Senate
5 November 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator WRIEDT - I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In view of the uncertainty surrounding the development and delivery of the Fill aircraft and because of the urgent need for a modern replacement for the Canberra aircraft, has the Government commenced investigations concerning alternative types of aircraft? If so, what types of aircraft are under consideration? If the Government has not done so, does it not believe that such investigations should be commenced without delay?

Senator ANDERSON- The question might more properly have been directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Air for information on the substantive facts.’ 1 know of no consideration being given to the study of an aircraft to replace the FI 1 1.

page 1617

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether he has a statement to make to the Senate about the withdrawal of the export licence hel’d by the Brisbane Abattoir. For how long is the licence likely to be withheld? What is the likely effect on the resumption of exports to the United States of America in the new year and what is the effect of the withdrawal on those employees and others dependent for a livelihood on and around the meatworks a’ Cannon Hill?

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

– Anticipating a question of this nature I contacted the Minister for Primary Industry and I received the following information: Cannon Hill meatworks, which is the metropolitan public abattoir, has been withdrawn from the list of approved export works at the request of the United States authorities. The reasons given for this request from the Americans were that there were structural defects involving the separation of the live animal areas from the slaughter depart- ment; that there was unsuitable equipment in the slaughter and offal departments, and that contaminated sheep carcasses were found in the slaughter department during inspection. The condition of the abattoir has been unsatisfactory for some time. The Minister for Primary Industry wrote to the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries about this matter in March, July and August this year and there have been other discussions and correspondence between officials and the abattoir management. The management was well aware of the deficiencies. ‘

The question of how long the abattoir will be off the approved list wil’l depend on how long it takes to carry out the work necessary to meet the conditions laid down by the United States. Until it is reinstated to the list the abattoir will not be able to export to the United States or to the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom authorities have made it clear that they will not accept meat from works that are not on the United States list. The question of the effect of all this on the employees at Cannon Hill is hard to judge but presumably the works will still’ be operating to supply the local market.

page 1617

QUESTION

AIR VICE-MARSHAL KY

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has the Government been informed that Air Vice-Marshal Ky, whom the Government feted on a visit to Australia last year, has described the United States of America as a true and dirty colonial power and has said: ‘We can trust the Americans no longer. They are just a band of crooks’? Does the Government now realise that the Australian Labor Party assessed Air Vice-Marshal Ky correctly when it protested against his visit to Australia last year?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The question asked by the Leader of the Opposition quite clearly is based on something he has read in a newspaper. He should be aware that relationships between nations are not conducted on that level. I am sure that in the fullness of time the Australian Government will :e an accurate report of anything that the Air Vice-Marshal might have said. railways

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport been directed to the full page advertisement that was inserted by the Commonwealth Railways in a newspaper yesterday and which highlighted what the Commonwealth Railways referred to as the completion of an unbroken single gauge line across the Commonwealth? As this railway line linking eastern and western capitals bypasses Adelaide by a comparatively short distance, and as there is every advantage in a connecting standard gauge line from Port Pirie to Adelaide, can the Minister give the Senate any information on the present situation?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– 1 regret to say that I have not seen the Press statement mentioned by the honourable senator but 1 am well aware that the construction of a single gauge railway line between the east and the west is well on the way to completion. The work is being held up at present pending completion of negotiations with the Silverton Tramway Co., which is located adjacent to Broken Hill in New South Wales. The honourable senator has also asked whether the Government will give serious thought to connecting Adelaide to Port Pirie. 1 am aware of his interest in this matter and will ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport to forward him a detailed reply. john mcewen house

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. What is the period of the lease held by the Department of the Interior on office accommodation in John McEwen House, in Canberra? What annual rental is payable by the Department? Does the Minister consider it proper that the Department responsible for all arrangements associated with, and the conduct of, Federal elections should be accommodated in a building constructed by a political party, especially when portion of the available office space is used as the headquarters of that political party?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I intervene to answer this question because I represent the Minister for External Affairs in this place. I can inform the Senate that accommodation in John McEwen House was offered to the Department of External Affairs by the

Department of the Interior to alleviate a general shortage of office accommodation, and in particular in an attempt to remedy the very unsatisfactory conditions which exist at the international training section of the External Aid Branch, located at Riverside. The Department of the Interior earlier had hoped to move the training section to a building at Barton after it was vacated by the Department of Works but substituted accommodation in John McEwen House because it was available earlier and was of a greater area. The location at Barton, although not essential, is convenient as students usually stay at nearby hostels.

The rental was negotiated with the lessors by the Department of the Interior in the usual way. Rent is being paid at the rate of S3. 75 per square foot for a gross area of 10,992 square feet, making a total annual payment of $41,220. The Department of the Interior regards this as comparable with other Commonwealth leases at Barton - for example, the Australian Clerical Officers Association building in respect of which the rental is $3.85 per square foot, Industry House which carries a rental of $3.60, and the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia building for which the rental is $3.75. All I can say in regard to the remainder of the honourable senator’s question is that this was a perfectly normal transaction which was carried out for the convenience of the Department.

page 1618

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry inform the Senate whether it is the intention of the Government to bring down legislation during this Budget session for the dairy industry reconstruction scheme? If so, will the Minister indicate when we may expect this legislation to be introduced in another place, bearing in mind the complex situation facing the dairying industry?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– Firstly, the proposal being examined at present is the dairy farm reconstruction scheme, not the dairy industry reconstruction scheme. Secondly, the Minister for Primary Industry has not received replies from the Ministers for Agriculture in all States and until this is done legislation cannot be introduced. Unless replies are received in the very near future - I would say within the next few days - it will not be possible to bring down legislation during this sessional period.

page 1619

QUESTION

COURTS AND JUDICIARY

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to yesterday’s decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council refusing leave to appeal to Jose Manuel Da Costa, who is under sentence of death after being convicted of murder by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. I ask: Now that the condemned man’s rights of appeal have been exhausted and his execution, which has already been stayed no fewer than six times, has been set for next Tuesday, will the Minister ask the AttorneyGeneral to act immediately to recommend that the death sentence be commuted? Secondly, in view of the fact that the Death Penalty Abolition Bill has already been passed by the Senate and is now before the House of Representatives will the Minister ask the Attorney-General to undertake that whilst this legislation is before the Parliament the death penalty will not be enforced?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– 1 have no doubt that as the convicted persons appeal rights have now been exhausted, the AttorneyGeneral will give immediate consideration to a proper decision in the matter in accordance with the law.

page 1619

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Is it not a fact that, after taking all aspects into consideration, the cost of the nuclear power stations that now supply 40% of electric power in the United Kingdom is not much greater than that of the hydro-electric power schemes currently under construction in Tasmania? Is it not also a fact that well informed authorities who are aware of the continued demand for power for industrial use in Tasmania, which State has no suitable coal deposits or known sources of natural gas, believe that Tasmania would be very suitable for the construction of Australia’s first nuclear power station?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– -The cost of nuclear power throughout the world is reducing year by year as more technical knowledge is gained. It is a fact that nuclear power stations can now generate electricity at a cost equivalent to that of coal burning stations and not very much greater than that of hydro-electric stations. In regard to the erection of a nuclear power station in Tasmania, I can only advise the honourable senator that the Minister for National Development, through the Atomic Energy Commission, has at present approximately twenty technicians examining nuclear power stations in Europe and America. No doubt the Minister will give serious consideration to where the first nuclear power station is erected. If Tasmania is the most suitable State in Australia, I am sure that it will be erected there.

page 1619

QUESTION

DRIED FRUITS INDUSTRY

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. As the Minister will be aware a petition organised by the Federated Vine Fruits Committee of the Australian Primary Producers Union was circulated and signed by approximately 58% of growers in that industry. The petition sought to have a poll taken among growers to discuss their attitude to the creation of a Commonwealth statutory board to control the whole of the dried fruits industry. Subsequently the request of the growers represented by the petition was referred to the Australian Agricultural Council which did not agree with the adoption of the proposed principle, and the matter has not proceeded beyond that point. I ask: In view of the fact that such a substantial body of opinion expressed a wish for the taking of a poll on the establishment of an authority, and that such opinion is still entertained by a similar majority in the industry, does the Minister intend to take any action to give effect to the views so expressed? If no action is proposed, why not? In the absence of any action in terms of the proposals in the petition, is the Government contemplating any alternative proposition in view of the serious position threatening the economic stability of the industry and the welfare of the producers engaged in it?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– J am not aware of the views held by the Minister for Primary Industry in connection with the matter raised by the honourable senator. I shall seek his views and let the honourable senator know what they are.

page 1620

QUESTION

EARTHQUAKE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 direct my question to the Minister for Works. Arising out of the recent earthquake in Western Australia, has the Minister any indication of the amount of damage caused to Commonwealth property?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I had early reports after the happening of this disaster and, except for the Post Office at Meckering, which as the honourable senator would know was completely demolished because of the extensive damage, it is expected that the cost of repairing other Commonwealth buildings in the Postmaster-General’s Department will amount to about $15,000 and that repairs effected through the services of the Department of Works to other departments will cost about $8,000.

page 1620

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy. Is the Minister aware that there is great dissatisfaction among serving members of the Royal Australian Navy, particularly so far as chief engineroom artificers are concerned, with the proposed new scales of pay drawn up by the naval authorities? ls the Minister aware that last week on HMAS ‘Sydney’ and HMAS ‘Stalwart’ there was considerable disquiet among naval personnel and that officers from the Naval Board went on to the ships between Sydney and Melbourne to try to dampen down the fiery feelings of the men? Do the new rates of pay mean that men who joined the Navy in the first instance as apprentices and who are now exercising great skills in the performance of their work will be penalised by some thousands of dollars over their period of 12 years service, compared with men who are not skilled tradesmen? Finally, what action, if any, does the Government intend to take to rectify great anomalies existing in the new proposed pay rates?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– I have a rather lengthy explanation in answer to this question, but I propose to read certain paragraphs only. If the honourable senator would like the remainder of the explanation I shall be quite happy to provide it to him. During a recent review of the grouping system in force in the other Services, it became apparent that because of the pay movements in industry a large proportion of sailors were being paid less than their counterparts in industry and the other two Services. Also, it became evident that with the changes in Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission practices in relation to work value claims the Royal Australian Navy lacked a ready means of ensuring an equitable alignment of sailors’ pay with wage trends in industry. The Navy has always been conscious of the advantages in paying a common rate of pay according to rank to sailors living together in the close confines of a ship or naval depot, but because sailors were already being paid less than others in like employment, and because the disparity could widen under the new wage fixing methods, new methods of assessing pay had to be considered. We are aware that the new system has caused some concern in the Navy because of our tradition of commonality, but we believe that, given time, the Navy will recognise the considerable benefits to be derived from it. It will give us the ability to keep the rewards for naval skills in line with the rewards for civilian skills, together with the great advantage of up-dating the rewards for these skills as they move into a civilian field.

page 1620

QUESTION

SYNTHETIC BACON

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, by saying that concern has been expressed in the pig meats industry at the production in the United States of America of a synthetic bacon made from soya beans. At the Upper Murray and Murray Mallee pig industry symposium held last week at Loxton, South Australia, samples of the American synthetic bacon were said to be indistinguishable in texture, smell or flavour from bacon. I ask: Has the Government any information which might suggest that this synthetic product could present to the pig meats industry a threat similar to that presented by margarine to the dairy industry?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– I am not aware of the position outlined by the honourable senator. I will make inquiries of the Minister for Primary Industry and let the honourable senator know the results.

page 1621

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question: As the United States Government has now announced that it intends to stop bombing North Vietnam and to enter into direct negotiations with the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front, and as the Australian Government reluctantly or otherwise has agreed to follow this course of action of the United States Administration, will the Minister on behalf of the Government issue an apology to the Australians who have been advocating in the past those very policies, and on account of advocating those policies which have now been adopted by the United States Government, with the reluctant or other support of this Government, were accused of being unpatriotic, subversive, or in some way disloyal to Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– At a time in our history when the free world and, indeed, the whole world is concerned with negotiations that are opening up in relation to possibilities of peace in Vietnam, I do not think it is appropriate that there should be directed to me a question so loaded with politics as that of the honourable senator. I do not think it is worthy of an answer by me as Leader of the Government in the Senate However, I take the opportunity to say now that at 8 o’clock tonight in another place the Prime Minister of Australia will make a statement on the negotiations which are to commence tomorrow. With the concurrence of honourable senators I hope to be able to make the same statement in the Senate.

page 1621

QUESTION

PEAS

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, who is responsible for the administration of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Is the Minister aware that the method used in producing the brand of peas known as ‘Surprise’ peas consists of the withdrawal of all liquid content of the peas, leaving only the dry shells or kernels, or whatever they might correctly be termed? In view of the claim made by some people that the process greatly reduces the nutritional value of the product, will the Minister seek an opinion from CSIRO on whether that claim is correct?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I had occasion this morning to check on the very matter referred to by the honourable senator. I am informed that the process which produces Surprise’ peas stems from a process initiated by CSIRO. I am assured that it does not reduce the nutritive value of the peas.

page 1621

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister for Housing. On 22nd October I asked her a question relating to the Press statement attributed to the Governor-General to the effect that 70% of householders in Australia owned their own homes. She said that she had read the statement and that it was correct that 70.8% of Australians owned their own homes. I point out that the GovernorGeneral said 70%. The recently appointed President of the International Congress of Building Societies and Savings Associations was reported in the Melbourne ‘Herald’ of 26th October as saying that 75% of Australians owned their own homes. I now ask the Minister: Which figure is correct - the 70%, which is the Governor-General’s figure; the 70.8%, which is the Minister’s figure; or the 75%, as stated by the President of the Congress? Further, will the Minister kindly answer the last part of my question appearing on page 1423 of Hansard, as to the percentage of those householders who have no liability on their homes?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The point raised by Senator Hendrickson relates to the figure that I quoted and other figures that have been quoted of the number of Australian householders who own their own homes or are in the process of paying off their own homes. The 1966 census showed that the figure was 70.8%, which is the figure that I think I gave. I regret that I did not answer the last part of the honourable senator’s question. I apologise to him; that was an error. In that part of his question he asked whether I could give the percentage of householders who are still paying off their own homes. I am sorry; I cannot tell him the number of Australians who have not yet completed paying off their own homes.

page 1622

QUESTION

CEREALS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Education and Science. I refer to a report that a new, high yielding cereal - -Tritacale - has been developed. It is claimed that it will be the answer to the world’s food shortage. I ask the Minister whether any research has been done on this cereal in Australia. If not, will the report be drawn to the attention of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation so that Australian farmers can benefit from this development?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am not able to inform the honourable senator whether this matter has been the subject of research by the CSIRO. I am grateful to him for bringing it to our attention. It certainly will be transmitted to the Organisation for appropriate action by it.

page 1622

QUESTION

CHIFLEY SQUARE FOUNTAIN

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government. As the Government made a grant to the city commissioners in Sydney towards the cost of the fountain to bie constructed in Chifley Square to commemorate the former Prime Minister, was it consulted on the design of the fountain? In particular, did it condone the wanton destruction of the poplar trees in the square, and will the fountain, when completed, be flanked by trees or be left just as a stone edifice?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– In 1964, following a previous request from the Lord Mayor of Sydney, the Commonwealth agreed to contribute $10,000 to meet part of the cost of erecting a fountain in Chifley Square, Sydney. This was an unconditional gift from the Commonwealth. In 1967 the Lord Mayor of Sydney made further representations to the Commonwealth for an additional contribution towards the cost of the fountain. The Commonwealth agreed to contribute a further $5,000. So the amount of the total Commonwealth contribution towards the cost of the fountain was 815,000. No conditions were attached to the grant by the Commonwealth. It therefore follows from this decision to contribute unconditionally towards the cost of the Chifley Square fountain that the Commonwealth was not involved in considerations of design or the retention of poplar trees and other flora in the area.

page 1622

QUESTION

POTATO INDUSTRY

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that the Federal Potato Advisor)’ Committee is an official committee authorised and appointed by the Federal Government to advise the Australian Agricultural Council? Did this Committee unanimously recommend, at its Brisbane meeting in 1966, that a poll of potato growers throughout the Commonwealth of Australia be taken to ascertain whether the industry was in favour of legalised registration of potato growers and the inauguration of a potato production statistical bureau? Subsequently, has this recommendation been rejected by the Minister for Primary Industry? If so, will the Minister explain to the Senate the reasons for such rejection?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– The Federal Potato Advisory Committee was appointed by the Australian Agricultural Council which comprises the six State Ministers for Agriculture, with the Minister for Primary Industry as Chairman. The answer lo the second part of the question is yes. The recommendation failed to receive the support of the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in Perth in August 1966. The Standing Committee on Agriculture, after long consideration and while seeing merit in a central statistical service for the potato industry, thought that having regard to the substantial information and advice presently made available to the potato industry by State Departments of Agriculture, the imposition on growers of a levy, with complex administrative problems for the industry and the Government, would provide only marginal additional information, which would have little effect in stabilising the industry. The Standing Committee also had reservations regarding the use growers would make of any material made available. The Agricultural Council debated the views put forward by the Standing Committee and endorsed its conclusions.

page 1623

QUESTION

PRINTING INDUSTRY

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has the book manufacturing section of the Printing and Allied Trades Employers Association of Australia made representations for legislative action to be taken by the Government to overcome the situation whereby the book manufacturing industry in Australia is rapidly approaching extinction? Did the Minister or his representative give any assurances to the representatives of the book manufacturers? If so, what were the assurances given and when is it intended to implement the proposals? Is the Minister aware that the 1968 Federal Council meeting of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union, held in Perth last week, unanimously resolved to support the propositions to correct the difficulties confronting the industry which are outlined in a book entitled ‘Books Are Different’?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator asks a very comprehensive question. In fairness to himself it would be wise to put it on the notice paper. I would hope to have a reply tomorrow. I could give an answer in part but I think the question deserves a fuller comment from the Minister for Trade and Industry.

page 1623

QUESTION

TIMBER

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry request that Minister to examine the reasons for the apparent repudiation of the arrangement made at or about the time of negotiation of the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement, when it was agreed, with the concurrence of the Department of Trade of the two counttries that an upper limit of 6 million super feet of New Zealand softwood timber be permitted to enter Australia annually, whereas the quantity now entering Australia approaches 17 million super feet annually, or nearly three times the agreed quantity? Will he also ask the Minister what action, if any, he proposes to take to ensure that what the Australian industry regards as a solemn undertaking is honoured?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– This, too, is a question which I think should very properly go to the Minister for Trade and Industry and his Department. When the honourable senator talks in terms of repudiation of an agreement it is pretty strong language and I do not think I should be called upon to answer it. I would suggest that the word might be misplaced, but we shall wait for the full answer from the Minister for Trade and Industry.

page 1623

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Premier of Tasmania at first denied but has at last admitted that he has a sum of $289,000 shown in a trust account for the benefit of economically distressed farmers in Tasmania but has spent it on other purposes, will the Minister ascertain whether the east coast farmers must languish forever; or can the Prime Minister, first, take some steps to force the Tasmanian Government to apply to the benefit of these farmers those moneys which were originally supplied by the Commonwealth, and, secondly, make some further funds available to alleviate the plight of these people?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As I have said here before, the question of special relief is a matter for negotiation between the Commonwealth and the States, and these negotiations are usually at the Prime Minister-Premier level. Far be it from me to comment on what may be matters of correspondence or other communication between the Prime Minister and a Premier of any State. I shall refer the balance of the honourable senator’s question to both the Prime Minister’s Department and the Treasurer who, I understand, takes up the burden of the details with relation to the question of possible relief in certain areas.

page 1623

QUESTION

TOURIST ROADS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. It relates to the condition of the tourist roads to the Northern Territory, Ayers Rock and the opal mining districts of South Australia. It also relates to the condition of the roads in the area near Ayers Rock. The Minister may recall that recently I asked what consideration had been given to constructing sound roads in these areas. The Minister then replied that the matter was under consideration. I now ask the Minister whether he can give the Senate any information about what sort of work might be done in these areas, particularly in relation to those roads and airstrips which are unserviceable by washaways and floods.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It would be premature to attempt to indicate the nature of the improvements that wiN be proposed but. a few weeks ago, I informed the Senate that a visit was being made to this area by experts accompanied by representatives of the Northern Territory Reserve Board and the Australian Tourist Commission. Arising out of that visit, it has been decided that an expert report should be procured by the Northern Territory Reserve Board relating to the particular area around Ayers Rock and that the Australian Tourist Commission should get a similar report on the Alice Springs environment. It would be quite unwise for any of us to anticipate the nature of that report, but I have said sufficient to show that in due time we shall have a most informative report on this area.

page 1624

QUESTION

RIVER MURRAY WATERS

Senator LAUCKE:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for National Development inform me whether the pumping stations at the Barr Creek and Lake Hawthorn salinity disposal schemes are in operation following completion of the S3.6m project constructed to arrest the flow of saline water into the River Murray? If these pumping stations are not yet in operation, would the Minister ascertain why they are not?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I understand that the Commonwealth Government made available the sum of S3. 6m to assist in projects designed to overcome the salinity problem in certain parts of the River Murray. I ask that the honourable senator put on notice his question relating to whether the pumping stations are at present operating, and I shall obtain an answer for him.

page 1624

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface a question addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by reminding the Minister that foreign vessels are again poaching in Australian waters off the north

Queensland coast. Can the Minister advise what corrective action, if any, is being taken by the Australian Government? Can he also inform the Parliament why Royal Australian Air Force planes were not called into action to locate the foreign fishing boats immediately it was known that they were in the area?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I have no information additional to that which I furnished in connection with this matter when we were discussing the Estimates, but I shall make inquiries of the Minister for Primary Industry and let the honourable senator have whatever further information is available. john Mcewen house

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs who answered my two earlier questions with relation to John McEwen House. My first question related to the period of tenancy provided for under the agreement. The second was whether the Minister thought it proper that a department which controls elections should occupy premises owned by a political party. I point out to the Minister that on the rental figure he gave the Senate earlier, the amount paid for occupation of part of this building over a period of 6 years will meet the complete published contract price for the construction of the building.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I regret that earlier I failed to answer that part of the honourable senator’s question which related to the period of tenure of the lease. I can inform the honourable senator that, following approval by the Executive Council of a submission by the Minister for the Interior, the lease was signed and made effective from 9th September 1968 and is for a period of 5 years with an option for a further 5-year period. As to that part of the question relating to the Department of the Interior and the electoral law, and the propriety of the position, it should be understood that the Department of the Interior is the landlord for all Commonwealth buildings. It carries the burden of leasing all Commonwealth buildings. In this instance that Department will not occupy the building under consideration. It will be occupied by the Department of External Affairs. That is the reason I intervened and answered the question. The third part of the question relates to the amortisation of a building. Many things would have to be known before one could answer this question. One would have to know the expected life of the building, the expected deterioration of the building, and all manner of things. As a valuer in my earlier days I can assure the honourable senator that his question does not lend itself to an adequate answer at question time.

page 1625

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator HENDRICKSON:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Prior to last week’s recess I asked the Minister whether he had noticed a report in the Melbourne ‘Herald’ that a young conscientious objector had been imprisoned for 2 years for noi complying with the directions of the National Service Registrar. The Minister promised that he would make a report on this matter. I ask the Minister: Will he ensure that if this lad’s imprisonment is to continue it will be in some place apart from the hardened criminals with whom he has to mix at Pentridge Gaol, where he is at the moment serving his sentence?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 advised the honourable senator about this matter by letter dated 29th October.

Senator Hendrickson:

– I have not received that letter.

Senator WRIGHT:

– lt has been in the course of transmission, to the honourable senator for some days. The young man referred to submitted himself for medical examination in July 1967 and failed to respond to a call-up notice in October 1967. He applied to be considered as a conscientious objector. In November 1967 the magistrate concluded that he had a conscientious objection against the war in Vietnam but, as honourable senators know, the law provides that for immunity from service the objection must be to war generally. In December 1967 he was issued with a further call-up notice. In July 1968 another call-up notice was sent and then the sentence of imprisonment was imposed. That sentence was passed under legislation which was before the Parliament earlier this year. The Australian Labor Party joined with many other sections of the community in asking for and accepting that there be provision for a defaulter to undergo penal service in a civil prison. However, that will not daunt me from recommending to the Attorney-General that anxious consideration be given to Senator Hendrickson^ question; namely, that the case of this young man’s imprisonment should be specially considered to ensure that there is proper segregation.

page 1625

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator DEVITT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Is it a fact that members of the Regular Army Emergency Reserve commit an offence which is punishable by imprisonment for 3 months if they take an active part in the affairs of a political party? Is it a fact that in 1964 instructions were given to amend regulation 210a of the Australian Military Regulations as they apply to members of the Regular Army Emergency Reserve? If this is so, when will those instructions be carried out?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question would come within the responsibility of the Minister for the Army, nol the Minister for Defence. To avoid repetition of the question I will arrange for it to be put on notice for the Minister for the Army.

page 1625

QUESTION

FISHING

Senator KEEFFE:

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the continued operations of foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters off the north Queensland coast, will the Minister use his influence with the Prime Minister in an endeavour to have at least three of the new Navy patrol vessels stationed at Townsville or some other northern port for the purpose of policing effectively Australian territorial waters?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I will direct the honourable senator’s question to the Prime Minister. In truth, I think it relates to one of the other portfolios, but as he has directed it to the Prime Minister I will see that it is conveyed to the right honourable gentleman.

page 1625

QUESTION

TALKING CHAIRS

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister inform the Senate whether the Government has disposed of the talking chairs which were exhibited in the Australian pavilion at Expo 67? If they have been disposed of were they sold? If not, what was the method of disposal? To whom were they disposed of?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I will get the information for the honourable senator as quickly as possible.

page 1626

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator DEVITT:

– In view of the fact that in the next day or so we will be discussing the estimates for the Department of Civil Aviation, will the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation make further endeavours to get a copy of the annual report of the Australian National Airlines Commission so that we may consider it, together with the reports of Qantas Airways Ltd, Ansett-ANA and the Department of Civil Aviation, when we are dealing with those estimates?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Already Senator Kennelly has asked me two questions on this subject and on both occasions I have taken up the matter with the Minister and/ or his Department. On the last occasion I was assured that the report would be here last week. I now will make further inquiries in an endeavour to have it here at the honourable senator’s disposal during the debate on the estimates he referred to.

page 1626

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 393)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many students presented themselves for the matriculation examination in each of the Australian States for the years 1960 to 1967?
  2. How many of these students were boys and how many were girls?
  3. How many (a) boys, and (b) girls passed the examination?
  4. What was (a) the overall percentage pass rate; (b) the percentage pass rate for boys; and (c) the percentage pass rate for girls?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows: 1, 2, 3 and 4. The following tables provide information on matriculation level examinations for each State for the years 1960-67. Students shown as passing the matriculation level examination in the tables for Victoria, South Australia (1966 and 1967 only) and Tasmania, have qualified to matriculate. For New South Wales Queensland, South Australia (1960-1965) and Western Australia, those passing the examination shown have not necessarily qualified to matriculate. The only statistics available for Queensland relate to numbers passing one or more subjects.

page 1628

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY DRAFTSMEN

(Question No. 498)

Senator DEVITT:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Is the Attorney-General satisfied that all the steps which could have been taken were taken to fill the vacancies for draftsmen in the establishment of the parliamentary draftsman’s section of the Attorney-General’s Department?
  2. Is the Attorney-General aware that vacancies existed for up to 6 months, without any obvious action being taken to fill them, a fact to which attention was drawn by questions asked on a number of occasions in the Senate?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am aware that vacancies have, in some cases, existed for considerable periods but am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain suitable people to fill the vacancies. Vacancies at the recruiting level (Legal Officer) have been advertised throughout Australia and the attention of law students has been drawn to the careers, including a career in legislative drafting, open to them in my Department. There are presently only three vacancies in the establishment of twenty-four offices and, as a result of the most recent advertisements, two additional persons have been selected for appointment to the division; they are expected to commence duty shortly. One of the officers who recently joined the division has had several years’ experience in legislative drafting in another country. He is only a temporary employee but has applied for permanent appointment. Having said as much, T think I should add that the present officers include a number who have as yet had little experience in legislative drafting. Moreover, not all lawyers possess the special qualities required by legislative draftsmen. It is too early yet to say whether all the inexperienced officers do possess these special qualities or how long it will be before those who do have these qualities can play their full part in the working of the division. Meanwhile, much of the time of the senior officers in the division is taken up with training them. Apart from the question of vacancies, the greatest need of the parliamentary drafting division is the need for more senior experienced draftsmen; until we can recruit and train officers to the stage when they can undertake senior work, it would not assist the Parliamentary Draftsman to create more senior offices, or include more junior offices.

page 1629

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 633)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What proportion of teachers in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea are (a) Australian or British subjects; (b) New Guinean; and (c) other?
  2. What proportion of these teachers have been trained in (a) Australia; (b) the Territory of Papua and New Guinea; and (c) elsewhere?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has now supplied the following answers:

Government Teachers: 1. (a) 37%. (b) 63%. (c) Negligible- precise information is not available, but the number is considered to be no more than 15. 2. (a) 29%. (b) 69%. (c) 2%- approximate only, precise information not available.

Mission Teachers: 1. (a) 11%. (b) 79%. (c) 10%. Dissection between (a) and (c) is regarded as approximate only.

(a). (b). (c). No information is available to answer this question as far as Missions are concerned. (Question No. 637)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What is being done to ensure that all members of the House of Assembly of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea receive adequate information and documents to carry out their legislative responsibilities, and in what way is the Australian Government assisting?

Senator WRIGHT:

– The Minister for External Territories has now supplied the following answer:

Some of the ways in which members of the House of Assembly are assisted are: A general briefing meeting lasting 7 days was held before the first meeting of the new House of Assembly and a further special meeting on procedures was held in August. All Bills have explanatory notes and important Bills are translated into Pidgin and if required into Motu. Regular meetings are held with ministerial members and assistant ministerial members so that they fully understand Administration proposals and are able to explain them to other members. A wide range of committees have been appointed by the House in which many members take part. (Question No. 679)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What is being done to implement the recommendation of the 1968 United Nations Visiting Mission to the Trust Territory of New Guinea that some way must be found, without delay, to involve the House (of Assembly) in real financial responsibilities’?

Senator WRIGHT:

– The Minister tor External Territories has now supplied the following answer:

Since the United Nations Visiting Mission’s recommendations were formulated in May the arrangements for increased participation by elected members in the executive government of the Territory have been inaugurated. These new arrangements include the system of ministerial offices, with ministerial members comprising a majority of the Administrator’s Executive Council, and the establishment of a House budget committee of five elected members not occupying ministerial offices. As I said in moving the second reading of the Bill to amend the Papua and New Guinea Act in May: . . In matters of budget policy and planning the Council would have the final responsibility within the Territory for advising the Administrator. . . . ‘ Ministerial members take part in the formulation of policies and plans and proposals for departmental expenditure, including the preparation of departmental estimates for the following Departments:

Agriculture. Stock and Fisheries

Education

Labour

Posts and Telegraphs

Public Health

Public Works

Trade and Industry.

Assistant ministerial members participate in departmental policy information and in preparing budget estimates for the following Departments:

Co-operatives

Forests information and Extension Services

Lands. Survey and Mines

Local Government

Rural Development

TechnicalEducation and Training

Treasury. (Question No. 681)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Which Australian daily newspapers and periodicals are receivedby the Library of the House of Assembly in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea for members’ information?

Senator WRIGHT:

– The Minister for External Territories has now supplied the following answer:

At the request of the House of Assembly Library Committee the following Australian newspapers are purchased during the sittings of the House - The “Australian*, ‘Courier Mail’, and ‘Sydney Morning Herald’.

The following periodicals were ordered by the last House of Assembly Library Committee to be received to December 1967 - ‘Australian Ports Quarterly’, ‘Bulletin’, ‘Current Affairs Bulletin’, Pacific Islands Monthly’, ‘People’, ‘Pix’. The House of Assembly Library Committee is to review newspapers and periodicals orders in November. (Question No. 682)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. In the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, are there any New Guinean (a) judges, (b) barristers, (c) solicitors, (d) legal draftsmen and (e) qualified legal officers?
  2. How many New Guineans have graduated in law?
  3. How many New Guineans are studying law?
Senator WRIGHT:

– The Minister for External Territories has now supplied the following answers:

  1. (a), (b), (c), (d>- No. (e)- One Papuan.
  2. One Papuan.
  3. Ten Papuans and eight New Guineans are taking a full-time law course at university level. (Question No. 693)
Senator RAE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What is the approximate percentage of the inflow of investment money into the Territory of Papua and New Guinea which comes from sources other than Australia?
  2. What steps are being taken to encourage foreign investment in the Territory in the interests of the rapid development of the area?
Senator WRIGHT:

– The Minister for External Territories has now supplied the following answers:

  1. Information on the proportion of the inflow of investment money into Papua and New Guinea which comes from sources other than Australia is not yet available. This question is being examined but because of the complex nature of the statistical investigations involved it will be some time before a complete answer would be available. A survey of overseas investment in Papua and New Guinea is currently being conducted and is expected to provide some information concerning flows of overseas investment. The results of this survey should be available by mid-1969.
  2. The Government’s policies on foreign investment in Papua and New Guinea have been based on the creation of a favourable investment climate and on the provision of basic services which are necessary to attract private development capital. The recently announced 5-year development programme places considerable emphasis on improving the Territory’s economic infrastructure and basic services such as roads, ports and communications.

In addition the Government has taken a number of specific measures directed at encouraging private investment in the Territory. These include low rates of taxation, tax holidays for ‘pioneer’ industries and special tax deductions for agricultural, forestry and mining operations. Other measures include tariff concessions on imported plant and raw materials used in manufacture and tariff protection for local industry.

The Department of External Territories and the Territory Administration publicise investment opportunities in Papua and New Guinea through publications, films, seminars, trade fairs and displays and in other ways. It is intended to continue and expand this publicity programme both in Australia and overseas to ensure that potential investors are aware of opportunities for investment.

page 1630

QUESTION

LEGAL AID

(Question No. 483)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

What progress has been made towards the establishment of a federal legal aid scheme?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer:

The Government has never proposed that a federal legal aid scheme should be established to cover the whole range of legal aid in Australia. Legal aid in the States is a responsibility of the State governments concerned and in each State a legal aid scheme is in existence. The Commonwealth is only concerned with legal aid in special areas of Commonwealth interest such as legal aid in relation to people charged with offences against Commonwealth law. There have been extensions in this field as aid is now granted subject to a means test by the Commonwealth to people committed for sentence as well as those whose applications do not fall within sub-section (3.) of section 69 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1965 because their applications are not made within the time prescribed by the section. Aid can also be granted in appeals from decisions of State courts exercising federal jurisdiction. The Attorney-General has recently stated that he is presently considering the question of legal aid in cases of Federal jurisdiction. However, section 69 (3.) of the Judiciary Act is in one of the Parts of the Act that the Committee appointed to consider the provisions of the Judiciary Act is by its terms of reference required to consider and report upon.

page 1631

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

(Question No. 65ft)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Why are telephone communications between Port Moresby and Australia so unsatisfactory?
  2. What remedial action is being taken?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has supplied the following answers:

  1. Telephone calls between Port Moresby and Australia are connected over four radiotelephone channels. Circuits of this type are subject to radio interference and it is not always possible to maintain the quality of transmission at a desirable level. There has also been an unusually high increase in traffic offering over this route which has given rise to some problems in the disposal of calls.
  2. Remedial action includes the provision of 2 additional channels which should be in service by mid-November this year, and by May 1969, the total available channels is expected to be 11. In addition, plans are for the Sydney and Port Moresby radio terminals to be fitted with new equipment in June 1969 which is designed to improve the quality of speech transmission. In the long term, it is expected that by about the end of 1971 network improvements within the Territory will be effected which will permit calls to be connected via Madang and over higher quality SEACOM cable channels to Sydney.

page 1631

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 702)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Are any Royal Australian Navy engineers being trained in the use of marine gas turbines?
  2. Are any RAN vessels fitted with this type of engine?
Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answers:

  1. All General List RAN marine engineers are trained in the theory and practical operation of marine gas turbines whilst undergoing engineering degree and marine engineering application courses. Special duties marine engineer officers undergo similar training during post promotion courses.
  2. No. However, a gas turbine driven fire pump was tried out in the Fleet some years ago, and in the past RAN engineer officers were required to operate and maintain the gas turbine generators installed at Maralinga.

page 1631

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 622)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for immigration, upon notice:

  1. With reference to a recent reply on the operations it section 14 (8.) of the Migration Act, in which the Minister reported on the appointment of commissioners from Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, do these commissioners sit on cases in their respective States only?
  2. Had there been any appeals under section 14 (8.) in New South Wales, would a commissioner from that State have been appointed?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answers:

  1. In practice this has been the situation but it is not necessarily so.
  2. A commissioner of appropriate calibre and public standing would have been appointed but it is not possible to say who he would have been or in which State he would have been resident.

page 1631

QUESTION

MEAT IMPORTS

(Question No. 614)

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

With reference to the importation of some 700 tons of New Zealand lamb this year, has the Australian Meat Board any control over the issue of import licences and the quality of the imported meat?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

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

The Australian Meal Board is essentially concerned with the export of Australian meat and has no power to exercise any control over imports of meat of any type. Import licences are not required for the importation of meats. Imported meat is of course, subject to the Quarantine (Animals) Regulations administered by the Department of Health and must be accompanied by such declarations, certificates etc., as are required by the Regulations. The various Australian States also require that lamb imported from New Zealand be re-inspected on entry into the particular State concerned.

The Australian Meat Board does maintain a close watch on lamb imports in order to keep producers informed of the situation. The Board has also held discussions with the New Zealand Meat Producers Board on this matter.

page 1632

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

(Question No. 585)

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. Is the Government considering the installation of an automatic message-switching machine at Darwin for the Royal Australian Air Force? If so, when will it be installed and by whom?
  2. Will the proposed installation be available for shipping services?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Air has supplied the following answers:

  1. A contract has been let to Control Data Australia Ply Ltd for the supply and installation of an automatic message-switching machine at Darwin for the Royal Australian Air Force. The installation is scheduled for completion by September 1969.
  2. The proposed installation will have the capability to provide some facilities for the relay of Navy messages. I understand that by September 1969 commercial shipping messages will be handled by Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

page 1632

QUESTION

SUGAR

(Question No. 613)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

What price did Japan pay for Australian sugar last financial year, and what price will be paid for that portion of the Australian crop to be purchased this year?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has furnished the following reply:

The price Japan paid for Australian sugar last financial year (1967-68) resulted in an f.o.b. value of$A38.67 per long ton tel quel f.o.b. This is the price net to the industry after freight and insurance have been deducted.

For the financial year ending 30th June 1969 a very considerable part of the projected sales to Japan remains to be priced and the freight charges for this sugar have also to be arranged. It is not possible, therefore,to provide a price at this stage. Japan, like many other importing countries, buys its sugar on the world market at prices related to the present disastrously low world free market price. It is because of the low level of the world free market price which has now continued for some years that the Australian Government was so strongly represented at the recent international Sugar Conference in Geneva, and which has now reached a successful conclusion.

page 1632

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 708)

Senator WHEELDON:

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

Is it a fact, as reported in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 23rd October, that the Government intends to establish an Immigration Office in South Africa? If so, will only white South Africans be eligible to be immigrants or will those South Africans who have been classified as non-European by the South African Government and fulfil Australian immigration requirements also be entitled to selection as immigrants to Australia?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Immigration has supplied the following answer:

The Department of External Affairs, at the request of the Department of Immigration, is examining the embassy’s staffing reuirements for the handling of migrant applications in South Africa. Applications in South Africa will continue, as in the past, to be considered under the policies relating to Europeans, persons of mixed descent and, for non-Europeans, in accordance with the policy determined by the Government in its review of March 1966.

page 1632

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 691)

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

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

What is the total number, and the number of respective ranks, of Navy personnel in Brisbane and other major centres of Queensland?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answer:

  1. A total of 53 RAN personnel are at present serving in Queensland, as follows:
  1. From time to time 2 officers and upto 20 sailors are required in Brisbane and Maryborough areas to stand by patrol boats. Both officers and sailors arc occasionally required to undergo courses at the army jungle training centre, Canungra.

page 1633

QUESTION

WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME

(Question No. 660)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Has any contribution of surplus food been made by the Australian Government to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations towards the experimental world food programme being conducted by that Organisation?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Australia has contributed to the UN-FAO world food programme since its inception. During the first 3 year experimental period of the programme from 1963 to 1965 the Australian contribution was $US1.5m made up of one-third cash and two-thirds commodities.

Australia’s contribution was increased for the second 3 year period (1966 to 1968) to $US2.25m comprising 20% cash and 80% commodities.

At the UN pledging conference held in January this year for the third phase of the programme covering 1969 and 1970 Australia announced a contribution of $ US 1. 65 m again comprising 20% cash and 80% commodities. Australia has also undertaken to channel through the world food programme 10,000 metric tons of wheat each year in 1969 and 1970 from its commitment under the Food Aid Convention of the International Grains Arrangement.

Commodities which Australia has supplied under the world food programme include, canned and dried fruit, flour, butter oil, skim milk powder, canned cheese, dried egg and small quantities of rice.

page 1633

QUESTION

COMMODITY PROBLEMS

(Question No. 664)

Senator WILKINSON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Mas the Minister received any information from the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Committee on Commodity Problems which might assist in solving the present crisis in agriculture?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has advised me that the Committee on Commodity Problems of the Food and Agriculture Organisation met in Rome from 25th September to 4th October 1968. The Committee is an elected body comprising 34 FAO member nations representative of developed and developing countries and producers and consumers of agricultural produce. Mr M. W. Oakley of Australia is the present Chairman of the Committee.

The Committee is charged with the task of keeping the world commodity situation under constant review and suggesting appropriate measures for the alleviation of serious commodity problems. A principal feature of the Committee’s operations is the setting up of a series of study groups to examine the position of a number of commodity groups. These study groups recommend where appropriate that international meetings be arranged by bodies such as UNCTAD, GATT, etc., to examine the feasibility of international commodity agreements or arrangements. At its most recent meeting the CCP established a study group on wine and vine products and arranged for an international ad hoc consultation on meat and poultry with a principal term of reference to recommend the advisability of establishing a study group for these products.

The Minister has, of course, received a full report from the Australian delegation on the proceedings at the Rome meeting. The CCP reaffirmed its belief that the best method of tackling the present crisis in agriculture was through the negotiation of a series of international commodity agreements. This is a slow process and the Committee made a number of recommendations regarding possible interim measures for various commodities. The Committee operates on this basis rather than as a body making broad overall suggestions designated to solve all problems at once.

A principal feature of the Committee’s work at the recent session was a reappraisal of the terms of reference of one of its subsidiary bodies the Washington subcommittee on surplus disposal. This subcommittee is responsible for ensuring that surplus disposal transactions create a minimum of disturbance to commercial trade. The reappraisal was necessary due to the changing nature of aid transactions where many of the commodities concerned can no longer be aptly described as surpluses’.

In addition to study of a wide range of commodities the production of which is of direct concern to Australia the Committee also covers tropical products such as copra, tropical oilseeds and cocoa which are of vital interest to Papua and New Guinea.

page 1634

QUESTION

LAMB

(Question No. 468)

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware of the concern being expressed by many Australian fat lamb producers that the import oflamb from other countries has enabled buyers of lamb to add a further reason why the price of lamb may be depressed?
  2. Is it a fact that for the 6 months to the end of June 1968 the import of lamb was approximately 865 tons weight?
  3. Does this figure indicate a significant increase in import of lamb over the past 2 years?
  4. If a similar increase in import of lamb should occur in the current year could the volume pose a threat to the returns to Australian producers?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers:

  1. The Government is aware of the concern expressed by fat lamb producers that imports of New Zealand lamb have caused depressed prices on Australian auction markets. The Department of Trade and Industry has conducted a comprehensive investigation of the Australian lamb market situation. The increase in import this year was due to abnormal price and seasonal conditions in Australia as a result of the drought. Prices of imports in fact were generally higher than Sydney prices. They were lower than prices in Melbourne which however were 3c to 5c per lb higher during April-June, the main import period, than for the same months last year. The basic reason for the recent fall in prices, and this has been commented on recently by the Chairman of the Australian Meat Board, was the unusually heavy supplies of Australian lamb reaching markets in all States reversing the normal trend of small yardages during the winter months - another effect of the recent drought in eastern Australia.
  2. No. Imports of lamb from New Zealand for the 6-month period, January-June 1968. totalled 593 tons. The latest official figures available show imports of 856 tons for the 8-month period, January to August. Imports reached a peak during May (215 tons) and June (278 tons), but declined in July to 171 tons and in August to 91 tons. Investigations carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry indicate that imports will decline even further.
  3. The imports of lamb from New Zealand were 5 tons in 1966 and 121 tons in 1967. However, the imports this year to date are still small and amount to less than 0.5% of Australia’s annual production in 1967-68 of 239,000 tons.
  4. The Government is maintaining a close watch on the position of the Australian lamb industry. To assist in maintaining this watch, the Government has offered to establish a panel with industry representatives. The Government is prepared to work with such a panel to keep the situation regarding imports, market prices, etc. under constant and close attention. Lamb was included in the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement subject to the understandings and safeguards set out in the Agreement. In negotiations leading to the Free Trade Agreement, both governments recognised the need to ensure that there should be no disruption to industries in either country through operation of the Agreement. There is a clear understanding that both governments will consult together in any situation where imports cause or threaten to cause disruption to domestic industries. In the unlikely event that these consultations do not provide a solution, the country whose domestic industry is affected may invoke the safeguards incorporated in the Agreement. Among these safeguards is a provision that in any situation where increased imports are causing or threatening disruption the obligations under the Agreement may be suspended.

page 1634

QUESTION

RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMMES

(Question No. 535)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

What protection or redress have listeners or viewers who feel personally aggrieved or even libelled by comments of commentators on radio or television programmes?

Senator Dame ANNA BELLE RANKIN:

– The following answer has been supplied by the Postmaster-General:

The extent to which a viewer or listener may seek protection and redress in respect of remarks made by a commentator on radio or television is a matter that is left to, and is therefore determinable only under, the appropriate State and Territory laws. A viewer or listener who proposes to institute proceedings for alleged defamation is, however, assisted by the provisions of sections 117a and 124 of the Broadcasting and Television Act; section 117 requires the retention of records of certain types of political and current affairs material broadcast or televised so that they will be available for the purposes of proceedings instituted or proposed to be instituted in any court; section 124 provides that, for the purposes of the law of defamation, the transmission of words or other matter by a broadcasting station or a television station is to be deemed to be publication in permanent form.

page 1634

QUESTION

SALE OF RADIO SETS

(Question No. 523)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that during 1967-68 the Government sold radio sets to the value of $2.88 million to the general public?
  2. How was this business transacted?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

  1. The value of radio equipment of all types sold by the Commonwealth during 1967-68 was approximately $150,000.
  2. The equipment which was sold by public auction was either surplus to the Commonwealth’s requirements or had been seized by the Department of Customs and Excise or had not been claimed by the importer within the statutory period of 6 months from the date of importation.

page 1635

QUESTION

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 367)

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that employees of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, who are not naturalised and work in a temporary capacity, are not subject to security scrutiny until such time as they become permanent? If so, do the Prime Minister and the Security Service believe a person is less likely to be a security risk when employed as a temporary officer than when permanently employed?
  2. Is the practice followed in each Commonwealth department?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions: 1 and 2. Throughout the Commonwealth Service security checking is related to the position occupied and to the protection of classified information, not to the employment status of the individual officer or employee.

page 1635

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 606)

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. Is the F111 aircraft fundamentally unsound?
  2. Will the Minister check the basis for a similar statement made by United States Senator Stuart Symington, a former First Secretary of the United States Air Force, who would obviously have access to detailed information on the F111?
  3. If grave security deficiencies have resulted in the United States of America, as stated by Senator Symington, because of putting all the eggs in one basket with the F111 project, will not similar security deficiencies exist in Australia for the same reason? If not, how will they be avoided?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s questions is: 1 to 3. As with other aircraft, there have been technical difficulties with the F111s but this is not surprising considering the revolutionary nature of this weapons system. As problems have arisen they have been fully investigated and corrected progressively. The recent failure, under fatigue testing is a case in point. Immediately the failure occurred, wide scale and exhaustive inquiries were commenced by a team of experts, including Australian representatives. To date the USAF has issued a statement about what is being done but we have yet to receive the independent reports of our own officers. When these are to hand the necessary decisions will be taken. (Question No. 583)

Senator COHEN:

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

Referring to the answer given to Senator Cohen by the Minister for Supply on 18th September that the Australian Government has already paid some $140m on account in relation to the purchase of the twenty-four F111 aircraft, and to the announcement that all F111 aircraft are to be grounded pending the investigation of faults, is the Australian Government obliged under its contract to keep up instalment payments willynilly, or are we entitled to suspend payments until faults and ‘bugs’ are cleared up.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer:

The Australian Government is obliged, under the arrangements entered into with the United States Government, to make cash payments to the United States Treasury as required in reimbursement for work performed and materials supplied by the contractors for the F111C aircraft. The documents on the F111 purchase tabled on 26th September 1968 show that originally, there were to be semi-annual payments on or about 1st January and 1st July of each year (vide Annex D of the Technical Arrangement). In April 1966 the arrangements were changed to cash payments when required by the disbursement schedule’ vide Vance/Hicks minute of 25th April 1966.

page 1635

QUESTION

WEST IRIAN

(Question No. 655)

Senator WHEELDON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware of recent reports from West Irian of a serious economic decline, the suppression of dissident movements and outbreaks of violence?
  2. In view of the importance of stability in West Irian’s security, what action is the Government taking to ensure that the Indonesian Government carries out the undertaking, given by it upon the transfer of sovereignty over West Irian from the Netherlands, that, before West Irian be finally incorporated in the Republic of Indonesia, the wishes of the West Irian people be ascertained either by plebiscite or in some other appropriate manner?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following replies:

  1. I have seen various reports, some of which are along the lines mentioned.
  2. The obligation to carry out an ‘act of selfdetermination’ in West Irian before the end of 1969, is one of the terms of the Dutch-Indonesian Agreement of 15 August 1962. Australia is not a party to the Agreement, which does, however, make provision for a role for the United Nations in this process. Article 17 reads:

Indonesia will invite the Secretary-General to appoint a representative who, together with a staff made up, inter alia, of personnel in paragraph 16, will carry out the Secretary-General’s responsibilities to advise, assist and participate in arrangements which are the responsibility of Indonesia for the act of free choice.’

The present situation is that the SecretaryGeneral’s Representative under Article 17 arrived in Indonesia during August and has completed his first familiarisation tour on West Irian. It is expected that, with his assistance, the Indonesian authorities will in due course take decisions on the way in which the ‘act of self-determination’ is to be carried out. These will in turn be reported to the Secretary-General of the United Nations by his Representative. The matter is thus properly in the hands of the Indonesian Government and the Secretary-General’s Representative in accordance with the provisions of the 1962 Agreement. Australia will continue to watch the progress made and, in particular, what is proposed to give effect to the 1962 Agreement.

page 1636

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES

(Question No. 462)

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What industries have received or receive financial assistance by way of subsidy?
  2. Under what Acts are such subsidies granted, and what has been the amount involved in payment of such subsidies, in each of the years since 1966?
  3. Could the Treasurer indicate the amounts of subsidies budgeted for 1968-1969?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The following information is provided in response to the honourable senator’s questions:

Commonwealth payments to industry in 1966-67 and 1967-68, and amounts included in Budget Estimates for 1968-69, are detailed in Item No. 10 of Statement No. 2 attached to the Budget speech of 13th August 1968. The relevant legislation is as follows:

Raw Cotton Bounty Act 1963-1966.

Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act 1963-1966.

Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act 1963-1966.

Dairying Industry Act 1962-1967.

States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965.

Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act 1966.

Processed Milk Products Bounty Act 1962- 1967.

Sugar Marketing Assistance Agreement Act 1967.

Sugar Industry Assistance Act 1967.

Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act 1956-66.

Tractor Bounty Act 1939-1966.

Agricultural Tractors Bounty Act 1966.

Sulphate of Ammonia Bounty Act 1962-1966.

Urea Bounty Act 1966.

Cellulose Acetate Flake Bounty Act 1956- 1966.

Vinyl Resin Bounty Act 1963-1966.

Industrial Research and Development Grants Act 1967.

Sulphuric Acid Bounty Act 1954-1966.

Pyrites Bounty Act 1960-1965.

Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959-1964.

Gold Mining Industry Assistance Act 1954- 1966.

Payments in respect of devaluation compensation, petroleum products (Northern Territory), compensation for pyrites producers (1968-69), air services and shipping services are authorised under annual Appropriation Acts or are proposed under the Appropriation Bills (Nos 1 and 2) 1968. Provision was made in the 1968-69 Budget for expenditure on the marginal dairy farm reconstruction scheme, in anticipation of the passage of legislation during the year.

page 1636

QUESTION

OWNERSHIP OF COMPANIES

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry the following questions, upon notice: (Question No. 442)

  1. To what extent is the flour milling industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  2. Which are the principal companies or persons involved, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of the industry?
  3. Have there been trends in recent years (a) towards overseas ownership or control and/or (b) towards monopoly in the industry; if so, what have been the changes? (Question No. 443)
  4. To what extent is the bread industry of Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  5. Which are the principal companies or persons concerned, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of (a) sources of supply, (b) manufacturing and (c) distribution? (Question No. 444)
  6. To what extent is the industrial gases indus try in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  7. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of (a) the preparation or manufacture of the gases, and (b) the supply to users? (Question No. 445)
  8. To what extent is the rubber industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  9. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of (a) supplies of raw material, and (b) the manufacturing section of the industry? (Question No. 446)
  10. To what extent is the pharmaceutical industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  11. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of (a) the manufacturing and (b) the wholesale sections of the industry? (Question No. 447)
  12. To what extent is the tobacco industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  13. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of (a) production, (b) importation, and (c) manufacture of cigarettes and other tobacco products? (Question No. 448)
  14. To what extent is the soap industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  15. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of the industry? (Question No. 449)
  16. To what extent is the paint industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies” owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  17. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of the industry? (Question No. 450)
  18. To what extentis the heavy chemicals industry in Australia owned or controlled by companies or persons other than persons resident in Australia or companies owned and controlled by Australian residents?
  19. Which are the principal companies or persons, and what is the extent of their ownership or control of the industry?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the answers to these questions as follows:

It is not possible to provide with an acceptable degree of precision answers to the specific questions raised by the honourable senator because of a variety of factors which must be taken into consideration such as the complex interrelationships between companies which affects share ownerships, the degree of diversification of production within many companies, nominee shareholdings and the lack of exhaustive data on particular industries.

The latest study produced by the Department of Trade and Industry on overseas investment in manufacturing industry is a ‘Directory of Overseas Investment in Australian Manufacturing Industry’, published in 1966.

This Directory lists under broad industry groups Australian firms in which there is an element of overseas ownership and sets out in some detail for each firm the range of production, total assets, overseas associate and the extent of the known overseas equity.

I will ensure that the honourable senator receives a copy of this publication.

page 1637

QUESTION

BOOK MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

(Question No. 509)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

What is the capital investment in the book manufacturing industry in Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answer:

Information available to the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics relative to the classification of industrial activity does not distinguish between capital invested in the book manufacturing industry and capital invested in the manufacture of other forms of publications and allied printing activities.

page 1637

QUESTION

BOOK MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

(Question No. 508)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

How many people are employed directly in book manufacture in Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answer:

Information available to the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics relative to the classification of industrial activity does not distinguish between persons employed directly in book manufacture and those employed in the manufacture of other forms of publications and allied printing activities.

page 1638

QUESTION

IMPORTS OF BOOKS

(Question No. 514)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What was the value of books imported into Australia in each of the last 5 years?
  2. What was the value of books printed in Australia in each of the last 5 years?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answer:

  1. The value of books imported into Australia in each of the last 5 years was as follows:
  1. Details of the value of books printed are not available from collections of the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics.

page 1638

QUESTION

STATUS OF WOMEN

(Question No. 457)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is being done by the Government in response to the invitation by the International Conference on Human Rights 1968 to all member States to give the widest publicity to all the instruments of the United Nations and the specialised agencies concerning the status of women, and in particular, to the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

The Government arranged for the text of the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women to be passed to the appropriate Commonwealth and State authorities. In addition the text was published in the January 1968 issue (Volume 39, No. 1) of ‘Current Notes on International Affairs’, together with a summary of the discussions in the United Nations and the statement made by the Australian representative at the 22nd session of the General Assembly. ‘Current Notes’ has a mailing list of over 10,000.

page 1638

QUESTION

TRADE WITH SOUTH AMERICA

(Question No. 598)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What is being done to increase trade with South America?
  2. Over the last 5 years, what significant successes and failures have occurred?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following reply:

  1. In the last5 years, Australian exports to South America have risen from $5,498,000 in 1962-63 to $27,108,000 in 1967-68, an increase of almost 400%; thisis by far the largest percentage increase in that period in our trade with any geographic region. This increase has been brought about by a determined effort on the part of the Government to develop the South American market and to open up opportunities there for Australian exporters. Since 1963 new Trade Commissioner posts have been established in Buenos Aires and Santiago additional to the post established earlier in Lima. On two occasions the Government has arranged for an Australian pavilion in the Pacific International Trade Fair at Lima; in 1965 with 141 Australian firms and in 1967 with 80 firms. Several smaller trade displays have also been held, and at present preparations are well advanced for a trade display at Santiago next April in which some fifty or more firms will be testing the Chilean market. The Department of

Trade and Industry has also organised a number of trade missions to the area - two general selling missions and survey missions for Corriedale sheep and sawmilling equipment - and more missions are under consideration. In addition Australian trade publicity material printed in Spanish is being distributed regularly. The Government has also been active in encouraging the development of regular shipping between Australia and South America and there are now vastly improved services available.

  1. Some of the more significant successes in South America have been the sales of wheat to Chile, Brazil and Peru; butler and oats to Peru; agricultural machinery to Chile and Uruguay; pasture seeds to Uruguay; malt to Brazil; grinding rods and balls to Peru; and stud cattle and sheep to several countries. The Department of Trade and Industry has no knowledge of any specific failures. It must be expected, however, that in any attempt to penetrate such a large and relatively unknown market some difficulties will be encountered. Wherever such difficulties have come to its notice the Government has been active in tackling the problems and helping to overcome them.

page 1639

QUESTION

STATUS OF WOMEN

(Question No. 456)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What is being done by the Government in response to the recommendation of the International Conference on Human Rights 1968 ‘to intensify efforts to ensure the implementation of the various United Nations instruments on measures to promote women’s rights in the modern world and for the advancement of women by providing in economic development plans for optimal utilisation of women power and the social infrastructure on which it depends’?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

The honourable senator’s attention is drawn to the Minister for External Affairs’ reply to the honourable member for Oxley’s question No. 428 in the House of Representatives on 17th September 1968 (Hansard page 1124). As a matter of general practice the Government keeps unratified conventions under continuous review. It should be noted, however, that these cover matters which are partly within the legislative competence of the States and ratification cannot be undertaken in the absence of agreement to ratification by all State governments. It should also be noted that it has not been the general practice in Australia to embody human rights provisions in formal constitutional guarantees or equivalent documents. In Australia, such matters have rested mainly upon the original law of the land, written and unwritten, and the safeguards of parliamentary democracy. As to the objective of establishing administrative machinery to examine the special problems of women workers, I am advised that since 1963 there has been within the Department of Labour and National Service a Women’s Section - now entitled the Women’s Bureau - which undertakes research into matters of particular concern to women workers. The Women’s Bureau is recognised by the International Labour Organisation as being of the same category as other countries’ administrative machinery set up in relation to this objective. As to the objective of ensuring the rights to equal pay, the Commonwealth Government’s attitude is that it does not oppose the principle of equal remuneration of men and women for work of equal value but it considers that it would be undersirable and unsound to propose legislation to the Commonwealth Parliament for the adoption of this principle in advance of a determination by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. More generally, the Government is actively engaged in implementing a full employment policy for both men and women and the Commonwealth Employment Service is operating to this end. This service, through its nationwide network of employment offices, gives continuous attention to the placement and suitable employment of women and girls seeking work and actively canvasses for job vacancies for them. The Commonwealth Employment Service seeks to promote the employment of women in all types of positions including those in which their employment may not be customary and to this end women are encouraged to undertake the highest level of education and training that their own abilities permit and employers are continuously urged to co-operate in opening up a wider variety of occupations for women and in considering them for appointment in executive and managerial capacities. (Question No. 454)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What has been done by the Government in pursuance of the invitation by the International Conference on Human Rights 1968 to draw up and execute, in co-operation with appropriate organisations, long-term programmes for the advancement of women?

Senator ANDERSON:

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

Most of the steps recommended have already been implemented in Australia. The invitation issued at the International Conference on Human Rights was directed primarily to the developing countries and the establishment of a unified longterm United Nations programme for the advancement of women was aimed specifically at the developing countries.

page 1639

QUESTION

CURRENCY

(Question No. 668)

Senator BISHOP:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Commonwealth police and taxation officers are currently investigating whether the Government Transport Department in Newcastle has been banking only decimal coins, and that other businesses bank an average of 20% of non-decimal coins containing silver?
  2. Have the investigations resulted in the discovery of any breach of coinage or customs regulations?
  3. ls there any evidence of widespread illegal practices in connection with coins containing a high percentage of silver?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions: 1 and 2. Several inquiries of this nature have been made recently in Newcastle and elsewhere. The Newcastle investigation is being continued, but the proportion of pre-decimal silver coins still being banked anywhere in that area is understood to be less than 20%.

  1. So far as the number of individual cases is concerned, there is no evidence of widespread illegal practices involving coins, but offences have been committed from time to time. The number increased, especially in the three eastern States, during the period when high prices were being paid for silver on world markets. However, the price of silver has since fallen substantially. Both this fact, and the completion of several investigations in other areas which have resulted in successful prosecutions, are expected to curb offences relating to the coinage. Efforts to that end will be continued.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator ANDERSON:

- Senator Murphy has asked me several questions without notice regarding increases in cost, major faults discovered, delays in delivery and the usefulness of the FU IC aircraft. The Minister for Defence has provided answers as follows: increase in Cost

Constant reference has been made in the increase over the initial figure of $l25m for the project. It is important to remember the precise wording of the memorandum of understanding which states: “The Secretary of Defence advised the Minister of Defence that the general order of magnitude of this total programme cost, based on a production run of 1500 aircraft, is currently estimated to be approximately $125m’. The use of the words ‘general order of magnitude’, estimated’ and ‘approximately’ must immediately established that the Government well understood the potential of increased costs in the project.

Estimates have arisen in this case as they have in all other cases where research and development costs of new aircraft are involved. The research and development programme for the TSR2 was expected to cost £Stg.50m but at the time of cancellation the cost was nearly £Stg.300m. Similarly, the research and development programme for the Anglo-French Concorde was estimated to be £Stg.l30m and is now £Stg500m.

Australia has obtained from the United States of America a fixed upper limit provision, equivalent to that in the United Kingdom contract of $US.5.95m a plane subject only to escalation in costs of labour and materials and modifications in a manner which has been stated on many occasions.

Faults in the Aircraft

There have been technical difficulties with the aircraft but this is not surprising considering the revolutionary nature of this weapons system. The important thing to note is that all such problems have been fully investigated and corrected progressively as they arise. The recent failure under fatigue testing is a case in point. Immediately the failure occurred, wide scale and exhaustive inquiries were commenced by a team of experts, including Australian representatives, to determine the nature of the fault and the correction needed. As has now been reported by the United States Air Force the fault which occurred in one wing carry through structure during fatigue testing was due to an isolated small crack in the metal surrounding a taper loc bolt hole. To date no other imperfections of this nature have been found during inspection of more than 2,500 bolt holes. However, hole inspections are continuing and so are static, fatigue and flight testing and operational training.

The United States Air Force proposes to introduce a modification, consisting of a reinforcement of the high stress areas of the wing carry through structure. This will be incorporated in aircraft on the production line and those already produced will be similarly fitted.

At the moment we are awaiting the independent report of the Royal Australian Air Force and Department of Supply experts who took part in the investigations.

Delays in Delivery

On 24 October 1963, when announcing the decision to purchase Fill aircraft for the RAAF the then Prime Minister also announced that ‘we will secure our first deliveries in 1967’.

On 18 June 1964, the then Minister for Defence announced that in the light of advice from its professional advisers the Government has decided to accept deliveries of FU 1 A aircraft in 1968.

Pending complete resolution of the problems associated with the fatigue failure of the wing carry through structure it is not possible to say when the RAAF will take delivery of its aircraft.

Usefulness of the Aircraft

There is a need for a strike reconnaissance bomber for the Royal Australian Air Force and the FI 11C meets the Air Staff requirement for such an aircraft.

page 1640

QUESTION

HUMAN RIGHTS CONFERENCE

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 10th October, Senator Murphy asked me, representing the Minister for External Affairs, the following question without notice:

I refer the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs to the report of the leader of the delegation which attended the International Conference on Human Rights at Teheran earlier this year. 1 understand that the report has been in existence for some time. 1 ask: Why has the report not been tabled? Could steps be taken to table the report of the leader of the delegation to the International Conference on Human Rights well before the end of this year so that it may be discussed?

I said that I would seek the information requested by the Leader of the Opposition and inform him as quickly as I could of the background to the tabling or production of the report. I have ascertained that a report was made by the leader of the delegation to the International Conference on Human Rights, Teheran. It is, however, a classified document in which, inter alia, confidential comments are made affecting Australia’s relations with other countries. It is therefore not appropriate that it should be tabled in Parliament. I understand, however, that full summary records, reports of committees and the final act of the Conference are available in the Parliamentary Library.

A copy of the opening speech of the leader of the delegation, the Honourable Nigel Bowen, Q.C., M.P., the AttorneyGeneral, was published in the May 1968 number of ‘Current Notes on International Affairs’; it is proposed that a note dealing with the Teheran Conference will be published in an early number of ‘Current Notes’.

page 1641

NEW ZEALAND PEAS

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– On 10th October, Senator Lillico asked whether there is to be a meeting this month between Australian and New Zealand pea growers with a view to determining a reasonable quota of peas from New Zealand. Senator Lillico asked also whether the New Zealand representatives have the blessing of the New Zealand Government and whether the Minister for Trade and industry would contact the New Zealand Government with a view to having some official recognition by both governments of the conference. I wish lo inform the honourable senator that the Minister for Trade and Industry has furnished me with the following information in reply:

The Australian pea and bean processing and growing industries are still discussing the proposal to meet with representatives of the New Zealand industries. There has been also some informal exchange of views regarding the meeting between officials in both countries who are facilitating arrangements for the projected meeting, lt is now tentatively scheduled for mid-November.

page 1641

QUESTION

FOREIGN SHAREHOLDINGS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 24th September Senator Wheeldon asked me without notice a question in three parts concerning overseas shareholdings in certain insurance companies and banks. I answered the third part of the question at the time and said that I would seek information from the Treasurer on the other matters. Having consulted the Treasurer, I now indicate that the answer to each of the first two parts of the question asked by Senator Wheeldon is yes.

page 1641

QUESTION

NIGERIA

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 17th October, Senator Wheeldon asked me, representing the Minister for External Affairs, the following question without notice:

Has the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs seen references lo a committee of inquiry, headed by General Alexander of the British Army and consisting of senior military officers from Sweden, Canada and Poland, which has been inquiring into allegations of genocide in eastern Nigeria allegedly committed by federal Nigerian forces? Has he seen references lo the finding of the committee that genocide has not been committed? In view of the very serious concern which a large number of Australians have felt regarding the allegations of genocide during the Biafran revolt, will the Minister obtain, if he can. for the information of the Parliament a copy of the report of this committee of senior military officers and attach it to any appropriate comments about its accuracy or any other comments which he cares to make?

I said that I would direct the honourable senator’s question and the implications of it to the Minister for External Affairs. I have now received the text of the first interim report by the representatives of the British, Canadian and Swedish governments invited by the Federal Military Government of Nigeria to observe the conduct of the Federal troops in war affected areas, and suggest that it be incorporated in Hansard. This report, which relates to a visit by these observers to the area controlled by the First Nigerian Division during the period 25th to 30th September 1968, was released to the Press in Lagos on 4th October 1968. The contents of the report are selfexplanatory.

Further reports are to follow. The observer team has since publication of the first document been enlarged by the arrival of further observers designated by the governments of Ethiopia and Algeria. The representative of the Polish Government, who is also to join the team, has, according to latest reports, not yet arrived in Nigeria.

The report reads:

First Interim Observers Report

To: The Federal Government of Nigeria The Government of Sweden The Government of the United Kingdom The Government of Canada c.c. The Organisation of African Unity The Government of Poland.

The Swedish, British and Canadian representatives invited by the Federal Military Government to observe the conduct of the Federal troops in the war affected areas visited by the First Nigerian Division during the period September 25-30, 1968.

The representative of the UN Secretary-General travelled with the group.

This Report covers this particular visit.

On arrival in Enugu the group split into two teams, one visiting the area of sector 1 from Enugu through Awgu to Obinago (Obilago) and the other visiting the area of sector 2 from Abukaliki south to the front lines.

Each team visited front line positions, military units and headquarters, villages, market places, medical and food distributing stations, refugee camps and major cities and towns.

The Observers talked to officers, soldiers, local inhabitants, refugees, members of the Civil Administration, Police, Red Cross officials and missionaries.

Throughout the period of their visit the Observers received the fullest co-operation from the military and civilian officials.

They encountered no restrictions to their movements or investigations and none of their requests were refused.

Representatives of the Press were free to accompany the Observers and did so on several occasions.

The Observers found the Federal troops in the areas they visited to be alert, cheerful and well disciplined.

They neither saw nor heard any evidence that the troops had committed acts with intent to destroy - wholly or in part - the Ibo people or their property.

The Observers did see considerable evidence that the troops in the area were assisting the local population, in particular by feeding them until the Civil Administration and the Red Cross could take over the responsibility.

Discussions with village leaders and refugees confirm that the Ibo people feared the Federal troops until they actually met them.

The fear is the result of the actual fighting and the propaganda put out by the rebels which leads theIbos to believe the Federal troops will kill them.

Once some of their people make contact with the Federal troops this fear is rapidly allayed.

The Observers saw a number of village leaders who had just some out of hiding and noted that the numbers of inhabitants returning the villages are increasing.

The Observers considered it significant that in the villages visited the inhabitants displayed no fear of Federal soldiers, even when these soldiers arrived in their midst suddenly.

However, it was also noted that very few of the more educated Ibos have yet appeared in areas occupied by Federal troops.

The major problems in facilitating the return to normal life in the war-affected areas visited include the provision of food and medical facilities and the restoration of buildings and public services such as water, power, etc. The Observers noted that:

  1. . When an area is first occupied the Army provides the civilians found there with the foodstuffs necessary to supplement the food that is available.

This responsibility is taken over as rapidly as possible by the Civil Administration and the Red Cross, assisted where necessary by soldiers.

These arrangements appear to have been adequate to date, but from what was seen it is apparent that they will not be sufficient to handle the task if the people continue to come out of the bush at the present rate.

A contributing problem is the lack of money in the hands of the people.

  1. . The major medical problem observed was the malnutrition caused by a poorly balanced diet.

The problem exists in normal times in this area but it has been accentuated in the case of those people who have spent a long time hiding in the bush.

The Army, missionaries and the Red Cross are doing a good job but their efforts are hampered by a shortage of drugs, reported to be caused by difficulty in transportation from Lagos.

In addition, the numbers of medical personnel do not appear to be sufficient to handle a large increase in the numbers requiring attention.

For example, the Observers noted in Nenwe that there was an increase from 100 on September 21 to about 1,500 mostly women and children, when the medical team returned on September 28.

In the areas where fighting took place there is a considerable amount of physical destruction.

This is the result of deliberate destruction of public utilities attributable to the rebels when retreating, destruction by shellfire, the use of materials for shelter by soldiers, the inevitable looting by civilians, and deterioration caused by the weather.

No damage was seen in villages visited that were not in the areas affected by the fighting.

Some action has been taken by military and civil officials to preserve property.

In summary, inthe areas of First Nigerian Division that the Observers visited they found:

  1. . Genocide: There is no evidence of any intent by the Federal troops to destroy the Ibo people or their property, and the use of the term genocide is in no way justified.
  2. . Conduct of Federal troops: The troops in the area are taking positive action to obtain the confidence of the local population and assist them in re-establishing a normal life.
  3. . Conduct of Civilian Inhabitants: An increasing number of the inhabitants of the villages, almost all of whom are Ibo, are returning to their homes. The people who have returned to the villages display no fear of the Federal troops.
  4. . Food and Medical Assistance: These are being provided to the civilian population through the combined efforts of the Army, the Civil Administration and the Red Cross.

While the supply of food has been adequate, the supplies of drugs and medical assistance in the urea seems to be inadequate because of a shortage of transport, particularly air transport. This situation could become serious if an expected large increase in the number of refugees and people requiring such assistance lakes place.

  1. . Destruction of Property: The Observers received no evidence of deliberate and unnecessary destruction of property by Federal troops.

There has, however, been considerable destruction as a result of the war, and the work required to repair this situation which is just beginning, will be very expensive.

The Observers propose to make their next visit to the area of the Third Nigerian Marine Commando Division.

Signed: Major-General W. A. Milroy, Canada Major-General A. Raab, Sweden Major-General H. T. Alexander, United Kingdom.

page 1643

FILM INDUSTRY

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 9th October Senator McClelland asked me when the Commonwealth Government might be expected to take action which would assist the encouragement and development of an indigenous film industry. The Prime Minister has supplied the following reply:

It is often not generally recognised that the Government does give considerable assistance to the local film producer by:

a general and preferential tariff on imported film. These duties are imposed by the Customs Tariff and are aimed, in the main, at providing an effective level of protection against imported cinematograph film for showing on television or in public cinemas.

the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act, which stipulates that the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial stations should use, as far as possible, ‘the services of Australians in the production and presentation of broadcasting and television programmes’,

the introduction of additional provisions requiring commercial stations to show programmes credited as being Australian in origin for not less than 50% of total transmission time.

It might be noted that the ABC’s annual expenditure on Australian-produced films is considerable, running as it does in excess of $300,000 per annum. Some films are purchased from speculative producers and others from independent producers working under contract. The ABC is always anxious to acquire locally-produced films which meet the required standards and such filmsare usually paid for at a higher rate than would applyto comparable imported productions. The extent to which assistance can be provided in other ways does, of course, depend on the totallevel of the Government’s financial commitments and what the priorities are. The Government is keeping the needs of local film producers under consideration and looks sympathetically at various submissions on the subject which reach it from time to time.

page 1643

PORTRAIT OF MR HAROLD HOLT

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 26th September Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood asked whether arrangements were being madeto place a portrait of the late Mr Harold Holt in King’s Hall. I have ascertained that tor some considerable time the Common wealth Art Advisory Board which advises the Historic Memorials Committee on the issue of commissions for portraits, has been negotiating with a number of artists with a view to commissioning a portrait of Mr Holt. The Board hopes very shortly to submit the names of suitable artists to the Committee.

page 1643

COCKBURN SOUND FEASIBILITY TESTS

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 10th October Senator Willesee asked whether I had received a report on the feasibility tests at Cockburn Sound and ifI had whetherI intended to make a report to the Parliament. In replyI said that I would seek the information from the Prime Minister. I now invite the honourable senator’s attention to the remarks made by the Minister for Defence on 24th September 1968 in another place when he said:

The quite extensive report put in by the consultants on the Cockburn Sound proposal has been under study by the relevant departments - Navy, Defence and Treasury. Their conclusions and any plans arising from them will be submitted to the Government for consideration in connection with the possible new 3-year programme which will itself be considered after the strategic appreciation has been dealt with.

page 1644

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICES

Is the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral aware that as a consequence of the so-called streamlining of the Postal Department a letter posted at Castle Forbes Bay or Port Huon in the Huon District takes up to 3 days to reach Geeveston, which is about 3 miles away? Is she aware that letters awaiting despatch from Port Huon to Hobart remain at Port Huon for most of the day and by the time they reach Hobart they are too late to catch the return mail to Geeveston?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

Under arrangements which have operated since 14th October 1968, mail for Geeveston posted at Castle Forbes Bay and Port Huon by 12.30 p.m. reaches Geeveston next morning at 8.15 a.m. Mail posted after 12.30 p.m. is despatched the following morning and reaches Geeveston at 3.30 p.m. that day.

Before 14th October 1968, only one despatch was made to Hobart each day from Castle Forbes Bay and Port Huon at 12.30 p.m. However, the restoration of a second daily despatch from these centres, which had been discontinued some weeks earlier, has improved the standard of service for mail between these centres and Geeveston.

page 1644

QUESTION

WILDLIFE REFUGE

(Question No. 588)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In view of action taken by the Snowy Mountains Authority to develop Cottonwood plantations, will the Minister consider preserving this region solely as a wildlife refuge for the future?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer:

Cottonwood plantations have been developed by the Authority on some of the land in the Lower Tumut Valley rendered unsuitable for its former activities of cropping and dairy farming by the discharge of water from the Tumut power stations. With Blowering Reservoir now controlling the water released and with the successful development of these plantations, consideration is being given to realising on the substantial expenditure involved in their establishment by sale to private industry. In this event, the setting up of a wildlife sanctuary by the Commonwealth would not be practicable.

page 1644

QUESTION

TRAFFIC IN DRUGS

(Question No. 601)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

What arrangements have been made for cooperation by the Department of Customs and

Excise and the New South Wales Police in the control of the traffic in drugs?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I now provide the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Long-standing arrangements exist for day-to-day consultation and co-operation between officers of the Department of Customs and Excise, especially the Narcotics Bureau and the New South Wales Police. In addition, recent discussions took place at the most senior level to ensure continuation of the highest level of co-operation.

page 1644

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 603)

Senator MURPHY:

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

What efforts has the Minister made to bring about a reduction of air fares across the Pacific?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answer:

The Government’s long standing policy in relation to international air fares is to support the fixing of fares between Australia and overseas countries at the lowest level consistent with sound operating economics of international air services, including those operated by Qantas. Reduced air fares that have been adopted by the International Air Transport Association, of which Qantas is a member, on the initiative or with the support of the Australian Government for application on South Pacific air routes affecting Australia are as follows:

Excursion fares:

Australia-USA/Canada and Mexico -

Discount 25% off normal economy class round trip fares.

Australia-New Zealand -

Winter Excursion Fare: Discount 40% off normal economy class round trip fares.

Starlight Fares: Discount approximately 20% off the first and economy class round trip fares.

Australia-Fiji -

Discount approximately 34% off the normal economy class round trip fare.

Australia-Tahiti -

Discount 30% off the normal economy class round trip fare.

Australia-New Zealand-Fiji-New Caledonia -

Discount 25% off the normal economy class circle trip fare.

Inclusive tour fares:

Australia-USA/Canada and Mexico -

Discount 30% off normal economy class round trip fares.

Australia-New Zealand -

Discount 40% from Australia off normal economy class round trip fares.

Australia-Fiji -

Discount 30% off the normal economy class round trip fare.

Australia-New Caledonia -

Discount of 30% off the normal economy class round trip fare.

Affinity Group Fares:

Australia-USA-Canada-Fiji-Tahiti-New Caledonia

Discount 30% off normal economy class round trip fares for groups of fifteen or more passengers.

Common Interest Groups:

Australia-New Zealand -

Discount ranges from 10% for ten passengers to 30% for thirty or more passengers on normal economy class one-way or round trip fares.

Family Fares:

Australia-New Zealand -

Discounts of 50% for spouses and for children between the ages of 12 and and 26 years and a discount of 65% for children between 2 and 11 years on first or economy class normal round trip fares when accompanied by the head of the family travelling at the normal fare.

In the case of normal fares, increasing costs and falling yields facing the international airlines, including Qantas, have prevented reductions from being made. On the other hand, the Government, as a general rule, has been opposed to any increase in the level of normal international air fares between Australia and overseas countries, including those in the South Pacific area. In consequence stability has been maintained in the price of international air fares over a long period. The general level of international air fares between Australia and countries in the South Pacific area compares favourably with other international air fares.

page 1645

QUESTION

DRUG ADDICTION

(Question No. 628)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise upon notice:

  1. In view of newspaper reports contained in issues of the Sydney ‘Sunday Telegraph’ on both 6th October and 13th October regarding teenage drug addiction, did the Minister initiate any action between the dates mentioned to enable his Drug Detection Squad to confer with State authorities; if so, what was the outcome of such action?
  2. Were the Press reports an accurate presentation of the present upsurge of teenage drug addiction?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

  1. No. I can assure the honourable senator that the information contained in the newspaper reports was not the first time officers of the respective services had heard of the activities. In fact prior to the articles officers of the Narcotics Bureau and the New South Wales Police Drug Squad were in close co-operation in investigating the activities of the persons concerned.
  2. I have stated previously that I have a deep concern over the growing menace of drug taking amongst the community generally. However, I would not regard the articles concerned as presenting an accurate presentation of drug taking amongst teenagers generally.

page 1645

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 611)

Senator DAVIDSON:

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

  1. Does Qantas receive many applications for charter flights and is it able to handle all such applications?
  2. Is the policy, which offers charter bookings to the flag carrier of the nation concerned,onfined to the Australian Government alone or is it a policy established by the International Air Transport Association?
  3. Is there any way in which this policy can be liberalised so that groups of young people can visit Australia at cheaper rates?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers:

  1. At the present time, Qantas holds 112 applications from organisations interested in operating charter flights to and from Australia and it is confident that it can perform all of the flights which result from these applications.
  2. It is the Government not the International Air Transport Association which decides whether preference should be accorded to national carriers in relation to charter flights. The Australian Government has not been alone in deciding that preference should be accorded to the national carriers of Australia and the other country of origin or destination of a charter flight. It is known that other governments have a similar policy of preference to national carriers.
  3. The present 40 per cent reduction on the normal economy fare for charter travel represents a considerable saving on the cost of normal air travel and is, of course, available to youth organisations. Greater concessions for charter travel can not be economically provided by the airlines at the present time but this is a matter that is kept under continuous review. Groups of young people may also visit Australia on scheduled services under a group travel scheme that offers a discount on normal fares.

page 1645

QUESTION

SUGAR

(Question No. 612)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has any progress been made in securing increased markets for Australian sugar?
  2. Is it true, as suggested, that over 300,000 tons of cane will remain in the Queensland fields this season because of the inability of the Commonwealth Government to secure adequate markets?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has furnished the following reply:

The Commonwealth Government is in no way responsible for the quantity of sugar cane which he alleges will remain unharvested in Queensland this season. The traditional practice is for the Queensland Government acting through the Queensland Sugar Board to control the production of sugar by setting an upper limit on the area of land to be used for the cultivation of sugar cane. Growers have certain areas of assigned lands and certain production quotas and any production in excess of those quotas may be refused at the mill. The Commonwealth has no say in this matter.

In respect of overseas markets the Commonwealth, in co-operation with the Queensland Government and the sugar industry, is doing everything possible to improve the overseas marketing of Australian sugar. A delegation headed by the Deputy Prime Minister and including the Premier of Queensland and industry advisers representing all stages of the production and marketing of sugar, attended the recent International Sugar Conference in Geneva out of which has come concrete proposals for a new International Sugar Agreement.

In regard to the suggestion that cane will be left standing in Queensland fields this season I may say that the Queensland Sugar Board has now announced that it will acquire for marketing the whole of this season’s crop.

page 1646

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY

(Question No. 587)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In view of the absence of any specific reference in the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority for 1967-68 to progress on the completion of plaques dedicated to both the designers and employees who lost their lives in the construction of this national project, can the Minister state when these plaques will be completed?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– . I have received the following reply from the Minister for National Development:

The attention of the honourable senator is drawn to the following extract from page 64 of the annual report of the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority for 1967-68:

Jindabyne Valley Lookout. Following consultation between the Kosciusko National Park and the Authority, a lookout will be included at the site of Jindabyne surge tank. This is located alongside the Kosciusko road about mid-way between Jindabyne and Rennix Gap and commands a view over the Jindabyne storage.

By agreement between the parties concerned, which include the Snowy River Shire as well as the Kosciusko National Park and the Authority, plaques will be incorporated in the lookout commemorating the pioneers who settled in the district in the early years, the men and women who carried out the early pioneering work on the Snowy scheme, and those who lost their lives in the course of the construction of the scheme.

It is expected that the plaques will be completed by March 1969.

page 1646

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

(Question No. 718)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

In view of recent naval mishaps in Sydney Harbour resulting in oil pollution, has the Department of the Navy endeavoured to procure supplies of the Warne boom, which was used to combat the oil pollution of British beaches during the Torrey Canyon’ disaster and proved to be satisfactory?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No. The Royal Australian Navy is manufacturing its own booms for this purpose, to a design established after trials in Sydney.

page 1646

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is indisposed and will be absent from duty for a period of time. During his absence the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) will act as Minister for Education and Science and the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) will handle matters relating to education and science in the other place.

page 1646

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Murphy moving a motion relating to the order of business on the notice paper.

General Business

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That at 8 p.m. this day General Business be postponed until after consideration of any statement by the Leader of the Government on the cessation of bombing in Vietnam.

page 1646

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 3) 1968.

Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Bill 1968.

Excise Tariff Bill 1968.

Excise Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1968.

Coal Excise Bill (No. 2) 1968.

States Grants (Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave) Bill 1968.

Income Tax Bill 1968.

Income Tax (Partnerships and Trusts) Bill 1968.

page 1647

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILISATION BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McKellar) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The intention of this Bill is to fulfil the Commonwealth’s role in providing for a further period of orderly marketing and stabilisation for the wheat industry. As in the past, complementary State legislation will be required to make the arrangements effective. The new wheat season began on 1st October and a new marketing year will commence on 1st December. It is essential that the arrangements proposed be made effective so that all wheat of the 1968-69 season will be covered.

The 1967-68 season was the last of the fourth consecutive 5-year stabilisation plan. In the course of the third and fourth stabilisation plans, but more particularly in the last 5 years, there have been dramatic changes in the Australian wheat industry. In 1960 the area planted to wheat was about131/2 million acres. This year it is about 26 million acres. In 1960 production established a new record of 274 million bushels; 2 years ago production was up to 467 million bushels; this year the indications are that if the seasonal conditions continue to be favourable the harvest will be more than 500 million bushels. This upsurge in production is associated with prosperity in the wheat industry and with the security offered to wheat growers by the stabilisation scheme. Last year the Bureau of Agricultural Economics carried out an economic survey which showed, among other things, that the average net income of wheat farmers was $9,400 per year in the 3 years, 1964-65 to 1966-67, one of which was a drought year. The survey confirmed that land prices had been soaring.

These developments have taken place in a period in which average export returns for wheat have not increased to any extent. It was not the attraction of very high export prices which induced growers to plant more and more land to wheat Nevertheless, wheat growing must have been an increasingly attractive proposition. It can only be concluded that stabilisation plans which assured growers of a firm home consumption price and of a highly remunerative return for a large proportion of their exports played a great part in encouraging expansion.

I have mentioned that the survey disclosed average net farm incomes of $9,400 over a period of 3 years. Of this sum Commonwealth subvention to the industry averaged $330 per farm per year or about 3% of net farm income. A similar survey 5 years earlier had disclosed average net incomes of $7,700. However, the cost of the scheme to the Commonwealth rose steeply as farm incomes rose. In this financial year we have budgeted for the payment of $43m to the Wheat Prices Stabilisation Fund. Over the 5 years of the present plan the cost to the Commonwealth will be $95m. Total Commonwealth payments to the industry by the end of this year will amount to$1 56m.

This is a considerable sum to pay out to one of the most prosperous rural industries and would be sufficient justification for changes in important features of the stabilisation plan, but there are other good reasons for change. One of them is the snowball effect of increasing land prices. As these prices rose so also did the notional farm investment and with it the imputed cost of interest on investment. As this went up so under the formula used in the present and past schemes did the cost of production, the guaranteed price and the home consumption price. As they went up wheat growing became more attractive. The price of land was bid up further and the cost to the Commonwealth of maintaining the scheme also increased further. In other words, the very existence of a stabilisation scheme increased the cost of production under the formula and the cost of the scheme to the Government.

In these circumstances the Government, when it came to consider arrangements which would be appropriate for the next few years, could not continue the existing arrangements with regard to cost movements. Nevertheless, as will be seen when i mention the details of the new scheme, we do recognise the importance of covering the movements in cash costs incurred by wheatgrowers. There is no good reason for anyone to suggest that the Government did not have the interests of the industry very much in mind in framing the new plan. There is little need to dwell on the importance of the wheat industry whether as an export income earner or as the basic enterprise of more than 50.000 farms or the prime source of prosperity to many towns and regions. It is the mainstay of rural development for many reasons.

Australia has indeed been fortunate that this, its most important agricultural industry, has been prosperous. We would be remiss, however, if we were to ignore the fact that it has had and will have major troubles in the uncertainty of production and the unpredictability of world markets and prices. In consecutive seasons we have had drought in New South Wales and Queensland; an all time record harvest; and drought in Victoria, South Australia and again in parts of New South Wales. This year we may well have yet another record crop but the main harvest is still weeks away and no one can know what the outcome will be.

In the 5 years of operation of the current plant the f.o.b. equivalent of the Wheat Board’s c.i.f. quotations has fluctuated as much as 23c per bushel. This has been reflected in pool accounts which show average export realisations of 142.9c per bushel for 1963-64 and 133.8c per bushel for 1964-65. For the current pool the average export price is estimated at 135.5c per bushel.

There is no way of avoiding these problems of fluctuations in supply and price. They can be mitigated to some extent. The Government has recognised this and has shaped arrangements for future years which offer the industry a prospect for stability such as it has never before experienced. In particular, it has recognised the growth of the industry by increasing the quantity of export wheat covered by the guaranteed price from 150 million to 200 million bushels from any crop.

The main features of the stabilisation proposals in the Bill are as follows: The period of operation will be 5 seasons commencing with the 1968-69 crop. The Australian Wheat Board will continue as the sole authority for the marketing of wheat in Australia and for the export marketing of wheat and flour. The guaranteed price for 1968-69 will be $1.45 per bushel for fair average quality bulk wheat free on board vessel. In subsequent years it will be adjusted according to movements in cash costs, including interest actually paid, and in rail freight and handling charges, calculated by index methods. The guaranteed price will apply to exports up to a maximum of 200 million bushels from the crop of any season.

There will continue to be a Wheat Prices Stabilisation Fund, lt will have a ceiling of $80m. lt will be financed from an export charge which will apply when export returns exceed an amount equal to the guaranteed return plus 5c per bushel. Thus in the first year, 1968-69, the export charge will apply only if and to the extent that the export returns are in excess of $1.50 per bushel f.o.b. lt will not at any time exceed 15c per bushel. If export returns for a season are less than the guaranteed price then the deficit, on up to 200 million bushels, will be made up from the Fund. If the balance in the Fund is insufficient or if, as at present, there are no grower moneys in the Fund, the deficit will be made up by the Commonwealth. lt is the prerogative of each State to fix the home consumption price under legislation. For 1968-69 it is proposed that it will be SI. 70 per bushel for fair average quality bulk wheat free on rails at ports plus an amount to cover the cost of shipment to Tasmania. The base price has been determined by reference to a cost of production structure. The home consumption price will apply to all domestic sales of wheat whether as stockfeed or for products for human consumption or industrial use. It will be adjusted annually by the same amounts as the guaranteed price is adjusted. There will continue to be a loading on the home consumption price to cover the cost of shipment of wheat from the mainland to Tasmania. For the year beginning on 1st

December it will be lc per bushel. It will be subject to variation as may be necessary in subsequent years.

There are substantial changes from previous arrangements. The most notable is that the principle of an assessed cost of production is no longer to be used as the basis of the guaranteed price and annual variations in price. Perhaps the simplest explanation of the need for this is that for fifteen consecutive seasons average returns to growers have been less than the assessed cost of production. Yet the industry has expanded at an unprecedented rale, lt is demonstrably prosperous. There can be no doubt that the returns from wheat marketed have been remunerative.

The Government recognises, however, that growers are faced wilh changes in the costs of materials such as fuel and fertilisers, of other inputs such as labour, of interests on debts and of freight, storage and handling. It is therefore proposed that annual adjustments be made to take such changes into account on an index basis in determining annual variations in both the guaranteed price and the home consumption price. The Government has also recognised that there is a need to establish prices which are at once fair to the. consumer and reasonably remunerative to the grower. The home consumption price of $1.70 per bushel, plus the freight loading to Tasmania, represents an increase of 51c per bushel over that of the current season. In considering this, it is well to bear in mind that this price is based on a cost structure ascertained from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics survey to which I have referred. lt is well to remember also that for a number of years in the earlier days of stabilisation the home consumption price was heavily in favour of the consumer.

Whilst a primary objective of the stabilisation plan is to avoid hardship to wheat growers, the interests of the consumer and of the economy as a whole must he taken into account. As 1 have said, Government subvention to the industry has been heavy. Proposals put forward by the industry would, it is estimated, have cost something like $250m over the next 5 years. This would have been intolerable. Such costs to the Treasury would not be justified. The industry is not in need of such assistance. Payments of this order would have had anything but a stabilising effect. As it is, what has been offered to the industry by the Government is quite likely to result in payments of at least $68m to the industry over the next 5 years, if the cost experience in that period and the level of export prices turn out to be much the same as in the last 5 years. 1 shall have more to say later of benefits to the industry. For the moment 1 shall touch on benefits to the community. For the consumer there is the prospect of assured supplies at a stable price. This is not an empty gesture. The increase of 5.5c in the home consumption price will affect the cost of the wheat content of a 2 lb loaf of bread only by one fifth of a cent. Livestock feeders can draw on Wheat Board stocks on a hand to mouth basis. The value of this becomes apparent when it is realised that in 1964 sales of wheat for stock feed were 12 million bushels. In the next year they were 27 million bushels, but wheat prices, unlike the prices of other grains, did not reflect the changed demand situation. Similarly, in last year’s drought in three States, the Wheat Board maintained adequate supplies to meet all domestic demand at the home consumption price determined under the legislation. Other user industries benefit also by not having to carry large stocks of wheat, lt could be argued that they would derive further benefit from a lower domestic price for wheat. The price proposed is reasonable to all concerned and a wheat industry stabilisation scheme is not properly the source of assistance to other industries.

Comparison of individual aspects of the Bill with features of the present stabilisation plan is not likely to be rewarding. Each aspect is a part of a package and it is necessary to look at the whole to appreciate it. Once that is done it will be apparent that growers stand lo gain by its implementation. First, lo take the level of returns to the industry. Home consumption sales, normally about 60 million bushels a year, will return the grower $1.70 per bushel f.o.r. The freight to Tasmania loading does not affect grower returns. The guaranteed price of SI. 45 f.o.b. will return about Sl.4li per bushel f.o.r. on 200 million bushels. This means that on 260 million bushels of any season’s crop growers are provided with a minimum average return of just over SI. 48 f.o.r. per bushel or an aggregate of S385m, and this will be so whatever the state of the export market. In the first year of the current scheme the return to growers was just over $1.44 - 14s 5d in those days - per bushel f.o.r. on 210 million bushels, an aggregate of $303m. So in 1968-69 growers stand to gain 4c per bushel over the first year of the present scheme and because of this and the increase of 50 million bushels in the guaranteed quantity the return from domestic and guaranteed export sales will be $82m higher.

Similar arithmetic will show that the return from domestic and guaranteed export sales in the coming year must be $41m more than in the current year. It can also be demonstrated that if the cost and price experience of the 5 years of the present scheme were to be repeated grower incomes in the next 5 years would be higher than they have been during the period from 1963-64 to this year. The contributory Wheat Prices Stabilisation Fund is to be continued but with some important changes. In the first place growers will not be called upon to contribute to the Fund unless export returns for a season are more than 5c above the guaranteed price. In the first year, then, they will not be called upon to pay anything unless export returns exceed $1.50 per bushel f.o.b. and then only the excess up to a maximum of 15c per bushel. On the other hand, if export returns are below $1.45 per bushel f.o.b. the deficit will be made up from the Fund on exports up to 200 million bushels. There are no grower moneys in the Fund and any deficit will have to be met by the Commonwealth. The ceiling on the Fund is increased from $60m to $80m in keeping with the increase in the quantity subject to guarantee. This provision, however, would become significant only if export prices were significantly higher for a sustained period than they now are. .

The breaking of the link between the home consumption and guaranteed price is recognition of a fact of life. The domestic and export markets are distinct. They have long been so. In the first stabilisation plan, which started in 1948, domestic consumers derived considerable benefit because the home consumption price was below the export price. More recently the home consumption price has continued to edge up while the export price has not. The guaranteed price proposed is not significantly out of line with world market prices. It is higher than current export prices and higher than the minimum set by the International Grains Arrangement. It is high enough so that in conjunction with the home consumption price, growers can look to a return on 260 million bushels of $1.48 per bushel. It has been the practice in the past to adjust the guaranteed price and the home consumption price, exclusive of the Tasmania shipping adjustment, to the nearest cent. It is proposed that in future they will be set to the nearest one tenth of a cent so that problems of over and under estimation will be avoided.

This Bill is intended to bring about a very significant development in the orderly marketing of wheat. The Wheat Board has long been a model of what can be achieved wilh Commonwealth, State and industry cooperation. It has, however, had the disadvantage that its effective operating life has been limited to the duration of a stabilisation plan. This has meant that its ability to take advantage of market opportunities has been restricted. It could not commit itself in any way beyond the last season of the plan. For these reasons this Bill provides for the extension of the marketing provisions for two seasons beyond the duration of the stabilisation plan. The purpose of this is to enable continuity of the Wheat Board’s operations to be maintained. At the present time, late in the final season of the stabilisation plan, the Board is in a very difficult position as far as the receiving and marketing of new season’s wheat is concerned. The proposed change will remove this difficulty. Moreover it will put the Board in the position that it can enter into contracts with overseas buyers for the supply of wheat over a period of, say, 3 years. It will therefore be in a much more favourable position to meet competition from other exporting countries and to take advantage of market opportunities which occur from time to time. Although it would have been possible for it to have entered into 3-year contracts in the first year and second year of a 5-year stabilisation scheme, its inability to renew such contracts as they expired would have put it in a disadvantageous position.

The experience of the past few years has disclosed that there are loopholes in the provisions of the Act debarring trade outside the Wheat Board. Changes have been made in order to close these loopholes so that the Board will have adequate authority to carry out its responsibilities, it has also proved necessary in the light of experience to clarify provisions of the Act relating to determination of the average price which of course is the basis of determination of the amount needed to make up any deficit below the guaranteed price on exports up to 200 million bushels. There is also included in the Bill a number of machinery matters dealing with the powers of the Board.

Mr Deputy President, I have now described the main provisions of this Bill and the reasons behind the changes from previous stabilisation plans. The new scheme has been accepted by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, the recognised spokesman for the industry. Passage of this legislation by the Commonwealth Parliament and of complementary legislation by the States will permit a continuation of an important factor in our economy. 1 conclude by reminding honourable senators that wheat stabilisation is significant to producers and consumers. It protects the producer from the vagaries of the market and provides him with one of the world’s greatest orderly marketing arrangements through the existence of the Australian Wheat Board. It gives the consumer the assurance of his wheat requirements at reasonable prices. Through these things, wheat stabilisation strengthens the economy and the nation. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1651

WHEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Mckellar) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is complementary to the Wheat industry Stabilisation Bill, being intended to give effect to one aspect of the proposed stabilisation arrangements. It has been a basic feature of each stabilisation plan that in seasons when export prices have been higher than the guaranteed price growers have contributed to a Wheat Prices Stabilisation Fund. When export prices have been less than the guaranteed price withdrawals have been made from the Fund to build returns on specified quantities of exports up to the guaranteed price. Should the Fund be insufficient to meet the demands on it or should it be exhausted, as it now is, the Commonwealth has a commitment to meet the guarantee from Consolidated Revenue.

The principle of a contributory charge has long been accepted by the wheat industry and is a reasonable arrangement for sharing between growers and the Commonwealth the risk of loss through fluctuations in prices. The application of the charge will vary from previous practice. This Bill imposes a charge on wheat exports to the extent that export prices exceed the level of the guaranteed price plus 5c per bushel. Thus for wheat of the 1968-69 crop, for which the guaranteed price will be $1.45 per bushel, f.o.b., the export charge will apply only to the excess above $1.50 per bushel f.o.b. The. maximum payable in any season will be 15c per bushel, as it has been for a number of years. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1651

STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Wright) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to one of the new measures in education announced in the Budget and explained in more detail in the Minister’s statement in the other place on 14th August, that is, to provide unmatched grants totalling $2. 5m over this and the two subsequent financial years for the construction and equipping of colleges for the training of pre-school teachers throughout Australia. As the Minister pointed out in his statement, the Government’s decision in this matter was made after investigations into the needs of this level of education to see what assistance from the Commonwealth would be of most benefit to pre-school children. Consultations took place with the various authorities responsible for pre-schools and the preschool teacher training colleges and with State Education Departments. As a result of these investigations and consultations it has emerged quite clearly that the most important help the Commonwealth could give to pre-school education would be to provide facilities which would help to ensure an adequate supply of trained kindergarten teachers. The Government proposes that its contributions should be made by way of grants to the States and has sought the co-operation of the States in making payments to the authorities responsible for the colleges of grants approved by the Commonwealth Minister.

At this point I draw the attention of the Senate to the Schedule to the Bill which gives the best present estimate of how the amount of $2. 5m is to be distributed among the various colleges. The Schedule has been prepared following further consultations with the colleges following the announcement of the Government’s intentions. However, the Bill gives the Minister the authority to vary the amounts between the individual colleges. This is done to provide the flexibility which is necessary to ensure thai the total sum proposed will be used to the best advantage. The Bill does not specify that particular amounts shall be spent in particular years. The nature of the projects which include substantial buildings will determine the rate of spending and I would expect that during the remainder of this financial year, which will be taken up mainly with detailed planning, about $350,000 will be spent. Honourable senators will note that the Bill requires the Minister to table in the Parliament each year a statement showing the amounts he authorised for all projects in the previous years.

As previously announced, the Government’s object is to enable the colleges to expand their capacity to enable them to double their present output of trained preschool teachers. The projects to be assisted are those proposed by the authorities responsible for the various colleges to enable this aim to be met. In deciding the allocations, special care has been taken to ensure that for each college a substantial sum will be available for the purchase of necessary furniture and equipment.

I now give the Senate a brief statement of the projects to be developed with these grants in each State. The present capacity of the Nursery School Teachers College in Sydney is about 100 students, but to increase its capacity to 200 it will be necessary for a new college to be built. For this reason, a grant of $650,000 for the construction and equipping of a new college is proposed. To increase, the capacity of the Sydney Kindergarten Teachers College from 125 to 250, the authorities responsible for the college consider that a further teaching block would be necessary at an estimated cost of $225,000 for building and equipment. As a result of a building grant of $425,000 from the Victorian Government the capacity of the Melbourne Kindergarten Teachers College is al present being increased. To ensure that adequate facilities are available so that its capacity of 200 before the present building is commenced may be doubled to 400, further building and equipment are required and $210,000 has been set aside to mee! these needs. In addition to the existing facilities of the Brisbane Kindergarten’ Teachers College, a further teaching block is necessary to increase its capacity from 150 to 300 students. For the construction and equipping of this further block a grant of $350,000 is proposed.

As with the Nursery School Teachers College in Sydney, the Kindergarten Teachers College in Adelaide requires a new college to increase its capacity from 100 to 200 students. A grant of $670,000 has been set aside for this college. At Meerilinga Kindergarten Teachers College in Perth, provision has been made for a further storey on the recently constructed teaching block. To enable the further storey to be added, additional extensions lo be built and the necessary furniture and equipment to be purchased, a total grant of $175,000 has been requested and this is provided for in the Bill. This further building is expected to increase the capacity of the college from 75 students to 150.

In Tasmania pre-schools are staffed by teachers employed by the Education Department after teacher training within the Department. After agreement in principle had been reached in consultation with the Tasmanian Minister and his officers, it has been agreed that the appropriate capital facilities for increasing the capacity for the training of these teachers in Tasmania would be the addition of an art-craft block at the new Launceston Teachers College, at present being constructed with a grant of $1.5m from the Commonwealth under the teachers colleges scheme. This additional block at Launceston will significantly increase the capacity of the college, and enable courses for the training of teachers for pre-schools to be introduced at Launceston in addition to those existing courses at Hobart. The Tasmanian Education Department has undertaken to provide these courses when the additional block is completed. An amount of $220,000 has been provided for the construction and equipping of the art-craft block at Launceston Teachers College.

I emphasise that the Government’s decision to support pre-school teachers colleges was not taken lightly, and that this support was decided upon as an effective way of assisting from a very early age the full educational development of Australian children, including those who may be at some disadvantage as a result of home environment. Kindergartens have been and are being provided in the more needy areas of capital cities. In an examination, dividing as best one can the various cities like Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth into the richer areas and the poorer areas, one will find that a majority of the older pre-school centres are in the poorer areas, and if one looks at pre-schools that have been built within the last 5 years it will be found that the greater proportion have been built in the more needy areas. In the investigations and consultations held in all States it was emphasised time and again that one thing inhibiting further expansion of pre-schools was the lack of a sufficient supply of trained teachers. We therefore believe, with the kindergarten authorities, that the grants proposed in the Bill are most important to the development of this area of education.

Finally, I should like to express the Government’s respect and admiration of the work of the voluntary organisations in the pre-school field. There is a tradition throughout Australia of community involvement in this area of education, not only of parents interested in having a kindergarten available for their own children but also of many men and women giving freely time and money so that kindergartens are available in areas where need is great.

From the former arises a most useful awareness in the minds of parents of many aspects of their children’s education, an awareness which may be maintained throughout the years of schooling. The latter is a most useful form of community service. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 1653

STATES GRANTS (SECONDARY SCHOOLS LIBRARIES) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Wright) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will introduce a programme for the provision of $27m over 3 years commencing on 1st January 1969, for approved capital projects for the development of school libraries in government and independent secondary schools throughout Australia. Grants will be available for the erection, alteration or extension of library buildings, together with the provision of furniture, equipment and the basic stock of books and instructional materials for a secondary school library. Projects ou which construction commenced on or after 14th August 1968 will be eligible for consideration. Honourable senators will recall that the Treasurer (Mr McMahon), in introducing the 1968-69 Budget, referred to a number of new Commonwealth measures in education, among them the new libraries programme, and that subsequently, on 14th August, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a statement in another place outlining the manner in which this programme is to be administered. The Government hopes that the scheme will assist secondary schools to develop a modern school library - a centre of learning in which an extensive collection of various forms of instructional materials, including books, newspapers, periodicals, filmstrips, records and tape recordings, is available for use in the learning situation. The intention is that schools will be able to obtain a good basic stock of these materials to be used in new libraries or in existing libraries where these are of acceptable standard.

Administrative arrangements for handling the new programme are proceeding so that payments can be made when funds become available in January 1969. Honourable senators will see from the definition of secondary school’ in the Bill that even the smaller consolidated schools catering for primary and secondary pupils will be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. The extent of assistance will of course be dependent on numbers of pupils in secondary forms requiring library facilities, but this is a matter on which the Minister shall have expert advice.

At this stage, I wish to emphasise that the exclusion of primary schools from the Government’s school libraries programme does not represent any judgment on our part thai library facilities are not important in the primary school. We recognise that libraries in primary schools are significant and necessary. The Minister and his Department constantly examine areas of Commonwealth activity in educational matters in order to allocate priorities for the granting of financial assistance. Even when educational priorities have been determined however, any new proposals must be given an overall governmental priority, within the framework of the Commonwealth’s total financial commitments. For this reason, within the scope of funds available, the Government, was not able to extend the libraries programme to include primary schools. However, we believe that in supporting secondary school libraries we are supporting the area of greater need requiring the greater expenditure per student.

Honourable senators will observe thai the limit of grants for each State over the 3- year period 1969-71. appears in the schedule to the Bill. The S9m available for each year of the triennium will be allocated between government and independent schools in each of the States in the same manner as the original allocation of money under the secondary science facilities scheme. Honourable senators will recall from the Minister’s earlier statement that schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory will also receive assistance with library facilities, but that the needs of these schools will be met outside the S27m programme

The method of allocating amounts is first to divide the total available in proportion to the Commonwealth Statistician’s total numbers of secondary school pupils enrolled in government schools and in independent schools respectively throughout all six States, as at August 1967. The two figures thus arrived at are then divided separately among States in proportion to the populations of the States as reported by the Statistician as at 30th June 1967. The resulting non-government school allocation for each State is then divided between Roman Catholic and other non-government secondary schools in accordance with the respective enrolments in these schools. Splitting the funds available on the formula 1 have given will yield for each calendar year, commencing 1st January 1969. the amounts shown in a table which, wilh the concurrence of honourable senators, 1 incorporate in Hansard.

A sum of S3m has been provided in the Estimates for 1968-69 to cover expenditure in the second half of the current financial year.

The Minister in another place announced on 14th August 1968 that he would be appointing a committee to advise him on the conditions and standards necessary for the effective development of the new programme. I am pleased that Dr T. R. McKenzie, who is at present headmaster of Knox Grammar School in Sydney, has accepted the chairmanship of this committee. Other members of the committee are: Miss D. M. Goodman, Senior Lecturer (Library), Bedford Park Teachers’ College, Adelaide; Mr B. W. Hone, Headmaster, Melbourne Church of England Grammar School; Mr C. A. Housden, OfficerinCharge, School Library Service, Victoria;

Mr H. E. Hughes, Department of Education and Science, Canberra, executive member; Mr P. W. Hughes, Deputy DirectorGeneral of Education, Tasmania; Mr L. W. Louden, Acting Superintendent, School Library Service, Western Australia; Rev. Father E. j. Mulvihill, Director of Catholic Education, Adelaide; Mrs M. Trask, Lecturer, School of Librarianship, University of New South Wales; and Brother J. E. Vance, Marist Brothers’ College, Rosalie, Brisbane.

As well as advising the Minister on desirable standards and the assessment of deficiencies, members of this committee will visit independent schools seeking Commonwealth assistance and advise on their library needs. The committee will also assist these schools in developing plans for buildings and in selecting materials and equipment. The Minister hopes too that this Committee’s advice will also be of benefit to the State education departments.

As far as independent schools are concerned, the Minister will have the assistance of two advisory committees in each State, one representative of the Roman Catholic secondary schools, another of other nongovernment secondary schools. These committees will determine the order of priority among applicants and the amounts of individual grants from the total available for each group of independent schools. Grants will be paid to schools on the recommendations of these committees, provided the proposals for library development put forward by the schools meet the standards to be laid down by Dr McKenzie’s committee.

As far as government schools are concerned, the State departments of education will determine priorities and allocations. There is no intention on the part of the Commonwealth to exercise supervision over the -States in these matters. The procedure here will involve agreement between the Commonwealth and each State as to the purposes for which expenditure is to take place and notification by the State within that general agreement of the particular projects to be undertaken. The Government also recognises the urgent need for additional trained school librarians to staff the new and existing libraries in secondary schools. As a contribution towards the provision of fully trained staff, a small sum has been allocated in this year’s Budget in the hope that the Commonwealth, in co-operating with State education departments and library authorities, will be able to sponsor a number of short specialist courses in school librarianship for teachers. To ensure future opportunities for adequate training of teacher librarians, the Commonwealth will encourage Colleges of Advanced Education to conduct suitable courses, and scholarships for the special purpose of undertaking these courses will be made available under the existing Commonwealth scholarship programme.

It is hoped that as part of the impetus to be given to the development of libraries in secondary schools, it will be possible for the States to develop central library services to assist schools with their libraries. I am confident that the new libraries programme, in developing library facilities of a high standard in secondary schools throughout Australia will equal the outstanding success of the secondary science facilities scheme. The considerable interest in the programme stimulated by the initial announcement of Commonwealth assistance in the field of school libraries, is sufficient evidence that this is an area of real need in Australian education.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 1655

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 October (vide page 1496), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator POKE:
Tasmania

– I think it fair to comment that housing is one of the many social problems facing the people of Australia. One could place it in the top bracket of social problems. All honourable senators have had the experience, over a period of time, of endeavouring to obtain a house for a person living in their particular area or district and we know of the problems. The Opposition does not intend to oppose this Bill but there are many aspects covered by it which we propose to criticise. One of the first points of criticism is that whilst realising that a lot of money is to be made available to the States - a total of $126m - under this Bill,

I think it is fair to say that this will not enable us to catch up with the housing lag.

The gap between the number of people requiring homes and the number of homes available for them is the worst aspect of our current housing problem, particularly as it affects people who desire to rent houses. I will have a little more to say on this point in a few minutes. According to the ‘Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia’ for 1967, the peak year for home building was 1964-65 when 84,484 homes were completed. The figure for 1966-67 is not given in the ‘Year Book’. However, it appears in a pocket book of Australian statistics. In that publication it is stated that the number of houses built in 1966-67 was 81.960. In only 4 yearsfrom 1963-64 to 1966-67 - have more than 80,000 homes per year been constructed throughout Australia.

Honourable senators may recall that some years ago a conference was held in Sydney to discuss Australian housing requirements, lt was suggested by a speaker at that conference - if my memory serves me correctly his name was Professor Scott - that Australia should aim at a target of at least 100.000 homes per year in order to catch up with the housing lag. If we accept that Professor Scott knew his business, we are a long way from achieving the objective of catching up with the housing lag. 1 pointed out that in only 4 years has Australia built more than 80,000 homes in a year. According to the figures in the ‘Year Book’, the average yearly increase in house building from 1961-62 until 1965-66 has been 1,200 homes. If we continue al that rate of increase it will be 1973 before we achieve a target of 90,000 homes per year to meet the requirements of those people wanting homes. We must accept these figures as being correct because they have been supplied by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics. I suggest that we will not reach the target of 100,000 homes per year, as suggested at the housing conference in Sydney, until the turn of this century.

This is a pretty scandalous situation. The number of applicants for homes built under State housing schemes throughout the Commonwealth is increasing year after year. I will give honourable senators some information about housing requirements in Tasmania. It is the smallest State of the Commonwealth and therefore its housing needs are much less than those of the other States. At 30th October this year- only last month - there were 2,162 applications with the Housing Department in Tasmania. A break-up of that number shows that there were 174 from the northern part of the State, 478 from the north-west coast, 1 ,45 1 from the south and 59 from the west coast which includes King Island and Flinders Island. I suppose at least 6,000 or 8,000 people would be affected by that number of applications. The population of New South Wales is some 3 million people so, if only on the basis of the number of applications in Tasmania, the position in New South Wales must be very much worse than it is there. As I said a few moments ago, we require more money for housing.

Yesterday I received from the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) copies of two speeches that he had made. Incidentally, without being critical in any way, it cost me 16c to collect those speeches at the post office, because Mr McMahon had not put sufficient postage on his envelope.

Senator Cant:

– He has not caught up with the increase yet.

Senator POKE:

– 1 suppose not. 1 did not mind paying the 16c because the speeches were interesting. The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) always has praised the Government for its efforts in housing. I do not take credit from (he Government for what it has done in that field but there is one aspect of the subject in relation to which I have not always agreed with the Minister. She always sets out to give the impression that the percentage of people in Australia who own their own homes is higher than it is in most other countries. Mr McMahon, in an address to the Master Builders Association in Adelaide on 30th October, mentioned that over 70% of the people of Australia - that is the percentage that the Minister for Housing uses almost invariably - own their own homes. For the record I shall quote Mr McMahon’s own words. He said:

In Australia more than 70% of all householders at the 1966 census either owned their own homes or were in the process of purchasing them.

That is an entirely different position from that which the Minister has endeavoured to put to the Senate on a number of occasions when questions have been asked of her in relation to housing. I suppose it is good politics for any Minister to praise the efforts of the Government. It is pretty good propaganda if a Minister can say: ‘More than 70% of the people of Australia own their homes’. However, I think Mr McMahon has put the record straight. After having read to the Senate that small portion of Mr McMahon’s speech I do not feel quite so bad about having to pay the 16c postage on the copies he forwarded mc.

Earlier 1 mentioned, but did not proceed with it at the time, that many people require homes for rental. That is understandable. It is brought about by many circumstances. One is the cost of homes. Owing to other factors, people just cannot afford to purchase a home and therefore of necessity they must rent one. Another circumstance is that a wage earner on a fairly low income may be endeavouring to educate his children so that they will enjoy a better standard of living than he has enjoyed. It is natural that many will not want to be saddled with the burden of paying off a home, so of necessity they must rent one. Other people by reason of sickness, accident and so on just cannot afford to purchase a home.

I pay a tribute to the Tasmanian Government in that the Housing Department does not insist upon the payment of a deposit for many of the homes that it allocates to applicants. In some instances low deposit homes are built and in others the tenants occupy the homes on a rental basis and shortly afterwards enter into a contract to purchase the home, the loan to be repayable over 53 years. Certainly it can be paid in a much shorter period if the purchaser is in a position to do so. Provision for that is made in the contract. I have had practical experience of the Tasmanian scheme, because 1 lived in one of the homes and have helped many people to obtain them.

Speaking now of Australia generally, and particularly of the larger States, I should like to see the Commonwealth Government allocate more funds for slum clearance. Whether we like it or not, slum areas exist in the bigger cities. The slums should be cleared and high density housing constructed. That form of housing is ideal and comparatively cheap because facilities such as water, sewerage, roads, transport and so on are available. But slum clearance is too costly for the State governments. I believe that the Federal Government should consider demolishing the slums in the large cities and making the land available to the State governments for high density housing. The Treasurer also said that the primary responsibility for housing rests with the State governments. I think it is generally accepted that that is so, but the Federal Government could assist the States with slum clearance. Many houses in slum areas are purchased by oil companies and replaced by service stations. Others are replaced by light industries. In my opinion the State governments should have stepped in and cleared these areas for high density housing. This would serve a better purpose.

One other factor that has to be taken into consideration is that although rentals may be higher, the cost of travelling backwards and forwards to work and to city amenities is much lighter in high density areas closer to the cities. I have not canvassed this aspect. Perhaps the Minister can give some details on it. Many housing commission developments are out in the suburbs and travel to and from work in the cities is costly. A man may have to travel 12, 20 or even 30 miles a day to and from work. Naturally the amount of money available to him each week for household requirements is reduced.

I think that what I have said indicates that there is a greater need for more money to be spent on housing and for the Federal Government to make more money available to the States. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill, although it would like to see the Commonwealth make more money available to the States. I leave it at that. I realise that the Government wants this Bill passed so that it can give effect to the proposals foreshadowed in the Budget. I trust that more moneys will be made available in the way I have suggested.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[5.5] - in reply - I thank Senator Poke for his comments and his assurance that the Opposition does not oppose this legislation. Firstly, I wish to draw Senator Poke’s attention to an answer that I gave this afternoon which completely contradicts a comment that he made. I have shown him a copy of it.

Obviously he was not listening to my reply. I said that the 1966 census showed that 70.8% of Australian householders either owned their own homes or were in the process of paying them off.

Senator Poke:

– That was only this afternoon.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have said this many times before. I have referred to that answer to show that Senator Poke’s comment was incorrect. I agree with Senator Poke that we are all concerned when people cannot acquire the accommodation they want and when there is a waiting list for homes. I assure Senator Poke that the Government is concerned that there is such a waiting list. But 1 believe that we have to look at the facts. Statistics show what has been done in the housing field. For instance, approvals for new houses and flats increased from about 84,000 in 1957-58 to over 132,000 in 1967-68. The average annual rate of growth was 4.6%. Commencements and completions of dwellings rose by about 5% per annum over the last decade. Commencements increased from over 73,000 in 1957- 58 to nearly 122,000 in 1967-68, which was a record. The number of completions of new houses and flats in 1967-68 was over 7% higher than for the previous year and almost 6.5% higher than the 1964-65 level. I think that the points brought out in the Treasury Information Bulletin of October 1968 also answer some of Senator Poke’s comments. I refer to page 34, which states:

The preliminary estimate of the number of new houses and flats commenced during the September quarter of 1968 is 33,476, 6.4% more than in the September quarter of 1967. There were 23,605 houses and 9,871 flats commenced in the recent September quarter compared with 22,575 and 8,888 respectively in the September quarter of 1967. In seasonally adjusted terms new dwelling commencements in the September quarter were equivalent to an annual rate of about 125,000, compared with a total of 123,000 commencements in 1967-68 as a whole.

In this developing nation, with the increase in population through migration, the Government is,I believe, facing up to the very important matter of housing with great responsibility. The money that is to be made available to the States under this Bill for housing the people of Australia is one more milestone in the history of housing in this country. The Government has a proud housing record. It recognises the areas that are of concern. Clearly the people of Australia are tremendously interested in home ownership. The fact that 70.8% of Australian householders either own their own homes or are in the process of purchasing them is indeed something of which we can all be proud. It is, I believe, one of the highest home ownership ratios of any country in the world. I thank the Senate for its acceptance of this legislation, which makes money available to house the people of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amend or debate.

page 1658

QUESTION

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1968-69

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 24 October (vide page 1616).

Department of Immigration

Proposed expenditure, $55,164,000.

Proposed provision, $7,602,000.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[5.12] - I have some replies to questions which were asked by honourable senators just before we rose during the previous consideration of these estimates. Senator Mulvihill raised the question of using bilingual teachers to teach the English language to newcomers to Australia. I inform the honourable senator that all reports of research into modern methods of language teaching indicate that situational methods are clearly the most efficient means of teaching a language at conversational levels. These are the levels of language instruction most necessary for our migrants. The language programmes and methods developed over the last 20 years by officers of the Commonwealth Office of Education and the Department of Education and Science are recognised as being among the best in the world today. These programmes and methods have been used in part or with modification by a number of education services and agencies throughout the Australian Territories and in Africa, India, Alaska, and various Pacific islands.

The use of bilingual teachers implies the use of translatory methods rather than situational methods. Translatory methods are generally regarded as being slower and less efficient than situational methods, lt is of interest to note that the situational method is the one by which we all learned our mother tongue. The use of bilingual teachers significantly limits the flexibility of classes in that an English and Greek speaking teacher is of little use to German migrants in his class. The availability in our community of bilingual teachers of a sufficiently high standard is surprisingly limited. Where bilingual teachers are available it is considered that they could use their talent to good advantage, more especially in presenting the situational method to groups of migrants of the same country of origin.

Senator Cant sought information regarding the repatriation and deportation of migrants. Repatriation at Commonwealth expense may be approved for migrants where there is serious breakdown in health or family circumstances which will be aggravated if the person remains in Australia but may be improved by return to the former environment, lt is, of course, considered as a last resort on strong medical or humanitarian grounds only, and when the person or persons concerned are unable to finance their own return. During the financial year 1967-68 the number of cases approved for repatriation was 151. involving 41.3 persons. As to deportations, these are decided upon by the Minister for Immigration in the exercise of his powers and duties under the Migration Act. The deportations consist chiefly of illegal entrants, such as deserters from ships, and migrants convicted of serious crimes. The costs charged to this item include fares from Australia; fares and other costs for escorts; the cost of operating detention centres in Sydney, Melbourne and Fremantle for non-criminal deportees; and, in some cases, custody charges for deportees pending passages becoming available on ships.

Senator Cant:

asked also why pounds, shillings and pence were used in a Western Australian television programme instructing migrants in the English language. He expressed concern about this. I think the honourable senator was referring to the Walter and Connie’ television series which was purchased from the British Broadcasting Corporation some years ago.

Senator Cant:

– We are still using it.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Yes. It does contain references to pounds, shillings and pence in sterling currency, but these form a small proportion of the teaching material of the series - probably less than one-seventieth. The reference to pounds, shillings and pence is not a primary teaching point but is a secondary one only. The cost of altering the television version of the series to substitute dollars and cents would be difficult and very costly. The cost of producing a new series of comparable standard would be even more costly and not warranted at this stage. I agree with the honourable senator that the references to pounds, shillings and pence - our previous currency - are unfortunate, but it is considered that the cost involved in either altering or replacing this film is not warranted at present.

Senator Cant:

asked also about the provision for a citizenship convention in 1968-69. He said that §36,070 was spent for this purpose in 1967-68 but that no provision has been made for 1968-69. No provision has been made for 1968-69 because no convention will be held in this financial year. Citizenship conventions are not necessarily held at intervals of 12 months. The last three took place in January 1965, June 1966 and January 1968.

Senator Cant sought additional information about passage and associated costs under the United Kingdom-Australia Assisted Passage Agreement. He mentioned that the expenditure for 1967-68 was $19,105,050, whereas the proposed expenditure for 1.968-69 is $24,658,000. The provision for 1968-69 is for 105,000 assisted passage migrants compared with an intake in 1967-68 of 84,635. The increased amount sought under this division is to provide for an increase in the British component of the assisted passage programme from an intake in 1967-68 of 55,877 to an intake in 1968-69 of 70,000. The honourable senator suggested that there could be a fall-off of 9,000 in the number of assisted passage migrants arriving this year as compared with the previous year.

Senator Cant:

– I was not referring to assisted passage migrants but to a short-fall of 9,000 in migrants.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– 1 must have misunderstood the honourable senator; I thought he was referring to assisted migrants. On that point 1 may require from him a further question in order to provide the information that he seeks, but perhaps it would be of benefit if I gave him the information that I have on assisted migrants. My advisers feel that the honourable senator had no basis for making his assumption. I am told that all indications are that the numbers of assisted migrants who will arrive in 1968-69 will be well in excess of the numbers that arrived in the previous year. However, Senator Cant has now raised another point. If I have not answered all his queries, perhaps he could direct another question to me and I will see what I can do to answer it.

Senator Cant also referred to the provision of $6,630,000 in Division 850 for buildings, works, plant and equipment for Commonwealth Hostels Ltd. The honourable senator pointed out that the provision is almost $3m greater than last year’s expenditure of $3,667,000. 1 am informed that the increased appropriation is to increase by 70 the capacity at Graylands Hostel to meet the continuing high demand for hostel accommodation for migrants arriving in Western Australia, and to accelerate the Government’s programme of improving standard hostel accommodation. The appropriation of $6,630,000 for 1968-69 is comprised of the following items: Additional and replacement equipment, $250,000; programme of major and minor works to improve hostels, including improvements to toilet ablution and laundry blocks, installation of wash basins in accommodation buildings, construction of covered ways between living quarters and communal facilities, and alterations to provide larger main bedrooms, totalling $lm; and extension of Graylands Hostel, replacement of corrugated iron accommodation buildings for 2,480 in other hostels, and provision of staff cottages, at a total cost of $5,380,000. Those costs add to a grand total of $6,630,000.

Whilst Commonwealth Hostels Ltd is responsible to the Department of Labour and National Service, the costs involved in the establishment and operation of migrant hostels, being related to the reception and integration of migrants, have always appeared in the estimates of the Department of Immigration. The Department of Immigration maintains close liaison with the Department of Labour and National

Service in regard to hostel matters. I think that answer covers the point raised on that matter by Senator Cant.

Senator Cant also asked for additional information regarding the appropriation for second passage assistance and assistance for the passages and associated costs of Australians in Division 853. This appropriation relates to the Government’s decision to grant second assistance to former migrants under certain conditions and to extend assisted passages to Australians who could meet the criteria laid down. This decision was made known to the Senate in a statement made by me on 8th May last on behalf of the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden). It appears at pages 852-4 of Hansard of that date. The item appears for the first time because it provides for new schemes introduced this financial year.

Senator Cant also asked for an explanation of the term ‘associated costs’. Associated costs are costs other than the costs of actual sea or air passages to Australia. An example is the expenditure involved in transporting migrants from their places of residence to the point at which they join a ship or plane for their journey to Australia. I think that completes the information requested by the honourable senator.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– 1 wish to raise three or four matters that relate to Division No. 330 - Administrative. Firstly, I wish to refer to a report in the Sydney ‘Sun’ of Saturday 6th July of an interview given by the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden) in dealing with the vexed question of migrant screening. He is reported to have said that if a British born Communist wished to come to Australia and were prepared to pay his own fare, he would be allowed entry here but would not be assisted to pay his passage. The Minister knows full well that in debates on the Estimates of other departments I have spoken quite frankly about Commonwealth security. I have said that we recognise its existence. I have offered criticism because I feel that at times we look much harder at people on the far left than we do at people on the far right.

When the Minister says that a British born Communist may enter Australia after paying for his own passage, it raises for me the query whether this policy would apply to a non-British migrant, having regard to the turbulent backgrounds of certain European countries. Are we consistent in applying that policy, or is it akin to our tariff policy in relation to British preferential duty? 1 have always thought that security precautions were not based on nationality and did not turn on whether assisted passages were granted. I leave that query with the Minister and I will be interested to learn whether the Minister for Immigration was correctly reported.

My next point also concerns Division 330 - Administrative. Since the debate on the estimates of the Department of Immigration was adjourned a very important local government conference was held in Cooma. At that conference a proposal was adopted unanimously reflecting the desire of the members of the conference that the Commonwealth Government, should be asked to pay for naturalisation ceremonies. Like myself, many honourable senators have had experience of naturalisation ceremonies. We are living in an age of great ostentation. Senator Fitzgerald has attended many naturalisation ceremonies in the Sydney metropolitan area. He is aware that in numerous municipalities such as Woollahra, Ashfield, Burwood, Concord, Strathfield and Drummoyne, quite a feature is made of welcoming migrants. I believe that the strain on municipal finances is considerable. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that as we rely so much on State and local government aid in this field it is essential that a study be made of the present situation. Even if the Commonwealth Government will not agree to meet completely the costs of the ceremonies conducted by suburban councils, perhaps it could go a little further than it does at present.

When we were last debating the estimates of the Department I said that under the federal immigration programme at times the Commonwealth is saddled with the omissions of State departments. Today I wish to cite the example of a Scandinavian migrant with an Australian wife who desires to adopt a child. The first thing that has struck them is the lack of uniformity between States in child welfare operations. The particular migrant T have in mind was told that in New South Wales it would be quite a considerable time before he and his wife could meet the requirements of the adoption laws. He pointed out to me that in Queensland the situation is different. The Scandinavian concerned has been granted permanent domicile in Australia by the Department. I am not criticising the Commonwealth, but I point out that the Commonwealth Department of Immigration has spearheaded many conferences with the appropriate State authorities on professional qualifications. My hope is that the Minister can generate a spirit of uniformity between the States on child welfare regulations so that migrants will not become confused and filled with a sense of injustice in some situations that arise. I hope that the Minister will instigate a conference of appropriate State Ministers dealing with child welfare problems.

I would also like the Minister to give some information about a matter that has been raised previously on a number of occasions. I refer to the ratio between male and female migrants. About 6 months ago I obtained some figures on this matter. I have not seen recent figures. I believe the figures I obtained are sound. I have had requests from one or two organisations about this matter. Senator Ormonde closely studies the Sydney Press and he will appreciate that the Sydney ‘Daily Mirror’ has featured the imbalance of the sexes amongst migrants. Perhaps a sample could be taken of the numbers of migrants during the last 12 months and information given of the ratio of male and female migrants.

The only other matter with which I wish to deal relates to remarks made by Mr A. L. Grassby, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, at a meeting of the Good Neighbour Council in Sydney. He referred to cases of migrants exploiting fellow migrants and of old Australians exploiting newcomers. In this regard I refer to an article in the Sydney ‘Sun-Herald’ of 18th August, following the Good Neighbour Council meeting to which I have referred. Mr Grassby referred in his speech to excessive interest payments. I am curious to learn whether, as a result of that meeting of the Good Neighbour Council, any action has been taken by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department to probe some of the cases referred to by Mr Grassby. I am not unmindful’ of the difficulty in getting people to testify, but 1 am curious to know what has happened. 1 refer now to a point that the Minister has not yet answered, namely, widening the ambit of representation at citizenship conventions. After my colleague Senator Cavanagh and I attended the last Australian Citizenship Convention, we raised this point. The delegates to the conventions are compartmentalised. They represent different groupings. Special people attend, maybe because the Minister for Immigration, in his wisdom, believes that this girl or that boy has given certain service in an ethnic group. I am quite happy about that. But we ask that the representation be broadened. I have in mind migrants who are members of the Building Workers Industrial Union, the Australian Railways Union or the Federated Ironworkers Association. The unions could recommend migrants who had been in Australia for 7 years and who had experienced all the vicissitudes of migrant life in Australia. They might be construction workers or they might work on the open hearth at the Newcastle steel works. Other delegates could include personnel officers from companies such as the British Motor Corporation. Such people, because of their practical experience, would provide a certain amount of yeast in the discussions.

  1. do not want to pan any of the people who attend these conventions; but I think Senator Cavanagh would agree that some of the present type of convention delegates speak from long range and do not deal with the day to day migrant problems. As recently as last Friday, in company with some of my New South Wales colleagues, I visited people in the motor industry. Apart from their problems, I was struck by the fact that factories such as that of the British Motor Corporation in Sydney have employees of 12 or 13 different nationalities. When we were talking to the personnel officers, we felt that we were on the same wavelength in regard to immigration matters. 1 have hammered this theme incessantly. I am not sure whether another citizenship convention is scheduled, but I ask this question: What are the prospects of having increased representation from the trade unions with a high migrant content and from the staff people of organisations such as the British Motor Corporation? My other question is: What happens to the decisions made by Good Neighbour Council conferences, such as those raised by Mr Grassby, MLA?
Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I enter this debate only briefly in order to refer to the citizenship conventions. I have to say first of all that I have never attended a citizenship convention. However, I have read the reports that have been published following the conventions and I have met delegates from Tasmania who have attended them. I have also read in the Australian Press from year to year plenty of criticism implying that they are a waste of money and that people attend them, at the expense of the taxpayers, for a week of jollification and semi-holiday. 1 do not want to misrepresent a member of the Opposition; so I will not name him. I believe that when we were discussing the estimates for the Department of Immigration last year an Opposition senator implied that the conventions were merely for supporters of the Liberal Party and the Country Party - for Government supporters - and that they were used as a means of popularising the Government in the electorate. We have just heard Senator Mulvihill speak, I think, in praise or appreciation of the value that can come from citizenship conventions. He made a concrete suggestion, namely, that the breadth of the discussions and the field from which people are invited to take part in them should be widened.

It appears that the Government has said, as a matter of policy, that these conventions will be held once every 2 years. There is a feeling in the Opposition that they are public relations efforts run by the Government and for the Government and its friends. There is a wide feeling in the Australian Press that the Parliament is just providing a happy holiday in Canberra for various people. I believe that a straightout and candid expression of opinion on the value of these citizenship conventions would be healthy and helpful to the Government and should rightly come from this chamber. As I said, I have never attended a citizenship convention, although I have been invited to them; but I have gathered from delegates who have attended them and from reading the reports that they are of much value to people who are really interested in helping migrants to become assimilated. I believe that they give a great boost to the enthusiasm of the Good Neighbour Council, the churches and other organisations.

I hope that the criticism from various sections of the Press and, if I interpret it rightly, even from a section of the Opposition will not be noted very seriously by the Government. I believe that the government - whatever government is in power - should be encouraged to hold these citizenship conventions. I am not opposing the withdrawal to holding one every 2 years, but I hope that the Parliament will discuss the matter fully before any other change which would reduce the frequency of conventions is made. I am inclined to side with Senator Mulvihill when he says that, in framing the programme, the Department should consider whether people from a wider field of interests should be brought together to take part in the discussions, so that the discussions will range over the various influences, interests and problems that the migrants will meet in the years to come.

Senator ORMONDE:
New South Wales

– The matter that I wish to mention arises from the recent influx of about 2,000 Czechoslovakians. Representations have been made to me by some of the migrants. They came to Australia very quickly and not necessarily with knowledge of what they were coming to. It so happens that a good number of these people were in the dental profession. When they arrived they were shocked to find that they would not be allowed to practise as dentists. I agree that, in the circumstances in which these people came to Australia - they came almost overnight - the Department may not have been able to tell them that they could not practise as dentists in Australia and that they would be safer if they stayed in their own country and in their own profession, if they wanted to do so.

My question is: What is the general policy of the Department in this regard? What does it do to let people, particularly professional people, know that when they come to Australia they may not be able to move straight into their profession? Does the Department explain the difficulties ahead of such people? What sort of explanations are given in this connection? This point merely arose out of representations that were made to me by people who arrived from Czechoslovakia and many of whom were professional people. The difficulty probably arose because they rushed away very quickly.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN (Queensland - Minister for Housing) [5.38] - First of all let me reply to some of

Senator Mulvihill’s comments. As I understood him, he spoke about the State and Commonwealth adoption Acts. I cannot give him a reply to his comment in that regard. I do not know whether it would be a matter for the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden), the Attorneys-General or somebody else. But I assure him that I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister. Senator Mulvihill raised some other points which I believe should receive considered replies from the Minister for Immigration.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I take it that they will include the interview which the Minister gave in London and with which I dealt extensively. That is one matter that I would particularly like him to consider.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– That was in regard to the admission of Communists or Nazis, was it not?

Senator Mulvihill:

– The Minister’s statement suggested that a British Communist was receiving a better deal than a European Communist.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will ask the Minister to give the honourable senator a reply on that matter. I think that is the best answer that I can give. Senator Mulvihill suggested that the Commonwealth pay the cost of naturalisation ceremonies conducted by local government bodies. Under the existing arrangements some assistance is given to local government authorities. For example, if expenditure is incurred on the hiring a ball, this is met by the Department of Immigration. However, I shall certainly bring to the Minister’s attention the honourable senator’s suggestion that more help should be given.

The honourable senator also made some very interesting comments concerning the Citizenship Convention, as indeed did Senator Marriott. These are matters in respect of which I cannot give answers today, but I shall be pleased to bring them to the Minister’s notice. Senator Ormonde referred to the immigration of dentists under the Czechoslovakian scheme. I am informed that there is an adviser on professions who does tell prospective migrants, before they decide to come, all about the conditions that they can expect to find in their own professions in Australia.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– Last week when we were discussing these estimates I raised the matter of an Egyptian scientist. I have since found that the Department is exercising as much influence as it possibly can to obtain an appropriate job for him. At the moment nothing has eventuated. I want to raise several other matters. I should like the Minister to advise me of the present position in relation to unnaturalised migrants. Two years ago 235,000 eligible migrants were unnaturalised. What is the figure today? We pushed through a tremendous amount of legislation to try to give these people all of the incentives possible. At present no figures are available on this matter.

In recent weeks I noticed in the Press a reference to the incidence of cancer amongst migrants. This is a matter that has caused a tremendous amount of concern. 1 should like to know what the facts are. In the Sydney ‘Sun’ some weeks ago, there was a report under the heading of ‘Cancer Shock, Doctors’ Finding on Immigrants’, which read:

Canberra, Thursday - Male migrants from Britain and Italy have death rates from cancer twice that of native-born Australians. These startling statistics are contained in a report by I lit National Health and Medical Research Council.

They are the result of a research programme by a medical team from the University of Western Australia. Death rale from lung cancer of male migrants from Britain, at all ages, is twice the Australian rate.

Italian male migrants, to the age of 70, have twice the Australian death rate from cancer of the stomach. Italian migrants have only one-third the Australian death rale from coronary artery disease.

I should like lo know whether this story is correct and what has been done about the position. I wish to raise several other matters but time will not permit me to do so this evening. I hope to take the opportunity, on the resumption of the debate tomorrow, to raise several personal matters which are far better raised in the Estimates debate than on a motion for the adjournment of the Senate in the evening, when we do not desire to detain our colleagues after a full day’s discussions.

I should like to refer to the provision for Stale Migration Centres under Division 852, which relates to payments to or for the States. Last year the appropriation was $750,000, of which $426,142 was ex pended. The proposed appropriation this year is $462,000. I saw the appalling state of the Bunnerong centre and I should like to know what is taking place in relation to the building of a new migrant centre in that area and also in relation to the Bonegilla holding centre, which is not to the credit of Australia generally. I shall raise other matters on the resumption of the debate tomorrow.

Sitting suspended from S.45 to 8 p.m.

page 1664

VIETNAM

Ministerial Statement

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - This speech which I am about to make is now being made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in another place as I understand the situation. Where 1 use the first person singular personal pronoun, it relates to the Prime Minister.

In September 1967 the President of the United States in a speech at San Antonio, Texas publicly offered to halt all bombing of North Vietnam as soon as the North Vietnamese indicated that such a halt would lead promptly to serious and productive discussions on the substance of a peaceful settlement in South Vietnam. That offer was not accepted by Hanoi.

Subsequently, on 31st March of this year, the President ordered a cessation of the bombing over the major portion of North Vietnam - that part where 90^- of the population lives and works - in the hope that that gesture and that renunciation of military advantage would lead the North Vietnamese Government to enter into those substantive negotiations designed to secure a just and enduring peace which his Government and the Government of Australia had for some time been advocating. Bombardment was continued in the area of North Vietnam to the north of the demilitarised zone where troops and supplies for the invasion of South Vietnam were concentrated before flowing south. The President said then:

I cannot in conscience stop all bombing as long as to do so would immediately and directly endanger the lives of our men and our allies.

In the result, the North Vietnamese made no reciprocal gesture towards lessening the intensity of the fighting in South Vietnam; nor were they prepared to enter into substantive peace talks designed to discuss the terms on which peace could be attained. They refused to enter into peace talks proper. They did however agree to have discussions on the question of whether there was any basis on which proper peace talks could begin. The talks were held in Paris and have been continuing since 10th May 1968.

As a result of developments during those talks, the President recently formed the judgment that he ‘began to get confirmation of the essential understanding that we had been seeking with the North Vietnamese on the critical issues between us*. Those issues were: 1. That he should have reason to believe that the other side intended seriously to join in de-escalating the war. 2. That he should have grounds for believing that further reduction in bombing would not lead to an increase in American casualties. 3. That the right of the legitimate elected government of South Vietnam to take its place in serious peace negotiations should be secured. 4. That serious negotiations on the substance of a peaceful settlement should begin.

In return foi! these requirements being met, the President was prepared to cease bombing altogether and to agree to representatives of the National Liberation Front being present on the North Vietnamese side of the negotiating table.

I should however emphasise that this is no formal agreement by the North Vietnamese on de-escalation of the war but only a judgment on evidence available to the United States that this response will in fact take place. For his part, the President has made it clear:

  1. . that such talks cannot continue if they take military advantage of them. We cannot have productive talks in an atmosphere where the cities arc being shelled and where the demilitarised zone is being abused.

After President Johnson had announced the cessation of bombing and the results he expected to flow from it, I made the following statement on behalf of the Australian Government:

As you have heard, President Johnson has announced that all air, naval and artillery activity on or within the territory of North Vietnam will be stopped at 8 a.m. Friday morning, Washington time - 11 p.m. tonight our time. We have been consulted by the Government of the United States and kept fully informed of developments leading up to this announcement.

It has been the attitude of the Australian Government that a suspension of bombing in North Vietnam would be justified only if in response some corresponding reduction in North Vietnamese military activity was occurring or could be expected to occur. The Americans have shared with us the information which has led them to conclude that they can be confident there will be such a response. We believe there are good grounds for their judgment and sincerely hope it will be proved right by future events.

A further expected result is that representatives of the government of North Vietnam intend to enter into serious and direct talks with the government of the United States and the government of the Republic of Vietnam on the substance of a peaceful settlement.

As these results occur we believe that they hold out real hopes of future progress towards a just peace. We will not be seeking to participate in these talks at this stage.

This is the present position. Just as the Australian Government in the past has consistently favoured genuine negotiation, so have we consistently supported President Johnson in his refusal to accept the advice - offered from some quarters - that he should order the bombing stopped unconditionally; that is without any grounds for belief that the safety of Allied troops would not be impaired and without any grounds for belief that such action would lead to substantive peace talks. In this I believe events have proved us right.

Cessation of the bombing and the admission of the National Liberation Front representation as components of the North Vietnamese negotiating team urged by some to be conceded without the reciprocal understandings which the President believes he now has would have been concessions made without any advance towards a peaceful solution. Cessation of bombing and the participation of the National Liberation Front on the North Vietnamese side of the negotiating table on the understanding that de-escalation and serious peace talks will follow are concessions which do hold out the hope of an advance towards a peaceful solution and in those circumstances we welcome them with hope.

The first course suggested if taken would have lowered our shield while the enemy’s sword point was still levelled. The course now chosen lowers our shield but only after the negotiations have led to good grounds for expecting that the enemy’s sword point will be blunted and only after agreement to hold substantive discussions on peace has been achieved.

I do not propose in any way to canvass the course which the negotiations may take or the problems which may arise. In a situation of this delicacy on which so much may depend, I believe it could be positively harmful for anyone in this House to do this. But 1 should, I think, tell the House that my Government has advised the Government of South Vietnam that while we understand the reservations which they now have, we feel that their interests would best be served by their representatives attending the talks in Paris at the earliest possible date. They would attend as the representatives of the true and legitimate government of South Vietnam. This is, in our view, a significant fact because until now the government of North Vietnam has refused any contacts or dealings with the South Vietnamese Government.

In conclusion, T should say this: No-one can foretell how long these negotiations will continue and it is possible that there will continue to be hard fighting while they are continuing. We hope not, but it is possible that this may occur. The seeds of peace have now sprouted but the plant has still to grow before we can be sure that the people of South Vietnam will be able to decide their destiny in peace and by peaceful means. What is now occurring is in accord with the pledge of the Allied countries at the Manila Summit Conference that:

We are now prepared to pursue any avenue which could lead to a secure and just peace whether through discussion and negotiation or through reciprocal actions by both sides to reduce the violence.

Neither the United States nor ourselves went to Vietnam to conquer, but only lo prevent conquest of that country by North Vietnam. Wc sought to show that such military conquest was not possible. It may be - 1 say no more than that it may be - that the North Vietnamese have come to realise this, and that the negotiations to be held may produce the cessation of fighting and the durable and lasting peace and the right of choice of the majority of people of South Vietnam, which we have sought. If so, this is a consummation devoutly to be hoped for and I know that all Australians will join with the Government in seeking to do all possible to ensure that the talks attain the results so sought. In the meantime, we should not have too sanguine expectations of too early a settlement and we shall need to keep our resolution unimpaired.

I present the following paper:

Vietnam - Ministerial Statement, 5 November 1968.

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia) [8.131- -I move:

I am extremely disappointed with the stale.ment of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) which has been read by the Leader of the Government, the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson). I am disappointed because this is a very great issue, probably the greatest issue confronting the world today, lt is the greatest issue that this Parliament has debated, certainly in this session. We have heard a very brief statement of platitudes. In some ways I feel sorry for the Prime Minister because he finds himself handcuffed and bound when dealing with this complex problem at the very important stage that has been reached in the Vietnam peace negotiations. 1 will content myself. Mr President, with saying 1 am extremely disappointed with the statement. People throughout the world - particularly people in Australia, because we have troops fighting in Vietnam - have had their hopes built up over the last few weeks, waiting for the announcement by President Johnson, and now tonight we find this weak statement made by the Prime Minister.

Undoubtedly the debate that has just been launched is the supreme type of debate that any Parliament can deal with. The issue of peace or war constitutes the supreme debate. It is much more important. Mr President, than whether we should site the new and permanent Parliament House beside a lake or whether it should be on a hill, but I have no doubt that there will be fewer speakers in this debate and I have no doubt that the mass media will give it less publicity. Nevertheless, and I repeat, there is no more important issue for a national Parliament to deal with than the question of peace or war. I sympathise with the Prime Minister because I can imagine the very complex position he found himself in because of the way we have been treated by our allies in the Vietnam conflict and the difficulties associated with it. However, I did expect a much more forthright statement; one that would give much more hope to the Australian people, and people elsewhere, who have sons fighting in Vietnam.

I do not want to rake over old ashes. The Vietnam issue has been argued in this Parliament many times. Very hard lines have been taken up. I think the Australian Labor Party could look back with advantage and recall to mind some of the statements made by various Prime Ministers and government leaders about Vietnam. However, that would achieve nothing but some satisfaction to some of us for a brief time. Divisiveness over the Vietnam issue has not only hit this Parliament but has hit the rest of the world. After listening tonight to the speech read in this place on behalf of the Prime Minister, I think there has been divisiveness in the United States of America which has been underrated by the people of Australia and particularly by this Government. This divisiveness, this uncertainty and these hard lines that have been drawn on the issue of Vietnam have been manifested in various ways. Many of these manifestations have been novel to the world generally; many of them have been novel to the people of the generation sitting in the Senate tonight. We have seen them manifested in the great debate over Vietnam that has been going on now for a few years. We have seen them in things like teach-ins. University people and others have called upon people holding all sorts of views to try to grapple with this problem in an endeavour to ascertain where Australia is going.

True it is that some of these things have been futile. True it is that some of them, because of the very hard ideological lines adopted, probably have contributed more heat than light to the debates. We have seen demonstrations. We have seen draft card burnings. We have seen conscription, which is an unusual thing in the Australian context. Conscription was introduced in this nation as a result of the decisions made by this Government about the Vietnam conflict. Many of these methods have met with the disapproval of many people in Australia and, indeed, throughout the world. But I think it true to say that this dissension has helped to bring us to the position reached at this time. Naturally we think of peace but, as the Minister for Supply said tonight, when reading the Prime Minister’s speech, we cannot be very optimistic at this stage. Nevertheless, a very important stage has been reached in the peace negotiations.

Mr President, I want to thrust from me the desire to play up this issue and to indulge in the type of debate that we have had in the past. Anything 1 say in criticism of the Government is not intended to denigrate the Government because I realise that it has had a most important and a most difficult job to do, particularly after it took the first tentative step to send Australian troops to Vietnam. I appreciate, as I said, the divisiveness that has occurred. I wish that some of our opponents over the Vietnam issue had been so generous in understanding the attitude of people who had brothers, sons and friends conscripted against their will to fight in Vietnam. If we do not pause at this stage and try to learn something from what we have gone through, from the lives that have been lost, from the tremendous problems and sufferings brought on the people of Vietnam after a period of time when, one would have thought, that that unfortunate country could have had some sort of respite from war, then God help this nation and this part of the world in the years that are lo come. Even if these new developments meant the end of the war in Vietnam - which they do not - this would not mean that the problems for Australia in this part of the world are over. There will be fresh problems to come in the future.

The big question is: What have we learned? What has the United States of America learned from this undeclared war which threatens to destroy a nation? How does a powerful nation learn to handle future crises, because undoubtedly there will be future crises? After the application of so much pressure all the things that have been suggested have been done - there has been a cessation of bombing, recognition of the National Liberation Front and a move at long last to the negotiation table.

This only brings us to a new phase of the war because even when the shooting finally does stop there will be only a change in the weapons used in the battle that will go on in Vietnam. I will come to those problems and enlarge upon them a little later. But let us say that we now have reached a new phase in this shooting war. All that can be said about the cessation of the bombing is that it is only a preliminary to talks which may lead ultimately to peace. It is a new phase; it is a tentative phase. Nevertheless we have gone that far, with the President of the United States taking the hesitant step of holding out the olive branch to Hanoi which to some extent is accepting it.

Let us look at some of the difficulties we are encountering even at this tentative stage. The step that was taken was necessary before any further talks could possible take place. 1 make allowances for the propaganda value to Hanoi of what the President of the United States has done and 1 make allowances for the nations which have painted themselves into a corner and now find themselves in such a position that they must move tentatively - not jump - until they can find some common ground. Hanoi already has said that it has won a great victory. There is no doubt that Saigon is frightened of a sell-out and fears that the war has been fought in vain. Peking and Moscow - they must not be underrated - are finding themselves again operating in concert.

The thing that strikes me is the length of time it has taken for us to reach the position in which we find ourselves tonight. Very early in the piece the Australian Labor Party took a definite stand on this, to its electoral disadvantage. Down on our offending heads came all sorts of abuse. Long before we referred to this matter in our platform we were talking about it. You cannot write anything into a platform until you have a conference. Our minds were quite made up and therefore we had very little difficulty, when dealing with the question of Vietnam, in writing the following into our platform at our conference in Adelaide in 1967:

  1. cease bombing North Vietnam;
  2. recognise (he National Liberation Front as a principal party to negotiations; and -

This has no relevance yet but we hope it will have -

  1. transform operations in South Vietnam into holding operations thereby to avoid involvement of civilians in the war, cease the use of napalm and other objectionable materials of war and provide sanctuary for anyone seeking it.

At that time we were assailed with the usual ideological charges that we were taking up a line on behalf of the Communists, that this was not a practical solution, that we wanted to sell out to the oppo sition and all the rest of it. Those are old charges which have been levelled at us over the years. I make no pretence that they have not stuck. We are in the minority in the Federal Parliament because they have stuck. Let me read this to the Senate:

In the name of the Lord we cry, stop! It is necessary to meet, confer and negotiate in full sincerity. It is now that the war must be ended.’

This appeal comes, not from some fringe group of American peacemongers, but from the communique of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in South Vietnam, issued at the close of their conference last fall.

This was written on 4th June 1967; so ‘last fall’ was in September-October 1 966, 2 years ago. The article goes on:

Monseigneur Sergio Pignedoli, Apostolic Delegate to Canada, presided at the conference as the personal representative of Pope Paul VI.

May I add another part of the article which, although it is a little out of context, I should like people to listen to very carefully because 1 believe that the attitude of the Vietnamese has never been really understood. I do not think any of us has really understood what the Vietnamese want out of this war. We all want something. I doubt whether any of us has taken time off to think about, to study and to try to understand what the Vietnamese want. I mentioned the Apostolic Delegate to Canada to make it clear that this was not merely a South Vietnamese group who forgot about their religion and the reason they were there and concentrated only on the local issue. The Italian Apostolic Delegate to Canada was there and presided over the conference. The article contains these further very significant words:

Our society is rapidly changing. Two ages and two generations confront each other, and that is why it is necessary for them to seek to understand each other, to enter into discussion, and to collaborate in the building of the new society.

Whatever might be said about the Labor Party and whatever criticisms might be levelled at the Catholic Church from time to time - they are certainly many and varied - the great body of the Catholic Church could hardly be charged with being a Communist front organisation. That tag might be pinned on the Labor Party but it certainly could not be pinned on the Catholic Church. The steps that are being taken have been urged not only by the Labor Party and by the group that I have mentioned - 1 mentioned that group because there is no way in which the ideological tag can be pinned on it - but also for a long time by the whole spectrum of humanity. If it was not the decisive factor - maybe it was not - it was certainly one of the factors which influenced the United States of America to make the advance and Hanoi to accept, or partially accept it. Although the position has not yet clarified itself - there is a fair amount of fog surrounding it - at least it was one of the factors which brought about the present position.

I wonder whether people have stopped to think for a few minutes of the other factors involved in this. First of all, there is the magnitude of the whole thing. I heard it put the other day in a lecture in these terms: If we converted the United States effort in Vietnam into Australian terms we would have in excess of 30,000 soldiers in Vietnam. Our death rate - not our casually rate - would be 6,000 soldiers a year killed. I wonder what sort of pressures would be put on Australia if we were making that kind of effort in an undeclared war. In the American nation it is the people who are carrying the brunt and putting in a great effort, i think America is putting some 3% or 4% of its gross national product into the war. That represents, I think, $67 billion but it is hard to say what that would mean in Australian terms. These are some of the other pressures which haw brought us to the stage at which we find ourselves tonight.

Surely by now everyone must realise that if this thing goes on in Vietnam we will be faced wilh the destruction of a complete nation. Some people say that we will save a nation The fact is that if the bombing and napalm drops continue, if the murders and the throwing of bombs into villages and all the rest of it go on and on, finally the nation will be destroyed. If it is not destroyed physically it will certainly be destroyed economically, morally and in every other way that makes up the character of a nation. America has run the risk - and the longer the war goes on the greater will be that risk - of projecting its image as that of a big nation bullying a small nation. This is inescapable when all the accoutrements of modern war are in the hands of one side and the other side is virtually footslogging.

Quite frankly I have not been able to understand clearly the aims which have been outlined by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasluck). We are told that we are not in Vietnam to win a war; that this is not the all out, slather and whack kind of war that we knew in 1914-18 and 1939-45 when we went forward and destroyed the enemy until he cried ‘enough* and surrendered unconditionally. Instead there is a nebulous idea that at some point of time the situation will be reached when everybody will say: ‘Let us sit down and talk’. Yet the Australian Labor Party has been berated from one end of the country to the other for suggesting that there should be negotiations. We now face the possibility that the great American Goliath, with all the raiment of war, will be defeated by a small nation wearing sandshoes and black cotton shorts. If that were to happen the whole question not of the balance of power but of power itself would be raised in the minds of the uncommitted nations of the world. Although it may be said that (his is far fetched, it is a distinct possibility. When I deal later with the Tet offensive, which I think has been completely underrated, I believe honourable senators will see my point a little clearer.

There has been growing pressure over quite a period of years for a cessation of the bombing, recognition of the National Liberation Front and the commencement of peace negotiations. But this Government has been unwilling to accept even those tentative preliminary steps. I repeat that this is not the beginning of the end; it is only the beginning of the beginning. The need for these concessions has been obvious for a long period of time. So many pressures have been building up in so many quarters - as I said earlier, over the great arc of the spectrum of humanity - that one wonders why it has taken so long to get to this stage. Unfortunately, the Australian Government has been the last of the hawks. There have virtually been two major bombing halts - excluding the pauses. There have been two very dramatic statements by President Johnson. On each occasion the Australian Government has, on the very eve of the announcements, been caught insisting that the bombing must go on.

Australia has been the last of the hawks. Because of its geographical position, Australia should not have been the last of the hawks. Indeed, it should not have been over-hawkish at any stage of the proceedings. When other nations - even America - have been backing away we have been insisting that the bombing should continue. Only recently in Washington the Minister for External Affairs said that it would be the height of folly and indeed suicidal if the bombing were halted without this, that or the other condition. It is unfortunate that Australia’s spokesmen and statesmen have taken this line right up to the last moment.

At the moment 1 am dealing with how the cessation of bombing came about. I have suggested that it was brought about because of pressures, because of the tremendous difficulties the allies are finding themselves in and because of what could finally happen if we were defeated in Vietnam. One of the most difficult studies over the last few years has been not to sustain the alpha and omega positions which have been taken up in Vietnam but to extract the truth. Only by finding the truth can we salvage something for the Vietnamese people, for this area of the world and for ourselves from the suffering that has gone on and the lives that have been lost. We should forget abuse in our search for that truth. 1 believe that the Tet offensive has been completely underrated. It has been too soon forgotten. Those who are categorised simply as hawks have said that the National Liberation Front was very disappointed with the Tet offensive. That is a complete under. statement. Frankly, I think that the forays were brilliant military manoeuvres. Nobody should underrate General Giap. He had great success against the French. He has been able to do amazing things under difficult circumstances. It is argued that the Tet offensive was a failure because when the North Vietnamese marched in through the hamlets to the suburbs of Saigon the people did not rise up and give them food and arms and fight beside them. It is true that the North Vietnamese may have expected a little more help than they received. I think it is equally true that they offended a lot of the villagers because df the murder and rapine that went on. The important thing from our point of view is that the virgin blackboard of the Vietnamese countryside, on which the allies had been slowly drawing a pacification programme and trying to win the hearts and minds of the people was wiped clean with one sweep of the cleaning rag by General Giap in the Tet offensive. I believe that this more than anything else showed the almost infinite period of time that this so-called open-ended war would take. The laborious and painstaking work of training cadres in Vung Tau to go out into the hamlets was destroyed by abduction and murder and we found ourselves back to just about square 1. Because of that I think that the Tet offensive was very important. The situation was reached where the allies had to face up to the fact that there was no quick end to the war; that it was indeed an openended war.

I know that there has been tremendous controversy over a long period of time regarding recognition of the National Liberation Front. But even the United States is now coming to the stage where it is accepting the fact that the NLF has to be recognised at peace talks. Now we have a hardened position at the present time where the National Liberation Front is saying that it will attend peace talks but will not recognise the South Vietnamese Government, and the South Vietnamese Government is saying: ‘After all, we are the Government of Vietnam and we want positions in the Parliament and in the administration immediately without any further argument’. Although I have not entered into any great argument about it, I have never thought that the National Liberation Front would not be present at any negotiations. I have always believed that if the stage was reached when the combatants in Vietnam could see some hope of peace negotiations they would not let this hope be destroyed by semantics or personalities. If one has read the newspapers over the last few days one might conclude that either the South Vietnamese Government or the National Liberation Front will not attend the talks. If that is to be the hard line attitude we can close this debate now and continue with the war because in all peace talks and negotiations there must be compromise. Unless the NLF compromises to some degree, and the South Vietnamese also, there will not be any meaningful talks. But there is not going to be the simple situation of America and South Vietnam sitting on one side of the table and North Vietnam sitting on the other side. That would be a lovely solution, but it is just not on. It is just so simple in this complicated situation that it will not happen.

I think the Australian Government finds itself in an extremely awkward situation, particularly now, because it has said over the years that it is in Vietnam because the South Vietnamese Government asked for aid. Over the years we have probed and tried to find out why we were involved there. We have put up all sorts of reasons. I believe that we listed five of them and asked the Government for which of those reasons it had gone to war in Vietnam. We asked whether it was because of the alliance. But the Government always said that we had gone to war in Vietnam because the South Vietnamese Government asked for aid. The fact that that is not the same government today does not matter; governments bind the governments that follow - otherwise there would be a strange sort of administration. But now that the Australian Government finds itself in this situation, where does it stand? Does it stand beside the South Vietnamese Government, which is taking this very tough line, or will it say that it is following the Americans who are starting to soften and are beginning to say that they will do some of the things that have been anathema to them for such a long time?

I have mentioned the pacification problem and my personal belief that the Tet offensive wiped the slate completely clean in this regard. 1 believe that the pacification problem is the gravamen of the whole war. I believe that this is where the war has been lost and where the fumbling has taken place. But I believe sincerely that if the South Vietnamese are going to get anything out of this war we must come back to the pacification problem and the hamlets and make that the gravamen rather than the side issue of the whole of our efforts in Vietnam. I know that we have poured much abuse on this concept, but there is no doubt that people have tried to do something. The cadres were being trained and people went out into the villages to fight for the hearts and minds of man, if I may use that old cliche. I believe also that this was the only possible way to achieve a result. 1 believe that there was in Asia a pattern not exactly the same as but similar to that which was established in the Filipino fight against the Huks on the outskirts of Manila. This fight raged for some time and became very much more serious than the world ever realised. At one stage a battle was fought for Manila itself. I do not think the reporting on that battle was ever clear. I did not follow it clearly until I caught up with the news in a visit to Manila some time later. What they did there was to send the troops out into the villages and mount a 24 hours a day patrol. It was not a question of going in and cross-examining people, assuring them that they would be all right and then finding that the moment nightfall came the Huks came down from the mountains and terrorised them again. They went in and set up what could be termed, in this context, a pacification programme. The villagers knew that for 24 hours a day the troops were there. Consequently they had no fear of the Huks coming down from the mountains. Finally there was the collapse of the Huk movement in those days. I understand that the situation there now is not all that it could be, but in the period to which I have been referring the programme succeeded. I believe that this pacification programme was the only way in which it could have succeeded, and I still think that it is the only way that we can finally do any good in Vietnam.

It seems to me that there has been failure in Vietnam firstly because of the overpreponderance of allies in South Vietnam Not enough of the South Vietnamese have been doing things for themselves. There has been a marked improvement since General Westmoreland left and General Abrams took over. Much more of the brunt of the fighting and the work is being done now by the South Vietnamese soldiers. I think we learnt in Korea from the splendid articles written by General Van Fleet that stability can only be achieved in whichever country it might be, if the Asian people are prepared to do the brunt of the fighting and electioneering and to control their forces themselves. When they hand these things over to the allies, as South Vietnam has done, there is no permanent solution. In Vietnam the pacification programme was run largely by the United States of America. It was the Western people who understood this battle for the hearts and minds. It is the Western people who want to see change in Asia.

One of the things that appals us, not only in South Vietnam but in other countries in Asia, is to see how the wealthy people can completely disregard the poorer people and how the peasants live side by side without making any attempt to do anything about their situation. It is true that in the Western world we get these problems, but it is true also (hat in the Western world we grapple with the problems. Perhaps from time to time we lag in dealing with them, but also from time to time we face up to our problems and try to do something about them. This tremendous disregard for peasant life in Asia is a problem which will continue and it is one which has created so many problems in Vietnam.

Inevitably, because of the war, when the cadres went out they not only started a pacification programme but they were worried also about the gathering of intelligence. They had to carry weapons because of the danger of attack. It was an administrative type of action. It was not real warfare and it was not real politics. Yet this was a political problem. It was a problem of going out and saying to the South Vietnamese that their government was capable of worrying about the hamlets, that it wanted to worry about them and could do something material about them. But above all I think this became a side issue. I have heard it referred to as the other war. In my view this is the war. This is the thing that we must concentrate on. The gravamen must be to concentrate on the development of these hamlets.

Because the Vietcong can patrol so close to Saigon that it becomes almost unbelieveable, it is necessary to go out into these areas and to prove that we are fighting for the things that we say are possible, to prove that we really want to bring the situation down to a grass root level. If in the future we still are going to ignore this approach I am very much afraid that the whole of our fighting will be in vain. A very interesting thing happened in the Tet offensive, and this leads me on to the question of elections when they finally come. The Front in the hamlets very close to Saigon has been holding clandestine elections. I ask honourable senators to envisage what this will mean. When the situation in Vietnam is finally ironed out, we have withdrawn our troops and we tell the Vietnamese to go ahead and hold their elec tions, already in the hamlets people will have been elected to various positions. What a tremendous advantage they will have, without any electioneering, when it finally comes to a general election in which the Front will be one of the most formidable bodies fighting in the election.

Already the Front has beaten us to the pacification problem. It has reversed the situation. It has gone into the hamlets and it is now holding elections in the hamlets. One of the things that we must face up to and the people must realise is that when we reach the situation of elections, so far as we can see at the present time - I know that nobody can look into the future - the most cohesive body taking part in the elections will be the Communists because they are already unified. They know what they want. Let us look at the political situation and examine carefully the last elections held in Saigon. To a Western mind they represented a rather farcical situation. There were situations in which candidates were running for office and were carrying on their businesses the day before the election. Such a thing as electioneering as we know it was virtually unknown.

That is why Mr Dzu, the man who is at present in gaol, polled exceedingly well. He was one person who used the Western method of propagandising and electioneering. He went out and campaigned. He projected himself forward and, because of that, he was able to get the remarkable vote that he received. As for the rest of them - I hope that the Government is listening to this - it may have been that the candidates were paid to stand. This might have been why such a tremendous number of candidates stood for the election. It was a profitable business to stand in any case. Because of this names went in when the persons concerned had no serious attitude towards the election.

If there is a replica of this at the next election and the Front and Communist organisations are allied into one very cohesive force which also has come through the crucible of war, it will be a force which will take a lot of reckoning with. There are all sorts of figures and no-one can tell whether they are right or wrong, but it has been worked out that the Communist organisations may control as much as 15% or 20% of the vote at the present time.

It might be said that that is a minority, but it is not a minority when considered in the light of such a dismembered vote throughout the rest of the electorate.

To what does all this lead us? What are the lessons to be learned out of the commitments that the Americans have already entered into in this area? We have an alliance and it is said that we should be where the Americans are, but where does that lead us? Reference has been made to the situation in north-eastern Thailand by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasluck). I think his statement can be taken as official, lt is supported by what 1 have read. The situation in that area varies from time to time. I have read accounts stating that the Americans are already committed in that area, but I have also read other accounts stating that the Bangkok Government has at long last awakened to the situation and is doing something about it. This doubt hangs over us.

All honourable senators are familiar with the domino theory. I do not reject or accept it. Possibly it is correct that when one nation is lost to the proponents of an ideology which advocates the conquering of other nations, that ideology is strengthened. However, I do not think it is inevitable that the domino theory will follow. The Thais have their problems on their southern and north-eastern boundaries, quite without regard to the pressures involved in the domino theory. So 1 do not believe that the domino theory is very important. If the Communists wish to enter other nations I do not think they will wait for Vietnam or any other domino nation to fall. They can act before that eventuality. Nevertheless, it is true that the prior fall of South Vietnam would strengthen their position.

Again I will speak at the risk of having all sorts of offensive remarks passed about me. I think it is necessary to look closely at our alliance with the United States. In saying that 1 am not being anti-American. To say that is not to say that we want to become bad friends with the Americans. Nobody is that foolish. It is true to say that in some areas of our destiny we are bound together, but it is also true that we were allied with the United Kingdom for decades, and I suppose that we still have a form of alliance with that nation. Twice we went to war because of the United Kingdom but I do not recall that the United Kingdom ever went to war because of us. I am not saying that the United Kingdom would not have gone to war on our account, but the fact is that we sent soldiers across the oceans because of the commitments of our allies.

What is the situation in respect of the United States? Whatever reasons exist for sending our troops to South Vietnam, I suggest that we were not completely blinded by our American alliance in doing so. If we feel that we are under a moral obligation to go to the aid of the Americans - I am not suggesting that the obligation would extend to sending troops to Latin America - the moral compulsion that we have evidently felt in regard to Vietnam raises questions as to where the alliance rests and where the line must be drawn. That is not to disregard our friendship with the great nation that is the United States of America. It is simply to say that we must see how best we can play our part in this area and how best the United States can play its part in its region of the world.

We must face up to the fact that South Vietnam might be worried about the situation that has arisen because of the stand taken today by the Americans. We might well’ be worried about the situation ourselves. After listening tonight to the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) I do not think there is any doubt that he is in an unenviable situation. Whatever type of peace we want to see in Vietnam, the final declaration will be made by the Americans because the Australian Government and the South Vietnamese Government lack bargaining power. The power that can be brought to bear by the United States is infinite. It can do almost anything. In stating the terms for peace, it is a mutter for the decision and conscience of the United States. I am not suggesting that the Americans will’ walk out of South East Asia as a result of a dishonourable peace, but the fact is that the decision on peace terms must be made by the great partner in the alliance and not by the junior partners. That lesson must be written into the copy book of the Australian Government when dealing with problems that undoubtedly will arise in the future.

I have asked myself at different stages whether we have really known at any time what the war in Vietnam is about. It has been a piecemeal sort of business. At first we sent advisers to Vietnam, then a few troops, and then more troops, and then aeroplanes and ships. Eventually our casualties started to mount. I do not think there is any doubt that the factor that brought the Western allies into the Vietnamese conflict was the struggle of the Vietnamese people to get rid of the yoke of foreign domination under which they had suffered for so long. They took a stand in their fight against the French. They wanted to obtain social and economic justice as well as physical security. They wanted the things that any nation would look for from a government. That had nothing to do with the United States or Australia. That situation ante-dated the sending of our troops to Vietnam.

The Vietnamese were engaged in an age old struggle that will go on after we have moved out of the area until finally an acceptable form of government is obtained, bringing with it a way of life free of the yoke of foreign domination. Honourable senators who have considered these points will concede that that undeniably brought the Western powers into Vietnam. Superimposed on that situation was the whole question of Communism versus antiCommunism throughout the world. The cold war blew up into a hot war. Whatever may be the result of the struggle of Communism against anti-Communism, the fight of the Vietnamese people for a better way of life will continue after we have left the area.

In a discussion of this nature we must always return to the question of ideology. I believe that ideology is dying in the world today. 1 do not mean in an intellectual or debating sense. In any country in the world today the population is concerned more with the fruits to be gained from an ideology. I have heard a lot said in Australia about Socialism but I have never heard of attempts by the opponents of Socialism to destroy the Socialistic principles on which the Post Office and such institutions are conducted.

Senator Devitt:

– Government supporters take credit for that.

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– That is so. On the other hand, I have never heard supporters of Socialism advocate the socialisation of the hairdresser’s shop on the corner. These points are important to intellectuals in a debate, but not to the people who want to see things done. In Asia it is not a question of the Post Office or the hairdresser’s shop. It is a question of food supplies and freedom as a way of life. The people of South East Asia will not be worried whether the improvements are to be given by Communists, anti-Communists or by anybody else. These unfortunate people have been engaged in a struggle for a very long time. When they can get to the stage of trying to develop their countries they will not be worried about where the assistance comes from, just so long as something can be achieved at long last.

The message I would like to see left with the Australian people after this debate, and particularly with the Government in power for the time being at least, is that the Australian Government must face up to the responsibility of learning its lessons from the South East Asian situation. The situation in Australia is not exactly the same because of different factors of history, geography and the rest of it. The United Kingdom Government is moving out of this area and once the United States Government leaves it will not want to come back again in a hurry, with its head down. But we must remain in this area for all time and we must learn our lessons if we are to smooth over the problems that will arise.

The first crucial and tentative step is being taken in Vietnam. How do we honestly come up with a solution? What is to be the approach to the future? I said at the outset of my remarks that this is a debate on the supreme question of war and peace. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that we are concerned with the war and peace that are yet to come. What is happening, belated though it may be, challenges Australia generally to pause to count the score at this stage. It challenges us to realise the speed of change. Honourable senators will remember the passage that I read earlier about the change that has taken place and the fact that two generations of people and two different forms of thought are facing one another. So the challenge of the future may well be cur experience of the past. If we fail to meet this challenge, all the efforts and sacrifices in Vietnam will be in vain.

If we read the dispatches of the last couple of days we might well say that we will not achieve anything. But the Tet offensive and the years of fighting in Vietnam have proved conclusively that there is only one way to end the conflict, and that is to sit around the negotiating table. The time involved could be infinite if we try to continue fighting the way we have been fighting over all the years. The Government has made many mistakes. But, as I said at the outset, 1 do not make this speech with any malice. I merely say that the Government should look at the situation and be big enough to admit its mistakes and to recognise the problems that confront it not only in South East Asia but in regard to its friends. However friendly someone may be, the inherent problems of human nature still exist. If the Government adopts that attitude, we can go forward and take this effective step. We can get to the negotiating table, not to bring peace immediately but to make peace possible. If we do that we will achieve something, belated as that achievement mav be.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I suppose that it is my duty, in following Senator Willesee, to rebut some of the statements that he has made. But they are of such an extensive order and are so widespread that if 1 followed him along the labyrinthian paths that he has been pursuing for the last 45 minutes I would not be able to get to the crux of the debate, which is the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in relation to the Vietnam bombing halt. I am interested in the comments made by Senator Willesee when he was making his apologia for Socialism. I just happened to have on my desk an article which appeared in the London ‘Daily Telegraph’ of 19th October. It was written by Tibor Szamuely. In it he deals basically with some of the matters raised by Senator Willesee in relation to the problem of Socialism. This relates to the problem involved in the Prime Minister’s statement in relation to the Viet Bam bombing halt. In regard to the problem that exists in Vietnam, Szamuely has this to say:

The world is plagued by a superfluity of Marxisms’. New schisms appear, new sects emerge almost daily; each takes the name of the Master in vain, each invokes his authority, and ex-communicates rivals in terms of unparalleled ferocity (or, better still, kills them, given the opportunity).

Senator O’Byrne:

– They sound like penicillin.

Senator CORMACK:

– This man happens to be a Hungarian who managed to get out of Hungary in 1956. His statement could probably be echoed by somebody who managed to get out of Czechoslovakia in 1968. The problem that is involved in this Vietnam bombing halt is that of the aggressive ideology that we find in central Europe or in South East Asia. It has existed in Vietnam since 1965, when the United States of America specifically entered South Vietnam. It has existed in South East Asia since 1949. lt is all very well for Senator Willesee to stand up and argue that the Australian Labor Party has been right all along. In essence, that is what he says. But, as a matter of fact, when I looked up the comments that 1 made about 3 years ago in reply to Senator Kennelly in this chamber, I saw that I said that it was not possible to achieve any solution in South East Asia or in South Vietnam unless it was made clear to the North Vietnamese that there was a penalty to be paid for not coming to the conference table. That is what the last 3 years have been about. It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister’s statement, which has been read by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) tonight, is a cautious one. Senator Willesee acknowledged that. Senator Willesee said, in effect: ‘This is an agreement to begin talking; no more, no less’. The Prime Minister does not put any more emphasis on the agreement than that. He does not want to do any more than Senator Willesee wants to do, namely, to rake over the ashes of what has happened in the past. The question in which we are involved is how the talks are to be conducted and what will be the result of them.

It is perfectly clear to me that involved in this problem of the bombing halt is something that I once described in this chamber as the psycho-strategy. The psycho-strategy has been pretty successful. It has been pretty successful because the pressure has come upon the United States on the eve of the presidential election. Therefore, the United States, for its own internal political reasons - there is a lesson here - has felt compelled to make, through its President, a concession that it was not prepared to make on any other occasion.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Tricky Dicky.

Senator CORMACK:

– It has nothing to do with Mt Nixon. I am talking about President Johnson. For reasons of internal needs, the United States is prepared at this stage to make a concession which the Australian Government is not prepared to make.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator is not very keen about it, is he?

Senator CORMACK:

– No, I am not. Like Senator Willesee, I am dubious about the results. Senator Willesee repeated that 2 or 3 times. 1 believe that the situation will not change substantially as a result of President Johnson’s willingness to accord to the Vietnamese relief from the bombing of North Vietnam. What is the immediate response from North Vietnam? I have here a report dated 3rd November 1968 from the Australian Associated Press and Reuters correspondent in Hong Kong. Quotation marks are used, so I assume that the statements come from a specific source. The source of the comments in quotation marks must be Hanoi. The great leader of the North Vietnamese Communist-Socialist fatherland said: ‘This is an initial victory for North Vietnam’. Those words are in quotation marks in the report. He went on to exhort the people of the North to sweep the aggressors out of South Vietnam. So he is not approaching the Paris talks in any mood of conciliation, it seems to me.

The second statement, which also appeared in quotation marks in the report in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 4th November and which is a quotation from the same source, is that the Vietcong will carry on unremittingly the task of sweeping the aggressors out of South Vietnam. The final statement in quotation marks is: ‘It is now the sacred duty of our people to increase our determination to fight and to win and to resolve to liberate the south, to support the north and to proceed towards the peaceful reunification of the fatherland’. Those are the statements of the master of the CommunistSocialist party in North Vietnam. There is nothing very conciliatory in them.

Senator Willesee says that there is to be a political settlement. I have always agreed that eventually the problem posed in South Vietnam will be solved by a political settlement. But what is the political settlement? Is it that the Republic of South Vietnam is to submit to the dominance of the People’s Republic of North Vietnam? Is that the political solution? Let us hear from the Opposition.

Senator Ormonde:

– We are all the way with LB J.

Senator CORMACK:

– I have always maintained that the problem of Vietnam was not capable of military solution and that it was not possible to get a political solution in South Vietnam until the threshold of pain was crossed by the North Vietnamese. Only by constant military pressure being brought to bear on North Vietnam has it consented, even in this marginal area, to come to the conference table. Having put a tentative foot into the water of peace the North Vietnamese have decided, at this juncture anyway, that their full intention is to liberate the people of South Vietnam. That is all right. What is the settlement that we, as a participant in the situation, are prepared to accept? Should we take the middle path in this? What are the peace talks about? They are about a political settlement. The North Vietnamese cannot publicly indicate that a non-Communist government in South Vietnam is acceptable.

The next assumption made is that a political settlement requires that the National Liberation Front will be at the conference table. What is the National Liberation Front? I am not arguing this on a partisan basis. I am approaching it on the basis that there is a political settlement. Is the National Liberation Front a genuine political movement in South Vietnam or is it part of the Communist conspiracy of North Vietnam? That is what I want to know. All honourable senators have a copy of a Press release from the Republic of Vietnam dated 3rd November in which the Government of that country says that it will not sit at the table with the National Liberation Front.

Senator Willesee:

– Let them fight it on their own.

Senator CORMACK:

– What the honourable senator suggests is that the National Liberation Front - the military arm and the political arm of the North Vietnamese - should be allowed unrestricted movement in South Vietnam, maintained and supported by the North. That is what the honourable senator is arguing.

Senator Ormonde:

– ls that what President Johnson says?

Senator CORMACK:

– I say that that is what honourable senators opposite are arguing. My fina] argument is this: I believe that the people who were elected by the South Vietnamese are entitled to form the Government of South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese are entitled to be protected from intruding forces and to rive in their own way. That is what I have always said. If there is a Socialist or Communist government - whatever one likes to call it in Szamuely’s terms - if it has the Socialist imprimatur, honourable senators opposite, because they have fixed ideas and because they believe the people of South Vietnam are corrupt or something like that, believe that the North Vietnamese have the right to invade South Vietnam and impose their will on it.

All I hope is that there is a peaceful solution. 1 hope that there will emerge from the Paris peace talks means by which the people of South Vietnam will be allowed to 1’ive in peace, and that guarantees will be obtained from the North Vietnamese - unequivocally supported as they are by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Chinese People’s Republic - that they will not invade South Vietnam. I believe that there is more to come from the Paris peace talks than this. There has to come an undertaking by the North Vietnamese that they will not interfere with the people of Laos. There are more casualties amongst the Laotians than there are amongst the people of South Vietnam, yet I have never heard anyone on the Opposition side deprecate the influence of the Vietcong or North Vietnamese in Laos. 1 have never heard a member of the Opposition rise and deprecate the invasion of the eastern borders of Cambodia. Senator Willesee quite rightly touched in passing this evening on the problem of the invasion of north-eastern Thailand.

This bombing halt, obtaining at least a moderate concession from the North Vietnamese that they will1 appear at the conference table, cannot be accepted as anything more or less than a process to get the North Vietnamese to talk. If in the final analysis, the United States as a result of all of its own internal political pressures of one sort and another is forced to retreat - as 1 believe it will be - from the Asian mainland, it is as inevitable as the fact that night must fall that we will have to recast the whole of Australia’s foreign policy. I do not run away from that. We have been able, to the degree that is available to us in a military and in a civil capacity, to exert a small but substantia] influence in the northern part of South East Asia as a result of the presence of the United States of America on the Asian mainland and on the southern portion of the South East Asian area as a result of the presence of the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom is going and the United States of America may go. I think that in fact the United States will go; it will retreat from the mainland. I think Senator Willesee is right on this; I do not quarrel with him. Thrown into stark black and white is the tremendous problem of where Australia’s influence begins and where it will be exerted as a result of this situation. The bombing halt and the determination of the Americans to press for a solution in Paris mean a watershed for the whole of Australia’s defence policy and also its external affairs policy. So the true significance of the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister tonight is that it is more than a mere analysis of the proposed bombing halt as far as North Vietnam is concerned. What it really means is that the whole of Australia’s foreign policy and, therefore, its defence policy, must come under scrutiny by this Parliament.

I am not prepared to say anything more at this stage, because I have been led into areas which are not relevant to the debate, but I hope that a debate of a substantial nature on this level will occur before this Parliament lifts for the Christmas break. Do not let us as a Parliament become exhilarated because the North Vietnamese have agreed to put their toes in the cold water of the Paris peace talks. Let us see this in the context of how it affects Australia over the next 20 years, because that is what it involves.

Senator CAVANAGH (South Australia) [9.191-1 regret that I did not hear all of the remarks of the two previous speakers. I left the chamber frequently because 1 was trying to organise some sympathy cards to send to members of the Government over this issue but, as the stationery stores are closed, that is not possible at the moment. I have never before seen a group of men so shamefacedly striving to apologise and having to recognise that the policy advocated by Labor has been shown by history to be correct, as I see sitting opposite in this chamber tonight. I repeat that the policy that we have advocated over the years is now being recognised by history as the real solution to this problem. The Australian Government, which has had no say in the conduct of either the conflict in Vietnam or the settlement talks is now endeavouring, by the pathetic statement issued by the Prime Minister tonight, to justify the attitude it has adopted until now. The statement opens with these words:

Subsequently on 31st March of this year, the President ordered a cessation of bombing over the major portion of North Vietnam - that part where 90% of the population lives and works.

Later, the Prime Minister refers to these words by President Johnson:

I cannot in conscience stop all bombing as long as to do so would immediately and directly endanger the lives of our men and our allies.

J remind honourable senators that the question of the cessation of bombing was the subject of a debate in this chamber on 3rd April last. The Prime Minister’s statement continues:

In the result, the North Vietnamese made no reciprocal gesture towards lessening the intensity of the fighting in South Vietnam; nor were they prepared to enter into substantive peace talks designed to discuss the terms on which peace could be attained.

The President of the United States has achieved nothing since the time when he said he could not stop all bombing. Now he says he is prepared to stop the bombing because he believes that something might develop from the Paris peace talks.

When we debated this matter in the Senate on 3rd April, I referred to a statement by U Thant. What 1 said is reported on page 537 of the Senate Hansard of that date. On that occasion, 1 pointed out that U Thant had stated that he was firmly of the belief that the stopping of the bombing of North Vietnam would immediately lead to peace talks. This advice has proved to be sound. That it was sound is demonstrated by the fact that following the declaration last week that all bombing would stop, it has been announced that peace talks will be held in the almost immediate future. What has been achieved now could have been achieved much earlier had we accepted the advice offered by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and every death and every casualty that has occurred since then need not have occurred.

But on that occasion the President said that he could not stop the bombing if to do so would immediately and directly endanger the lives of our men and our allies. One of the most vocal members on the Government side during the debate on 3rd April attacked me for what I said. Indeed, I was strongly condemned by all subsequent speakers on the Government side for having made two statements with which they did not agree. One statement was that America was an aggressor on Vietnamese soil. The other was that there should be a total cessation of bombing in Vietnam and not this portergaff system of only 90% cessation. One Government speaker is reported on page 552 of Hansard of that date as saying:

I accept Senator Cavanagh’s interjection that the Labor Party’s policy is the total and unconditional cessation of bombing of North Vietnam. But 1 go on record-

He is very proud to do this - as saying that I do not accept such a policy.

Here we have a supporter of the Government admitting that he does not agree with the policy of total cessation of bombing of North Vietnam. In fact, he has this to say about such a policy:

I believe it would be suicidal to allow the aggressor free transportation of troops and supplies into South Vietnam without any impediment whatever. Indeed, this would be against every military principle. Senator Mulvihill referred to the military experience of Senator Mattner. I see Senator Mattner nodding his head in agreement. We are now told that it is not the policy of the Labor Party. Therefore Mr Whitlam is out of step with Senator Cavanagh.

Irrespective of who is out of step, the important point is that on that occasion we advocated the total cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam. I refer now to a Press report of a statement by a greater authority, the Minister for External Affairs, Mr Paul Hasluck, to the American-Australian Association at the University Club in New York on 4th October 1968. During his address, Mr Hasluck said:

I would offer the suggestion that you do nol throw away your shield until you see the other fellow lower the point of his sword and it seems to us that so much of what we combatants are being asked to do in the way of stopping the bombing or doing this or that is a request that we should throw away our shield without seeing the lowering of the point of the sword of the opponent, and no bargaining is likely to be successful under those circumstances.

Here we have the position as stated by President Johnson who said that the deescalation of the bombing depended on the extent of the restraint that we could expect from North Vietnam. In other words, we could not lower our shield while the enemy would not dip his sword. But what has the enemy done in the meantime? Hanoi has been quite definite about the matter. Hanoi says: ‘We are fighting for the freedom of Vietnam. The aggressors must leave our soil.’ There is no mention of South Vietnam. The reference is to the freedom of Vietnam. What they have done since will be seen from a perusal of a report of an interview with Foreign Minister Tran Chanh Thanh, as published in ‘Vietnam Nw Bulletin’ issued by the Embassy of the Republic of Vietnam in Canberra on 10th October 1968. In that report appears this statement:

The Allies have taken a first step to de-escalate the conflict by suspending air raids on almost 90% of the North Vietnamese territory while North Vietnam has shown no sign of restraint. On the contrary, Hanoi has taken advantage of the Allies’ offer to proceed with the highest level of infiltration into South Vietnam.

Not only has Hanoi failed to de-escalate the fighting but it has also stubbornly asked the Allies to make another step of de-escalation by a complete halt of bombing of North Vietnam. Of course, we can’t meet Hanoi’s demand. Should Hanoi fail to respond to reciprocal de-escalation, a total bombing halt by the Allies would certainly not subdue the level of hostilities. Because this only provides North Vietnam with an opportunity to increase troop infiltration and ignite a more raging war.

Therefore, in the opinion of the Foreign Minister of South Vietnam, there was no reciprocal action from North Vietnam after the period of de-escalation of the bombing. I suggest that we should look further into this matter. 1 want to read from the ‘Vietnam Weekly’ of 17th October, which was issued by the Embassy of the Republic of Vietnam. We find this statement in an article headed ‘The Government Stand’. It states:

After our unilateral cessation of bombing over most parts of North Vietnam, Hanoi is obliged to come to the Paris talks, but it uses that forum for deceitful propaganda directed at the international public, and exploits the bombing to increase substantially its infiltration of troops into South Vietnam and escalate the war in the South.

To camouflage these aggressive activities, and to divert public opinion from these actions, Hanoi stubbornly clamors for the unconditional total cessation of bombing of North Vietnam. This is absurd, and prevents progress in the search for peace.

Further on the article states:

If we stop completely the bombing over North Vietnam today, then ask Hanoi to do something for the restoration of peace in South Vietnam, Hanoi will tell us that, to have peace, we shall have to recognise its instrument, the so-called NLF and to negotiate with that Front.

I will now quote from the ‘Vietnam Weekly* of 3 1 st October. This was issued just before the total cessation. In it there is a transcript of questions and answers during an interview with the President of South Vietnam, Mr Thieu. The President of South Vietnam said:

When there are genuine peace negotiations, Hanoi and Saigon must talk directly with each other. In my messages delivered before the National Assembly, 1 made clear that I would never recognise or negotiate with the South Vietnam Liberation Front. . . .

What has happened about restraint? 1 will read now a statement from the ‘Vietnam Weekly’ of 31st October which appeared under the heading ‘Unity on Political Front’. The article states:

Prof. Nguyen Xuan Oanh, the front’s secretary general, said he felt no bombing halt could be carried out if North Vietnam would not reciprocate by de-escalating their war operations in the South.

Further on in this booklet there is a statement by the Commander, 1st Australian Task Force, Brigadier Ron Hughes, of Stafford Heights, Brisbane. He made the statement on 16th October on the eve of his departure for Australia after 12 months in command of the Task Force in Vietnam. The report states:

Russian designed rockets, Chinese Communist 82mm. mortars and rocket propelled grenades are being used increasingly and their AK.47 automatic rifle is being carried by units as small as local guerilla bands.

Only a month ago the mortars of three 122mm. rockets which have not before been seen in Phuoc Tuy Province were discovered in a jungle base camp.

As well as the new weapons and equipment, more and more North Vietnamese professional soldiers are operating in the province.

There has always been a limited number of North Vietnamese troops (NVA) here as training cadre and political officers’, Brigadier Hughes said. ‘But as the Vietcong has continued to take heavy casualties more NVA troops are being infiltrated to maintain unit strengths’.

Now we come to the question of whether we should have gone no further than was believed possible by our Minister for External Affairs, and by this Government, unless the North Vietnamese reciprocated with some form of restraint. We say that there has been no reciprocation by the North Vietnamese and that they have continued the war in order to exterminate the aggressors upon their soil.

Senator Sim:

– Who is the aggressor? Will the honourable senator name the aggressor?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would ask Senator Sim to read Hansard of 3rd April. I do not want to waste my time. The honourable senator should wake up. He has been asleep, like Rip Van Winkle. On the admission of the President, nothing has happened to suggest that we could not have done, on 3rd April or 3 (st March, what we are doing today without altering the situation in Vietnam. Every death since then could have been avoided if we had taken this action and had taken the road to peace so much earlier. We could have taken this action on 31st March. I, amongst others, appealed to the Senate at that time for the total cessation of bombing because I had confidence in LT Thant’s declaration that he knew there would be immediate negotiations for peace if a total cessation of bombing were offered. Nothing has occurred since to justify the action of America except that we have reached the stage now that we must take another look at the entire question of Vietnam.

The condemnation in my speech of 3rd April was to the effect that the deescalation of the bombing of part of North

Vietnam was the result of American political motives. I submit that one reason for the de-escalation at that time was the possibility of the success of Robert Kennedy in the presidential election. He was the challenger to Mr Humphrey as the candidate of the Democratic Party in America. Together with some support for Mr Humphrey, we saw the heroic announcement of the resignation of the President of the United States from the presidential election to coincide with some de-escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam. Since then there has been the tragic death of the aspirant for the Democratic candidature. We have since seen the nomination by the President of Vice-President Humphrey for the presidency. We have seen the results of gallup polls showing the decline of popularity of the President throughout America and throughout Australia. The President announced the total cessation of bombing of North Vietnam in order to lift the stocks of his candidate in the presidential election. His announcement was made last week and his announcement has had the effect that he thought it would have.

The President of the United States said that he based his attitude today on developments during the Paris talks. Honourable senators must know that when Hanoi entered into those talks it laid down that the representatives there were to consider the cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam - America was North Vietnam’s attacker. Hanoi said that when the bombing of North Vietnam halted it would enter into firm peace negotiations. That was the question that Hanoi wanted resolved when it went to the conference table. The Paris talks had nothing to do with anything other than halting the bombing of North Vietnam. Yet the President of the United States said that he had come to this decision as a result of developments during those talks. The President said that he had recently begun to get confirmation of the essential understanding that he had been seeking with the North Vietnamese on the critical issues between the two countries. He got that confirmation as a result of the talks. As I have shown, it could not have been gathered from the actions of the leaders of the South Vietnamese Government. The confirmation could not have been gathered from the information released in the Vietnam News Bulletin’ issued by the Embassy of the Republic of Vietnam.

The critical issues so far as President

Johnson was concerned were:

  1. That he should have reason to believe that the other side intended seriously to join in deescalating the war. 2. That he should have grounds for believing that further reduction in bombing would not lead to an increase in American casualties. 3. That the right of the legitimate elected Government of South Vietnam to take its place in serious peace negotiations should be secured, and 4. That serious negotiations on the substance of a peaceful settlement should begin.

We got some confirmation through the talks that this might happen. The article goes on: In return for these requirements being met, the President was prepared to cease bombing altogether and to agree to representatives of the National Liberation Front being present on the North Vietnamese side of the negotiating table.

Where is the assurance of those conditions being met? Ho Chi Minn has stated: ‘We will cease or de-escalate the fight against America but our demand for peace rests on (he aggressors getting out of our country and the destruction of American bases within our country’. That is the basis on which he is going to the peace conference. Where is the assurance that the President sought? A presidential election is being held in America today. During the campaign the President’s candidate fell far behind the field in popular support. It will be remembered that some time ago the suggestion was made that there was a political motive behind the President’s offer. What is the position of this free and independent South Vietnam which we have entered this conflict to support? Our only justification for being in Vietnam is to ensure the right of the South Vietnamese to elect their own government and to control their own destiny.

Senator Gair:

– Do you deny them that right?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am trying to support that right along with the leader of the National Liberation Front - the woman who is leading the delegation to the Paris peace talks. One of the conditions that I am trying to emphasise is that we want the right of South Vietnam to choose its own government, a right that you are denying them today by reason of an election which prevents any neutral or Communist standing for election or being elected to the government. The runner-up in the last election was gaoled because he had public sup port. Let us look into this. At the present time the South Vietnam Government controls less than one-half of the population of South Vietnam. The South Vietnam Government governs only soldiers, civil servants and city dwellers.

Senator Little:

– Whose statement is that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I cannot give the exact quotation but it emanated from a statement by the last visitor who returned from South Vietnam. 1 brought it up with the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) because he refused permission for a telecast through Channel 10 in Adelaide. The article says that only 1,000 of the 2,500 villages and only 4,000 out of 11,000 hamlets in South Vietnam are administered by the Government. Mrs Binh, the leader of the National Liberation Front delegation, got the five points that she sought because, according to the statement, South Vietnam is resolved to struggle for the sacred rights of independence, democracy, peace, neutrality, prosperity and ultimate peaceful reunion with the north.

Who opposes that? That is what I am claiming, while honourable senators opposite, after supporting several military coups, are now trying to support a government which was elected by a vote that was granted to only certain citizens of South Vietnam who lived in the ‘cities and hamlets controlled by the Government. The present Government is not a true representation of the views of the people of South Vietnam. What freedom are you giving the people of South Vietnam?

Senator Sim:

– Is there any freedom under Communism?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– What freedom are you giving the people of South Vietnam?

Senator Sim:

– Have the Czechs any freedom?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My friend–

Senator Sim:

– I am not a friend.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is unfortunate. There is a freedom that you might not understand, a freedom that is not determined with money. Let us look at the freedom of this great Government of South Vietnam. President Thieu, in his weekly despatch, has said:

When there are genuine peace negotiations, Hanoi and Saigon must talk directly with each other. In my messages delivered before the

National Assembly I made clear that I would never recognise or negotiate with the South Vietnam Liberation Front as an entity.

Senator Little:

– You do not blame him for that surely, do you?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am telling you what he said. I do not blame him because if he has to face the people of South Vietnam alone, if he ever loses the military might of America, he will go the same way as Diem and a lot of others have gone before him. I have here a record of questions asked of President Thieu and the answers that he gave. It is as follows:

Question: Are there any differences between the stand of President Johnson and yours? Answer: President Johnson has stated that he will not change his stand. The Vietnamese Government also stated that its stand remains unchanged.

Question: In the past few days there were signs that the war temporarily suspended and there were reports that five Communist divisions had withdrawn across the border. Do you consider these signs as a de-escalation on the part of the Communists? Answer: No. For the past few months the Communists were much weakened and worn out and are no more capable to attack us. We only recognise the de-escalation of Hanoi whenever Hanoi clearly states the date and time of their de-escalation and how they would de-escalate.

Question: Can we believe that at a certain time there would be a total bombing halt on North Vietnam? Answer: Nothing new until now.

Question: Does the Saigon Government or the Hanoi regime hinder such a total bombing halt? Answer: We had stopped the bombing on 90% of North Vietnam’s territory and showed our goodwill for peace. Now Hanoi has to show its goodwill. Otherwise it is Hanoi which puts obstacles to this matter.

There we get the expression of the Government on when bombing would cease. The questions went on:

Question: If the US halts the bombing by itself without consulting Vietnam or ignoring Vietnam’s opinion, what does Vietnam think? Answer: I don’t believe the US Government will have such a deed because the US and Vietnam governments have agreed with each other on that matter. I also do not think this could be a good way for the US.

Question: But can this happen that way? Answer: Please ask President Johnson himself.

The President of the United States, in a speech on 22nd October, said:

Under these guiding principles, President Thieu does not oppose the cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam when we have good reason to believe that North Vietnam seriously intends to join us in de-escalating the war, and in entering into prompt and direct talks with the Government of the Republic of Vietnam, for the settlement in good faith of the pending problems between the authorities of the two zones established by the Geneva Conference of 1954.

A report from Saigon dated 30th October is in these terms:

Vice President Nguyen Cao Ky, Prime Minister Tran van Huong and both Chairmen of the Senate and the House of Representatives were consulted during the last two weeks on what has become an open secret - the total bombing halt and peace negotiations.

Our leaders have shown a remarkable unity and called for direct talks with North Vietnam. DeAmericanisation of the talks was reportedly wanted.

General Duong van Minh has declared that he will not lead a delegation to talk with the NLF. Venerable Thien Thien Hoa, the spokesman of the militant Buddist faction, has refrained from making comments which could be misinterpreted.

Senator ANDERSON:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– From what are you quoting?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am quoting from the ‘Vietnam Weekly’ dated 31st October, issued by the Embassy of the Republic of Vietnam. It goes on:

Venerable Thich Tam .’ Chau, First Deputy Chairman of the World Sankya Buddist Association and Chairman of the World Buddhist Association for Social Service said the total bombing halt over North Vietnam must bring firm guarantees for the restoration of a genuine peace in Vietnam.

Venerable Thich Tam Chau added a long-lasting peace can be restored only when direct talks talks between the Republic of Vietnam and North Vietnam take place.

These demands are emphasised in the 17th October issue of .’Vietnam Weekly’ in which the following appears:

If we stop completely the bombing over North Vietnam today, then ask Hanoi to do something for the restoration of peace in South Vietnam. Hanoi will tell us that, to have peace, we shall have to recognise its instrument, the so-called NLF and to negotiate with that Front. The scheme of the Hanoi regime is to have us accept that step which will lead to the creation of a coalition Government with Communist participation, paving the way for Communist take-over by political means.

Of course, our position, with regard to that socalled NLF is well known, and we shall tell them, as we have stated many times before, that we will not recognise the Front and will not accept a coalition Government with Communist participation.

This free independent government wishes to have its say on whom it will negotiate with regarding peace in its own country and it is simply ignored by the Americans, who say that they will negotiate and will agree that the NLF should be recognised. Apparently of lesser importance is whether the Saigon Government will be represented at these negotiations. What is Australia’s position? Australia has not taken any part in the negotiations so far; it has merely been advised of what is happening at the Paris peace talks. Now that a cessation of bombing has been announced we accept it despite the fact that it is contrary to what the Australian Government said 3 months ago. The Vietnam News Bulletin’ of 30th June 1968, issued by the Embassy of the Republic of Vietnam, reported the following joint communique on Prime Minister Gorton’s visit to Vietnam:

The Prime Minister of Australia and the leaders of the Republic thoroughly reviewed the present situation. They agreed that regular consultation, a; to which the Prime Minister’s visit formed a part, was particularly important now since, at the same time as preliminary talks were taking place in Paris, North Vietnamese attacks on civilian centres were continuing and the infiltration of North Vietnamese troops into South Vietnam was being increased.

The Prime Minister and the Leaders of the Republic agreed that the allied nations which have helped to defend the Republic of Vietnam should participate in any final settlement of the conflict.

I emphasise the word ‘final’. According to the wording of that agreement we cannot condemn non-participation in the present negotiations. The bulletin continued:

The Vietnamese-Australian joint communique released following the recent State visit to the Republic of Vietnam of Prime Minister John Gorton of Australia has been considered by the political circles here as a great diplomatic success of the RVN government.

Foreign Minister Tran Chanh Thanh said that the communique was the first international document, between the Republic of Vietnam and her Allies which stipulated that the Republic of Vietnam should ‘play the major role’ in all peace talks.

He said the spirit of the joint Communique fully reflects the policy and stand of the RVN government as stated by Prime Minister Tran Van Huong who declared that Vietnam will hold initiative in all peace negotiations.

Minister Thanh stressed that he would fight to persuade the Allies to accept the South VN-North VN peace talk pattern.

The Minister contended that the clear-cut stand of prime Minister Gorton has great significance.

In the joint communique, inspired by the visit of the Australian Prime Minister to the Republic of Vietnam, we see the conditions outlined. It was not the National Liberation Front that had to talk with the North Vietnamese; it was the South Vietnamese Government. But when America states that negotiations will take place they take place and tonight we are debating a statement that seeks to justify Australia’s attitude. Nothing has happened in Vietnam to justify the cessation of bombing, that did not exist earlier this year. The war has been prolonged because the Government would not accept Labor’s claim that certain concessions would have to be granted before serious peace negotiations could commence. One honourable senator asks why we should have to negotiate with the National Liberation Front. When a government that is kept in power by the military might of another government is threatened with the loss of that military might its extinction is near. Therefore, it seeks to stave off the day when it will have to meet face to face with the controllers of the largest area of South Vietnam. The only reasonable possibility is a coalition of forces to stop the conflict in Vietnam. Australia has done nothing to bring about peace. The Minister for External Affairs and honourable senators opposite, as I have recited, have condemned de-escalation of the bombing of North Vietnam, which history shows is the only thing that will bring about peace negotiations.

I repeat that the Australian Government has done nothing to bring about peace. To boost the morale of America’s participation in Vietnam the Australian Government has sacrificed the lives of young Australians in a conflict that has achieved nothing. What should be the future of our forces now that this stage has been reached? I do not think it is sufficient to say that although we are not taking part in the present talks .we hope to be in the final negotiations. I respectfully suggest that the Australian Government, as one of the allied powers making sacrifices in Vietnam, should insist on taking part in the forefront of these negotiations to bring about peace. Otherwise it will be said that Australia is doing only what America asks her to do. The only reason Australian troops should remain in Vietnam is as a peace-keeping force to carry out any settlement terms that may come about as a result of the negotiations. We should bring our forces home from Vietnam as soon as possible.

For too long our men have been sacrificed at the whim of some other government. For too long our men have been sacrificed unnecessarily. If they can get out of the conflict at this stage they could have got. out in March of this year. Therefore, our men have been left in Vietnam and have suffered casualties for no reason at all. Australia should be taking the lead in seeking a peaceful settlement of this conflict. Let us forget the hatreds. Whilst it may be thought that there are Communist forces in Vietnam which I am supporting, I think that there are equally as strong Fascist forces in that country and I ask the Government to forget the support it may lend to these forces. We should keep Vietnam for the Vietnamese and . ensure that a period of peaceful, prosperous, development for that country is achieved with our assistance rather than by destruction.

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

– 1 do not propose to take up a great deal of the time of the Senate- However, 1 feel that the step that has recently been taken by the President of the United States of America carries with it the hope of the whole world that the cessation of bombing in Vietnam will be the step which will lead to the peace which is so earnestly desired, not only by America and Australia but also by the whole world and, particularly, by the unhappy people in South and North Vietnam. I think it is well to quote from the statement made by the Leader of the Government in this place (Senator Anderson) earlier tonight. He said:

As a result of developments during those talks-

They have been continuing since 10th May 1968: the President recently formed the judgment that be ‘began to get confirmation of the essential understanding that we had been seeking wilh the north Vietnamese on the critical issues between us’.

Those were the President’s words. The Leader of the Government continued:

Those issues were, 1. that he should have reason to believe that the other side intended seriously to join in de-escalating the war; 2. that he should have grounds for believing that further reduction in bombing would not lead to an increase in American casualties; 3. that the right of the legitimate elected government of South Vietnam to take its place in serious peace negotiations should be secured; and 4. that serious negotiations on the substance of a peaceful settlement should begin.

I do not agree with Senator Cavanagh when he says that anything that can be accomplished now could have been accomplished months ago. I dispute that assertion because nothing will be achieved by one side going to the negotiating’ table without the other side being willing to attend and to take part in negotiations. Until now this has been the situation. The American Govern^ ment and our own Government have been quite willing to negotiate, lt has been recognised always that this is not a war that could be won by military forces alone.

Senator Keeffe:

– Why. a re we not represented at the peace talks?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– The honourable senator can ask as many questions as he likes at question time and 1 shall answer him then. The point is that this war had to continue until the North Vietnamese were shown conclusively that they had nothing to gain by continuing the war and everything to gain .by negotiating. Tn that way we would have some prospect of. peace. I, for one, think that the President’s action was right in the circumstances with which he was faced.

For the first time there has been some indication that the opposing forces in North Vietnam were prepared to make some concessions. This is why the President acted when he did and in the way that he’ did. I believe that he is to be commended for the way he has acted. I do not concede this to be the position, but even if his action had been taken on political grounds alone - 1 do not believe that it was - he would still have been justified in what he has done. I think he is to be admired for taking this action. I only hope that it will bring about the success for which we all hope, lt is fairly obvious that because he has taken this action the North Vietnamese will claim a victory and will say that it forced the cessation of bombing of North Vietnam. No doubt the President took that into account when making his decision. It is quite obvious that no matter what his motives were in calling for a cessation of bombing, other motives would be attributed to him. But in spite of this consideration, he decided to go ahead.

One may wonder why, with all the forces that America has employed in Vietnam, with all the forces from Korea and South Vietnam, and with our own Australian soldiers, more has not been achieved. This is understandable when one sees the terrain in Vietnam. Many thousands of acres are covered by floods. There are plains and swamps, but there are also mountainous areas which are very heavily timbered. These are almost ideal for a guerilla type warfare. In addition to this it must be remembered that practically all the opposing forces, so far as I understand, are not in uniform and it is hard for the allied forces to detect friend from foe, mixed up as they are. One of the Vietcong’s favourite methods of conducting warfare has been to mix with a group of villagers - men, women and children - driving a mob of cattle or engaged in a similar activity. They take cover among them and fire from cover at low flying helicopters. If there has been any retaliation they have claimed that the allied forces were firing at innocent civilians. This has been part of their technique. Another method has been to go to a village and assassinate the head man or someone in authority. If there are two sons in a family the Vietcong take one son and leave the other. They do not take both. The family is then divided, one son fighting for the Vietcong and the other for the South Vietnamese.

Senator Keeffe:

– A bit like the Country Party.

Senator McKELLAR:

– This is not a funny subject, despite what the honourable senator may think. The war in Vietnam has been conducted in the way that I have described and the unhappy people of that country have been subject to this treatment for several years. I am quite certain that it is the hope of us all that something will come out of these peace talks to bring back the peace that they have been without for so long.

Another aspect which has caused difficulty is the Vietcong’s method of tunnelling. Using small people, some only 14 or 15 years of age, they have been able to fight from tunnels which the allied forces could not enter. Earlier this year there was the Tet offensive. It is not commonly known that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese suffered about 40,000 casualties in this action. Had the allied forces sustained casualties of this nature it would have been regarded as a major disaster, and it would have been a disaster, but we found in certain sections of the Press in the United States and the United Kingdom that the Tet offensive was described as a victory for the Vietcong.

Senator Georges:

– - What else was it?

Senator McKELLAR:

– If the loss of 40,000 people represents a victory to the honourable senator, his idea of a victory is different from mine. If we had lost 40,000 troops it would have been regarded as a major catastrophe. Honourable senators may wonder how it was possible for the Vietcong to get into position for that offensive without being detected. Their method was first to get their arms into position. Small hand grenades and other small weapons would be carried into position in fruit carts. Perhaps a melon would be cut open and closed up again with a grenade concealed inside. Mortars were brought in concealed in coffins and were actually buried after the funeral procession. Proof of this assertion comes from the fact that most of the early fighting took place around the cemeteries.

In Vietnam, Tet corresponds to our Christmas. People all over the country try to get home for Tet. During this time of great movements of people to various centres over a large portion of South Vietnam it was very hard to detect friend from foe. That is one reason why the enemy forces were able to get into- position. It was hoped by the Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces that when the Tet offensive commenced the South Vietnamese forces would become demoralised to the point of throwing in the sponge. But the offensive had the opposite effect. Many members of the South Vietnamese Army were on leave. Without waiting to be recalled, they voluntarily rejoined their units and performed very meritoriously.

In Australia we do not hear a great deal about the deeds of the South Vietnamese Army. To the best of my knowledge the same situation applies in the United States. The reason is quite simple. Australian pressmen in South Vietnam are mainly concerned to send back to Australia news of the doings of Australian and American soldiers. United

States pressmen are mainly concerned with the deeds of American soldiers. So there is no body of pressmen in South Vietnam to let us know what the South Vietnamese Army is doing. I have been told by senior soldiers who have been to Vietnam that the South Vietnamese Army is doing a very good job indeed. It is a great pity that Australians are not told in greater detail of the efforts of the South Vietnamese Army. We are told only of the fighting done by Australian, American and Korean soldiers and not about the very fine job done by the South Vietnamese Army in fighting for its own country.

Aggressive acts have been carried out by the North Vietnamese forces not only in South Vietnam but also time and time again in violation of the territories of Cambodia and Laos. This has added to the difficulties of the allied forces because they have not been able to chase the North Vietnamese forces across the borders to carry out reprisals against them. The allied forces are in the position of a man fighting With one hand tied behind his back.

References have been made tonight “10 the elections held in South Vietnam. 1 remind honourable senators that observers were sent to South Vietnam to watch the conduct of the elections. All honourable senators are familiar with the reports of the independent team of observers who commented very favourably on the conduct of the elections in South Vietnam. I also remind honourable senators that during war time the United Kingdom postponed elections because it was felt that they could not be conducted properly at that time. South Vietnam, a small nation, sometimes regarded as a backward nation, courageously carried out elections after a continuous fight for existence for 10 years.

Senator Cavanagh said that the North Vietnamese had claimed that they would fight to get aggressors off their soil. There have been no aggressors in North Vietnam. No aggressive forces have gone on to North Vietnamese soil but apparently that, assertion is swallowed hook, line and sinker by the Opposition. Aggression has occurred only in South Vietnam and I cannot, understand why members of the Opposition should fall for the line put out by North Vietnam. I will quote to honourable senators from the statement issued on 3rd November by the Embassy of the Republic of Vietnam. lt reads as follows: -

The Embassy of the Republic of Vietnam begs to remind that the issue in Vietnam is whether Communist aggression should be rewarded. The Embassy also reminds that the Vietnam war is not a war between North ‘ Vietnam and the United States, but a war of aggression staged by North Vietnam against South Vietnam, to take over the government of the South.

Senator Keeffe:

– From what is the Minister quoting?

Senator MCKELLAR:

– I have told honourable senators once., If the honourable senator does not have, enough .intelligence to listen, that is his own fault. The statement continues:

The Embassy points .out that the Communists in Paris, by sponsoring, .the so-called National Liberation Front, are aiming at five objectives.

First, the Communists are intent to achieve their three-step strategy:’ recognition of the Front, Czechoslovak model : coalition, Communist take over by force. The present Communist manoeuvre is to achieve the first step, of conquest. . .

Second, the Communists strive to split the Vietnam issue into two: one would be the war in the North, the other the “war ‘in the South. If they could achieve this, they would be ‘able lo negotiate as a victim of the bombings in the North, and a local movement in the South. .

Third, the Communists always aim to attack the foundation of the .allied commitment in Vietnam. Once the Front is accepted, the Allies would have no basis from which to negotiate. - Fourth, the Communists cleverly luke advantage of world aspirations for. peace and try to drive a wedge between the Republic of Vietnam and its Allies, especially between the Republic of Vietnam and the United S’ales. .

Fifth, the Communists are still eager to promotethe Maoist doctrine pf conquest by proxy and the technique of liberation war’. Once recognised, the Front would become’ a’ model for Communist movements elsewhere.-

The statement goes on to say that the 1962 Geneva Agreement on Laos has not brought peace to the Laotian ‘ people and stability to the region, despite the hopes that were held out for that result. The statement con’tinues;

The government of the Republic of Vietnam has drawn the attention of the Allies on the danger that North Vietnam can possibly lake advantage of the cessation of the bombing and therefore every precautionary and counter measures have been planned and taken, by ‘the -Republic of Vietnam and the Allies.

Because of its peace-loving tradition, the Government of the Republic of Vietnam does not oppose the cessation of the ‘ bombing and will closely watch to> see whether North Vietnam responds with concrete -acts to de-escalate the war or still persists in its obstination.

The unity and determination of the Republic of Vietnam and Allies will force North Vietnam to soon realise that its aggression against South Vietnam cannot succeed:

With the assistance of the Allies, assistance which has been reaffirmed by the Allies, the Government of the Republic of Vietnam will continue on the one hand to repel the aggressors out of South Vietnam and on the other hand to reinforce and develop the rural edification programme, expand the economy and consolidate security.

It was said earlier tonight that the present South Vietnamese Government is kept in office by its military support. I point out to honourable senators that the situation in South Vietnam is very different from the Australian situation. I have said before that when the French left the area, whether by accident or design there was no body similar to our Public Service. There was no body to carry out the orders of the Government other than the military forces. That is the position today. Trained people are not available there as they are in Australia. I do not think it would have mattered at that time to what extent the Government of South Vietnam was competent. It still would have had difficulties in maintaining rule over the country because of the lack of a civil service. At that time there were in South Vietnam two divided forces which happily seem now to have come together. Members of the armed forces were taking different sides and South Vietnam was a most unfortunate country.

To a great extent it is still in that unfortunate position. When one sees the living conditions of the South Vietnamese people the reason becomes clear why life to them in many cases has become cheap. They have been at war for a very long time and one cannot help but feel sorry for them. Irrespective of whether we can agree on anything else I am sure we are united in hoping that the present cessation of the bombing of North Vietnam will prove to be a step towards an early peace in that region.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I do not think there is any disputation about welcoming the bombing pause. But I believe that Opposition speakers have shown that the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), in our view, justifies a foreign policy stocktaking. Senator McKellar’s speech was very interesting when he sketched some of the difficulties of terrain and other aspects of the campaign.

Senator Keeffe:

Mr President, I raise a point of order. I refer to standing order 364. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) read from a document. By interjection, I tried to ascertain the entire background to it. Under standing order 364 I now ask that the document from which he read be tabled.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - Senator Keeffe, you are not in order. You should have made your request immediately the Minister sat down.

Senator McKellar:

– 1 have no objection at all to tabling the document, but it has just left my possession to go to the Hansard staff.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister may make his own opportunity later if he wishes to table the document.

Senator McKellar:

– I will have pleasure in doing so.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– When the Government has assessed the situation and our commitment to Vietnam, the central theme of the Government’s foreign policy and of every statement that the Minister for External Affairs (Mr Hasluck) has made has been South East Asia and assisting in the creation of a new society in South Vietnam. It is amazing that, notwithstanding the presidential election, there has been a general hardening of the thinking of the United States public on what there is to show for the excessive sums of money that have been fed into South Vietnam.

In all the heavy fighting that went on, it always appeared to us members of the Opposition that, even if there was some loyalty in the fighting ranks, the Government in Saigon was brittle. All along the line we hammered the point that if a new society were to be created with the aid that was going into the country some of the people who ostensibly were allies would have to make sacrifices. On numerous occasions we pointed out that among the people in the upper strata - whether it be Diem or the subsequent rulers - there was no determined effort to create this new society. I know that Government speakers have said: ‘But every time a hamlet programme was developed the leading people who were being trained as administrators were liquidated*. There seemed to me to be a deliberate pattern in all these revolts, whether by the National Liberation Front in Vietnam or the rebels in Algeria and other places. A higher percentage of those people were prepared to die for what they believed in, irrespective of our views, than was the case among South Vietnamese people. 1 think it was President Kennedy who said near the end of his life: ‘In the final analysis it is the South Vietnamese themselves who will win or lose the war’.

I know there was a stage when Australia and the United States had their own economic and military advisers in Vietnam. But when the war began to escalate and after the famous Honolulu conference we were assured that we would get results in the creation of a new society and in economic reforms. But those results did not come. I do not think it can be said that the average South Vietnamese peasant has any strong, political leanings. All he wanted was the cessation of the war. The general apathy was the result of the people seeing the futility of the war.

I believe that the Opposition is fully justified in saying what it says. I listened intently to what Senator McKellar said, and then I looked at the Prime Minister’s statement in which the Government says: We have suggested to the South Vietnamese Government that it should attend the Paris talks’. We must take that statement in association with some of the Government’s reservations and other statements in the bulletin from which Senator McKellar quoted. No doubt our diplomatic spokesmen in Saigon put that view to the South Vietnamese Government. Perhaps it said: ‘You were telling us to fight to the last man. Now you want us to give recognition to the National Liberation Front at the Paris conference’.

Looking at the situation plainly and bluntly from the point of view of Australian foreign policy, it seems to me that we will get the worst of two worlds. On the one hand we have the odium of being hawkish in our attitude. On the other hand, I have always expressed my own personal belief that when we gave aid to Singapore, Malaysia and other similar countries we could see a new society being built, but we could never see that in the Vietnamese situation. In the tirade of interjections across the chamber earlier tonight, I think my colleague Senator Cant made some reference to Air Vice-Marshal Ky. If a Labor senator applied to the United States the remarks that Ky has applied to that country, I can imagine that there would be all sorts of banner headlines in the Press tomorrow. The members of the present junta in South Vietnam were happy as long as American aid was coming in with not many questions being asked. But when the United States belatedly attempted to see that the aid went to the right quarters, they began to get a little difficult. That has created the whole situation that has developed.

Senator Willesee:

asked the question: Will we learn any lessons from this?’ There seems to be a rather sharp contrast between the present situation and that at the end of World War II. On that occasion we were very vigorous in our insistence that we be present from the inception of the talks that resulted in the peace treaty with Japan. Apart from the United States, I suppose we incurred the wrath of many other people. But the Australian Government of that time pursued a particular policy. I do not see why we cannot be equally insistent in demanding that we be present when the further developments occur and participate in them.

Whether the Government likes it or not, it may have a fait accompli presented to it, as has happened before. We all know that Mr Bunker is still around. He engineered the settlement in relation to the West Irian question. That problem is still with us. We grinned and bore it then. 1 do not know whether we will grin and bear it on this occasion. Our relations with Great Britain have been an accepted fact ever since the passing of the Statute of Westminster. In relation to the United States, I would not like to feel that we have just trailed along. 1 believe that we have a right to be present at the talks. If we adopt Senator McKellar’s viewpoint and exhibit his solicitude for the South Vietnamese Government - I do not cavil at his holding that viewpoint - where will we be? We may find the South Vietnamese Government saying: “The Americans have let us down’ and the Americans saying: *No. you have misquoted us’, if we do not have anybody at the ringside, as it were, when the discussions take place.

I am equally concerned about whether the present situation in Thailand is a mini Vietnam situation and whether pressures will be applied in that country to ensure that there is an acceleration of the vast economic reforms that are so essential. I do not deny that on occasions military aid is necessary. The present British Defence Secretary, Mr Healey, met the Government and the Opposition. His theme song all along was that if we are to be a policeman in Asia we must be sure that we are not propping up corrupt governments and that the laws that we apply are just. I fail to see that if we applied that test in the case of Saigon we could come out with full marks. I am much more inclined to believe that in our relations with other countries such as Singapore and Malaysia the lessons will be learnt. The tragedy is that it is only the beginning of the beginning, as Senator Willesee said. We do not know for how long the Paris talks will go on. There could well be some difficult situations as a result of the National Liberation Front and other people being present at the conference table. 1 do not know where it will end. I believe that on balance the average Vietnamese wants a cessation of all warfare. Whatever other concepts of freedom we have, they will probably go by the board. But never again should we be in this situation in which people speak up about the futility of the war and have the odium of treason applied to them.

Debate interrupted.

page 1689

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating lo the adjournment of the Senate, 1 formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 5 November 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19681105_senate_26_s39/>.