questions about what he chooses to term VIP aircraft. The Opposition formed the view that the honourable senator may well have been getting publicity that the Opposition did not appear to be getting. It attempted to take the initiative away from Senator Turnbull. It was late September before the Opposition moved in. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) has given notice of a motion he proposes to move. In fact, his motion takes all the substance out of the questions of Senator Turnbull, which still appear on the notice paper. It is a political device. We live in a political world. This move by the Opposition is what is known as political bower-birding.

The approach and presentation of the Opposition in this debate have had all the elements of political campaigning. Indeed, the corridors are ringing with stories that the Opposition in another place will not take any further the debate there on VIP aircraft. The Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) brought a clear light to bear on this subject in another place. Yesterday he made a clear statement. Here in the Senate an attempt is made to swing it along in a pre-election climate. The Hansard report when it comes out tomorrow will show that all honourable senators opposite who have spoken in this debate have backed away from a straight out repudiation of the principle of having No. 34 Transport Squadron. This again is politics, I suppose. We would have had much more respect for honourable senators opposite if they had said: ‘We do not believe in it and we will do without it’. They have not done that. They started off by saying: ‘We think it is all right for certain people in certain categories to travel in VIP aircraft’. Then they brought up every conceivable argument to suggest why the VIP flight should not bc in existence. This is politics at its worst. It is politics which in my view lacks the force of sincerity. For that reason I think the Opposition has failed in its presentation.

I want now to deal with some of the comments that have been made in this debate. It should be remembered that there is nothing new in having a special squadron such as No. 34 Transport Squadron, or the VIP flight if you prefer to call it by that name. The principle existed during the life of the Chifley Government. As Senator Cormack pointed out this afternoon a series of questions was asked by a member of the then Opposition, from this side of politics. Those questions were identical to the questions being asked today and they were asked in almost identical circumstances.

Senator Kennelly:

– Did the Minister say that Senator Cormack gave the answers?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I did not say that. I said that he indicated that the same types of questions as are being asked today were asked during the life of the Chifley Government. A special squadron such as No. 34 Transport Squadron is not a new concept at all. We move to the next stage - the replacement of the aircraft in No. 34 Transport Squadron. The argument has been used in a vague sort of way that the money spent on replacement aircraft should have been better spent. Who will suggest that the aircraft did not need to be replaced? They are Dakotas with almost 20 years of life and Convairs with between 10 and 12 years of life. Among the replacement aircraft are Mysteres. Senator O’Byrne is one of those who referred to them as luxury aircraft. I have travelled in a Mystere and to call it a luxury aircraft is just sheer extravagance. I want to warn any person who thinks that a tall person can even sit comfortably in a Mystere aircraft that he is due for a rude awakening. Some honourable senators may have travelled to New Guinea in the old DC3 aircraft in which one had to sit sideways. There are similar seat provisions in the Mystere aircraft.

The Mystere is a small plane. It is very fast and very effective. For that reason it is very suitable for the work for which it has been purchased - for inter-city flights and flights of that nature. I do not think anybody could fairly argue that they are not suitable for the purpose for which they have been purchased and to call them luxury aircraft is absolute nonsense. They are not. I imagine that a person of the build of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) would suffer some discomfort in them. Any of the tall members of the Ministry who travel in them will suffer discomfort because they are very small aircraft.

At the outset the Opposition said that it did not dispute the principle of the establishment of this Squadron. Then honourable senators opposite used all the arguments contrary to that view. They even produced the argument that we should not have spent the money on purchasing the replacement aircraft because it could have been used for other things - for example, for Hercules aircraft to bring servicemen back from foreign service, stretcher cases and the like, lt is a very weak argument because the Hercules is a very big aircraft designed to do a particular job. The health people in the armed Services have said that for the type of work that the Hercules is doing it is indeed a suitable type of aircraft. The alternative would be to charter aircraft. 1 can imagine that all sorts of problems would emerge if an aircraft chartered for a short term had to have all the interior altered to make it suitable to carry stretcher cases.

I mention in passing, although 1 do not suppose it is relevant, that after the accident in which we were involved I had the experience of bringing my wife and my private secretary back from Perth on an aircraft in which some of the seats had to be pulled out to make room for stretchers for my wife and my private secretary. If that sort of thing were done on Boeings and that sort of aircraft, they certainly would be nowhere near as comfortable as the big Hercules transport aircraft which are specially fitted out to carry patients. I thought that argument was a bit off beat.

Another argument that has been used is that these VIP aircraft will cost $21.5m and that sum of money would provide child endowment at the rate of 50c per child. That is a puerile argument. People who use it might just as well pick on some other item and say that if money was not spent on it more money could be distributed from the National Welfare Fund. We could do away with the Hansard reporters and provide more money for people who receive benefits from the National Welfare Fund. Such an argument does not stand up in an economic sense. In all matters of government, the Government has to make a determination on what field it will enter and then it has to budget for that. It is puerile to choose a particular item in the Budget and say that if money was not spent on it something could be done in some other field.

Senator Keeffe:

– Is it the Hansard report of today’s proceedings that the Minister wants to do away with?

Senator ANDERSON:

– That may be. There is always a smark alec in every community. I suppose we have to live with smart alecs in the Senate in the same way as we have to live with them in the community. Being a tolerant man, I can appreciate a little story. Let me come back to my point. The argument that if this $2 1.5m were not spent on these aircraft we would be able to spend it on something else brings me back to where I started. It is another way of members of the Opposition saying that they do not believe in the fundamental principle of having VIP aircraft. They shy away from that proposition. They start off by saying: ‘We do not disagree with the proposition; we think it is all right for the Prime Minister and other people to use VIP aircraft’; but then they produce the argument that if the Government did not spend this money on these aircraft it could increase child endowment by 50c. Is not that another way of saying: We do not want these aircraft at all. We would rather increase child endowment by 50c’? It is a politically ill informed argument that I find great difficulty in comprehending.

We are not living in the horse and buggy days. We are living in a world in which Australia has become an important nation. I do not have to tell even Senator Keeffe his geography. He knows that Australia is a big country. A big country such as Australia, with the development that is taking place, cannot be administered without the use of fast aircraft to enable people to go from place to place quickly. After all, the Commonwealth Government is managing the biggest business in this country. It is managing the country. Members of the Government have to be able to move quickly from place to place. The suggestion that there is a great advantage to the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government in having these aircraft is complete nonsense. They only make the task of a Minister a jolly sight harder.

I remember that in the olden days, before aircraft were used, if a member of Parliament was asked to speak in one part of his electorate he could say: T am sorry. I cannot attend a meeting there because I have to be at the other end of my electorate and it would take me 3 or 4 days to go from there to the meeting’. I suppose that still happens in some electorates because of the lack of commercial air services. It is easy for someone to say: T cannot be there because I have to be somewhere else’. But with the advent of aircraft, especially VIP aircraft, there is a greater ability to go from place to place. Most parliamentarians are conscientious. With the aid of VIP aircraft they can go to places that they could not go to before and do things that they could not do before. I have found that this makes the task of government and the physical task of a Minister even more arduous than they were previously.

I have travelled in VIP aircraft a few times, although not many times. I have been able to represent the Commonwealth of Australia and the Prime Minister by taking an aircraft from Canberra to Sydney in order to attend a function, and then have been able to come back to fulfil my duties in the Senate. That would not have been possible if only ordinary commercial aircraft were available. As Minister for Customs and Excise, accompanied by my staff I have been able to visit customs establishments in Western Australia and to be on the road for a week. Even if I had the time I could not have done that other than by using the VIP Squadron. It would have taken a month or so. Obviously a Minister would not have that time available. I have been able to take with me my own staff and a very senior member of the Department of Customs and Excise in the person of the Assistant Comptroller-General on the general side. I have been able to visit places such as Port Hedland, Dampier, Barrow Island, Broome, Darwin and Groote Eylandt. Having my officers with me, I have been able to discuss problems that have emerged in relation to my Department and decisions that have had to be made.

I say quite frankly to the Senate that had I not been able to obtain approval to use VIP aircraft it would not have been possible for rae to do those things. I would not have been able to afford the time and I would not have been able to take a very senior officer of the Department from Canberra. We would not have been able to look at the different situations that we looked at. We looked at the setting up of a new customs establishment at Dampier. I was able to make a charter flight from Dampier to Barrow Island in order to look at things there. As Minister for Customs and Excise, I have responsibilities in relation to the handling of crude oil. I was able to talk to my own officers who had never before met a Minister for Customs and Excise. I was able to talk to subcollectors at Port Hedland, Broome and other place and to come to grips with their thoughts and their problems. I was also able to take with me my staff who were stationed in Darwin when, accompanied by the Administrator of the Northern Territory, I visited Groote Eylandt and Gove. At the moment the department is dealing with problems associated with ships that will berth there and the clearance of passengers through customs.

I am only a very junior Minister, but I administer a department which has officers all over Australia. Unless the Government had VIP aircraft available, which could be called upon in particular circumstances, I would not have been able to make the trip that 1 have just mentioned. I have no inhibitions about using VIP aircraft, and I am sure that in his own heart no honourable senator would have inhibitions about it I deplore the quite apparent political approach to this debate. We must grow up and realise that good government demands that those people who have responsibility should be able to move quickly to a place and return quickly from it.

The use of charter aircraft has been suggested. Having regard to the enormous size of the continent and our population, charter aircraft would not be a practicable solution to the problem. On occasions 1 have used charter aircraft. There is always a great degree of delay in getting charter aircraft into position. Also it is questionable whether the type of charter aircraft available in Australia would bc able to cover the distances that would need to be covered. I used charter aircraft to go from the Dampier area to Barrow Island and from Brisbane to Moonie. 1 have used a small charter aircraft to go from Canberra to Sydney. To argue that charter aircraft would be a practicable proposition is to think small and to look at the problem in a small way. As the Prime Minister very properly pointed out yesterday, the passengers carried in these VIP aircraft will include visiting members of the Royal Family who from time to time will have to be flown across the continent, and Heads of State who come to Australia. Is it suggested that the Heads of State should be transported by charter aircraft? That suggestion is unrealistic.

– It is what the honourable senator has not done, because he should explain to the people that there is a need for this service. The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that in its consideration of this particular problem of the assessment as to where the cost for this squadron should lie, the Public Accounts Committee recognised-

Senator Wright:

– Did you say the Public Accounts Committee has taken this flight into consideration?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I ask the honourable senator not to use his legal tactics on me. I am merely saying that the Prime Minister indicated that it is the view of the Public Accounts Committee that the question of assessment as to where the proportion of the cost for this squadron should lie is a very difficult one to determine. He also indicated that if there were some proposition put to indicate that some Government department - he thought that no doubt the Treasury Department would be the most likely one - could apportion the cost of No. 34 Squadron between the various departments, he was prepared to have a look at the suggestion. I think that was a reasonable and sensible approach to take.

Having said ail that, I merely want to repeat that I as a junior Minister have, on a limited number of occasions, used the flight. I have done it in order to meet the responsibilities I have as a Minister. To me it would seem necessary in the interests of good government that this should be done in certain circumstances and for that reason, although at the moment we are only taking note of the paper, and because of the nature of the debate, I find myself in disagreement with the arguments that have been put forward by the Opposition.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– 1 hope that I can contribute something constructive to the debate. There has been a tendency for it to develop into a type of mud slinging and an attempt to seek political gain.

Senator Dittmer:

– Not on this side of the chamber.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am making no accusations against any individual, especially the interjector, who has not as yet had the opportunity to exercise his powers in whatever way he desires in this debate. Let me say at the outset that 1 am no paragon of virtue. 1 am not opposed to anyone using his position to gain political advantage if he so desires. That is not contrary to my beliefs, although I do feel that a debater gains more by saying something constructive than he gains by seeking a temporary political advantage.

Honourable senators on the Government side have suggested various reasons for the initiation of this debate by the Opposition.

They cannot agree upon any common denominator for its initiation. They have suggested that it is because of a debate that is taking place in the other House with respect to Hong Kong. It was also suggested that it was launched in an attempt to ensure that Senator Turnbull was returned as the fifth senator for Tasmania in the coming election. The Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) has just suggested that it was initiated because of the forthcoming Senate election.

The Labor Party has nothing to hide in connection with Hong Kong. We would welcome an opportunity to debate that matter in this place. As to the Senate elections, the Australian Labor Party hopes and believes that it will emerge from the elections with three Labor senators for Tasmania. We also believe that Senator Turnbull cannot win one of the remaining two seats. We do hot think he will be returned, but we would welcome his return if we secured three of the scats, thus reducing the number of government senators for Tasmania.

It is admitted that the abuse of a privilege is something which causes grave public concern. If we can establish that there is abuse of privilege in the use of these VIP aircraft, then obviously it will be to the advantage of the Opposition in the forthcoming elections. On the other hand, if it is proved that our allegations and the propaganda we might seek to use are groundless, then obviously we will lose as a result of the debate.

My interest in VIP aircraft was aroused for the first time last Tuesday. When I entered this chamber I was not interested in the use or misuse of VIP aircraft, but the series of questions that Senator Turnbull was asking indicated clearly to me that the Government was seeking to hide something. Further, a delay for as long as from last April in furnishing answers to simple questions on VIP aircraft is not consistent with the usual practice of the Minister for Air (Mr Howson) in another place, and this leads me to believe that there is some power higher up that does not want to make public the information we are seeking on the operation of these VIP aircraft. Eventually we reached the stage where the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) tabled notice of a motion seeking certain information.

– I cannot see how we can show why the Government is not doing it if we cannot refer to how we differ. What is sought in the notice of motion given by Senator Murphy is not answered in detail by the statement hurriedly prepared and presented to the Parliament by the Prime Minister as justification for the action of the Government. Nor does that statement provide us with the opportunity for any inquiry.

Regarding the whole question of VIP aircraft, if there was any doubt as to whether they are justified, I do not think that there is any doubt any longer, in view of the statement delivered by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister quite rightly associates the use of VIP aircraft with the great figures who have arrived from overseas and who have used them from time to time. It is essential to have some form of air transport for the purpose of conducting tours for overseas visitors be they heads of states or ministers. On the home front the question arises as to the use of VIP aircraft by senior ministers or junior ministers. We must be convinced from the statement made by Senator Anderson that for the first time he, as Minister for Customs and Excise, can now visit some customs offices and that such visits would not. have been possible without these aircraft.

The stage has been reached now where we all agree that there should be efficient, modern and fast air transport for distinguished visitors and those persons in Government or in Opposition who in the past have used these services. No question or argument arises as to the need for such aircraft or for such a convenient and fast method of travel between one point and another. Therefore, the infantile speech made by Senator Anderson - who told us all to grow up - was in defence of a proposition which was never attacked. No disagreement exists between the parties on this point. It is agreed that there should be this modern transport.

The Government is responsible for the use that is made of the public purse. We, as members of this Parliament, are responsible for the custodianship of the affairs of the Commonwealth and have a responsibility to ensure that we are supplying the required services at the cheapest cost and by the most efficient methods. We, as the Opposition, have the right to challenge the Government regarding these matters. Firstly, the use of VIP aircraft must be subject to public audit and public scrutiny.

I have been prevented from referring to and answering the questions contained in the notice of motion. But let us see how these questions have arisen. As has been stated already, on 5th April of this year Senator Turnbull placed on the notice paper a question directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Air, Mr Howson. The responsible Minister here is the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar). Senator Turnbull asked:

How many applications were received by the Minister for Air for the use of VIP aircraft for the period 9 March 1967 to 4 April 1967?

That is a very short period. Senator Turnbull’s question continued:

For each application -
1. who were the applicants;
2. at which airport did they embark;
3. what were their ports of call;
4. at which airport was the VIP aircraft stationed at the time of application;
5. how many passengers were carried; and
6. how many crew members were on each flight?

Obviously, the question could be answered easily. It has been on the notice paper since 5th April and no answer has been forthcoming. The answer could have completely exonerated the Government of any allegation of abuse in connection with the use of the aircraft. The Government could have answered the question if it had a clean slate. But must not someone become suspicious that there is some truth in the allegations when the answer was not readily available and when, if everything was fair and above board, an answer would exonerate the Government in respect of any accusations at that time of improper use of the VIP aircraft. But an answer has not been given.

– I do not know how many there were. I do not wish to condemn that government. I only remind the Senate that questions were asked by Mr White, the then Liberal member for Balaclava, of Mr Drakeford, the Minister for Air, relating to Mr Drakeford’s use of an RAAF plane. Mr White asked: What was the cost of Mr Drakeford’s visit to Tasmania? What plane was used? How much petrol was consumed? Were our dollar reserves depleted by reason of the trip? How many crew members were involved? How many passengers made the trip? Senator Cormack said that questions along the same lines were being asked in the Senate today.

When the Liberal Party is in opposition it seeks to find abuses of privilege for political propaganda purposes. On the occasion to which I have referred the Labor Government gave a complete reply to Mr White’s questions even to the extent of stating how much petrol was used, what the flight cost and so on. It exonerated itself completely by justifying the use of the plane. We cannot say definitely that the Liberal-Country Party Government has abused its privilege in relation to the use of aircraft. All that we can say is that the Government is secretive. It is simply ridiculous for the Government to say that it can not tell what a particular flight cost. That kind of explanation will not be accepted by anyone. The cost of each air mile travelled by each plane can be assessed, if there was nothing to hide, the questions on the notice paper would have been answered.

The Prime Minister’s statement and the motion that the Senate take note of it will not exonerate the Government or save it from having to answer the questions which have been asked by honourable senators. I am sure that I would have the support of Senator Turnbull if every evening, on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate, I asked why answers had not been given to the questions on the notice paper. The Prime Minister’s statement justifying the use of the planes is no reply.

There was a suggestion that aircraft be chartered as an alternative to using the VIP flight. Senator Anderson said that he did not think that would be practicable. If that is so, surely the Government must be able to demonstrate that it is more desirable to have our private fleet of aircraft than to use the cheaper method of flying by charter aircraft. How can we, as persons responsible for the public purse, decide that the best method of investment in planes is to have a VIP fleet when we do not know what it is costing us to operate them and when we cannot compare that cost with the cost of chartering suitable aircraft?

There is another point which must be remembered. Costly aircraft must be kept in operation to return the value of the investment. For this reason commercial and even privately owned aircraft are used as much as possible. We have been told that the Government is disposing of aircraft that are 20 years old, but we have not been told how many air miles those aircraft have flown and whether the engines are old or obsolete by virtue of the air miles travelled. I am informed that aircraft will deteriorate quicker in idleness than they will in flight. That is the reason they are kept flying. Senator McClelland has told us that it was necessary for the pilot of the Prime Minister’s plane to fly to New Guinea without any VIPs aboard for the sole purpose of keeping up his flying hours to retain his licence. That is what is happening with these aircraft. Would it be too difficult to add the cost of that flight to the cost of flying the

Prime Minister to north Queensland or somewhere else so that we could ascertain whether it would be cheaper to use a charter aircraft?

If we must have a fleet of aircraft perhaps we could manage with fewer than we have now and give that fewer number more frequent use. The suggestion was made to me that the aircraft could be used to bring members from various States to Canberra for the parliamentary sittings and return them home at the weekend. It was stated that this would be cheaper than for members to use commercial airlines, and the planes would be available most of the time for VIPs. These are all questions that we, as elected representatives of the people, have a duty to resolve. But how can we resolve them unless we have the information we are seeking in our questions?

As I stated last Tuesday, my interest in this matter was aroused because it became obvious that the Government was endeavouring to hide something. The attempt that has been made to debate the Prime Minister’s statement today makes it even more obvious that the Government has something to hide. We have not been told what cost would have been involved had alternative means of transport been used instead of the VIP aircraft, to what extent the planes are being used or whether they are being used to full capacity. No-one on the Government side has attempted to meet the criticism that has been directed at the use of the VIP fleet. All that we have been told is that we must have these planes and that everyone agrees that there must be a number of them.

As I have said, my interest was attracted to this matter last Tuesday for two reasons; firstly, because I felt that I had a responsibility to try to make the Government’s secret public and, secondly, because when the Government has something to hide there is a tendency to ignore the Senate and questions asked by honourable senators. It will be recalled that on Tuesday 26th September Senator Turnbull directed a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Air relating to catering on VIP aircraft. He said:

I am always hopeful. I ask: ls the catering on VIP aircraft carried out by the Royal Australian Air Force? In view of the fact that an unlimited variety of food and alcohol is available on VIP planes, I ask whether the expense is charged to the Prime Minister’s Department or to our war 1 effort through the defence vote. j

I should have thought it would have been easy to say who was paying for the pies and sausage rolls that were eaten while the plane was flying over the Snowy Mountains. The Minister replied:

I can answer only one aspect of the honourable senator’s question - that is the aspect regarding the food and alcohol. To that I can certainly give the answer no.

I do not know what ‘No’ means in that context.

Senator McKellar:

– It means the opposite of ‘Yes’.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The question is whether the expenditure is charged to the war effort or to the Prime Minister’s Department and the answer is no. Obviously that is an answer without meaning. We have the enlightenment by the Minister tonight that it means the opposite of ‘Yes’. What ‘Yes’ would have meant in that context, we still do not know. The Minister went on:

In regard to the other queries raised by the honourable senator, if he will place his question on the notice paper I will see whether the Minister for Air is prepared to give him an answer.

Here we are to rely on whether the Minister for Air is prepared to give an answer, ls this not in itself worthy of the condemnation of the whole of the Senate? Have we not an entitlement to this information? Why is there some doubt about whether the Minister for Air will give an answer? Why should the question be placed on the notice paper, where a similar question was placed last April, to which the Minister has not been prepared to give an answer.

Then Senator M’cManus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air a question in relation to questions asked by Senator Turnbull. Senator McManus said:

Is it not an insult to the authority of the Parliament that a senator requesting information in regard to VIP aircraft should obviously be refused an answer?

The Minister replied:

The question … is: ls it not an insult that these questions should not be answered? That is a matter that is outside my province and I. cannot help him in regard to it.

There was no apology; it was not an insult. One can imagine the hostility that this created amongst those who were not so much interested in VIP aircraft by this attitude that we would get no information, that the Government would treat our questions with contempt and that we could do what we liked about it. This prompted Senator Murphy to ask a question, to which the Minister replied:

This is a matter that is entirely within the province of the Minister for Air. I have taken the steps that I take normally when questions arc asked of me as representing another Minister, that is, to pass these questions on to the Minister concerned and give him an opportunity to provide answers. I cannot do more than this and those are the steps I took in regard to these questions.

I do not doubt that the Minister faithfully did pass them on, but are we to be treated in this way, with the Minister saying in effect: ‘I passed them on. Whether he replies has nothing to do with me’? I, in all my innocence, asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether I could get some information as to the department to which the cost of food and drink supplied on VIP aircraft was charged, in order to assist in the debate on the Estimates. He replied:

To assist in the debate on the Estimates, as soon asI get the informationI shall let the honourable senator know the answer to the question that he asks.I trust that this will be in time for consideration when we are dealing with the appropriation for the relevant department.

If we are conscientiously to discuss the Estimates, we must know the answer to this question. The Leader of the Government says that he will endeavour to get it. If we have not the information for the purpose of discussing the proposed appropriations for either the Prime Minister’s Department or the Department of Air, we should adjourn the Estimates debate until such time as we get the information, so we will know what expenditures we are considering and where provision is made for the pies and sausage rolls that are being eaten.

Later last Tuesday Senator McManus insisted on some information and Senator McKellar replied:

I repeat that I am not in a position to answer that question, but 1 draw the attention of the honourable senator to the fact that VIP aircraft are available to the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition and are freely availed of. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to hide in the use of VIP aircraft. If the honourable senator cares to put his question on the notice paper, no doubt whatever information is available will be made available to him.

There we see an attempt to sidetrack the issue, with the suggestion that the sins are not all on the side of the Government, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) also is using the aircraft to some extent. The Minister’s reply, in effect, was:I do not think there is any abuse or anything to hide. Put your question on the notice paper and in April of next year remind me that the question is still on the notice paper’. The Minister later said:

I would not think that the Minister for Air would be amenable to threats uttered in the manner just used. That is my reply to the question that has been asked.

That was in reply to Senator Murphy’s question to the Minister in these terms:

Would he inform the Minister for Air that an absolute majority of the Senate would like an answer to the questions asked by Senator Turnbull . . . ?

Senator McKellar:

– I do not think the honourable senator is quoting that in its context. I think it would be fairer to quote the whole of it. Senator Murphy uttered a threat.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I thought I had mentioned a threat. I do not want to do an injustice to the Minister.I shall read the whole of the question. Senator Murphy said:

My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Air. Would he inform the Minister for Air that an absolute majority of the Senate would like an answer to the questions asked by Senator Turnbull and, if the Minister is reluctant to give the answers voluntarily, the Senate will take whatever steps are available to it to see that the answers are brought forth.

There is the threat.

Senator Cant:

– There is no threat in that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It was a drastic threat, was it not, that we were to insist on our rights? If the Minister has not the decency to recognise the prestige, the rights and the status of the Senate, and if he does not supply the information, we are to insist on our public rights as representatives of the people of this country. That is the threat. What a drastic threat is offered! In reply to a question by me as to whether the Minister would obtain a reply to my question, the Minister said:

Once again, I will do as I have done in the past. I will transmit this question to the Minister for Air.

I have marked some more passages but possibly sufficient has been said, and anyone who desires to examine the questions further will see that was the attitude. I do not blame the Minister representing the Minister for Air in this chamber. He is in a difficult position. I do not doubt for a moment that he has faithfully transmitted the questions to the Minister for Air and 1. do not know what he can do if no reply is forthcoming.

As I said, it is out of keeping with the previous attitude of the Minister for Air not to supply information when it is requested of him, as he has done on every question other than questions on VIP aircraft. We have a responsibility. We want to know where these flights were made. We want to know the cost of these flights, for the purpose of carrying out our responsibility as representatives of the people, and we cannot get the information. At the very time when it looked as though the threat made by the Leader of the Opposition might come to fruition the Prime Minister said: T will give you a statement’. But the statement simply evaded every question which had been asked. The questions are on our notice paper at the present time. The statement merely said that if we had any respect for the Minister for Air and the Prime Minister we would accept that they were not abusing their privileges in the use of VIP aircraft. We do not know these things. Any person could innocently abuse this privilege. The cost of the VIP aircraft must be subject to accountant’s examination and public scrutiny.

I join with other honourable senators on this side of the chamber in saying that we want more information on this matter. We want the full facts. It will give a great political advantage to the Opposition if the Government has something to hide but the Government will be completely exonerated if it has nothing to hide. The Government should extend to the Labor Party when it is in Opposition the same courtesy as the Labor Party extended to the Liberal Party when the Liberals were in Opposition.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I only wish to comment on two matters raised by Senator Cavanagh. I always acknowledge his debating ability. Senator Cavanagh referred to questions quoted by Senator Cormack which were asked by Mr White, a Liberal member, of a former Labor Minister for Air in 1948 about the use of his own personal Service aircraft.

Senator Cavanagh said that the Minister gave a full and frank reply. He said that all the Opposition asked for now was the same courtesy as was given by the then Labor Minister to a Liberal member of Parliament. I looked up this question in Hansard. Mr White asked:

What is the number of flying hours covered by the above aircraft when flying the Minister or at his direction?

The Minister, Mr Drakeford, replied:

This information could be given only after a very full and detailed examination of all entries in the log books over a period of years.

think that question was asked as part of a political exercise. I am not criticising the reply given but am merely pointing out that if we on this side were of the same mind as the Opposition we could draw from that reply the same deductions that the Opposition is drawing from the failure of the Government, as it claims, to reply to its questions - that there is something to hide. If we were of the same suspicious mind as the Opposition surely we could have drawn at that time the same kind of deduction from the refusal of the then Minister to have the log books examined in order to give Mr White a reply to his question. The only other point I mention is that Senator Cavanagh said, fairly, that he heard that the pilot of the Prime Minister’s plane had flown an aircraft to New Guinea in order to log sufficient flying hours. Someone told him.

It has been acknowledged that since 1958 there have been nine aircraft in No. 34 Transport Squadron. When the Squadron is fully equipped with new aircraft it will have seven. That is a reduction of two aircraft, which will be brought about because of the far better performance of the new aircraft. I think we have to grow up as a nation. A fleet of seven VIP aircraft by world standards is very, very small. Senator Cormack referred to Canada, a country comparable to our own. It has 25 or 27

VIP aircraft and I do not think the Canadian people quarrel with that. One honourable senator opposite asked whether we had to keep up with the Johnsons. That is an absurd argument because President Johnson has two or three private aircraft - Boeing 707s or DC8s. We are to have only seven small VIP aircraft. The Americans have a large number of VIP aircraft, as do the British. The British, including the present Labour Government, are very coy about disclosing information on the use of their VIP aircraft, which operate under Transport Command and are pulled out of service there for use for VIP purposes whenever required. There N nothing unusual about having VIP aircraft. It cannot be argued that by world standards or in comparison with comparable countries we are unduly extravagant. I do not believe that this argument will stand examination.

I come now to Senator Turnbull’s speech. I am sorry that he is not in the chamber now. As is his wont, he made sweeping statements, completely unsupported by any facts at all. He stated that he was not opposed to the use of VIP aircraft and then proceeded to condemn the whole proposition. He was having two bob each way, as he is accustomed to doing. He said that members of the public are completely against the use of VIP aircraft but that he himself does not disapprove of the use of them. He went on to say that the Prime Minister had laid down certain guidelines and that he had no quarrel with them. In fact, I think it is fair to say that he accepted them. But then he said that they would not last long and that in a few months other people would be travelling on these aircraft. Again he put forward an argument and did not support it with any evidence. It was merely an expression of opinion, but he put it forward as a statement of fact.

He put forward the interesting argument that unlimited food and drink are available on these aircraft. He made that as a statement of fact. Then he said: ‘Someone told me that’. He said that a member of Parliament told him that. He did not acknowledge who the member of Parliament was. But he made it as a statement of fact and then proceeded to qualify it by saying: ‘Someone told me that’. We do not know who the someone is. Let me say quite frankly that I do not believe that anybody told him that. He went, on to use other arguments in a similar vein. That was rather typical of him.

I read in tonight’s ‘Herald’ that he made a statement to a pressman several hours before he made his speech in the Senate. He said that according to the Prime Minister’s figures the VIP flight would make only about 500 flights a year. I do not know how he deduced that from the figures given by the Prime Minister. He made that as a statement of fact. But we do not know on what basis he makes his statements. We are not told. He also said that somebody told him that the operating costs would be about $10m a year. When asked: ‘Who gave you those figures?’, he said: ‘Someone told me’. I believe that Senator Turnbull destroyed his own proposition out of his own mouth by the snide arguments that he advanced. Surely if he stands up in this place and makes these charges he should be prepared to state the sources of his information and substantiate them. I submit to the Senate that on all counts and from first to last he has failed to do that.

The argument has been advanced - I think quite seriously - that these VIP aircraft should bc leased to the commercial airlines, which presumably would then use them and when they were required make them available for VIP purposes. I find that argument extraordinary. If the commercial airlines were to lease or charter these aircraft, when they were required suddenly they might be in Perth, Hobart or anywhere else, or they might be unserviceable because of the requirements of the airlines. That argument has no basis whatever. I do not believe that the commercial airlines would be prepared to purchase aircraft of a suitable type and hope that they would be used from time to time for VIP flights. I do not think that argument has any basis either. That proposition would not fit in with the requirements of the airlines. I find it quite impossible to accept.

I come to my final point, which I do not believe has been mentioned. I notice that the Minister for Air referred to it in 1965. lt must have been a- consideration when types of aircraft were being considered for purchase, lt is that these aircraft arc available for use by the Royal Australian Air Force in time of emergency. It becomes quite clear that the types of aircraft that are purchased must fit in with RAAF requirements. Aircraft will be required to move Air Force personnel over long distances at high speeds. The BACIII is a suitable aircraft for that purpose. The other smaller aircraft would be used for command purposes, to move commanders and their staffs. The fact that these aircraft might also be used by the RAAF in time of emergency must be a primary consideration in having this flight. The aircraft must be available for Service requirements.

I do not accept the argument that there is any mystery about the purchase of these aircraft or their use. I go back to the point that I made earlier. The Opposition in 1948 would have been perfectly justified in assuming from the refusals of the Labor Minister, Mr Drakeford, to state the number of hours for which VIP aircraft were used for his requirements that an attempt was being made to hide something. The Opposition did not assume that. I suggest that the Opposition today has no more right to assume that an attempt is being made to hide something than the Opposition had in 1948. Perhaps this was not a political issue at that time.

This is a phoney sort of debate. We have spent the whole day discussing the use of VIP aircraft. This debate is no more than a political exercise by the Opposition and Senator Turnbull. I do not quarrel with him. If he believes that he can gain some kudos in the electorate by using these tactics, that is his business.

Senator Gair:

– The Prime Minister must have been a party to the exercise.

Senator SIM:

– That is a rather foolish argument.

Senator Gair:

– The Prime Minister made the statement that we are debating.

Senator SIM:

– He made the statement because of the arguments that were being advanced and the accusations and allegations that were being made. In all fairness it should be acknowledged that he made a statement in which he set out the use of these aircraft. He was perfectly frank in that statement. Therefore, I find myself quite unable to support the statements made by the Opposition and the arguments advanced by it. I believe that the facts fully support the case that we on the Government side have presented; namely, that there is nothing to hide; that these aircraft are necessary; and that they are not being abused. Finally I suggest that if people make allegations about the abuse of these aircraft they should substantiate and prove their allegations instead of making sweeping statements and then leaving the whole case up in the air. That is not the way to advance an argument. It is not the way to prove a case.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– At the outset, I move the following amendment to the motion: ‘That the Senate take note of the paper’:

At end of motion add: ‘with dissatisfaction, and therefore that there be laid on the table of the Senate all accounts and papers relating to the use of VIP aircraft by Ministers and other members of Parliament during the period of 1st July 1966 to 5th October 1967, in particular all accounts and papers containing records of -

applicants and applications:

airports of embarkation and of call;

times and distances of flight, including waiting times, in connection withflights and anyflights necessary to fulfil engagements;

the passengers;

crew members;

the cost of and incidental to each flight; and

the department or service to which the flight was charged’.

Minister is prepared to withdraw his point of order now that I have resumed my seat?

Senator McKellar:

– The honourable senator is now in his seat and is entitled to second the amendment.

Senator Murphy:

– I second the amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The amendment was seconded by Senator Lacey anyhow. I do not uphold the point of order, but I do make the observation that it is wrong either to interject or to do anything such as support a motion from a seat other than one’s own.

Senator CANT:

– In the course of the debate earlier in the afternoon I was rather surprised to learn that my very good friend Senator Cormack stooped to the practice-

Senator Henty:

-I rise to a point of order. I had no indication that this amendment was to be moved. One would have thought that if an amendment was to be moved the Leader of the Opposition would have informed me. Standing order 125 states:

No Motion or Amendment shall anticipate an Order of the Day or another Motion of which Notice has been given.

The amendment moved by Senator Cant is substantially the same as the Notice of Motion No. 7 on the notice paper in the name of Senator Murphy, which reads:

That there be laid on the table of the Senate, all accounts and papers relating to the use of VIP aircraft by Ministers and other members of Parliament during the period of 1st January 1967 to 27th September 1967, in particular all accounts and papers containing records of -

applicants and applications,

airports of embarkation and of call,

times and distances of flight, including waiting times, in connection with flights and any flights necessary to fulfil engagements,

the passengers,

crew members,

the cost of and incidental to each flight, and

the department or service to which the flight was charged.

The amendment moved by Senator Cant, and seconded by Senator Murphy, is:

At end of motion add: ‘with dissatisfaction and therefore that there be laid on the table of the Senate, all accounts and papers relating to the use of VIP aircraft by Ministers and other members of Parliament during the period of 1st July 1966 to 5th October 1967, in particular all accounts and papers containing records of -

applicants and applications,

airports of embarkation and of call,

times and distances of flight, including waiting times, in connection with flights and any flights necessary to fulfil engagements,

the passengers,

crew members,

the cost of and incidental to each flight, and (g) the Department or service to which the flight was charged.’

There is one slight alteration, and that is in relation to the dates. In substance the amendment is exactly the same as the notice of motion which is standing on the notice paper. I suggest that under standing order 125 the amendment is outof order.

At end of motion add: with dissatisfaction and therefore that there be laid on the table of the Senate, all accounts and papers relating to the use of VIP aircraft by Ministers and other members of Parliament during the period of 1st July 1966 to 5th October 1967, in particular all accounts and papers containing records of -

applicants and applications,
airports of embarkation and of call.
times and distances of flight, including waiting times, in connection with flights and any flights necessary to fulfil engagements,
the passengers,
crew members,
the cost of and incidental to each flight, and
the Department or service to which the flight was charged.

Senator Henty:

– The honourable senator is adding to this at the present time.

Senator Murphy:

– As a matter of assistance to Senator Henty I am telling him the exact amendment that Senator Cant read out. That is the actual form in which the amendment was moved. The amendment is not the same as the motion of which notice was given. The amendment deals with the period of 1st July 1966 to 5th October 1967. I suggest that the amendment is in order and is not in conflict with standing order 125.

Senator McKellar:

-I wish to speak to the point of order. The substance of the amendment just moved, without any doubt at all, is the same as Notice of Motion No. 7 in the name of Senator Murphy. The substance is the same; the wording is different. I ask that the amendment be ruled out of order for that reason.

Senator Wright:

-I too wish to speak to the point of order. The notice of motion for the tabling of papers was given approximately a fortnight ago. An adjournment of that motion was sought last Thursday after notification had been given that the Prime Minister intended to make a statement on this matter. As I understood it - I believe I so expressed myself at the time - that deferment of the motion was to give the Prime Minister the opportunity to make a statement on the matter. The Prime Minister has made a statement and the Senate, without invoking this standing order, has debated that statement today. The timely occasion to have taken this objection, if it were valid, was this morning, when Senator Henty moved that the Senate take note of the Prime Minister’s statement. It was that motion which anticipated the motion to table certain papers. If we are to act on technicalities, today’s debate on the statement made by the Prime Minister, is out of order. Cannot the Senate assess the situation in substance and realise that the whole question is as to whether or not the Senate is satisfied with the contents of the Prime Minister’s statement and whether the Senate asks for the tabling of all accounts and papers? The amendment simply gives expression to that point of view and, in my view, should be ruled to be in order. If any motion is out of order, the motion to take note of the Prime Minister’s statement is out of order, because it was that motion which anticipated the motion on the notice paper.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply and Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - I want to refer again to the proposed amendment, a copy of which has been given to me, and to point out one aspect of the situation. Eight o’clock tonight was the time for commencement of discussion of general business. I had given an undertaking that if general business were called on at that time I would call for discussion of a notice of motion No. 7 on the notice paper. At that stage, it was not I who asked that this matter be deferred. It was the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) who asked that we continue debating the matter we were discussing until it was disposed of and that Order of the Day No. 7 be called on if discussion of that matter were completed by 10.30 p.m.

I want to say further that I was given no indication whatever that the Opposition proposed moving the amendment of which I now have a copy. I point out also that the copy which has been handed to me does not contain all the words which I am now informed that the proposed amendment does contain. If this is the type of behaviour which we are to expect in this place from a responsible Opposition then I simply say that this place cannot work. It cannot work if the Leader of the Government is not to be advised that an amendment is to be moved, nor can it work if, after an amendment has been moved, he is handed a paper which purports to be a copy of the amendment but which in fact does not contain all the words contained in the amendment already submitted to the Senate. This is the worst experience I have had in my 18 years in this place. I have never seen this type of behaviour before.

I have referred to standing order 125 and pointed out that in substance the pro posed amendment is the same as the motion, notice of which is already on the business paper. I protest strongly at the lack of courtesy on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in failing to advise me in the first place that it was proposed to move an amendment. If he did not want to do that, then at least common decency and the practice of the Senate would suggest that the paper which is handed to me as Leader of the Government and which purports to be a copy of the amendment would at least contain the same wording as the amendment that was moved. In this case, that has not been done.

Senator Cant:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. I do not like the attitude that Senator Henty has adopted. Throughout today we of the Opposition have been accused of trying to make political capital out of the debate. We have not been doing that, because we indicated our attitude some weeks ago. In my view, whether Senator Henty was given notice that we proposed to move an amendment has no relevance to the purpose of standing order 125. Standing order 125 reads:

No Motion or Amendment shall anticipate an Order of the Day or another Motion of which Notice has been given.

Clearly the amendment proposed is an amendment the period of time to which the papers that are to be tabled will be related. That is an amendment of some substance. I remind the Senate also that it. takes in a period that has been under some criticism today, not by me but by other speakers. It takes in also the use of a VIP aircraft by the Prime Minister on a trip to Townsville. Therefore, the amendment relating to the time is a major amendment and not something in anticipation of a debate on any motion notice of which has been given previously.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– by leave - I would just like to answer what Senator Henty has said. If there could be any true suggestion that he was taken by surprise, there might be some substance in what be has said; but the very gravamen of what he is saying is that this is the same matter as that which is already on the notice paper, and he was expecting to debate it at some later bour. Therefore, there is no question of surprise here at all. It cannot be said that this is something that has been suddenly brought into the Senate and that he has been taken by surprise. How can that be said at all in the light of the rest of the argument? It is nice to say it is a terrible thing that is being done to him-

Senator McKellar:

– Why do you not withdraw the motion?

Senator MURPHY:

– Senator McKellar suggests thatI withdraw the notice of motion. If the purists think that should be done-

Senator McKellar:

– There are certain practices in the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:

– I shall be quite happy to do that. I will do that and I will test the Government and the Minister who has spoken.I now ask leave to withdraw notice of motion No. 7 standing in my name.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Government senators - No.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not granted.

Senator MURPHY:

– There is the test of the sincerity of the Minister, the representative of the Government, who asked me in the face of the whole Senate to withdraw the motion.

Senator McKellar:

– I did not ask you to do that at all; I asked why you did not do it. That is the difference.

Senator MURPHY:

– Honourable senators are in a position to judge for themselves. The Minister plainly invited me in the face of the whole Senate to take a certain course. I endeavoured to take it and his own colleagues then repudiated the invitation that was given by the Minister. I would say there is no basis at all for what Senator Henty has said. It is true that there were a few words added to the amendment after a copy had been given to the Government Whip. They were added at the last moment and I took the earliest opportunity of assisting the Leader of the Government by telling him those extra words had been added to it. I therefore ask that the point of order be not upheld.

Senator Anderson:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. The test of this matter surely is whether the words that have been used by Senator Murphy and Senator Cant are the same in substance. It is a question of substance and I submit that standing order 125 is relevant to the question of substance. I think, Mr President, that you should- rule that standing order 125 is applicable. I suggest with great respect that it is applicable because it says:

No Motion or Amendment shall anticipate an Order of the Day or another Motion of which Notice has been given.

There is notice of a motion standing in the name of Senator Murphy on the business paper. I submit that that original motion standing to Senator Murphy’s name and the amendment now proposed by Senator Cant are the same in substance. They are clearly identical in substance. The proposed amendment reads: all accounts and papers relating to the use of VIP aircraft by Ministers and other members of Parliament.

Those words arc identical with the words contained in Senator Murphy’s motion. So we have the question of substance established there. The amendment then goes on with the various points marked (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). If I were to read out the words contained in the balance of the amendment and those contained in Senator Murphy’s motion, honourable senators would see that they were identical. Therefore, the Opposition cannot avoid the argument relating to substance. The fact that at the very last moment, after the proposed amendment had been circulated and after a copy had been handed to me personally by the Whip, it was altered, does not affect the position. I submit that the whole question is one of substance. There can be no argument but that the substance of the amendment proposed by Senator Cant is identical with the original motion of which Senator Murphy has given notice. It is obvious to me that the wording of the proposed amendment has been taken from Senator Murphy’s motion. I cannot conceive of any situation where, out of his own head, Senator Cant would produce identical words. Identical words are used. In the preamble to the notice of the motion and to the amendment we find these words:

That there be laid on the table of the Senate, all accounts and papers relating to the use of VIP aircraft by Ministers and other members of Parliament during the period of 1st July 1966 to 5th October 1967, in particular all accounts and papers containing records of–

That narrows the issue of substance. The body of the amendment and the notice of motion are in identical words. The notice of motion continues:

Applicants and applications;
Airports of embarkation and of call; and paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) are the same in the notice of motion as in the amendment. I come now to the point of order taken by the Leader of the Government and based on standing order 125. I point out that the amendment is identical in substance with the notice of motion in the name of Senator Murphy.

The PRESIDENT:

– First I read standing order 125. This standing order provides:

No Motion or Amendment shall anticipate an Order of the Day or another Motion of which Notice has been given.

I note that there is some difference between the amendment proposed and the motion on the notice paper. Next, I quote the following passage from May’s ‘Parliamentary Practice’, Seventeenth Edition at page 399. The passage reads:

Stated generally, the rule against anticipation (which applies to other proceedings as well as motions) is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is thought to be anticipated (a), but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form.

In view of that version in ‘May’ I rule out the point of order. I call Senator Cant.

Senator CANT:

– In resuming my speech I assure the Senate that I do not intend to keep it very long. This afternoon, my very good friend, Senator Cormack, indulged in some tactics that I do not think were worthy of him. I was quite surprised that he did indulge in them. Whilst I know that in the heat of debate the essence of truth sometimes can be strained, in the interests of honesty it should be maintained by those speaking in the Senate. The matter referred to was a question asked upon notice on 27th February 1948 by a member of the Liberal Party of the then Labor Minister for Air. The question appears at page 308 of Hansard.

The question is broken up into nine paragraphs. The first paragraph reads:

What Royal Australian Air Force aircraft does the Minister use in travelling to and from Parliament and Melbourne

The answer given was:

Dakota, when an Air Force aircraft is used. The aircraft has been utilised for the service of the Minister in his capacities as Minister for Air and Minister for Civil Aviation.

The next paragraph of the question reads:

What is (a) the number of aircrew employed on this aeroplane, and (b) their total monthly pay?

The answer given was: 2. (a) Five personnel, and (b) rate of pay according to Service scales appropriate to respective ranks. Flights by the Dakota for Ministerial purposes are not frequent and involve a comparatively small portion only of the time of members of the crew who, when not so engaged, are employed on other flying as well as training and station duties as the commanding officer of the Air Force station requires. When at Canberra the crew carries out duties as required by the commanding officer of that station.

The third part of the question reads:

What gallonage of petrol is used by the Minister’s aircraft during a return trip Melbourne- . Canberra?

This was the answer given:

314 gallons.

The next paragraph of the question reads:

What would be the dollar value of the petrol used per trip?

The answer supplied was:

The source of purchase is not necessarily from dollar areas, the cost in Australian currency being approximately £21. Substantial quantities of aviation fuel used in Australia are obtained from sterling areas.

This was the next question asked:

What has been the aircraft’s passenger loading per single trip?

The answer given was:

Average loading six passengers (including on occasion members of Parliament of all parties).

The next paragraph in the question reads:

Is there any reason why bookings cannot be made on airliners or railways by the Minister and his staff?

The answer given was:

The Dakota is used only when ministerial duties necessitate or warrant its use.

The next section of the question relates to something to which Senator Sim referred. It reads:

What is the number of flying hours covered by the above aircraft when flying the Minister or at his direction?

The answer supplied was:

This information could be given only after a very full and detailed examination of all entries in the log books over a period of years.

The next section of the question reads:

What was the approximate cost of any special alterations to the Minister’s aircraft to suit his convenience?

The answer given was:

No special alterations were made to the Dakota to suit the Minister’s convenience but furnishings were installed in accordance with general standards for similar type aircraft in the Royal Air Force, the costs of the furnishings excluding Service labour totalling £550.

The final paragraph of the question is the one that Senator Cormack blithely threw into the ring to create a storm. This time let us look not only at the question but also at the answer. The question was:

Was the above Royal Australian Air Force aircraft taken to Tasmania during the recent visit of the Minister to a union conference as reported in the Tasmanian Press?

The answer given was:

The Minister travelled to Hobart by TransAustralia Airlines service and was booked to return by that service but owing to unexpected delays a special trip from Hobart to Canberra by the Dakota became necessary to permit of the Minister’s attendance at a Cabinet meeting next morning.

All I say is that in 1948 the then Labor Government and the then Labor Minister for Air could give information required in answer to a question in such a short time. But this Government refuses to give any information about the cost of these aircraft other than the capital cost. We are not satisfied and we will not be satisfied unless we get some explanation from the Government. It is not enough to say that the operation of the VIP flight is vital to the training of pilots. It is time the Government and Ministers set out to satisfy not only this Senate but also the Australian public. I support the amendment.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– Mr President, I wish to make some observations about the subject before the Senate tonight and to express my regret that the matter of playing politics with this question has intruded itself so very obviously, as has been proved beyond all shadow of doubt in the last few minutes. I suppose that in every age the administration of a nation has always been under fire by a certain section of the community which thinks that certain leaders are enjoying certain benefits in terms of accommodation or some comforts or in some fields which they may envy. I also suppose that it is true that in every age the group of people who lead the Opposition in that manner has seized upon any and every opportunity to become vocal in a particular matter. They cry out in mock indignation. They level a series of colourful charges, and accusations of extravagance and wastage of public money. These charges are unsupported but at least they form a vehicle for outcries about particular matters. Those matters collect a certain amount of publicity. The people who lead the cries think that they can get some public approbation. They think they achieve something. They acquire a particular and peculiar sense of achievement. This has been a fairly natural thing to do at all times. I suppose it is true to say also that it has applied to all forms of amenities, including the one that we are discussing now.

Debate interrupted.

page 1259

ADJOURNMENT

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.

I point out to honourable senators that to carry this motion at this point of time would mean that we would come back here next Tuesday at 3 p.m.

Question resolved in the negative.

page 1259

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VIP FLIGHT

Debate resumed.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– There has always been a certain amount of public outcry against administration and authority. The public has been critical of amenities that have been available to the Administration, including officers and secretaries. Sometimes there has even been criticism of the refreshment facilities and amenitiesi n this place. Through the years all those things have attracted public criticism. So itis with the matter which has been before us today relating to transport facilities for the Administration - Ministers and staff. In the early days there was criticism of travel by rail, later of travel by car and now of travel by No. 34 Transport Squadron. So today, after the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Harold Holt) was read, we were presented with the motion that the Senate take note of it.

The use of public transport facilities by Ministers has again come under fire. This is nothing new. The Prime Minister’s statement evoked a speech from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). I must confess to a certain measure of disappointment at that speech because this is a subject which calls forth a certain amount of public interest and which lends itself to a degree of vocal expression. In my view the Leader of the Opposition did not make out a case to support his contention. He quoted from other people’s questions and statements. He did not back up his statements with fact or level the kind of criticism I would have expected from a man of his capacity.

The debate has covered a wide range of subjects. From time to time the matter of political advantage for one side or another was mentioned. It was stated that the debate was staged in this place to divert public interest from a debate in another place on another subject. I do not think that public interest could be diverted in this way from a debate in another place on another subject. My view is that the Prime Minister has stated the case relating to VIP aircraft. It was proclaimed in the newspapers of this country today, both on the front page and in leading articles. It is not news any longer so far as political purposes are concerned. I do not think the Opposition has gained for itself any particular advantage by this debate.

The Prime Minister traced the history of the VIP aircraft. He said that it went back about 20 years. During more recent times steps have been taken to gradually phase out aircraft which were completely out of date with modern transportation requirements and to replace them with aircraft better fitted to cover the vast area of this rapidly developing nation.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– The Senate is now debating a motion to take note of the Prime Minister’s statement relating to the purchase and operation of VIP aircraft, and an amendment which has now been moved to the effect that the statement is received with dissatisfaction and that the Senate wants accurate accounts and papers tabled in the usual parliamentary way of accounting to an elected parliament.

I regard it as almost axiomatic that papers are tabled when requested. I take as my motto in this regard an excerpt from Rabbie Burns:

Here’s freedom to him that wad read,

Here’s freedom to him thai wad write;

There’s nane ever feared that the truth should be heard

But them that the truth would indict.

If the Auditor-General fails to disclose to Parliament any impropriety and illegality in respect of expenditure, the main way in which the Executive accounts for the expenditure of public moneys is by presenting the documents to the Parliament for the Parliament itself to examine.

We have been told that the VIP aircraft flight has been constituted for 20 years. We have not been referred to one parliamentary paper or one excerpt from the AuditorGeneral’s report, and certainly to no statute in this Parliament which constitutes a squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force for the purpose of civilian transport. My colleague Senator Cormack has referred in a very partial way to a question that was asked in 1948 and is recorded in Hansard, but he read from the question only, with the implication that the answer coming from the then Labor Government Minister would be unsatisfactory to the present Opposition. I wish to place on record my distinct lack of appreciation for a fragmentary quotation of a document to the Senate. To omit reference to the answer is calculated to mislead the chamber. That is a course of advocacy that acquires no credit in any decent debating society.

In 1948 I seethed with resentment at the growing authoritarianism of the Labor Party. That is what drove me with energy to build up the Liberal Party and displace the Labor Party. But I am bound to say that Mr White, a distinguished Wing Commander who, as a member of the then Liberal Opposition, knew the implications of Air Force control, asked Mr Drakeford the question of 20th February and it’ was on 27th February that Mr Drakeford gave him a comparatively full and fairly detailed answer in terms which acknowledged the existence of detailed records and therefore, if it had been pursued, the question would have been answered in detail. I speak after communicating with the Auditor-General’s office this afternoon to ask his chief officer to give me information because I did not want to speak uninformed.

Following the advice that there was no record in his reports, I told him that I thought that his reports were a derelicton of his duty to the Parliament. 1 told him that. with the distinct notice that I did not want to say anything to his discredit unfairly. When I look at the Auditor-General’s reports on this matter, both last year and this year, I see that the terms in which they are couched are calculated to divert anybody from inquiry. Certainly nobody who reads the text of the reports has the slightest indication that these aircraft are not part to the ordinary, normal uses of Service aircraft. Certainly the reports in no way disclose or criticise the fact that appropriations that have been made by this Parliament for Air Force defence have now been constituted in the main and used and operated for civilian transport of political persons. In my book, if I entrust a salesman on my commercial staff with his vehicle and I find him using it at night to go to his trade union meeting or pursue his political obligations, my auditor of the commercial institution will call the attention of the executive to it. I think it is a grave reflection upon the deficiencies of the Auditor-General that there is nothing in his reports to inform this Parliament, to which he has a direct obligation, of the misuse of those aircraft inconsistent with the text of the appropriations that the Parliament has voted.

I also asked where I could find information in any of the estimates and I was told that there was no separate appropriation for Squadron No. 34. Therefore, I challenge anybody to justify the propriety from a parliamentary point of view of the use of money appropriated for Air Force defence for political campaigning, much less excursions of a political nature of another sort, and excursions of incidental nature. For my part, it is a grave reflection upon the growing trend in this place to find a concert of omission to disclose the actual fact joined in by the Auditor-General.

We have had brought to our notice that there have been public statements as to the nature of VIP aircraft. I have gone to Sir Robert Menzies’ statement of the triennial review of defence in 1964. I find there the briefest reference to VIP aircraft. I have been referred - and I am grateful for the reference - to a ministerial statement in another place on 1st December 1965 by Mr Howson. It is headed ‘Royal Australian Air Force’ and the first part of it is devoted exclusively to a question of Air Force train ing aircraft, lt is intermixed with a reference to the British VIP squadron and then it goes on to refer to VIP aircraft operated by the RAAF in No. 34 Squadron. It speaks of the purchase of the aircraft that have now assumed such prominence as to involve us in a debate not only today but for several days culminating in this debate.

The cost of this squadron’s equipment that Mr Howson stated on 1st December 1965 was $ 11.6m. Here we are, not 24 months later, and the cost - only estimated now - according to the Auditor-General, is $2 1.6m. I am not going to be dissuaded by references to wheat or social services. I just have some appreciation that the people I represent have to earn their money, and $10m in my book will never receive a vote of confidence until it is explained in detail, and that applies to the Estimates this year. After explaining the discrepancy between a quotation in December 1965 and the estimated cost today, the next thing is the justification for such expenditure for this purpose. It is necessary, I think, in a case like this, where abuse is so natural a tendency, to have guide lines as they have been called - rules, regulations, not made in the Cabinet room, known only in the secrecy of Cabinet and therefore incapable of examination or supervision but stemming from the authority of the Parliament, laying down the ambit of the use of these aircraft, with a proper system of record to ensure that one of the essential obligations of parliamentary democracy is accepted and observed.

We talk about building a parliamentary democracy in such handicapped countries as Vietnam but here we are drifting into the stage of neglecting and destroying the very corner stones of the foundation of a parliamentary democracy; that is, that on the public floor of the House of Parliament there will be men freely elected by the people, uninhibited, by any influences, including party influences, from making an independent examination of the propriety of expenditure and the justification of it from the point of view of the people whose money has been appropriated for the purpose. When these principles are laid down and the Prime Minister’s statement is considered to see whether it in any way complies with them, one is bound to say that the statement is a wholly ineffectual attempt to give to the

Parliament a proper accounting in respect of these aircraft.

There is nothing in what I have said that can be inferred to suggest that I am living in the horse and buggy days. There is not a thought in my mind to suggest that high officers of State, Prime Ministers attending ceremonial occasions, Governors-General and high dignatories on visits to this country should not have the most up to date means of transport worthy of the prestige ot this country. But it is beneath the dignity of the country that we should support people in high and responsible places who repudiate the obligation to be strictly accountable for those services. There is no question as to whether senators or members should ride in these aircraft; that suggestion should be kept completely out of the debate. This is a completely objective question as to whether the operation of a squadron which, in my view, has been improperly placed in the Royal Australian Air Force and which is used for civilian transport, has been accounted For according to standards that an independent Parliament requires.

Test this by just one consideration. I interjected during the debate this afternoon and said that for taxation purposes civilian aircraft operators are permitted a depreciation allowance of 124%. Up to 2 years ago the rale was 25%. That is to say, until 2 years ago aircraft had attributed to them a 4- year life, lt is now an 8-year life. Let us consider this. Depreciation, if we apply the accounting which 1 maintain is proper in the Post Office, will amount to $2.5m a year; an interest charge of 5% , if we make the charge which I. maintain is proper in the Post Office, will amount to another $lm a year; and the operational expenses should be properly adjusted. On this consideration it is puerile - 1 use the word advisedly - for anybody with any business experience whatsoever to suggest that when aircraft are being used for multiple purposes cost accountancy is unequal to the task of making a fair business judgment as to the allocation of the overall expenses to the particular purposes. It is the commonest business experience! To attempt to say that it is impracticable fills me with disquiet. It has been suggested that the appropriate organ of government to do this may be the Treasury and that lt is only a possibility that in that Department there would be found the requisite skill to enable this allocation to be made.

These matters put mc in the situation where I take leave to remind the Senate that I took the initiative in regard to the tabling of papers some 8 or 10 years ago. Finding that the Parliament had been unconscious of its obligations in this respect, I said that the practice of tabling papers had gone into disuse and that I wanted to revive it otherwise Parliament would lose one arm of its efficacy. I invite honourable senators who are interested in this constitutional safeguard to the democracy of our country to read that debate. At the time there were sufficient members on the Government side to defeat my motion. I think the Labor Party joined the Government on that occasion but I am not sure. The stage was reached when this practice was extinct or obsolete and had gone into desuetude. Since then, I have had the pleasure of having one motion for the tabling of papers accepted without resistance because, of course, certain changes have taken place.

If it were only to register the constitutional right of this chamber to see these papers, I would vote for the amendment; but I submit that there are potent reasons why, in this instance, the accounts and the papers should be laid on the table of this Parliament beside the Prime Minister’s statement to elucidate it and enable us to form a judgment as to just what operations have been carried on. Then I hope that an assessment will be made of the economy of the operation and the future of this squadron so as to ensure that the expenditure thereon will be in accordance with parliamentary principles.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I was sorry to hear Senator Wright’s comments about the Auditor-General and the suggestion that the Auditor-General would be recreant of his responsibility in the performance, of his duty. I cannot follow this suggestion because I do not agree with the honourable senator in the slightest degree. The Auditor-General points out any misuse or misappropriations of government moneys. There has been no misuse and there have been no misappropriations. .

For 20 years Squadron 34 of the Royal

Australian Air Force has carried on under this system. It is one thing for the Senate to say that, although this has gone on for a number of years under Labor governments and under Liberal-Country Party governments, they now feel that it should be altered. Just because a practice has been continued it cannot be suggested that there has been the slightest misappropriation or misuse of the funds provided for Squadron 34 in the Defence vote. I suggest that the Auditor-General has not fallen down in any way in his duty as an impartial authority charged with examining these matters and reporting to the Parliament when he finds what he considers are misuses, misappropriations or maladministration.

I want to comment on some of the remarks which have been made during this debate. I particularly want to refer to what I consider was a really low, base argument. The argument is that an increase of 50c a week in pensions is equal to the amount of money to be spent on replacement aircraft for No. 34 Transport Squadron. As everybody in this chamber knows, the sum of $21. 6m has been spread financially over three years. The aircraft being purchased and to be purchased will have from 10 to IS years of operation. It is a completely wrong and base suggestion. An increase of 50c a week in pensions over the next 10 years would amount to over $200m, but only $2 1.6m is to be spent on aircraft which will be used for over 10 years.

The Prime Minister in his statement which we are debating referred to some of the difficulties which have occurred. He referred to the interposing of training. On this issue I again cross swords with Senator Wright. No. 34 Transport Squadron is used as part of the RAAF for training purposes. The Prime Minister pointed out that some of the Squadron’s aircraft are used for training. By flying in VIP aircraft some Air Force officers have accrued the hours necessary to make them competent in the Air Force.

Difficulties arise when four or five members of different Services travel in an executive aircraft. It is difficult to apply the costs against each of the Services. The same position arises when 3 or 4 Ministers travel with their staffs from different departments. Senator Murphy suggested that a computer would provide the answer. I point out to him that statistics must be fed into a com puter. It just cannot compute the facts if they have not been kept and are not there.

Senator Poyser:

– They should be there.

Senator HENTY:

– That is easy to say. The Prime Minister has said that he will ask the Treasury to examine the position to see whether a system can be set up to arrive at separate costs. It is of no use to say, as honourable senators opposite have been saying, that this is what should have been done. It is easy enough to say now, but Labor did not do it when it was in office. I believe that the Prime Minister’s undertaking will cover the situation, providing the Treasury finds a suitable system.

– I use them on the business of the Government. That is the only purpose for which I have happened to use them this year. But that is only because the necessity to use them for other purposes has not arisen. I have no hesitation in saying that as a business executive I would use a VIP aircraft if I could cover an area that I could not cover otherwise or if I could visit the number of places that I visited in Queensland. That is what every modern business executive would do. It is done throughout the world.

What do we have in the rest of the fleet? We have the two Convairs about whichI have spoken. They are to be disposed of. We have two Viscounts which were bought second hand in the first place. We could not buy new ones because Viscounts are out of production. They are obsolete. Convairs are also obsolete. New Convairs cannot be bought now. So we were faced with the replacement of those aircraft. The Government chose the small version of the BAC111. There is a bigger version that carries about eighty-five passengers. The smaller one carries about sixty passengers in the tourist class and first class configuration.

Senator Poyser:

– Why do we have to have BAC111s?

Senator HENTY:

– Very important visitors come to this country. As we have seen, they come with retinues. When representatives of Australia visit other countries they are treated with the importance with which they are entitled to be treated as representatives of this great nation. With more and more presidents, premiers, prime ministers and other important visitors from the United States of America, Canada, India and other Asian countries visiting Australia, are we to say to them: ‘We cannot extend to you the courtesy and treatment that you have extended to our representatives when they have visited your country’? Are we to tell representatives of Asian countries who visit us that our growing nation cannot afford to treat them in the same way as they have treated us?

– The honourable senator refers to a pretty snide sort of comment which has been made by Senator Turnbull. The honourable senator runs his Senate campaign on this sort of thing. He has referred to all sort of extravagant things. Whenever I have been on a VIP flight I have never seen a bottle of champagne. I say that without any doubt. The extravagant kind of expression which the honourable senator uses does not really go over. Everyone knows that he has to have something with which to try to run his election campaign. He could never have a policy because he is a lone wolf. He docs not and cannot give any policy at all. He has to try to run his election campaigns with this sort of comment because he does not belong to either of the two major parties which could be in government. We understand this. He raises this type of snide comment on the provisioning of VIP aircraft.

It will be a bad day for Australia when this type of thinking is allowed to continue and grow. I have seen this before and honourable senators have seen it as well. First of all it concerned houses that members of Parliament had at Canberra. Then it was cars that were used by members of Parliament. Now, as we move into the modern method of travel, it is executive aircraft. It is now said that we should not have executive aircraft and that we are over-using or misusing them. I contest this strongly. I know of no misuse in regard to VIP aircraft. I know that the Minister for Air (Mr Howson) who controls their use would not be a party to the misuse of these aircraft. I say without question that I do not believe there has been misuse of VIP aircraft. Those Ministers who have used them have used them for governmental purposes and for the purposes for which these aircraft are provided. I wanted to make those comments on some of the matters which have been raised. 1 would like to answer many more matters, but the hour is late and I believe honourable senators would like to conclude this debate.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added (Senator

Cant’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 25

NOES: 15

Majority . . 10

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

page 1266

GENERAL BUSINESS

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales-

Leader of the Opposition) - I ask for leave to withdraw notice of motion No. 7.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Motion - by leave - withdrawn.

page 1266

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to announce the notification of the appointment of members to the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, as follows: From the Prime Minister appointing the Hon. J. D. Anthony, Mr Drury, Mr Erwin and Mr Giles; from the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives appointing Mr Birrell, Mr Bryant, Mr Duthie, and Mr Luchetti; from the Leader of the Government in the Senate appointing Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood; from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate appointing Senator Devitt and Senator McClelland; and from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives jointly appointing Mr Barnard.

page 1266

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator DAVIDSON (South Australia)I present the fourth report of the Printing Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 1266

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Henty) agreed to -

That the Senate at its rising adjourn till Tuesday, 17th October next at 3 p.m.

Senate adjourned at 11.27 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 October 1967, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1967/19671005_senate_26_s36/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 5 October 1967

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator FITZGERALD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator HENTY:Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH. SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Senator PROWSE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Senator BISHOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Senator DAVIDSON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA

Senator TANGNEY:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator MORRIS:QUEENSLAND

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT

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

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

MEAT WORKERS

Senator BULL:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator BISHOP:

Senator McKELLAR:

Senator CAVANAGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McKELLAR:

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:LP

QUESTION

SHIPS GARBAGE

Senator LAWRIE:QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES ACT

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

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF THE SEXES

Senator TANGNEY:

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

Senator Tangney:

Senator GORTON:VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

PRAWNS

Senator MORRIS:

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

GERALDTON HARBOUR

Senator PROWSE:

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

DESTRUCTION OF SHIPS GARBAGE

Senator WEBSTER:VICTORIA

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

REMITTANCE OF MONEY ABROAD

Senator BRANSON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Senator HANNAFORD:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McKELLAR:CP

QUESTION

BUSH FIRE RELIEF

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator HENTY:LP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Senate
5 October 1967

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · TASMANIA · LP

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

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

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MORRIS:
QUEENSLAND

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

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

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

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator BRANSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator HENTY:
LP

Senator HANNAFORD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator HENTY:
LP

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

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Education and Science · VICTORIA · LP

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

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

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

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

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