Senate
6 October 1971

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

NOTICE OF MOTION
SENATOR S. A. NEGUS
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- HEALTH
QUESTION
- IRON ORE AND COKING COAL
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
QUESTION
- HEALTH
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- WOOL: TRANSPORT COSTS
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN PETROL COSTS
QUESTION
- TELEVISION STATION
QUESTION
- UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE: STUDENTS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL
QUESTION
- IMPORTED SUNGLASSES
QUESTION
- ABORIGINES
QUESTION
- UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
QUESTION
- DARTMOUTH DAM
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- ASSISTANT MINISTERS
QUESTION
- TRADE WITH JAPAN
QUESTION
- UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
QUESTION
- UNITED NATIONS: AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION
QUESTION
- QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED
QUESTION
- POSTAL DEPARTMENT
QUESTION
- COAL
QUESTION
- HOSPITAL CHARGES
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- HOSPITAL FOR ABORIGINAL CHILDREN
QUESTION
- SOUTH VIETNAM: ELECTION
QUESTION
- FIREARMS
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE
QUESTION
- NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL
QUESTION
- VISITORS’ VISAS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY
QUESTION
- MEAT
QUESTION
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
QUESTION
- PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- DARTMOUTH DAM
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- DARTMOUTH DAM
QUESTION
- CANNED FRUITS
QUESTION
- MAIL SERVICES
QUESTION
- HEALTH: CIGARETTE SMOKING
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- TELEVISION
QUESTION
- AIR MAIL SERVICES
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION SCHOOL
QUESTION
- MEAT EXPORTS
NATIONAL LIBRARY ACT
AUSTRALIAN WOOL BOARD
AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL
DISCOVERY OF FORMAL BUSINESS
- Senator Murphy - Yes
QUESTION
- LEGISLATIVE AND GENERAL PURPOSE STANDING COMMITTEES
QUESTION
- PLACING OF BUSINESS
LIVESTOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1971
- Second Reading
EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL (No. 2) 1971
- Second Reading
BUYERS’ CREDIT
RE-INSURANCE
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS BOUNTY BILL 1971
- Second Reading
RAILWAY AGREEMENT (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) BILL 1971
- Second Reading
AIR NAVIGATION BILL
ASSENT TO BILLS
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES
- Finance and Government Operations - Senators Devitt, Gietzelt, Guilfoyle, Lawrie, Little and Rae
NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1971
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT
- Senate Debate: Personal Explanation - Pollution
QUESTION
- ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Win the Minister state where the Australian Wool Commission is stockpiling the mountain of wool it is accumulating and especially whether any of this storage space is rented or leased and if so the cost of these leasing or rental arrangements? Can he also give details of how much the Australian Wool Board would earn by renting out the spaces it owns if those spaces were not already occupied by AWC wool stockpiles?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– The honourable senator has asked me a number of questions over recent sitting days about the stockpiling of wool and the Australian Wool Commission in general. Now he has asked for further information which I shall have to obtain from the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of this I will ask him to put his question on notice.

page 1153

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, concerns the price of petrol in Tasmania. No doubt, the Minister will know that petrol costs considerably more in Tasmania than in the other States, even more than in Perth. I ask the Minister whether his Department has given thought to reducing the excise on petrol that is sold in Tasmania so that Tasmanians are not at a disadvantage due to that expensive stretch of water known as Bass Strait.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This is a question that properly belongs to the Minister I represent in this place, the Minister for Customs and Excise. I believe that there would be some constitutional problems in having a differential excise rate operating in Australia as between one State and another.

That could be taken to be a disadvantage for one and an advantage for the other, which would not be proper in the Federal system. That is my understanding of the position. I understand the honourable senator’s, concern, but any disadvantage to Tasmania can be rectified in the total scene by an application to the Commonwealth Grants Commisison to raise the whole living standard situation to one of equality with the other States, and that I think is done.

page 1156

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATION

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister has told Sir Frank Packer, the Chairman of Australian Consolidated Press Ltd and the proprietor of TCN9 Sydney and GTV9 Melbourne, that no action will be taken by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board when GTV9 Melbourne is turned into a relay station for TCN 9 Sydney, contrary to the provisions of the licence held by General Television Corporation Pty Ltd for GTV9? !s it also a fact that the Prime Minister has given Sir Frank Packer an undertaking that no action will be taken against GTV9 if that station fails to fulfil the new Australian content quotas set down by the Control Board? Further, is the Prime Minister aware that in the past 9 months 300 people have been dismissed -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator may no! ask a question of the Prime Minister. He is not here. One cannot assume what is in his mind.

Senator POYSER:

– Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister aware that in the past 9 months 300 people have been dismissed from the employment of GTV9 and that because of this fact GTV9 is not physically capable of producing the programmes required by the new quotas set down by the Control Board? Finally, could the Minister, on behalf of the Prime Minister, explain to the Senate in what circumstances Sir Frank Packer acquired the licence for GTV9?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I am not aware of the statements attributed to the Prime Minister by the honourable senator. I think the obvious thing for him to do is to put the question on the notice paper.

page 1156

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE: STUDENTS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, follows upon the question asked by Senator Brown and other questions asked earlier in this session. Is the Minister a former elected president of the Students Representative Council of the University of Melbourne? If he is, has he any understanding of and sympathy for the aims, the ideals and the functions of student representative bodies as a result of the experience which he may have had?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The factual side of the honourable senator’s question is accurate. Insofar as any appreciation I have of the interests and the aspirations of students is concerned, I assure the honourable senator and the Senate that I have a very warm memory of very politically interesting student days. 1 feel - T sense that this is the point behind the honourable senator’s question - that the student body of this day and age has a responsibility which I think student bodies of previous days always recognised and that is that the activities of students must be subject to those laws of the land which apply equally to everybody.

page 1156

QUESTION

IMPORTED SUNGLASSES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– ls the Minister for Health now in a position to give me any information on standards of sunglasses in the face of fears expressed by the Australian Standards Association that certain imported sunglasses do not meet the desired standard?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator may reflect on Senator Cormack but not on the President.

Senator GEORGES:

– Obviously it is in retrospect. I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Will the Minister take note of the claim by Mr Lang Hancock, a West Australian, that Japan is playing grand scale power politics to get greater control of Australian raw materials? Will the Minister ask the Department of Trade and Industry to give close scrutiny to the various movements relating to trade and finance between Australia and Japan in order to ascertain the true position? In particular, will he investigate claims that Japan has progressively stockpiled raw materials, especially coal and iron ore, and now is in a position to reduce purchases and further depress prices and income losses of Australian mining companies, thus laying them open to takeover by foreign companies?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This question is based upon a newspaper report attributed to a Mr Lang Hancock who from time to time gives vent to his opinions in the newspapers. lt is a long question which is based on a series of suppositions.. It will have to be directed to the responsible Minister, and that I will do.

page 1159

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that many people, including a great many students, believe that the grounds and buildings of universities have particular immunities from the operations of the civil law authorities? Is it not a fact that universities have no special immunities at all in this regard and are subject to exactly the same conditions of law enforcement as any other institutions or enclosed areas? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the principle of equality before the law for all citizens is fully upheld?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am aware that some students have expressed views on this matter and I have read expressions of opinion in student journals to the point that student areas can be made sanctuaries for the protection of persons who have offended against the law. Whether the students who express these opinions in fact believe that they have a right to act in that way or whether they do it as a challenge to authority is a matter on which I cannot express a clear opinion. However, I thank the honourable senator for his question because it is quite clear that universities are not havens or sanctuaries which entitle students or other people who frequent universities to have any greater protection than other citizens have. I am fortified in this view by remarks made by Mr Justice Street of the New South Wales Supreme Court in a university case about 12 months ago. He said:

Universities are not regarded in this community as havens for lawless conduct. The rule of law recognises no distinctions dr privileges in its demand for orderly and peaceful enjoyment of our basic freedoms and for respect for the basic freedoms of others.

But while hoping that there is as wide a recognition as possible of that position, I think we have all recognised that traditionally universities have been places in which there has been a freedom of inquiry and investigation and a breadth of opinion held which is in the interests of a developing community. It would be a great misfortune if, because there was a resistance to authority, those freedoms of universities were sought to be challenged by the mass of the community who felt that students were going too far. I simply make the point that the law must be accepted as applying equally in universities as outside of universities.

page 1159

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS: AUSTRALIAN DELEGATION

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Did Senator Turnbull on his return last year from a session of the United Nations condemn Austraiian political representation there as a waste of time and money? Is Senator Turnbull now on his second visit as a government representative to a session of the United Nations? Are his fare and expenses being paid by the Government? Is the Government also paying the cost of the fare for Senator Turnbull’s wife to accompany him?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I thought I made is clear when replying to the honourable senator’s original question that he was inadvertently marrying 2 different sets of circumstances. In the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States which result from the annual Premiers Conferences the involvement of the States in providing hospital treatment for pensioners is taken into account. Under the present agreement the Commonwealth gives to each State $5 a day per pensioner in a State hospital provided that the States themselves do not levy a charge on the pensioner. In that context, therefore, the position of the States in this regard is recognised.

Nursing homes are in a different category. Only about 19 per cent of nursing homes in the Commonwealth are government institutions, the balance being run for profit, on the one hand, or, on the other band, by voluntary organisations which have attracted subsidy at another level for capital expenditure. When the Bill to effect increased payments becomes law - and I am hoping that it will pass this place and the other place with expedition - the Commonwealth will increase the allocation by $1.50. Therefore, the rate will go up $1.50 to $3.50 for ordinary patients and from $5 to $6.50 for intensive care patients. This is a straight out Commonwealth responsibility; it is certainly a straight out Commonwealth contribution to the cost of nursing homes.

I am aware that when the South Australian Government operated on a $2 for $5 basis it made a State subvention of $1 a day. What that State will do now that the Commonwealth is to increase its payment by $1.50 is a matter for its own decision.

No doubt that State will make this decision in good faith in the light of the circumstances in which nursing homes are placed in South Australia.

page 1161

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Does the Minister agree that there is considerable concern about the use of aircraft for freight cargo after the curfew period? Is the decision of Ansett Airlines of Australia to convert Electra aircraft for these purposes the thin edge of the wedge? What is the difference between the noise levels of Electra Aircraft and jets in the early hours of the morning? Will the Government reassure the public that it is totally opposed to the use of jet aircraft during the curfew for the transport of air cargo?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Government has reiterated from time to time that it is not in favour of jet aircraft operating in the curfew period other than in exceptional circumstances which have been often referred to. Equally, it is agreed, and the Government has been operating such a policy, that propellor aircraft such as the Electra can operate freight services and passenger services in those hours. They do so and they have done so. When the application was received to convert an Electra passenger aircraft into a cargo carrying aircraft the Department of Civil Aviation examined very carefully the noise levels of that aircraft. The Department was able to assure me that there was no problem with which to be concerned. Therefore, in that particular case I approved the decision. However, the honourable senator may rest assured that both now, and in the future as in the past, yes, we are maintaining a policy of keeping jet aircraft operating out of curfew hours other than in the circumstances which are often referred to as being exceptional and which would call for special approvals.

page 1161

QUESTION

HOSPITAL FOR ABORIGINAL CHILDREN

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 direct to the Minister for Health a question which follows a question I asked yesterday in which I asked for details pertaining to the purchase of a motel at Alice Springs from Ansett Transport Industries. In reply the Minister referred me to a Press statement which I have now received. However, having read it I am more ‘ confused than ever.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Just go ahead and ask your question, Senator.

Senator McLAREN:

– Mr President, I have to explain the circumstances in order to get to the kernel of the question. Following the Minister’s Press statement that the motel had been purchased, Mr Ralph Cooper, the executive director of the hotel division of Ansett Transport Industries which owns the motel, is reported in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 1st October as saying:

There has been no sale. Nothing has been signed. As far as 1 am concerned somebody is flying a kite.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! 1 will not allow this. The honourable senator should be asking the Minister for Health a question. He should not make a statement. Has the honourable senator a question to ask?

Senator McLAREN:

– Yes, I have.

The PRESIDENT:

– Well, ask the question.

Senator McLAREN:

– I now ask the Minister: Will he inform the Senate as to the full extent of the negotiations regarding this sale and what was the actual price paid to Ansett Transport Industries for this motel?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

It is true that I issued a statement on Thursday evening on the proposed acquisition of the Mount Gillen motel following my own visits to the Territory and very significant representations that were made to the Government in relation to problems, notably in the southern part of the Northern Territory and the Alice Springs area, in regard to hospitalisation with particular reference to Aboriginal children. It is true that I made the statement setting the proposed acquisition by the Commonwealth of this motel at a figure of approximately $250,000. It is true, as the honourable senator said, that late on Thursday night I was confronted with a statement that was published the next day in the ‘Age’. It suggested that the Government had done nothing definite about the sale and that it was only one of 4 possible purchasers. If the honourable senator had seen the ‘Age’ of the following day he would have seen that the ‘Age’ apparently was able to get from’ the vendor some further information which made it abundantly clear that the Government was in the process of acquiring the motel.

Senator Poyser:

– You should have told him that.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Unfortunately there have been some breakdowns in the lines of communication. The Commonwealth is in the process of acquiring the motel. I am very delighted about that. 1 am sure that everybody who knows the problems there would be delighted about that, too. With the acquisition of the motel the Government will be able to take care of the sick, particularly .the sick Aboriginal children, the treatment of whom has caused a lot of problems there. One does not buy a motel in the same way that one buys an apple or a lolly. Certain legal procedures have to be followed. I can assure the honourable senator that the Government has the documentation in respect of the acquisition of the property. It has been valued by the Department of the Interior. It has been examined by the Department of Works. The Government has approved the transaction. It holds an option to purchase at the price I mentioned. In fact legal procedures are now being implemented. If the honourable senator would like any further information I would be happy to make it available to him. 1 am sorry that there was some delay in the distribution of the Press statement. I learned that only today. When J answered the honourable senator yesterday I believed that a copy of the Press statement had been placed in his box. 1 am told that it was not placed in his box until some time this morning. I regret that. It was not my doing. I am sorry that the system did not work and that the message did not reach honourable senators sooner than it did because the story is a wonderful one.

page 1162

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM: ELECTION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the Government consider that its carrying on of an undeclared war in Vietnam in supposed support of democratic government can still be justified after the 90 per cent vote in favour of President Thieu in a one man election? Does the Australian Government consider that it is democracy when voters wanting to vote against Thieu had to place their ballot papers in a different box from those voting in his favour and under the eyes of heavily armed soldiers? Does the Australian Government consider that it is democracy when voters are forced to the polls to retrieve their identity cards, which is a sure way of ensuring a high percentage attendance at polling booths?

Senator POKE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware of reports today from Tokyo that Japan’s wool yarn futures market has plunged to its lowest level because of panic selling? Is it true that observers in Tokyo have blamed the market collapse partly on the large stocks of wool accumulated by the Australian Wool Commission and that the collapse could further affect Japanese purchases of Australian wool? In view of this further evidence of approaching disaster for the wool industry, what positive policies has the Government in mind, or is it content merely to let the Australian taxpayer pay more for stockpiling more wool?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked me a similar question at the beginning of question time today. I gave him some information and said that I would seek further information from the Minister for Primary Industry. I shall do the same for the honourable senator.

page 1164

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator JESSOP:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for. Labour arid National Service noticed a report of the proceedings of the recent Queensland Industrial Relations Society convention stating that the Australian Labor Party spokesman on labour and national service, Mr Clyde Cameron, indicated that a possible Australian Labor Party Government would not end all the penal sanctions of the arbitration system? Is he able to say whether this is contrary to the wishes of the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Secondly, has he also noted that a leading Victorian trade union official is reported to have issued the warning that if Mr Clyde Cameron’s views were made mandatory Victorian trade unions would not provide finance for the Australian Labor Party at the next Federal election?

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to order. This question is asking for the Minister’s comments on some report pf a statement by the shadow . Minister for Labour and National Service-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! What is the point of order?

Senator Murphy:

– That the matter is not within the Minister’s province, and further that the question is asking for his comments. No doubt, it is an important topic that has been raised. If desired by Senator Jessop, this matter could be debated in this chamber; but it is not a proper question to put to a Minister to ask: Has he heard that a member, of the House, of Representatives is reported to have said something, and then to ask the Minister to comment on that, on whether it is consistent with the policy of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and on what might flow from that? This is all hypothesis. It is reference to a statement that is supposed to have been made elsewhere - or to a part of it - and it is asking the Minister’s comments. The Standing Orders set out that this is not a proper question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am grateful, Senator Murphy, for your support in my attempt to purge the question system of the Senate. In calling Senator Wright, I refer him to standing order 100, which reads:

In answering any mcn question, a Senator shall not debate the matter to which the same refers.

The PRESIDENT:

– I apply standing order 100, which reads:

In answering any such Question, a Senator shall not debate the matter to which the same refers.

Senator WRIGHT:

– It serves the purpose for which I stand here as a Minister to have my colleague remind me of partial notice which the Press has given to 2 significant statements, one to a convention of the Queensland Industrial Relations Society and the other by a prominent trade union official in Melbourne. The honourable senator’s reference and mine to these matters serve the public interest and the purpose of the Senate in provoking the interest of the whole Senate to obtain an amplified statement of those views. The views enunciated to which Senator Jessop referred relate currently to one of the most important topics in Australia; that is whether it will be found competent for this Parliament to provide sanctions or means of enforcement of industrial rights in the industrial area.

Senator Bishop:

– I rise to order on the basis of the ruling which you, Mr President, used, I suggest, to set a climate for the Minister. I suggest that now the Minister is debating the substance of the question as to whether or not sanctions or agreements should apply in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act . I suggest that it would be appropriate for the Minister to answer directly the question as to the news broadcast and leave the matter at that.

The PRESIDENT:

– I think the Minister is entitled to make his preliminary statement in answer to the question and then vacate that position and proceed to answer directly the question asked by Senator Jessop.

Senator WRIGHT:

– In explanation I add that 1 understand the reference in the Standing Orders that I should not debate the question as not a direction to me that I should be confined to a yes or no in my answer to these long winded interventions repeatedly made by the Opposition. I add the concluding statement to my colleague’s question that I am obliged to him for the reference to these matters and the contrariety that they indicate between those views and the views of a leading member of the Australian Labor Party in this field, Mr Clyde Cameron. I shall treat the question as a vehicle for making pointed reference of the subject matter to the Minister.

page 1165

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. I hope it will not create the same controversial air as the last question did. I preface my question by saying that last evening I endeavoured to ask a question at the end of the debate on the motion that the Senate do now adjourn and you said no, unequivocally. I now ask that question. If my colleague Senator Georges and myself desired to place ourselves on the stairs of Parliament House for the purpose of soliciting donations to relieve the shocking conditions being experienced by refugees in India, would you see fit to grant us permission to adopt this attitude?

The PRESIDENT:

– I have no power to prevent you and Senator Georges standing on the steps of Parliament House. Whatever honourable members and honourable senators may say about that action is a matter that I cannot forecast.

page 1166

QUESTION

NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION TRAINING SCHOOL

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDIs the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts aware that at the time the former Prime Minister announced the Government’s decision to establish a national film and television training school the decision was strongly opposed by the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations? Was any pressure brought upon the Government “by the Federation to induce it to make the recent announcement that the establishment of such a school will be delayed for a period of 12 months? Because so many people engaged in the cultural life of Australia, and professional organisations such as the Australian Writers Guild, Actors Equity and the Australian Mass Communications Council, are seriously concerned about the Government’s recent decision is the Minister prepared to review the decision? If not, will he guarantee that the training school will certainly proceed in 12 months time?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to say whether any pressure was brought to bear by the body to which the honourable senator has referred, but I would doubt very much whether any such pressure existed. I can assure the honourable senator that the decision to defer this school for a period of 12 months was a decision taken by the Government in the light of the financial stringency which the Government was imposing upon itself. I should stress also, because there appears to be misunderstanding, that the decision which was taken was not a decision to abandon the school; it was a decision to defer the operation of the school for a period of 12 months. Having said that, I shall convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister. If he feels that he should elaborate on my reply I am sure that he will do so.

page 1166

QUESTION

VISITORS’ VISAS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Can the Acting Minister for Immigration give any further information on the visa problems encountered by New Zealand citizen Mr Waishing during his Australian visit? Furthermore, in the light of the current policy outlined in the answer to a question by Senator Willesee, does it not mean that Cook Islanders and other such people, notwithstanding their British Commonwealth membership, are deemed to be second class citizens when they seek entry to Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have some information on Mr Waishing which may be useful. I shall have to seek further information about Cook Islanders in order to be accurate in replying on that matter. With regard to Mr Waishing, the note that I have states that anyone can arrive in Australia in transit and stay for 72 hours. In this case there would have been no problem had Mr Waishing wished to extend his stay. If he had wanted to stay here for 3 months, which is the period covered by a visitor’s visa, he could have applied for this and it would have been granted.

Senator Georges:

– But ordinary New Zealanders do not have to apply.

Senator COTTON:

– This is my understanding of it, without any help from Senator Georges. I shall try to find out for Senator Mulvihill the answer to the balance of the question.

page 1166

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator GEORGES:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. May I direct the Minister’s attention to the statement of 12 professors, a report of which appears at page 31 of today’s Canberra Times’, pointing out the urgency for the Government to make a decision on the future of the Australian economy? Will the Government share the concern of these eminent economists and make an immediate decision on the matter which is of such grave importance? To put it plainly, are we to revalue? If so, in what way and. in particular, when?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI also saw the statement this morning. It was a quite important statement in which a certain professorial group suggested that there should be a revaluation of the Australian currency in a dual way, as 1 understood it, linking it to the Japanese yen and also to the American dollar. 1 sought to have this matter processed in order to get some information on it. At present I am not in a position to respond to this very important question from Senator Georges, although I would hope to be in a position tomorrow to make some comment on it. All honourable senators will be aware that the Treasurer is overseas at present. The very nature of his overseas visit is related to matters of the Australian currency and Australian trade. Both questions are linked together significantly, having regard to the American decision in relation to duty. I should think that the generality of the honourable senator’s question relates to a policy decision by the Government and that I may not necessarily be able to reply to him, but I should like to get at least some comment from the Treasury in relation to certain elements of the question posed by him. I shall seek to have that information for him tomorrow.

page 1167

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator PRIMMER:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that a futures market for boneless beef has been opened in New York by the New York Mercantile Exchange? Is threequarters of the meat involved in this market from Australia? Is it a fact that futures marketing once affected detrimentally the price received by Australian wheat growers and is currently affecting wool prices? Is it also a fact that the futures market opened in New York for boneless beef will ultimately be detrimental to the price received by Australian beef producers for meat sold in America?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I do not have any information about the meat futures market in New York but shall seek it. I remind the honourable senator that the futures market for wool has been operating in Australia for some years now and I think that during the course of its operation wool prices have been substantially higher than they are at the present time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For some.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– For some, yes. However I shall get the information and give it to the honourable senator.

page 1167

QUESTION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Senator BISHOP:

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is a fact that recently the Australian Government complained to the Government of the United Slates of America about the failure of the United States Administration to keep Australia properly informed on important matters of joint concern. Has the Australian Government been officially advised about the pending visit to Peking of Mr Nixon’s Foreign Affairs Adviser, Dr Kissinger, related to Mr Nixon’s visit to that country? If the Government has not been advised does it consider that this is of no concern to Australia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator COTTON:
LP

– For a start the delay, which is not prolonged, is the product of an intense and extremely care; ful investigation of all the factors involved, which is what one would expect of the Department of Civil Aviation.

Senator Georges:

– So the matter was serious?

Senator COTTON:

– Of course it was serious. What would you expect? You know it was serious. We took the matter seriously. A foreign country was involved and its aircraft was involved. It was necessary to send people to that country to check the manufacture of that aircraft and details of the people concerned. The report ought to be available in the week beginning 12th October for presentation to the Senate.

page 1168

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Senator LAUCKE:

– I direct this question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. In view of the inordinate delays being experienced in respect of the construction of Dartmouth Dam and the precarious position South Australia continually experiences in regard to water supply in time of drought, will the Minister make representations to the Minister for National Development for an early investigation into the possibility of providing a nuclear power station in South Australia so located as to enable that State to have a major water desalination plant and a further power base generally?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– 1 shall direct that query and proposition to the Minister for National Development in the other place.

page 1169

QUESTION

CANNED FRUITS

(Question No. 1259)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Will recent restrictions imposed by the United States of America on its currency result in any loss or restriction of the export market for Australian canned tropical fruits and fruit juices. Will the Minister make a reply available before the first week’s adjournment of . the present series of sittings.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have received the answer from the responsible Minister. It contains some figures which will not make much sense if I read them. The answer contains a sort of statistical analysis. It is not very long but it is a little detailed. I seek leave of the Senate to have the reply incorporated in Hansard, if that is suitable to the honourable senator.

Senator Keeffe:

– Is it a complicated set of figures? The Senate proceedings are being broadcast. If it is vital information it ought to be made available to everybody.

Senator COTTON:

– Surely it will be made available to everybody if it appears in Hansard. However, as the honourable senator seems to be concerned that it should be read I shall read it and make the best I can of reading across the tables. The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: it is assumed that the question refers to the import surcharge which the United States recently introduced on specified imports entering the United Slates market. The surcharge is an additional tariff restriction which must be borne by imports into the U.S.A. of canned tropicalfruits from Australia. The surcharge affects the following tropical canned fruits:

There were no exports of tropical tanned fruit juices from Australia to the United States in 1970-71.

The effect the United Statesmeasures will have on our exports of canned tropical fruit to that market are not yet clear. The import surcharge does not apply to canned fruit produced within the United States and unless the surcharge is absorbed by exporters or distributors, imported canned fruit will now be more expensive to consumers than domestically produced fruit.

The burden of the surcharge is also, of course, compounded by the change in parity of the Australian dollar relative to the United States dollar.

These factors must, inevitably, have an adverse effect on Australian exports of canned tropical fruits to the U.S.A.

page 1169

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICES

(Question No. 1298)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Has the Australian Post Office recently adopted the practice that, if a person or company in a city area rents a private mail box, all mail is eventually delivered to the box whether addressed to the box or to the street address; if so, is mail which is addressed to a street number, invariably delayed in reaching the box number.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

From time to time the Post Office checks the mail delivery arrangements for holders of private boxes. A recent examination in Sydney revealed that a small number of GPO box holders (0.3 per cent) were receiving dual deliveries, that is, mail addressed to their street address was being delivered by Postmen and mail addressed to their box was being delivered to the box.

As it has been the general practice over many years to deliver mail to the private box only, the box holders concerned were visited and advised that mail addressed to their street address would, in future, be delivered to their box.

This could mean a slight delay to the mail so addressed because, being addressed to the street address, it will be sorted first to the Postman’s section and redirected from there to the box. This delay can be obviated by box holders arranging to have their mail addressed to the post office box number.

Bulky articles and parcels are an exception to the above arrangements. These are delivered to the street address unless the box holder requires otherwise.

page 1169

QUESTION

HEALTH: CIGARETTE SMOKING

(Question No. 1342)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Did Mr W. S. Bengtsson, a Director of W. D and H. O. Wills (Aust.) Ltd in a statement made on 8th September 1971, claim that there is no scientific proof that cigarette smoking is a dangerous health hazard, and does the Minister agree that this statement is false.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

Mr W. S. Bengtsson, a Director of W. D. and H. O. Wills (Aust.) Ltd was reported as having made a statement to a newspaper claiming that there is no scientific proof that cigarette smoking is a dangerous health hazard. The Government, having regard to the medical view which has been clearly expressed that there is a proven relationship between cigarette smoking and medical health, has recognised that smoking is a health problem. This is contrary to the views attributed to Mr Bengtsson.

page 1170

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION

(Question No. 1346)

Senator POKE:

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

What is the long-term aim of the Australian Wool Commission’s purchasing policy, and when does it expect to achieve this aim.
Does the Australian Wool Commission know what will be the ultimate cost of its longterm wool purchasing policy.
Has the Government placed a ceiling on the wool purchasing activities of the Australian Wool Commission, and what guidelines, if any, has the Government laid down for the Commission in regard to wool purchases.
What evidence is there that wool purchases by the Australian Wool Commission have resulted in increased prices being offered by the main wool buyers at the current series of sales.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

The principal aim of the Australian Wool Commission is, by the use of its reserve price scheme, to protect woolgrowers from receiving needlessly low prices for their product, to engender greater stability in the wool market and to give woolbuyers confidence in the value of stocks purchased through the auction system. This is a continuing objective.
Since the purchasing and resale of wool by the Commission is a continuing operation it is not possible to speak in terms of the ultimate cost of this operation.
The Government has not placed any fixed ceiling on the amount of wool that may be purchased by the Commission. Any such limitation would leave the Commission open to concerted pressure by buyers if its stocks approached, or were thought to be approaching the ceiling. There are, however, continuing and frequent consultations between the Commission and the Government on the reserve price policies followed by the Commission.
Analyses of the bidding at wool auctions are made continually by the Australian Wool Commission. During the first 3 week’s sales of the current selling season, the average price increase where Commission bidding prompted further bids by trade buyers ranged from 2.5c per kg. at the Adelaide sale no. 2 to 3.7c per kg. at the Sydney sale no. 1.

page 1170

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION

(Question No. 1357)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: (1.) How many bales of wool does the Australian Wool Commission have in storage.

What is the average weekly storage cost per bale incurred by the Australian Wool Commission in holding its wool.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

As published in the Interim Annual Report of the Australian Wool Commission, which was recently tabled in the Senate, at 30th June 1971 the Commission had stocks amounting to 340,507 bales as a result of its reserve price operations. This figure excludes Price Averaging Plan wool carried over from Pool No. 2, purchased by the Commission and included in Pool No. 3. No storage charges are payable on this wool.
The storage charge for Australian Wool Commission’s wool stored in wool selling brokers’ stores is 10c per bale per week after the first 4 weeks for which storage is free. This concessional rate was negotiated by the Commission with the National Council of Wool Selling Brokers of Australia.

Wool Commission wool held in stores controlled by the Australian Wool Board is stored at a slightly cheaper cost which compensates for added handling charges incurred in removing the wool from brokers’ stores to Wool Board stores.

page 1170

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION

(Question No. 1358)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

What is the total number of bales of wool acquired by the Australian Wool Commission, and what was the total cost of acquiring this wool.
How much of the wool purchased by the Australian Wool Commission has been re-sold, and what was the amount of profit or loss incurred in this re-sale.
What is the average holding time of a bale of wool between its acquisition by the Australian Wool Commission and its re-sale.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

The Interim Annual Report of the Australian Wool Commission, which was recently tabled in the Senate, shows that up to 30th June 1971 the Commission had purchased a total of 413,437 bales at a cost of $40,597,106 in the course of its reserve price operations. In addition, wool included in the Price Averaging Plan (P.A.P.) but remaining unsold at the end of Pools Nos 1 and 2 had been purchased. These purchases involved 189,000 bales at a cost of $15m.
At 30th June 1971, the Commission had sold 72,930 bales of non-P.A.P. wool from its slocks. These sales realised a gross profit of $108,588. Of the P.A.P. wool mentioned above, 80,000 bales were sold to commercial buyers during Pool No.2 Financial results of these sales are not yet available because accounts for Pool No. 2 are not yet finalised.
The wool market conditions to date have been suchthatthe Commission has not been able to resell wool in any regular pattern. There have been varying periods during which no resales were made. In these circumstances, no meaningful figure can be calculated as the average holding time ofa bale of wool between its purchase and resale.

page 1171

QUESTION

SHIPPING

(Question No. 1362)

Senator KANE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

Did the Department of Customs and Excise give a clearance to the Japanese vessel ‘Akitsushima’ on 27th August 1971 against the wishes of the vessel’s master, which enabled the vessel to clear the port of Darwin; if so, did the removal of the vessel constitute its theft.
Did the vessel go to sea without a qualified master or crew, and didit subsequently go ashore at Ambon in Indonesia.
Will the Department of Customs and Excise take steps to restore the vessel to its rightful owner.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Japanese yacht ‘Akitsushima’ received a clearance at Darwin on 26/8/71. The destination was understood to be Ambon, Indonesia.

As legal proceedings were instituted on 13/9/71 in the High Court claiming damages against the Commonwealth arising out of the clearance and departure of the yacht I consider it would be quite inappropriate for me to comment.

page 1171

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 1372)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

What are the leasing arrangements between the Australian Post Office and Television Corporation

Ltd for the provision of coaxial cable facilities, and what revenue does the Australian Post Office derive from these leasing arrangements.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

General Television Corporation Pty Ltd (GTV9), Melbourne, lease television relay facilities between Sydney and Melbourne under an agreement with the Post Office. These facilities consist of a one-way vision and sound channel in the direction Sydney to Melbourne and a one-way vision and sound channel in the direction Melbourne to Sydney. The terms of the agreement provide for an average usage of the facilities of 70 hours weekly in each direction. The lessee, General Television Corporation Pty Ltd, is authorised to make arrangements with Television Corporation Limited (TCN9), Sydney, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission for joint use of the facilities, such arrangements to be mutually agreed upon by General Television Corporation Ply Ltd, Television Corporation Limited and the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

The annual revenue received bythe Post Office from General Television Corporation Pty Ltd, Melbourne, isthe subject of a written agreement between the 2 parties and it would not be proper for me torelease publicly the information sought by the honourable member.

page 1171

QUESTION

AIR MAIL SERVICES

(Question No. 1374)

Senator MILLINER:

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

Is Ansett Airlines of Australia paid for mail carried in its aircraft; if so, what payments are made when flight schedules are altered so as to provide less frequent services.
Is Ansett Airlines of Australia paid the same fee for the carriage of mail to and from Dirranbandi. Queensland, now, as it was paid before the flight schedules were re-arranged.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes. Airmail conveyance payments depend on the weight of mail carried. A reduction in frequency of an air service would reduce airmail conveyance payments in those cases where a suitable alternative arrangement can be made for the mail previously transported by airto be conveyed by surface transport.
No. The re-arranged flight schedule from Dirranbandi to Brisbane reduced the frequency of airmail service from 3 to 2 times weekly. As an alternative method of routing mail is available, the reduction in frequency reduces the amount paidto Ansett Airlines of Australia for airmail conveyance.

page 1172

QUESTION

WOOL

(Question No. 1375)

Senator POKE:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Is there a large difference between prices offered at current wool auctions by the Australian Wool Commission and prices in other woolproducing countries, where these prices are 10 to15 per cent lower than in Australia.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

Statements have been made in the press that the reserve prices bid by the Australian Wool Commission at wool auctions are too high compared with wool prices in other wool-producing countries, mentioning the percentage differences cited by the honourable senator. These statements must be treated with considerable reserve, as any comparison of Australian wool prices in general with wool price levels in other countries can only be of doubtful validity.

The only major wool producing countries where authoritative wool price statistics are published arc Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. There are few points of comparison between the clips of Australia and New Zealand, the latter consisting predominantly of coarse types.

Although South Africa produces much wool which is comparable in fineness to types commonly grown in Australia, South African prices tend to be lower because, on average, South African wool is shorter in fibre length, has lower tensile strength, contains more dust, etc.

Such price information as is available on South American wools suggests that, even where some typesare broadly comparable, Australian wools normally command a price premium because of better classing.

page 1172

QUESTION

NATIONAL FILM AND TELEVISION SCHOOL

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 1 6th September Senator Murphy asked me a question without notice about a letter from the Australian Mass Communications Council to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts concerning the proposed National Film and Television School. The Minister has informed me that he replied to the Council as follows:

I refer to your letter about the proposed National Film and Television School.

The report of the Film Committee, Australian Council for the Arts, recommended the establishment of:

an Australian Film and Television Development Corporation;

an Experimental Film and Television Fund;

a National Film and Television School.

The report said that:

While all three recommendations set out are complementary, and would in concert provide an exciting and stimulating basis for an invigorated film and television industry, it would also be possible to implement any one of them in isolation. Any one of these would be valuable in its own right if financial considerations prevented advancing on all three fronts at once.

The Australian Film Development Corporation was established last year with an initial capital of $lm. The Corporation only recently became fully operational with the appointment of an Executive Officer and the establishment of an office in Sydney. It has considered a number of applications for assistance and at 30th June had firmly committed over $300,000 of the initial allocation of $lm.

Apart from the Corporation, however, help has also been provided to persons interested in the film industry by way of the Experimental Film and Television Fund which was established in June 1970 to provide assistance to individual film makers to develop their own talent and expertise and to explore the possibilities of the film and television media. The individuals assisted by the Fund may be those with experience or those who are relatively inexperienced but with capacity for talented and original work.

In addition, the Interim Council, National Film and Television Training School, has provided travelling scholarships to enable promising young students to proceed overseas and learn about various aspects of the film and television industry.

In my statement to the parliament on 8th September, I explained that the Interim Council had been established to investigate and report on the form and location of a National Film and Television School. While the Council’s enthusiasm for this project is fully apparent from its reports, the continuing economic stringencies and the substantial cost, which is estimated to be over $7m during the next five years, have led to consideration of its proposals being deferred for twelve months.

The proposals may then be considered in the light of what I hope will be more propitious economic circumstances. At that stage we shall also know more of the progress of the Australian Film Development Corporation, the success of which is so important to ensuring a viable industry, capable of usefully employing graduates from the proposed School.

page 1172

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yesterday Senator Lawrie asked me the following question:

Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the fact that the longshoremen’s strike in the United States of America has now spread to the east coast? Can he inform the Senate of any likely effect on Australian exports to the United States, especially meat which has to be got in almost immediately to fill this year’s quota?

I have been advised that longshoremen on the west coast of the United States went on strike on 1st October and have been followed on strike by east coast longshoremen. On 25th September last President Nixon personally intervened in the dispute saying that further delay in settlement could not be tolerated. He called on the parties involved to discuss the matter and stated that if an east coast strike were to go on simultaneously with a west coast strike the Taft/ Hartley Law would automatically be applied to curtail the dispute. Regarding that part of the honourable senator’s question which concerned importations of meat, I understand that some meat is still entering the west coast of the United States via Canadian ports. The average weekly loadings of this meat in September were 2,600 tons compared with average weekly loadings in August of 8,300 tons.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

(4.36) - I move:

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1173

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

– Yesterday I indicated that discussion was taking place between the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and myself in relation to notices of motion. I am not yet in a position to clarify the situation but I hope to be able to do so tomorrow. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1174

LIVESTOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– J move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964-1968 to provide for the extension, for a further period of 3 years, from 1st January 1972 to 31st December 1974, of the special levy on livestock slaughtering imposed initially in January 1969 to provide finance for the operations of the meat industry service and investigation section of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The rates of levy are to remain unaltered at lc per head on cattle (over 200 lb dressed weight) and one-tenth of a cent per head on sheep and lambs. The levy is payable by the owner of the livestock at the time of slaughter and, in contrast to the levy used to finance the operations of the Australian Meat Board and the Australian Meat Research Committee, may not be passed back to producers.

The initial proposals for this levy were submitted by the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council and fully supported by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and the Australian Meatworks Federal Council. These organisations have agreed to the continuation of the levy for a further 3 years. The service and investigation section of CSIRO has used the funds obtained from the levy, together with a matching Commonwealth contribution, to assist meatworks in many fields including quality control, sanitation and hygiene - all of which are assuming increasing importance in the meat trade. The section has also published reports and information newsletters on its work and findings and conducted schools for meatworks management. Funds from the levy should, on current estimates, provide finance to allow a continuity of operations over a period in excess of 3 years. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury) adjourned.

page 1174

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL (No. 2) 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

This Bill proposes amendment of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act to give effect to the decision of the Government, announced in the Budget Speech, that a new export financing facility, known as buyer’s credit, would be introduced for the assistance of Australian exporters of capital goods. In addition, the Bill proposes to broaden the existing insurance and guarantee provisions of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act by giving the Corporation the authority to enter into re-insurance arrangements with its counterpart organisations in other countries, where this would facilitate Australian exports. There are also in the Bill some proposed amendments of a housekeeping nature. They are mainly drafting changes consequent to earlier amendments of the EPIC Act.

Honourable senators will know that the Export Payments Insurance Corporation was established by this Government in 1956 to provide insurance for exporters against the risk of non-payment by overseas buyers. Since then, the range of the Corporation’s facilities has been progressively extended and the operation of the facilities improved to take account of changes in the pattern of Australian production and exports, in the direction of our exports, and in the nature of the competition we have to contend with in overseas markets. These successive amendments of the EPIC Act give clear evidence of the Government’s determination to keep abreast of exporters’ requirements in the field of export payments insurance and associated facilities. And so it is with the amendments proposed in this Bill. They stem from 2 main factors. In the first place. Australia, over recent years, has developed a broadly based capacity for the production and export of capital goods which are frequently traded internationally on long term credit. The second factor is that, with competition in world trading at such a high pitch, the nature of the credit arrangements exporters can offer has assumed a special significance.

page 1175

BUYERS’ CREDIT

The introduction of a buyers’ credit facility is a measure which follows consideration of submissions made to the Government by the Consultative Council of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and the Export Development Council. More recently, various national industry organisations have expressed support for buyers’ credit financing to assist Australian exporters of capital goods.

At present, Australian exports of capital goods sold on credit are financed under the suppliers’ credit system. Where an exporter has to offer deferred payment terms to the buyer to meet overseas competition, he frequently finds it necessary to obtain financial accommodation from a bank or other lender while waiting to receive payments from the buyer. Usually he does so with the support of an EPIC insurance policy and, in some cases, against the security of an EPIC guarantee to the lender. A drawback of the suppliers’ credit system is that, over the full period of the credit, often as long as 10 years on heavy equipment, the exporter is on recourse to either the lending institution or EPIC. In consequence, the exporter may carry for a considerable period a contingent liability in respect of each sale. This can impair an exporter’s ability to obtain finance for further export transactions and, in some cases, for other purposes.

Under buyers’ credit, a system which has become accepted overseas as an alternative means of financing exports of capital goods, loans are made direct to the overseas buyer by lending institutions in the country of export. These loans are usually secured by a guarantee given by the exporting country’s counterpart of EPIC and often also by the guarantee of a bank in the importing country. The loan is used by the buyer to finance his purchases from the exporter and payment to the exporter is completed once the buyer accepts the goods. Accordingly, buyers’ credit financing has the effect, for the exporter, of converting a credit transaction into a cash sale. With the agreement of all the parties involved, a buyers’ credit loan may also provide for progress payments to the exporter during the manufacturing period. Accordingly, a buyers’ credit system frees exporters from involvement in the financing arrangements of capital goods transactions and allows them to concentrate on the job of manufacturing and selling their products.

This is the position the Bill seeks to achieve for Australian capital goods exporters. In brief, the Bill proposes that, in respect of capital goods export contracts in which there is a high Australian content and where credit terms longer than 5 years are appropriate, EPIC may guarantee the repayment of loans made by Australian lenders to overseas buyers for the purpose of financing payments by the buyers to the Australian companies which are principals to the contracts. The granting of buyers’ credit loans by Australian institutions would be subject to exchange control approval by the Reserve Bank. No change is envisaged in existing exchange control policy under which extended credit terms will be approved only if they arc necessary on commercial grounds and do not go beyond those offered by competing overseas suppliers. In addition, approval would normally be given only for loans denominated in Australian currency. In any exceptional case where circumstances justified the guarantee of a loan denominated in a foreign currency, it would be a requirement that the loan agreement contained an exchange variation clause which would ensure that the overseas buyer carried the exchange risk.

The proposed guarantees by EPIC would have some similarity with the guarantees that the Corporation already provides in respect of loans made by banks to exporters under suppliers’ credit operations. A buyers’ credit guarantee would be given on the basis that the lending institution would have no recourse on the exporter and it would provide that, subject to appropriate documentary evidence, EPIC would pay unconditionally upon demand any due instalment of principal (and interest) of the guaranteed loan which remains unpaid by the borrower for 3 months.

The guarantee would be associated wilh the supply contract between the Australian supplier and the overseas buyer, and also with the loan agreement between the Australian lender and the overseas buyer/borrower. As the supplier would benefit from the guarantee, EPIC would also enter into an agreement with him, which would oblige him to pay premium at the appropriate rate for the guarantee provided to the lender. The buyers’ credit guarantee would not be intended to relieve supplier, lender or borrower of any commercial responsibilities inherent in transactions of this kind. All three must accept their full commercial responsibilities.

As regards the financing aspects, honourable senators will know that the provision of finance for Australian exports is traditionally the function of commercial lending institutions. The Government’s consideration of this matter has therefore been on the basis that the proposed system of buyers’ credit loans should be within the established framework of the financing of commercial transactions of this type. It therefore envisages that EPIC would be prepared to provide buyers’ credit guarantees, subject to compliance with the specified conditions, to all Australian lending institutions prepared to undertake this type of lending activity. It is assumed that, in practice, the bulk of any such loans would be made by the banking system, in particular the trading banks, but other institutions would not be precluded from undertaking this type of business.

The Government also considers it appropriate that such loans should be on commercial terms and conditions and that the rate of interest on each loan should be determined by the lender concerned, in accordance with Government policy that exporters should receive preferential treatment, and having regard to the security offered and the particular circumstances of the export transactions. The elements of the proposed buyers’ credit facility have been the subject of discussions between the Reserve Bank and the trading banks. The trading banks have indicated that they are agreeable to participating in a buyers’ credit scheme along the proposed lines. The Reserve Bank, in its consultations with the trading banks, will keep in touch with developments that could affect the ability of the banks to handle buyers’ credit lending.

I turn now to a discussion of the main qualifying criteria for the issue of guarantees. Firstly, as 1 have said, the proposal relates to the financing of export transactions only where they involved capital goods. These are the kind of transactions which most frequently involve the provision of long term credit to the overseas buyer and which, because large values also are usually involved, create for the exporter the financing difficulties I have described. Capital goods transactions encompass, of course, a wide range of possible arrangements between an Australian exporter and an overseas buyer. At one end of the spectrum there is the contract involving merely the supply of a single piece of capital equipment. At the other end, there is the contract for a turnkey project, that is, the supply, erection and commissioning of a complete production plant. In view of this a definition of capital goods has not been specified in the Bill. However, it will be included, together with other qualifying conditions, in the formal ministerial approval of the policy to be adopted by the Corporation in the operation of the facility.

Importantly, this policy would preclude the giving of buyers’ credit guarantees unless the Corporation was satisfied that a credit term in excess of 5 years was appropriate for the goods concerned, or necessary to match foreign competition. In addition, EPIC would need to be assured that the business could not be done readily within the suppliers’ credit financing system. Also, it is not the intention of the Government that Australian funds be employed unnecessarily in financing the export of the products of other countries. Accordingly, it is proposed that eligible transactions should normally have an Australian content of at least 65 per cent. This will be prescribed in a regulation. There is provision, however, that, in special circumstances, consideration could be given to contracts having less than 65 per cent, but not less than 50 per cent, Australian content. This particular provision is included in the Bill.

Another important provision in the Bill is that EPIC may not guarantee a loan which represents more than a prescribed percentage of the contract amount. The percentage that will be prescribed is 80 per cent. In effect, this means that eligible contracts must provide for a downpayment by the overseas buyer to the exporter of at least 20 per cent of the contract price. This provision is intended as a safeguard of the commercial soundness of each proposal.

The Bill also includes provision that consideration will be given to contracts only where the value involved is at, or above, a level likely to introduce financing difficulties for the exporter if arranged under a suppliers’ credit. The level which has been set, and which will be prescribed in a regulation, is a minimum resultant loan amount, after downpayment, of $200,000. This figure has been decided upon following an examination of the details of long term credit transactions supported by EPIC. The level is considered to be low enough to embrace most cases which could create financing difficulties for the exporter, yet high enough to justify a buyers’ credit arrangement.

These, then, are the principal elements of the proposed facility and of the eligibility requirements. However, as honourable senators will appreciate, in respect of a facility of this nature it is not possible to specify in advance requirements which will meet all the circumstances of possible buyers’ credit transactions. Accordingly, provision has been included in the Bill which would give scope for the consideration of special cases which, in one respect or another, do not satisfy all the proposed criteria but which are considered otherwise to warrant approval.

The Bill provides that the Commissioner of EPIC may refer to the Minister for Trade and Industry, for his consideration, particular cases which do not meet all the eligibility criteria. The responsibility for referring such cases to the Government will therefore rest with EPIC. Every case so referred will be considered on its merits by the Minister for Trade and Industry and the Treasurer, in consultation with other Ministers if necessary. In other words, the procedures would be similar to those which presently operate in respect of the national interest provisions of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act.

I would like to illustrate the types of problems which this provision is designed to overcome. I have said that eligible contracts must normally provide for a downpayment of 20 per cent of the contract price. A particular proposal may involve, for example, a substantial loan amount, say $5m, and an Australian content of more than 65 per cent but, for sound financial reasons, the overseas buyer is only able to provide a downpayment of 10-15 per cent. In circumstances where it was considered that such a transaction would result in obvious and significant trade benefits to Australia, and the commercial soundness of the transaction would not be jeopardised by the lesser downpayment proposed, EPIC could recommend to the Government that it be given approval to issue a buyers’ credit guarantee.

Consider another possibility. A proposal involving a loan amount less than the prescribed $200,000- say $180,000- would not normally be eligible for a buyers credit guarantee. For one reason or another, however, financing of the transaction under the suppliers credit system might not be feasible. If this were the case, and if EPIC was satisfied with all other aspects of the proposal, the Corporation could refer the case to the Government for consideration as a buyers credit transaction. Where the Government considered that the circumstances justified acceptance of a proposal of this nature, it could authorise EPIC to give a buyers credit guarantee.

The eligibility criteria will, of course, be reviewed by the Government in the light of the operation of the buyers credit facility. However, because of the nature of the facility and the types of transactions likely to be involved, it is important that EPIC should have adequate scope to handle the wide range of commercial situations that could arise as the scheme develops.

page 1177

RE-INSURANCE

I turn now to the other substantive amendment of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act proposed in the Bill, namely, the empowering of EPIC to enter into re-insurance or indemnity arrangements with overseas export credit insurance organisations. Cases arise - and, again, mainly in the capital goods field - in which an Australian company collaborates with an overseas company in the execution of an export contract held by the overseas company. More often than not the collaborating Australian company is a subsidiary or associate of the overseas company. The Australian associate may be called on, for example, to supply a substantial part of the goods required under the export contract.

In these cases, the overseas company, being the principal to (he export contract, looks to the export credit insurance institution in its country for cover on the contract but may not be able to obtain full cover because of the Australian content. In fact, overseas credit insurance institutions usually restrict their cover on contracts to the proportion to be supplied from their own countries. They will consider covering the full contract only where the overseas content is marginal. In a situation like this, the Australian associate naturally looks to EPIC for insurance on its portion of the contract. Under its present charter, however, EPIC cannot offer insurance, largely because the Australian associate is not a principal to the export contract and has no standing under the contract with the buyer.

In the reverse situation, where the Australian company is the principal and an overseas associate the collaborator, EPIC adopts the same altitude as that of other credit insurers. Unless the overseas portion is marginal, EPIC insures only the Australian content of the contract and its counterpart organisation overseas is unable to insure the balance, because the overseas associate is not a principal to the contract. Hence, where collaboration occurs between a company in Australia and a company overseas it is usual that only the portion of the contact to be supplied from the country of the principal to the contract can be insured.

These difficulties can be overcome if credit insurance organisations agree to enter into re-insurance or indemnity arrangements with each other. Under these arrangements, the organisation in the country of the exporter, who is principal to the contract with the buyer, will give full cover on the contract and then obtain indemnity from its counterpart organisation in the other supplying country in respect of that part of the total contract to be supplied from that country. It is essential, of course, that Australian companies which participate in overseas contracts should have full access to payments insurance on the goods they supply. Moreover, export collaboration between Australian and overseas companies is growing and it is in out best interests to encourage this growth by providing EPIC with authority to enter into re-insurance or indemnity arrangements. The Bill proposes to do that. As its effect would be only to extend the Corporation’s normal facilities to export transactions which, at present, do not have that benefit, no new policies or procedures are involved.

The amendments proposed in the Bill, particularly in respect of the buyers credit facility, will extend the range of EPIC’s responsibilities. In respect of the buyers credit scheme, for example, the Corporation will be required to ensure that each proposal complies with the relevant criteria, including the essential requirement that the overseas buyer has adequate commercial standing and creditworthiness to justify the guaranteeing of a loan to him and that his country is an acceptable risk for the amount and term of the loan. The Corporation will also be required to ensure that the provisions of the supply contract and the loan agreement are satisfactory and contain adequate safeguards from the standpoint of the guarantor, and that it has an appropriate agreement with the supplier. The nature of these additional responsibilities, however, is essentially the same as those relating to EPIC’s present activities.

On the basis of EPIC’s impressive record of performance as a credit insurer, and by virtue of its considerable experience and expertise in the field of international trade and finance, I have no doubt that the Corporation will handle these additional responsibilities as successfully as all its existing facilities. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1178

PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS BOUNTY BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

Mr Deputy President, this Bill will give effect to the Government’s decision announced by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) to continue payment of bounty on phosphate fertilizers until 31st December 1974. The Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act 1963-1969 is due to expire on 31st October 1971. It provides for payment of $12 per ton on standard superphosphate and $60 per ton of phosphorus pentoxide content of other superphosphates and ammonium phosphate produced and sold for use as fertilizer in Australia. The bounty has been the major factor in keeping selling prices of phosphate fertilizers stable since its introduction in 1963. Continuation of the bounty is considered essential to maintain this position in view of the cost situation and marketing difficulties facing primary producers. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1179

RAILWAY AGREEMENT (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

This Bill seeks the approval of the Parliament to amend the Railway Agreement Western Australia) Act No. 67 of 1961 by removing from that Act the time limitation on Commonwealth contributions towards expenditure by the Western Australian Government on the railway standardisation works in that State. Honourable senators will recall that the 1961 Act provided for both standardisation of the main line from Kalgoorlie to Perth and Fremantle and certain works of a developmental nature. These were to facilitate the development of an integrated iron and steel complex at

Kwinana based on the iron ore deposits at Koolyanobbing. The Act also provided for a large number of new standard gauge locomotives and rolling stock. The Act also provided that the Commonwealth would accept, as a charge against the rail standardisation project, expenditure incurred by Western Australia up to 12 months after the completion date and actually made within 24 months of that date. The completion date was 14th June 1969 - that is, the date when regular services commenced. This meant that expenditure had to be incurred by 14th June 1970 and made by 14th June 1971.

Although regular freight and passenger services are now operating on the line, the project is not yet complete. The main reason for this has been the necessity to re-design and expand the marshalling yards and freight terminals brought about by a more rapid increase in traffic than originally expected. Recognising the difficulties encountered by the State the Commonwealth agreed that it would be reasonable to delete the time limitation and substitute an overall limitation on the cost of the project. Under the 1961 Act the Commonwealth undertook to provide 85 per cent of the total expenditure subject to the time limitation to which I have already referred. The current estimated cost of completing the project is $125m. Accordingly under the new arrangements it has been agreed that the Commonwealth’s contribution will be limited to 85 per cent of this estimated cost, that is $106,250,000. The Bill before the Senate amends the 1961 Railway Agreement Act as necessary and ratifies the new Agreement which incorporates the above principles. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1179

AIR NAVIGATION BILL

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1179

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Pay-roll Tax (Termination of Commonwealth Tax) Bill 1971.

Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Bill 1971.

Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Bill 1971.

page 1180

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - I inform the Senate that the President has received letters from the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party appointing senators to the following Standing Committees:

Foreign Affairs and Defence - Senators Carrick, Drury, McManus, Maunsell, Sim and Wheeldon.

Constitutional and Legal Affairs - Senators Byrne, Durack, Hannan, James McClelland, Murphy and Withers.

Finance and Government Operations - Senators Devitt, Gietzelt, Guilfoyle, Lawrie, Little and Rae

page 1180

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 October (vide page 1 149), on motion by Senator Wright: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– This Bill seeks to reduce the period of national service training from 2 years to 18 months, with attendant arrangements in that regard. When this debate was adjourned last night I was seeking to develop 9 points which are the basis of the objections of the Australian Labor Party to the National Service Act. So that I may develop my points here I refresh the Senate’s memory of those 9 points. The Labor Party has claimed, firstly, that the National Service Act and national service are wrong except in time of national emergency. Its second point is that national service as such is immoral. As a third point it criticises what it claims is the forcing of men against their will to go to a foreign war, and specifically to Vietnam. Fourthly, the Opposition criticises the terms under which the Act provides for conscientious objection. It argues that it is a bad law and that therefore people can break that law. At least some Labor supporters argue that it is proper to assist draft resisters and to sneer at and even obstruct Crown Law authorities in their duties. They argue further that there is no early threat to Australia in terms of defence. They quote Professor Howard in that regard. They argue that the defence forces, in any case, should be reduced to 28,000 from the present level of 44,000, that this could be done and that the Gates Commission in America sets the guidelines. They go further and say that the Labor Party has shown its ability to achieve these things by reference to what it did in World War II.

I pointed out that I reject these claims. With regard to the claim that national service is wrong and immoral, I pointed out that the very reverse is true, that voluntary service sought as the basis of the defence of a country is immoral, wrong, inefficient and dangerous to the life and limb of those in our defence forces. I pointed out that nobody should ask another person to carry a public burden for him, and specifically a defence burden. I developed that argument. I wasfurther developing the argument that it is wrong to have voluntary forces not only because they are inefficient but also because there is not enough time to train them. Because of the lack of time and the inability to train, the people concerned are put at peril. That in fact is what has happened before. I stressed that therefore voluntary service was the immoral and corrupt practice.

I should pause here because quite some mention was made of the period of World War 11 and the forecasts that were made at that time. In my view, the tragedy of the 1930s, which should be kept to the forefront in this debate, was not only the unpreparedness of the defence forces of the -Allies but also the unwillingness of the Allies to go to the help of an independent sovereign state, Czechoslovakia, in 1936- 37. Indeed, had the Allies had the will and the ability to give that help World War II could have been mitigated and the lives of almost 40 million people from all sides might well have been preserved. We are in fact our brother’s keeper, and when we see an independent sovereign state, including the independent sovereign state of South Vietnam, being invaded then we should go to its aid.

I understand that the Labor Party rejects the idea that South Vietnam is an independent sovereign state. I take it that that is so. I believe the Labor Party rejects that proposition. I am using Labor Party tests. Both last night and today I have referred to the United Nations, which the Labor Party always uses as the test of sovereignty. I invite Labor senators to go to the Library and read the account of the United Nations debate on 19th September 1952. This is important because at this moment similar treatment is being urged for Mainland China. I ask Labor senators to study the United Nations debate on 19th September 1952. I ask them to note that the Security Council, by 10 votes to 1, was in favour of recognition of South Vietnam as an independent sovereign state. I ask further whether opposition senators are on the side of the 10 or on the side of the Russian veto. If they are on the side of the latter they will be lonely in their splendour.

I ask Labor senators to go to the records for 21st December 1952 and look at the debate of the General Assembly. I ask them to note that 40 nations voted in favour of South Vietnam being recognised as an independent sovereign state, 5 voted against the proposition and 12 abstained. The United Nations by a large majority - indeed, may I say overwhelming majority recognised South Vietnam as an independent sovereign state. Russia vetoed the proposal for recognition, but subsequently some 40 to 50 nations recognised South Vietnam. Before the Geneva agreements Vietnam had been recognised throughout the world as an independent sovereign state.

Senator Georges:

– Are you dismissing the Geneva agreements?

Senator CARRICK:

– 1 am not dismissing the Geneva agreements. I am encouraged by Senator Georges. I want to say to him that at the Bandung conference even the Afro- Asian nations recognised South Vietnam as an independent sovereign state. So only Russia, in its splendour, and the Labor Party reject the principle of sovereignty. But I thank God that–

Senator Georges:

– In the same way as we guaranteed the sovereignty of North Vietnam.

Senator CARRICK:

– lt is fascinating that I have never heard the Opposition query the method of election in North Vietnam. At another time and in another place I will be happy to read out the North Vietnamese methods in their own words. Members of the Labor Party joined with Russia in its veto and non-recognition of sovereignty, although they are now eagerly seeking the sovereignty of another country. Australia, through its defence forces, proudly has intervened to help an independent sovereign state which is recognised by the great majority of countries. The test for members of the Labor Party has always been that sovereignty will be determined by the United Nations. I say to them that de facto the United Nations determined that South Vietnam was sovereign, but because it suits their political purposes they refuse to accept that fact. 1 come to the question of conscientious objection. I remind the Senate that last night I pointed out that the basic principles of conscientious objection, as adopted in the current legislation but much liberalised, were the principles upheld by the Labor Party when in government. I also say that these principles are more libera] than those in virtually ‘any other country in the world, that they go far wider than the test of religion, that they look to true conscience as such and that there is not only a determination by a magistrate but also appeals to higher courts. The test is that on the basis of these principles exemption has been granted to 81 per cent of people who have applied for it.

I was referring to those who burn draft cards and resist the law. I made the point last night that most people who did this did so not because they felt or knew that the law would not accommodate them or would not give them release from service in Vietnam or elsewhere but because they knew that it would. They were, in fact, denying the rule of law, and not a specific law. I made the point that every person who has gone to Vietnam has elected to do so by leaving himself in the ballot and not opting for service in the Citizen Military Forces or registering as a conscientious objector. They have all opted, by elective choice, so to do. I stated that no person has gone to Vietnam or to a foreign war except by making that decision. 1 want to deal with the theory that because a person or a group of persons believes that a particular law is bad they have the right either to break that law or to encourage others to break that law. I say emphatically that to hold that view is the very negation of the parliamentary system and the judicial system and that a parliamentarian espousing that view is recreant to the oath he takes as a parliamentarian and, indeed, has no place inside a parliament because the making of the law in a sovereign parliament depends entirely on the fact that when it is made the people who make it - the lawmakers - have a binding responsibility to encourage and to lead the rest of the community to uphold that law. There can be no principle other than this.

If anybody in the Opposition wishes to demonstrate against a bad law, he can do so; he can do so with all the legal means available to him and, indeed, if he can persuade sufficient people, he can change the government. But, if he cannot persuade sufficient people to change the government, he has no right to use force to enable a minority to enforce its will on the majority. That is the perversion of democracy and the perversion of parliament. This is the whole nub of the attempt to use political force inside and outside the Parliament to change laws. No minority has a right to assume more power for itself than others in the community have. Of course, it is Important to preserve the rights of minorities. No government has gone as far as this Government has gone in recognising the rights of minorities. No Labor government in the past has ever put on the statute book legislation protecting the rights of minorities as this Government has done.

But it is a perversion of the truth to believe that we discharge our duties when we look after the rights of minorities. The rights of majorities are equally important. Unless there is equality before the law, what the fabric of this Parliament stands to fall down. I say emphatically that nobody has the right to break a law. People have the opportunity to break a law, as they have when they commit murder, a burglary or any other felony. They therefore have the opportunity to submit themselves to the just punishment for breaking a law. But I reject entirely, and I ask all parliamentarians in the true sovereignty of Parliament to reject, that as a right because it is a corruption of what we stand for. Fundamentally, a parliamentarian or anybody else who aids draft resisters by burning draft cards or participating in such demonstrations and who tries to denigrate the law enforcement officers, as I have heard day after day after day in this session of the Parliament, is in fact breaking the rule of law and attempting to destroy the judicial system. It is the responsibility of everybody in this chamber to uphold the rule of law and to protect and assist law enforcement ‘ officers in the discharge of their duties. There exists within the community a campaign to denigrate the police and law enforcement officers. I hope I never see members of Parliament lending themselves to that. There are bad police officers, but they are few. By and large, the law enforcement officers in this community are fine people who need to be assisted and encouraged in the discharge of their duties.

Yesterday, Senator James McClelland developed the theory, along with Professor Howard, that there is no immediate threat to Australia and that we could get along fine with 28,000 volunteers. Professor Howard said that Australian forces wasted less money and produced more results than most of the world’s armed forces he had studied. But he said that there was a level of expenditure below which efficiency was impossible. He said that Australian governments will fall below that level at their peril. Was that the speech of a man knocking the present military system of Australia? Where was the criticism of national service? Is it not in fact a commendation of our system? If the honourable senator would like me to deal with the second prophecy, let me say that yesterday I was encouraged to quote other prophets. 1 happily do so. In terms of the honourable senator’s words. Professor Howard said: Do we fear Indonesia? That was said with something of a sneer. I quote a prophet who was a Vice-Premier of Indonesia in the mid-1960s. He knew of the PKI. He knew of their threat and of their near success. I remind this chamber that had the PKI succeeded on 30th September 1965 Australia, in Papua New Guinea, would have had a common border with Peking Communism.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But the PK.I did not succeed. It was defeated. The honourable senator is out of date.

Senator CARRICK:

– That is quite right. The PKI did not succeed. Indeed, Dr Sigar, the Vice-Premier said:

Australia would be an easy prey for the communists if they took over Indonesia. If God saved Indonesia from communism in 1965, He also saved Australia and New Zealand from great danger.

I am out of date but I understood that the national service scheme was introduced in 1964. Was it then out of date, in terms of Dr Sigar? Or shall we go to a better authority, in terms of the Labor Party, one with whom Labor leaders have consulted? I draw upon the written words of Chou En-lai and Mao Tse-tung as documented in “New Programme for World Revolution’ which states:

After the liberation of lndo-China, Burma will fall into line as a good foundation has already been laid there. Then the reactionary group in Thailand will capitulate and the country will be in the hands of the people. The liberation of Indonesia, which will fall to the communist camp like a ripe fruit, will complete the circle around the Malay peninsula. The British will realise under the circumstances, the hopelessness of putting up a fight and will withdraw as quickly as they can.

Was this as wrong as was Mr Hitler in Mein Kampf, or as right or as prophetic? 1 was asked for the words of the prophets. Perhaps honourable senators would like the words of the heir presumptive, Lin Piao who in September 1965 in his statemen; of his intentions said:

Win Asia, Africa and Latin America through wars of national liberation’ and the United States and its western allies will be encircled, will be overwhelmed.

He also said:

And where is all this to begin? It has already begun and the place in which it has begun is Vietnam.

Are these the words of prophets or are we going to say, as so many did in the 1930s of Hitler, that ‘he does not mean what he said and we can furl our umbrellas’. Those were the words of prophet after prophet. Man can do only one thing in these circumstances, and that is be prepared. The whole basis of our national service system is that it is the most moral, the most efficient, the most prepared and the most likely to save the lives of our soldiers and of our people. Finally I say that over the years in debates on national service and defence generally a belief has grown up that if one mouths the word peace somehow or other, like the rain callers of other days, perhaps one can obtain peace or if one can say the word loudly enough one is by far the strongest peacemaker. I have lived to see those who call for peace practise anarchy, violence and certainly obstruction. We do not get peace merely by mouthing the word. We get peace when we decide what is right, what is our duty - first to our nation and then to our neighbours - when we equip ourselves in the most honest and satisfactory way and when we are willing to be our brother’s keeper. If we want to be a nation which survives and is free, in the first place we must be well prepared. If we want to have the respect of the nations of South East Asia we must be willing to go to their assistance when an independent sovereign state is invaded, as we have done.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Any one of them?

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, indeed. When there is aggression from without it is our duty to go to their assistance. When we do this we will make our judgments. When we do this we will do what we have done. In South East Asia over the past 6 years we have created a degree of stability never considered likely 6 years ago. In all those nations a degree of precious time has been bought which will enable consolidation within those nations. Despite the pleas and the laments of the Labor Party there are greater respect and admiration for Australia the length and breadth of South East Asia than there ever were before. I know some little of the countries of South East Asia. I am proud that we have walked alongside our friends and neighbours. Those who preach brotherhood and some kind of liberalisation of immigration, and talk of the absence of creed and colour, will stand up and be counted not when they mouth words but are they prepared to go alongside their brothers and say to them: ‘You are different from me in colour, creed, language and religion. I am prepared to stand by you in your fight for freedom’. By backing those words with actions their arguments will have some solidity.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Senator Carrick who has just resumed his seat-

Senator Young:

– A good speech.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It was a good speech in that he has spoiled a reputation as a good speaker which he has built up since he came into this chamber. I congratulate the honourable senator on the address which he made about capital punishment. I think it is one of the best that I have heard on the subject. But the honourable senator lacks a sincerity which would enable him to make constructive speeches on all occasions. On this occasion the honourable senator has mouthed . half truths and, in some cases, untruths which are similar to those contained in the second reading speech. We have reached the stage where he has shown the whole hypocrisy of his attitude by trying to defend a discredited Government over its actions of conscription and involving us in Vietnam. I shall not take time to criticise what he said. He can destroy himself, I think. Among his untruths was a statement about the recognition of the independent sovereign state of South Vietnam. Under the terms of the Geneva Agreement Vietnam was divided into 2 sections. The Agreement was between North Vietnam and the French. Vietnam was divided for the purpose of disarming the combatants in that dispute. Following the agreement an election was to be held to decide on a sovereign government for Vietnam. But South Vietnam would not continue with the elections in 1962. We have entered Vietnam and sacrified the loves of young Australian men for the sake of discredited military governments which have taken power as coup has followed coup. The Pentagon Papers have shown that for no other reason but American prestige have we gone into this camp. That is the reason. Today we are told that South Vietnam is an independent sovereign state. I think that is a definite untruth. I excuse the honourable senator as he is new to this chamber He does not know that Senator Greenwood has been repeating the untruth night after night during previous sessions of Parliament. He has said that a way out for those who resent going to Vietnam is to join tha Citizen Military Forces. He has said that those whose consciences would not permit them to become national servicemen because of the possibility that they would be sent to Vietnam had the alternative of joining the CMF. But they sign on in the CMF for a period of 6 years to serve where the Government directs in any case of emergency.

Senator Sim:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If an emergency arises such a member of the CMF has undertaken an oath to go to Vietnam contrary to the conscientious belief that made him refuse to do national service. Anyone with a conscientious objection to fighting in a particular area of the world at the Government’s request could not, as an alternative, join the Citizen Military Forces in Australia. To do so would be in defiance of his conscience. I hope to be able to show that at the present stage of Australia’s defence situation national, service is not desirable and is not in the best interests of defence. I accept Senator Carrick’s remark that there is a responsibility on all parties to provide an efficient defence for Australia, but we are not assisting our defence position by this Bill, nor are we assisting it by continuing with our system of national service.

There has been some question about who are the authorities on this subject, and rather than express my own opinion on the matter I propose to refer to no less authorities than Prime Ministers of Australia, Ministers for Defence and Ministers for the Army. Firstly I shall refer to the deteriorating position of Australia’s defence, quite apart from defence hardware, by mentioning the Army manpower. In his second reading speech on the Bill the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) said:

Subsequent developments have fully vindicated the Government’s judgment. Since the introduction of national service, while the increase in the volunteer element of the Regular Army has been at an average rate, in round terms, of 1,000 men a year resulting in a strength of some 28,000 men at 30th June 1971, the actual annual increase has been decreasing, particularly since 1969 and, indeed, there was a fall in the volunteer element in 1970-71.

I do not know whether that has resulted from the influence of Senator Carrick, who does not seem to put much value on the regular services. I think it is recognised that the regular services must suffer some decline in numbers through not being able to attract those who normally would volunteer but who have been called up for national service. We find today that there is not an encouragement to join even our regular services and that we are losing numbers in that area. The Minister continued:

In the same period the national service scheme has provided more than 51,000 men. More than one-third of the Army has comprised national servicemen.

A secondary objective of the national service scheme is the encouragement of stronger citizen forces to ensure the support that the regular forces will require . . .

I understand that we have 12,000 men in the citizen forces and a reserve force with a strength of 21,000 men. In this Bill it is proposed to reduce our total Army manpower, a third of which is made up of national servicemen, from 44,000 to 40,000 to meet today’s defence requirements. The first question I ask is why this is necessary to meet today’s defence requirements. Recruiting to our Regular Army is on the decline, as the Minister said, and our need for an army obviously has increased from our requirement in 1964 when national service was introduced. National service was introduced at that time, contrary to the advice of Australia’s military experts, to meet the circumstances of the time. But it was decided by the Government that we needed manpower in the Army and that we had to send a group to Vietnam or somewhere else.

In Perth on 9th August 1964 the late Senator Paltridge, who at that time was Minister for Defence, told the Western Australian Party Conference that it was generally agreed that a scheme of selective training of 12,000 youths would not be effective. He was the Minister for Defence, so he should have known, and he said that such a- scheme would not be effective. He was supported in that view by the then Minister for the Army, Dr Forbes, who at Hobart on 26th October 1964 said on the subject of conscription to a Returned Servicemen’s League National Congress:

This is the problem to which I have given more attention than any other since I became Minister for the Army.

Even a scheme which provides for a 2-year period of service does not provide the people we most need, that is, experienced officers and NCOs. Those are the people we are short of now. The deficiency would be even greater if conscription were introduced.

It is wasteful in the sense that you only get about 18 months of service out of each person you train, compared with 51 years for most regulars.

– It is being questioned whether the remark was ever made publicly by the Minister. I invite the honourable senator to take note of the fact that on 11th November 1964 in the other place Mr Whitlam asked the Minister, Dr Forbes, whether he had said it. This appears at page 2783 of volume 44 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 11th November 1964. On that occasion Dr Forbes said in reply to the question:

True to his usual form, the honourable gentleman quoted only a part of what I said on that occasion. What he quoted me as saying is perfectly correct. Up to this point of time - that is the phrase I used-

I ask honourable senators to listen to this. He continued: when the Government was assessing the overall strategic basis of its defence policy the military advisers put the view that the strategic situation then did not warrant the introduction of selective national service training. However, it has been a part of our military plans for a long time now that, in certain situations such as the early stages of a limited war and so on, selective national training would be introduced immediately.

That was the statement made by the Minister for the Army on 11th November 1964, the day after the Prime Minister of the time had announced the introduction of national service. On 10th November 1964 the Prime Minister said why it was necessary at that stage to act contrary to the advice given by the Government’s military advisers, contrary to the express statement of the Minister for Defence and contrary to the express public statement of the Minister for the Army. It will be shown that there is justification for the belief that the statement made in the course of the second reading speech on the National Service Bill at that time, that national service was not being introduced for the purpose of supplying the requirements of Vietnam, was a false statement and that the situation in Vietnam and the incidents around Vietnam were the reason for national service being introduced. The Prime Minister at that time. Sir Robert Menzies-

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator CAVANAGH:

- Mr President, prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had shown that in 1967, according to the expert advice of the Government’s Army advisers, it was not desirable to have national service in Australia. Despite the fact that national service was contrary to the expert advice of the Government’s military advisers, something happened in the world to justify an increase in Australia’s armed forces. Looking for an authority as to what happened I turned to the speech made in the House of Representatives by the then Prime Minister on 10th November 1964 when he introduced national service. In a statement entitled Defence Review’, the then Prime Minister said:

At present, important questions arise which require frank answers. They will, I regret to say, indicate that there has been a deterioration in our strategic position since the review which I presented to Parliament last year. The range of likely military situations we must be prepared to face has increased as a result of recent Indonesian policies and actions and the growth of Communist influence and armed activity in Laos and South Vietnam. If these countries collapsed, there would be a grave threat to Thailand and the whole of Sou ti East Asia would be put at risk. The effectiveness of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation as a guarantee of mutual security would be seriously jeopardised.

In particular, in South Vietnam the continued instability of government has made the task of resistance more difficult and to some extent frustrates the massive efforts of the United States and our own necessarily small contributions. The aggressive attitude of North Vietnam towards South Vietnam is demonstrated by continued political and ideological support given to the military insurgents, and the infiltration of thousands of trained men.

Summing up the situation, after the long review, the Prime Minister said:

Now, this has been a brief account of some of the developments which have led us to the conclusion that there has been, since my review of 1963, a deterioration in our strategic position.

That was the position which was said to justify acting contrary to military advice. It was the situation in Laos and South Vietnam. We actually had troops engaged in Malaysia and we were faced with the Indonesian confrontation attitude. In the words of the then Prime Minister, although national service may not be in the best interests of Australia in normal times, the circumstances at that time justified increasing the number of personnel in the Army. One must wonder what justifies national service now that we are not fighting in Malaysia. There is no Indonesian confrontation and we are withdrawing troops from South Vietnam. The threat that was there in those times is not apparent now. Why is it necessary today to continue calling up large numbers for national service, a policy which is not recommended by our military advisers? Consider the situation in 1964 and these words of the then Prime Minister:

. the Regular Army should be built up as rapidly as possible from the present 22,750 to an effective strength of 33,000 men, which means a total force of 37,500.

Senator Cant:

– Be careful. You should not start attacking the Opposition. You have not the ability to do that.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Every time this aspect is raised we hear the cries from the Opposition side. Let us consider the situation which applied in 1964 or 1965 when national service was introduced in Australia and our forces first went to Vietnam. There was Communist aggression in South Vietnam and in the adjoining states of Laos and Cambodia. Indonesia which is very close to us was on the brink of going Communist. The Chinese were being most aggressive and we need only recall China’s activities in India and Tibet.

Senator Little:

– Do not forget Czechoslovakia. That was the worst of the lot.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I mention Czechoslovakia as well. This Government, acting in the interests of the Australian people, said: ‘This is contrary to the Austraiian way of life. This represents a threat to Australia. We must do something about it’. Now listen to the cries of Opposition senators. The Opposition resisted the sending of national servicemen to Vietnam. In fact it resisted the sending of any of our armed forces to Vietnam. It is still doing so. I feel sure that because of our actions in Vietnam the situation in the South West Pacific and in Asia hay changed materially. Our situation today is much better than it was then. Some Opposition senators haveadmitted that what we did was necessary then but is not necessary now. To that statement I reply that we must always be vigilant when our defence is involved. If it was necessary then and we achieved something then, I believe that it is just as necessary now.

The attitude of the Australian people to the Government’s actions is of interest. According to a recent Gallup poll 69 per cent of all Australians interviewed are in favour of national service, and 59 per cent of the 20-year-olds who are liable for national service believe that they have the right to serve in the interests of Australia. They accept national service as a necessary step in Australia’s defence. It is obvious from those figures that our friends of the Opposition are again on the way out. A further interesting point elicited by the poll is that a clear majority of Labor voters were in favour of national service because, to use a word that Labor people often use, they do not believe in scabs. The Opposition believes in compulsory unionism and everything else that is compulsory except compulsory service in the nation’s defence.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And only 35 per cent of them believe in your Prime Minister.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– We have heard that story before. When national defence is concerned the Opposition’s policy is this: Hands off the Communists whether they be from Russia, China or anywhere else because they do not represent a threat to us. That is a matter of opinion. What the Communists have done in Tibet, Czechoslovakia and Hungary is not in accordance with our democratic way of life. In fact it represents a threat to our democratic way of life. However, the Opposition claims that there is no threat.

Senator Keeffe:

– Next you will say that Thursday Island represents a threat.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Of course, Senator Keeffe does not represent a threat to anyone, certainly not to the Government parties as was evidenced at the last Senate election.

Senator Little:

– He went to Queensland to win the election there.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– And we did very well with him, loo. I am a firm believer in national service as an insurance for our armed forces and for our general defence. Senator Carrick last night and again today put up a very good case for national service in the defence of this nation. It has been necessary in the defence of other nations which have had to face the threat of aggression in the past. I think we all appreciate the fact that modern techniques in warfare have given rise to situations which did not exist in the First World War or the Second World War. They have placed us in a position where we may have to fight alone. In that event we must make sure that at least we have friends close to us who will come to our assistance. Of course, it goes without saying that if they are attacked we will go to their assistance. I believe we have done that.

The Australian nation must be satisfied with what has been achieved since we introduced national service and since we sent our forces to Vietnam if only for the reason that the situation today is so much better than it was then. That in itself justifies our actions. It is in the interests of this nation to ensure that that situation continues into the future. We will maintain a defence force that can meet most emergencies. In the event of a conflict we will be able to mobilise reasonably trained men in a very short time and be able to meet any situation in a very short time.

I support the Bill. As I said earlier 1 would not like to have seen the forces reduced but I am quite sure that this Government, acting in the interests of the people, will make sure that the defence of this country will be maintained and that our friends in the Pacific and Asian areas will be able to count on us as a firm and sound ally.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I would like to join with my colleagues Senator James McClelland and Senator Cavanagh in putting the case for the Opposition against this Bill. I feel a little sorry that Senator Maunsell took any part in this debate. I do not think he did anything to bolster the case for the Government. In fact, I believe that he did a lot to support what has been put by the Opposition. As you know, Mr President, at a later stage the Opposition will move certain amendments to the National Service Bill. But while we are debating the Bill at this stage I think it is only right and proper that we should look at the Vietnam commitment in retrospect and also at that aspect of the commitment which still faces us.

In 1963 and 1964 representatives of the Government stoutly denied throughout this country that conscription would be introduced for any reason at all. In fact, shortly after the time the Minister made the announcement that there would be no conscription introduced in Australia the Prime Minister of the day was able to repudiate his own Minister’s statement and say that conscription would be introduced. During the Senate election campaign in 1964 I and other candidates forecast that conscription was being introduced only for the purpose of bolstering the illegal commitment in Vietnam. But today the Government proudly announces that this commitment did not take place until 1966. In fact, the Minister for Labour and National

Service (Mr Lynch) mentioned this particular aspect in his second reading speech. Regardless of what representatives on the Government side might say, the only reason that conscription was introduced was to bolster a broken down, illegal war in a country in which this nation should never have been involved.

The national service system has provided this country, according to the Minister’s second reading speech, with 51,000 people. The Minister also stated that approximately one-third of the personnel in the Australian forces in Vietnam are people who have been called up - they are national servicemen. Might I say that it is significant that of the casualties in Vietnam almost one half are national servicemen. My party has consistently drawn attention to this over a long period of time. We have claimed on occasion that it is possible that national servicemen are not being properly trained before they are committed to battle. Statistically this is probably true.

Before I quote from other aspects of the Minister’s second reading speech I would like to make some references to some of the things that one of the Government senators said in this place last night and today. It is regrettable that he is a new member of this chamber; it is regrettable that he has turned out to be one of those who support the warmongers of this nation and of the world.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Who is that?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I think his name is Carrick. He comes from New South Wales. Last night when opening his speech he said:

The legislation which we are debating is designed essentially to reduce the national service period of training from 2 years to 18 months.

Then he went on to quote in detail statements from the Minister’s second reading speech, including the figures that had been given in that speech. On page 1145 of the Daily Hansard of 5th October 1971, after an interjection by Senator Georges-

Senator Primmer:

– Who is he?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Senator Georges is a well known name in this country as a fighter for freedom and democracy. This is what the Government senator had to say:

Indeed, freedom and democracy have been made, by corruption, words and weapons of war at this moment. I repeat that a government has a responsibility to decide on its defence, then to decide on methods and then to decide on the equity of those methods.

One wonders where the honourable senator dredged up this particular warlike theory of his because the lottery of death, as the national service ballot really is, is one of the most infamous systems of selecting national servicemen that this country or any other country in the so called free world has ever seen. In other words, if a person is unlucky enough to have his birthday on a certain day it means that he may be conscripted; it means that he may be sent into a war in which he has had no part and wants no part; it means that he may lose his life as a result of it. So this system of Australian roulette, where a youngster who was unfortunate enough to be born on a certain day may be sent to his death has made this country renowned for its unfair system of selection.

Senator Primmer:

– Did not that originally start the slogan: ‘Diggers for dollars’?

Senator KEEFFE:

– It was also: ‘Beef for diggers’ because one of the reasons we have become committed in Vietnam was not to save Australia from Communism. If anything our commitment in Vietnam has increased the number of Communists throughout the Asian area. We have made no contribution to peace. At the cost of 500 young Australian lives we have indulged in this infamous war. It has been said that we are there for trade. Indeed, we have a number of very famous sayings. It was a former Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, who went to America and at one of the well-lubricated dinners there said: ‘AH the way with LBJ’. Another Prime Minister, who was afterwards deposed in the great lottery that is going on in the Liberal Party, said, also while in America: ‘We will go waltzing Matilda with you’. Now we have another Prime Minister - honourable senators should note that the way in which we change our Prime Ministers is a bit like the system of ballots for national service; one after the other-

Senator Marriott:

– We do at least have Prime Ministers.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I would not even call any of them Prime Ministers, and as an Assistant Minister the honourable senator ought to know better. Of course, we do not recognise him as an Assistant Minister.

Senator Marriott:

– The Labor Party does not recognise the honourable senator at all.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Oh, a purile interjection. May I say that the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) was waltzing around this country when he was busily castigating the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) as having been played in China like a trout, I think was the word that he used. In the meantime, of course, the President of the United States of America was playing the Australian Prime Minister like the biggest flathead that has ever been pulled out of any ocean surrounding this country. Therefore we find that while we have had Prime Ministers who have gone all the way and waltzing Matilda etc. we now have a Prime Minister who can be played like a flathead by anyone who wants to do so at any time.

– I commit myself to all the things that I referred to as untruths.

– It was 98 per cent or 99 per cent.

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 thank Senator Cavanagh. Who will believe that? If the result was as high as that it was only because the ballot papers were faked, because the soldiers in that country were able to carry out intimidatory tactics and because there was a great fear in the minds of the people of that country. Nobody in the world - be it a free country or otherwise - is prepared to believe that this was a democratic election. On the other hand Air Vice-Marshal Ky, who was feted in Australia by supporters of the Government, at the taxpayers’ expense, and who was flown around in a VIP aircraft, now threatens a take-over in Vietnam, by force if necessary. Whom does the Government think it is kidding? It is certainly not kidding the relatives of the 500 dead. It is not kidding the 2,500 people who have been maimed as a result of involvement in this war. lt is not kidding the newest war widows and the newest war orphans in Australia. The moral responsibility for these deaths lies right at the feet of the Government.

One would have though, seeing Australia has been involved in Vietnam since 1966 and seeing that the Americans were there before us in this same rotten war, that democracy would have been restored today. It has not been restored. The position now is worse than before America and Australia went there. The nations involved, apart from Australia and America, include New Zealand and other countries. I suppose these 3 nations of the so-called free world would be looked upon as 3 reasonably- respectable nations. Great Britain would not sully its hands, neither would any European country. Korea was forced into the war. lt had no chance of avoiding involvement. Thailand was involved in the war. It could not avoid involvement either. The Philippines became involved because you, by blackmail, forced it to become involved. In using the word you’ I am referring to the Australian Government and the American Government which worked in close cahoots to involve the Philippines in this war. The Philippines, to its very great credit, was one of the first to pull out although it was being blackmailed to stop there.

The Australian and American Governments said that they did not intend to spread this war. How many Australian troops became involved in Laos, Cambodia and Thailand? The Government will not tell us whether there are advisers or troops in these areas, neither will it tell us whether guerilla wars are being carried on along the boundaries to the south of this area. Reports that Australians are being maimed and killed seep out. The political immorality of this Government has to be seen to be believed. It hides behind all kinds of smoke screens. A senator can ask a question in this chamber and the fear of Government Ministers is so great that they are not prepared to tell the truth. They will sidestep issues. They will evade giving a direct answer. They will fabricate some kind of story in order to get off the hook - to use the good old Australian slang term.

If the Government is to face up to the future and if it wishes to remain in office it will have to develop some political backbone. At the moment its philosophy is: Let every day take care of itself. It has spread disquiet in every sector of the community. It has the business sector of the community in a cold panic because it is not providing a lead. Governments are supposed to provide a lead. If they are not able to do this they should not remain in office. The Government has young people today in a greatly mixed up mental state, and this again is the result of the Government’s own policies. The youngster who wants to make plans for the future does not know whether he should because his name may come out of the barrel and his career or training may be disrupted for 18 months. If he is planning to marry but wants to finish a university course he probably will not be able to marry because he cannot settle down to a planned future.

The implementation of the National Service Act is another disgrace. Young men have been gaoled and hounded throughout this country. Many of them have left the shores of Australia and may never come back to us because they have a moral right lo believe that they ought not to be involved in a particular war. Some are pacifists; some did not want to be involved in any war at all, and I have a very great admiration for these people. There are others who did not want to be involved in this war because in conscience they felt that they could not become so involved. But the Government has hounded them all around Australia. Today in Western Australia, South Australia and New South Wales 3 young men lie rotting in prison because the Government says that they must be there. It does not give them the right to have a conscience at all. It does not give them the right to say: ‘I do not want your rotten war and I do not want to bc involved in it’. So they are put behind bars. The young Mullen lad has been shifted from gaol to gaol. The Government will not even tell his mother why he has been shifted around. It throws up a smoke screen by saying that it is in his own best interest. These 3 youngsters ought to be released from gaol tonight. They ought not to stay there for another hour, but that is not the way the Government looks at it.

The Government is prepared to wreck a university. On orders from this Government only a few days ago thousands of dollars worth of damage was done by polio; who went rampaging through the university looking for 4 alleged draft dodgers. They still have not been caught. The fact that a large section of this country does not want to get involved in this political war is covered up by a distortion of figures. The Government is not prepared to face up to the realities of this, just as it is not prepared to face up to the realities of many other things. I suggest that the right and humane thing for the Australian Government to do today is to withdraw every one of our troops immediately from South Vietnam before any more good young Australians lose their lives in a battle that can never be won. I suggest that the National Service Act should not be amended but that it should be scrapped.

If anybody wants to accuse the Australian Labor Party of not having a proper attitude to the defence of this country he would do well to read part of our platform on defence. It reads:

Australia asserts the right of consultation in the great decisions of war and peace and should not allow herself to be committed to any course of action without consultation and agreement.

In simple words that means that if the Government did send our boys to Vietnam in the first place for trade purposes, to curry favour with America in order to sell our beef and sugar, the rug has been dragged from under the Government both politically and physically because a 10 per cent surcharge has been imposed on anything that is sent from this country to America. The chances of our increasing our trade with America are almost nil.

Senator Webster:

– If Labor were in government what would consultation lead to?

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is very difficult to explain things to you, Senator Webster, as it is to all members of the Country Party. I suggest that if members of the Country Party have got up to their ears in their involvement in the Vietnam war because they wanted to sell their beef and wheat - it should be remembered that they were selling their wheat to China until they lost the market - they ought to develop a proper attitude to defence and not give Australian blood for trade with any country. I suggest that as a very adequate answer to the inept members of the Country Party. The Labor platform states:

AH defence policy rests ultimately upon the possible deployment of the armed forces. Labor’s policy is to provide a strong regular and citizen defence force which can be rapidly and efficiently mobilised in time of need. This force must -

be a balanced force - Naval, Military, Air and Fleet Air Arm - properly equipped with the best and most up-to-date weapons;

be capable of flexible mobility in Australianowned air and sea transport to areas necessary for the defence of Australia or her vital interests;

have sufficient range and striking power to deter any would-be aggressors; and

be capable of deployment for maintaining and supervising peace as part of a United Nations force or for carrying out international peace-keeping agreements.

To these ends, the regular forces must be maintained at viable levels whilst the citizen forces must be maintained as an essential force and as a means for training those with the wider skills required for general mobilisation.

This is where the Australian Government has fallen down very badly. For years it has tried to maintain the 3 Services at starvation rates of pay. They have been given living conditions and service conditions which would not attract any young Australian who might want to make a career of any one of the Services. Although the Air Force advertisements say: ‘Join the Air Force, young man, and see the world, and fly all our brand new planes and work with all our electronic gadgets,’ these things do not exist. The Mirages are probably the only flying machines in Australia at the moment that come somewhere within range of modern standards. The Neptune squadron has become obsolete and ought to be replaced. It is true that we have a number of planes on lease from America, but we are paying for them through the nose because the Government has been too short sighted to provide the means of defence.

Let us have a look at the Fill aircraft, the plane that we are buying on the nevernever, the plane which will probably be as the never-never, and the plane which will probably never never fly. To date we have expended well in excess of $200m on this plane. There is no guarantee that we will get it. It should be remembered that it was ordered in 1963 when dear old Sir Robert thought he was going down the political drain. He sent the then Minister for Air to America to buy up big in order to fool the Australian people into thinking that we would be getting an aeroplane with which to equip the Air Force. Where is the Fill? Every time we ask the Minister for Air that question he has to get a map to find out where America is so that he can say: ‘It is not quite ready yet for delivery’. It seems we are always going to get it at Christmas. I wish somebody would tell us which Christmas it will be.

The same comments can be applied to the equipment of our Army and our Navy. The ‘Melbourne’ has become famous in Australian defence history because its favourite habit is running down ships in peace time. It has cost more lives in the last 4 or 5 years in peace time manoeuvres than would have been lost in a year or full time combat. That is our Navy. It is true that we have some patrol boats, but it has been said, and probably rightly so, that they can be outrun by a sampan without a motor. If we are to take defence seriously, the responsibility comes right back to the Government. A little while ago we had the Minister for Defence denying his Prime Minister publicly, and vice versa. Half the time there is an argument going on between the 3 Service Ministers, plus the daddy of them all, the Minister for Defence.

The Government does not spend the defence vote properly. When we come to the end of the financial year there is a mad rush to spend the accumulated funds in the defence forces. I think probably the easiest way to remedy the great mess that this country is in today is to change the Government. It would not be improper for me to say that the Government ought to have a double dissolution right now and see where the Australian people would put it. They would put it into political limbo for the next 45 years because of the people it has killed in an illegal war, because of its incompetence-

Senator Poyser:

– An illegal war.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thought I said ‘an illegal war’. It is an illegal war. If my friend from the Country Party, Senator Webster, who is interjecting, is still trying to sell his rice in Japan, that is bad luck. We have reached a situation which is no longer tolerable, in which the very credibility of the Government has been dissipated and in which the man in the street says: ‘I wonder what will be on television tonight. I wonder whether we will see the Gorton show or the McMahon show or whether it will just be the Government rabble’. The Government does not even have the respect of the people any more.

Senator Webster’s leader, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), said the other day that we are likely to have an election because things are crook. There is no doubt that they are crook. The Deputy Prime Minister went to Europe only a few months ago to see whether he could fix up the Common Market problem. When he returned he said: They will not listen to me. They do not want any Australian primary products’. But, of course, while he was enjoying his mid-winter holiday, the Minister of Overseas Trade and Industry and other responsible people from New Zealand were in Britain and Europe making sure that there was a reliable phasing out period for the primary products of that country. I might say that 2 responsible members of the British Government have been in Australia since then. At the moment it is not the Labour Party that is in power in Britain, although it will not be long before it is. Those members of the present British Government have said that the Deputy Prime Minister went to Britain and did not do the job; he did not ask for a phasing out period.

The day in 1957 when the first meeting was held to decide on the Common Market was the day when the Government ought to have laid plans for the phasing out of the European and British markets for Australian products. I am not a bit concerned about the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who is interjecting. As I said recently, be is marked down for destruction by the Prime Minister. He will not be in the Ministry for long. He had better interject while he has the chance. This is what will happen because this is where the rot set in. The Government has bad years to plan and it has failed to do so. I suggest that the Labor Party’s attitudes to this question are completely moral and completely correct and that time and the ballot boxes in this country will prove that this is so.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

– I proudly lead in this national Parliament a political party which has always been fully conscious of the necessity for adequate defence for Australia. In being anything but that, we feel, we would be recreant to our trust. We would betray the interests of the younger generations, and even the generations yet to be born, if this great country - the land of the Southern Cross - was left as a gift to be overrun by the hooves of invaders’ horses, as it were. I have listened to the debate up to now, and I am amazed at the indifference of some people to the necessity for defence. I suspect that those people who would have Australia defenceless are subscribing to ideologies of and doing a service to people who could have their eyes on Australia.

Surely we have learnt a lesson from the neglect of governments and oppositions prior to the Second World War when the Menzies Government failed this country and did not increase the defence vote by £1 over a period of many years. Of course, the value of the £1 deteriorated because of the increase in the cost of living. The Australian Labor Party, which begrudged any expenditure on defence, was then in Opposition. Senator Carrick pointed out that Mr Curtin, as Leader of the Opposition, 10 months before the war broke out deplored the amount that was being expended on defence. That was the attitude of the Government and the Parliament at the time. They were both guilty of placing Australia in a lamentable and ignominious position when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbour. It was providential and very fortunate for Australia that the Japanese struck Pearl Harbour. If they had come this way and not attacked Pearl Harbour, it would have been a case of ‘God help Australia and its people’. At least it had the effect of making up the minds of the leaders of the great United States of America at a time when the leaders of public thought and the major Press were advocating neutrality. Had Pearl Harbour not been attacked, that country probably would not have been involved in the war.

But what Wits Australia’s position? I was a member of the Queensland Government at the time. I know what the position was. We had limited forces. We were calling up First World War ex-servicemen to give us the benefit of their experience. Volunteers were being trained in Queensland - the garrison State of Australia and the gateway from the East to this country - with broomsticks. We had no arms; we had nothing. Yet people will continue living in this land of fantasy and thinking that nothing can happen, that we have no potential invader and that no-one could ever come to Australia. The tune was changed when the Japanese started to land a few bombs in the Ross River outside Townsville and when Japanese submarines were found. in Sydney Harbour. The attitude was altogether different. That even had an effect on the war loans. People who had been sitting tightly on their bags of money started to release their money and to contribute to war loans, whereas formerly they were acting in a mean way. None of us knows, particularly in this disturbed world, who is likely to come to

Australia and who is likely to seek to take this country. It behoves each and every one of us to be not war-minded but defence-minded, and to pay some regard to the necessity of defending our shores not only by increasing the ranks of the Army but also by improving Air Force and Naval defence.

It is not too much to expect from people who live in a land such as ours, with all the advantages, all the privileges, all the freedoms and all the liberties, that they should be prepared to learn something about defence so that they may defend this country if the occasion should arise. We do not want a repetition of what happened at the time of the Second World War when young men of the age of 18 years - not 20 years - were called up and, with very little training, were sent, as nephews of mine were, to Milne Bay or the Kokoda Trail. As Senator Carrick said earlier in the debate, they were less equipped to defend themselves and their fellow men than they would have been if they had had adequate training. It would do many young fellows today a lot of good if they were to have a little training and some of the discipline that goes with it. We would not have the scenes that we now have and there would be an end to the disregard for law and order that we see so frequently.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

A bit of training is good for us all. It is not possible to get a 100 per cent result. That is too much to expect. Even in our best schools that result is not achieved. As my poor old mother used to say: ‘You will find weeds in the best kept gardens.’ That is to be expected. If we love this country we should be prepared to serve it. It pro vides us with many opportunities, but God help us if we neglect it. As the poet, Sir Walter Scott, said:

Breathes there the man with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said This is my own, my native land!’

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I heard Senator Cavanagh tonight allege that my colleague Senator Carrick had not been telling the truth. He repeated that allegation several times. I thought that Senator Cavanagh had been here long enough to know that when a senator quotes from Hansard, and particularly replies by Ministers to questions, he should quote the whole reply and not half of it. Senator Cavanagh quoted a question asked by Mr Whitlam, the Leader of the Opposition in another place, on 11th November 1964. Mr Whitlam asked whether the Government’s military advisers had recommended national service. Senator Cavanagh quoted only half of the Minister’s reply. In order to put the record straight I intend to quote the rest of his reply. The question asked by Mr Whitlam appears at page 2783 of Hansard of 11th November 1964. Mr Whitlam referred to the following statement by the Minister 15 days previously:

We have not introduced conscription up to this point in time because our military advisers have indicated in the clearest and most unmistakeable terms that it is not the most effective way of creating the Army we need to meet the situation we face.

Mr Whitlam asked:

Have the military advisers since changed their advice?

Senator Cavanagh quoted only part of the Minister’s answer. The Minister went on to say:

When the Government last undertook a review of the strategic basis of defence policy, the military advisers did not believe that selective national service training was warranted at that time. On this occasion, when the Government reviewed the strategic basis of our defence policy, our military advisers believed that the situation had deteriorated to a point at which it was necessary for them to tell the Government that the only way to establish an Army of the size we required in the time we required it was by introducing a selective service training scheme.

That is the Minister’s reply. I think it is a great pity that Senator Cavanagh did not quote the full reply. He would have created a different impression from that which he intended to create. After Senator

Cavanagh had alleged that my colleague Senator Carrick had not been telling the truth, he said that South Vietnam had not agreed to hold elections in 19S6 as had been agreed upon at the Geneva Conference. I have spoken on this matter before. This is a story that has been floating around for years without any basis in fact. Let us get the facts straight. Two agreements were reached at the time of the Geneva Conference, the first of which was between the People’s Army of Vietnam - which included many people who later moved to South Vietnam as they refused to accept Communist domination - and the forces of the French Union. The agreement was for the cessation of hostilities, the laying down of demarcation lines, the movement of troops and so on.

The second matter negotiated was not really an agreement as much as a final declaration - an unsigned declaration - of the Geneva Conference, the parties to which were representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, France, Laos, the People’s Republic of China, the State of Vietnam - I point out to honourable senators that South Vietnam was not recognised in the declaration - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I shall quote from clause 7 of the declaration in order to make my point clearly understood. In a moment I will go further and deal with this situation. Clause 7 states:

The Conference declares that so far as Vietnam

H concerned the settlement of political problems effected on the basis of respect for the principles of independence unity and territorial integrity-

I am reading the whole of it, and not half of it- shall permit the Vietnamese people to enjoy the fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot. In order to ensure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will-

I ask honourable senators to note the expression ‘free expression of the national will’- general elections shall be held in July 19S6 under (he supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member States of the International Supervisory Commission. . . .

At the end of the Conference the United States and South Vietnam said that they had serious doubts about clause 7. What was the position in North Vietnam at that time? Did all the necessary conditions prevail for a secret ballot and the free expression of the people s will?

I do not wish to quote any authorities other than those whom Senator Cavanagh would regard as impeccable; for example, General Giap, Commander-in-Chief of the North Vietnamese forces and Minister for Defence, and Truong Chinh, the architect of what I will describe in a minute. In 1954 the North Vietnamese Communist Government embarked on a programme of land reform. That is what they called it. What happened? Between 1954 and 1956, at a time when free elections were to be held, it is on record that about 100,000 people were butchered. This is documented and indeed admitted by the North Vietnamese. I shall quote a description of what happened during that period.

The record is clear. In 1956 under the guise of land reform as many as perhaps 100,000 people were murdered in North Vietnam, many, more were tortured and imprisoned without trial. The families’, of the victims were left to starve. The excesses of this purge were admitted by General Giap. The principle adopted was that it is better to execute 10 innocent people than to allow one enemy to escape.

– Of course there was not, because Ho Chi Minh would not have allowed them. He gave no indication between 1954 and 1956 that he allowed political parties to exist because he was busy murdering his political opponents to make sure that they did not exist. So there could not have been any elections. This is factual and has been admitted by General Giap of North Vietnam. Truong Chinh, a charming gentleman, said:

The aim of the present revolution is that the entire people should thoroughly absorb the socialist ideology, that they should abandon their previous outlooks on life and on the world and replace it with the Marxist viewpoint.

That was the situation which existed at that time, yet Senator Cavanagh and other members of the Labor Party have the effrontery to accuse the South Vietnamese of reneging on an agreement, an agreement that they did nol make and did not accept. We were told also by Senator Cavanagh that South Vietnam had breached the Geneva Accords in many respects. That is an old story. Two days after the Geneva Accords had been arrived at Ho Chi Minh said:

We must devote all possible efforts during the peace to obtain unification of the entire nation. We shall struggle infallibly . . . The struggle will be long and difficult; all the peoples and soldiers of the North and the South must unite to conquer victory.

I must say that that did not indicate that he wished to take the risk of having a free election which he might not win. His remarks on that occasion gave no indication of that. In July 1954 at the commencement of the Agreement the Lao Dong Party, the Communist Party of Hanoi, had this to sav:

Naturally, the Party members and compatriots in South Vietnam will continue to remain in the zone on the other side. Our compatriots and our members must continue to wage a hard struggle. The Party must struggle; its cadres must remain with the people . . . maintaining the influence of the Party and the Hanoi Government.

Let us have the record straight on this. The final point with which I wish to deal relates to whether South Vietnam is an independent state. I have never heard any argument that the agreement regarding the division of Germany, which was to have been settled by free elections, has been breached by one side or the other. It is obvious that East Germany with 15 million people would not take the risk of losing a free election because in a unified Germany they would have no say. We never hear anything about that. We hear only about North Vietnam and South Vietnam because there are more people in the North than in the South and there would have been a 100 per cent vote in the

– Do not try to talk your way out of it. Lee Kuan Yew is a free enterprise man. There is no socialism in Singapore. Do not forget that. When he came to Australia he was so concerned about the Australian Labor Party that he invited it to send some representatives to Singapore where he could instruct them in the facts of life. He did that, too. He instructed members of the Australian Labor Party in the facts of life. Singapore is concerned with the growing instability and increasing communist insurrection in parts of South East Asia. We cannot be complacent about the situation. Nor can we be complacent about the attitude and policies of the United States.. The Nixon Doctrine is in effect. It would be, I suggest, calamitous for Australia to change its mind at this time when the Nixon Doctrine says: ‘We will help those who help themselves’ and when the countries of South East Asia are endeavouring more and more to help themselves. Whether we like it or not, Australia cannot escape its commitments in South East Asia because the stability of South East Asia is essential to our security. The stability of the region would be affected if Australia, the most affluent country in South East Asia, reduced its forces.

The Australian Labor Party can try to explain this away; it can try to explain it to the countries of South East Asia. But I certainly would not try to explain it to those countries because they would not accept the explanation. They would think that Australia, which is vitally concerned with South East Asia, was ducking out and was going to leave the problem to them - the less affluent and less developed countries. I believe that this would cause a loss of confidence throughout South East Asia. Therefore, the stability of the region is of concern to us and it is a matter of concern for countries in the region in which we live.

No-one knows how the position could dramatically change. Even Senator James McClelland admitted that there could be a change. We do not know what will be the result of the discussions between President Nixon and Chou En-lai. They could result in all sorts of alternatives which for all we know could have grave consequences for our position, for the part of the world in which we live. I would say this: There is concern in South East Asia on this matter. There is also concern about other matters. Concern has been expressed about the growing power of other nations and the effect that this may have in time on the stability of the region. So we cannot be complacent. Nothing would be more disastrous than if we adopted an attitude of complacency. I suggest that foreign policy today is very flexible. 1 find it hard to understand what the policy of the Australian Labor Party is on this matter. The Labor Party said that it would abolish national service immediately and would reduce our forces to 28,000 if it came to power. I tried to understand what was said by the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard) who is the Labor Party’s defence expert. The honourable member said that perhaps in 5, 10 or 12 years time - this was some indefinite period - we could have by means of voluntary enlistment a force of 38,000 or 39,000. However, he made an extraordinary statement. He said that a voluntaryforce of 37,000 or 38,000 would be the equivalent of a force of 40,000 because there would be, he suggested, some 2,000 who engaged in the training. I cannot see the logic of this. Several thousand would be engaged in training the volunteers, or does the honourable member not think they are going to be trained? 1 do not know. However, I do know that Senator James McClelland apparently does not quite agree because he spoke some irresponsible nonsense to the effect that all we require now is an army of officers and non-commissioned officers who could quickly train a force in an emergency. I think the honourable member used the words: ‘You could raise a national security force should Australia be threatened’. However, the honourable member admitted that it took 6 months to train a soldier. I wonder whether someone will be kind enough to say to us that we will be threatened in 6, 9 or 12 months time and therefore we had better start training our forces. I suggest that this is the sort of naive suggestion that the Opposition is putting up.

I challenge also the statement that a soldier can be trained in 6 months. National servicemen serving in the infantry were trained for 9 months before they were sent overseas.

Senator Cant:

– A lot went over with 3 months training.

Senator SIM:

– Oh no, senator. They had 9 months training before they went overseas. What is more, the Army is becoming more complex and more specialists are required. One does not train a specialist in 9 months. It takes at least 12 months and probably longer to train a specialist today in the complex and sophisticated army which must be developed.

I have not heard greater lunacy than to suggest that when an emergency arises we should have a number of officers and noncommissioned officers who will be available to train a force quickly. Those of us who served in the last war know that troops were trained quickly at that time of national emergency. This is no laughing matter, Senator Georges. Troops were trained quickly - they had only 13 weeks basic training because of the national emergency and sent up to fight in the jungles of New Guinea. We do not want to have that sort of situation develop again. Troops were a quarter trained and could not protect themselves. If the suggestion that the Australian Labor Party is adopted, theo 1 suggest that it has not learnt the lessons of history, and recent history at that.

Senator Georges:

– Then the honourable senator has not learnt any lessons at all.

Senator SIM:

– Well, I am afraid, Senator Georges, that if I have to wait for you to educate me, I will be over 100 years old and still will not be educated. I have never heard such rubbish in my life as that which has come from the honourable senator’s side of the House.

Another aspect of national service training which has been completely overlooked, and which I suggest is vital to the defence of Australia, is that this scheme builds up a substantial force of reserve troops who are fully trained and who are available at a moment’s notice. At the moment, I think, about 21,000 men have been fully trained. In a time of emergency these men could be called up. This number is a substantial addition to our present force. Over the years since national service training has been in existence, I suggest, the number of reserves would be nearer to 50,000 men. Many of them would require little training to make them proficient soldiers once again. Therefore it is very important that behind every standing army there should be available fully trained reserves who could be brought into action at a time of national emergency and trained to proficiency in a matter of weeks or a month. We should not bring in raw recruits and expect them to be trained by all the officers and NCOs that Senator James McClelland said would be available Who will lead the troops when these officers are training the recruits? I just do not know. The honourable senator did not explain the answer to us, probably because he does not know.

The next point I wish to make concerns statements made about experts. We heard a lot about experts. As my colleague Senator Carrick pointed out, experts can be wrong. I wonder, as the Australian Labor Party has placed such great faith in an expert such as Professor Howard, what faith it would place in its expert advisers - the men who are trained to advise a government on what type of forces are required? Would the Labor Party regard these people as experts? Would the Labor Party consider that such advice should be accepted? It readily accepted the advice of Professor Howard.

Senator Withers:

– Who said he was an expert?

Senator SIM:

– Senator James McClelland said he was. I am in a very jovial and generous frame of mind and I will accept just for the moment accept that fact because the honourable senator felt that he could assist Labor supporters. What would the Labor Party do with the advice of its expert and military adviser if the departmental advisers on defence said: ‘Mr Minister, we require an army of 50,000 men to be available’. Would the Labor Minister say: ‘You are not an expert; I am the expert? Would he just ignore such a recommendation? What would the Labor Party do about it? Senator Georges has a chance to tell me what his Party would do about it.

Senator Georges:

– Just pause for a moment and I will tell you.

Senator SIM:

– Maybe that is why he is so much in favour of conscription. He said:

Many of us who were in the militia when World War II broke out and who were forced to go with the tide to war. . . . perhaps he supports conscription because he was forced to go.

Senator Wright:

– That is not so.

Senator CANT:

– There it is. It is in Hansard.

Senator Wright:

– He was forced to go not by law but by a sense of duty.

Senator CANT:

– He said he was ‘forced to go to the tide of war’. Perhaps that is why he supports conscription. He also said:

Nevertheless a country and a government - Labor or Liberal - has as its first responsibility the organisation of a defence system, ft knows that its policy is unpopular.

The sort of conscription issue that we delve into with the National Service Aci is a pretty cunning one because we do not offend very many people, even if our policies are unpopular. Out of approximately 120,000 20-year-olds each year we conscript 8,000. Even if the policy of conscription is unpopular it affects only 8,000 families at the most and the other 112,000 are not affected. This is the sort of policy that Menzies brought in, knowing that it would be unpopular, knowing that the Australian people would not accept conscription for overseas service. Knowing full well he introduced a discriminatory form of conscription which allowed the remainder of Australia to carry on with business as usual. Are the 20-year-olds making millions out of the rackets on the stock exchange in this country at the present time, rackets that this Government takes no action to contain? It takes no action to stop these people from ruining the Australian market in the eyes of the world. Do 20-year-olds take any part in this? Of course not. This Government believes in conscription of only one section of the community. It talks about conscription that was introduced by the Australian Labor Party during the Second World War. That was not conscription as we have conscription in this country today. It was limited conscription for a limited area. It was solely for the protection of Australia in the western Pacific and south of the equator. But this Government has not introduced that sort of conscription at all. One of the main points, I think the strongest point, made by Senator Carrick was stated in these terms:

I state here and now that no person has gone to Vietnam as a national serviceman except by his clear elective choice.

They are strong words. Senator Carrick continued:

Here is the form for anybody to see. The conditions are quite clear. I ask simply this: ls it not a fact that under the legislation, as clearly shown on the application form, a person at the point of registration can opt not to go into the ballot and to adopt the alternative of joining the Citizen Military Forces? I ask now whether this is true. 1 asked Senator Carrick at the time to state the conditions of the option but he conveniently refused to do so. I want to deal with a little of the history of this matter. In 1964 the Government proposed an amendment to the Defence Act. The then Minister, Senator Paltridge, in his second reading speech introduced the word conscription’. I went to my Party leaders and asked them why the word ‘conscription’ was in the second reading speech when it did not appear in the Bill. Senator Kennelly and Senator McKenna had a conference with Senator Spooner and Senator Paltridge. They were assured that the Government had no intention of introducing conscription. 1 was not satisfied with that and I asked the leaders of my Party to get a military adviser over to have a talk to them. Three military advisers came over and advised Senator McKenna and Senator Kennelly that there was no intention on the part of the Government to introduce conscription.

Within weeks of that confirmation by the 2 leaders of my Party, the Leader and the Deputy Leader of the Government and their military advisers, the National Service Act was introduced to provide for conscription for national service. This was done under the leadership of Sir Robert Menzies. But when it came to the crunch and it appeared that national servicemen might have to be used overseas, did Menzies send them overseas? Of course not. He resigned and left the dirty work to Harold Holt. In 1966 national servicemen were sent overseas. What are the conditions of the option about which Senator Carrick was so vehement that applied to these young servicemen? We endeavoured to obtain the conditions of the Citizen Military Forces to put before the Parliament. The 2 pamphlets that I have before me were sent over with a little note attached to them. The note reads:

Captain Smales of the CMF in the A.C.T. said that these items contain the ‘conditions of service’ of CMF recruits.

What are they? One of the pamphlets deals with rates of pay and the other one deals with conditions of service, the benefits a serviceman receives. The pamphlet deals wilh these benefits under the following headings: Pay, taxation and allowances; fares; marriage allowance; uniforms; training; enlistment. These are the items that Captain Smales said contained the conditions of service in the CMF. The Defence Act sets out the option about which Senator Carrick is so proud. Section 50a states: (1.) In time of war or in time of defence emergency, the Governor-General may, by proclamation, call out the Citizen Forces, or any part of those forces, for continuous full time service. (2.) The proclamation shall state the reason for the making of the proclamation.

There are 2 other sub-sections. They deal with the fact that Parliament shall be notified about the Citizen Military Forces being called out in time of a declared war or state of national emergency. Section 50c. of the Defence Act states:

Members of the Military Forces may be required to serve either within or beyond the territorial limits of Australia.

What does this mean? In relation to the option that is available to the people to elect not to go to Vietnam, Senator Carrick stated:

I state here and now that no person has gone to Vietnam as a national serviceman except by his clear elective choice.

– Thank you. Let me read the defence policy from the platform and policy of the Labor Party. I regret it if it has since been changed.

There may be a more up to date policy. I know how testy some members of the Opposition become about references to the Opposition here or in another place; but Senator James McClelland said that the Labor Party will abolish national service and that there will be no national service after January next year. I think that the public of Australia should know that.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I told them so. Why should not they know?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Senator James McClelland told them so. But there is a slight difference between that and what the platform says. I quote the following from page 40 of the platform of the Labor Party, as decided at its 28th Commonwealth Conference:

The Labor Party insists upon the adequate defence of Australia and asserts the need for defence forces of the highest professional standards.

We all would agree with that. It continues:

A strong citizen army should be created for the defence of Australia and her overseas territories. If this force can be raised by voluntary means then it should be a volunteer force.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is out of date. Read what I said yesterday. What the policy is now is in my speech yesterday.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I will proceed with this because I think it truly represents the Labor Party’s view.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You insist on being out of date, do you?

Senator WEBSTER:

– No, I do not. One of the members of the Opposition can prompt me again and tell me whether this is correct:

If such a force cannot be raised voluntarily and if the international situation is deemed to indicate a threatened attack on Australia and her overseas territories, then the force should be raised or augmented on a National Service basis.

I firmly believe, and probably the Opposition believes with me, that its inability to get over to the Australian public the defence philosophy in which it believes - and 1 take it in which it genuinely believes - has kept it out of office for the past many years. Now that the Leader of the Party in the Senate is here I reiterate that not one member of the Party has stressed the attitude that he would take to the preservation of forces within Australia. That has not occurred.

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to a point of order. I apologise to Senator Georges if in fact I used his name. I hope that the Ilansard record may be corrected. All honourable senators - indeed the whole of Australia - should know that that was Gordon Bryant.

Debate interrupted.

page 1216

ADJOURNMENT

Senate Debate: Personal Explanation - Pollution

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– 1 desire to take only a few minutes to put the record straight. While Senator Sim was speaking this evening I interjected and stated that the then Prime Minister of Australia had said that if a free election were held in Vietnam the Communists would win it, or words to that effect. Senator Sim challenged me to say when the then Prime Minister said this and where he said it. Obviously, as I made the statement by way of interjection, I did not have the record with me but I have since perused it. I would not like to have it thought that I was stating something that was not correct simply because of my inability to quote the instance.

Senator Sim:

– I did not say that at all.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I know but I would not like anyone to think it was not correct.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Cavanagh, in making this explanation - I use the word explanation’ deliberately - I take it you are not reopening the debate.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No. I was challenged to state when that statement was made. I refer Senator Sim to Hansard of the House of Representatives, dated 5th August 1959, at page 65, where the then Prime Minister is reported as having said:

I make these remarks-

Senator Rae:

– Did you say 1959?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It was in 1954.

Senator Rae:

– That is 17 years ago.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is right. That is when the issue arose.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Cavanagh is making an explanation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am verifying my earlier statement. In a statement on international affairs, the then Prime Minister stated: 1 make these remarks not because I desire even to appear to resist the development of democracy in other communities; on the contrary, it is one of the great hopes of the world. My reason for saying what I have on this point is to emphasise that the probabilities in Vietnam, both north and south of the line of division now established, are that the most organised groups will be the Communists themselves.

That is in both North and South Vietnam. He continued:

We must, therefore, not overlook the possibility that a free election may be an election which establishes a Communist administration in the whole of Vietnam.

That was the statement of the then Prime Minister. Whether or not there could be a free election, the then Prime Minister was of the belief that if there were a free election the Communists would win it.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to take this opportunity tonight briefly to follow up a response I received from the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), as to whether there is an overkill as a result of the use of insecticides or pesticides to control the locust plague that is imminent in New South Wales and Victoria. I regret that Senator Davidson is not present because he was Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution. However I notice that Senator Rae is present. The story I unfold tonight is a clearcut indication of what happens with divided control over so many forms of pollution and the apparent inability of the Commonwealth Government to introduce its national water commission.

The story commenced, as honourable senators know, some days ago. The Minister for Primary Industry claimed that New South Wales had given an assurance - I take it that it was given to the Commonwealth Government - that there would be no such thing as an overkill as a result of the use of the chemical, lindane, in very minute quantities. I had some reservations about this, with all due respect to the Minister for Primary Industry, and subsequently consulted a number of people, including Dr Dorward, who is a very senior lecturer at the Monash University. Many people know that he is an authority on much of our wildlife - the Cape Barren geese and other types of bird life. The fact of the matter is that he came out with a counter suggestion that the States would be much better off if they used malathion instead of the other pesticide.

What I am concerned about tonight - I think the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) would appreciate this - is that this is one of the many situations we are going to be confronted with in that a department with the primary responsibility of combating the various insects affecting a crop may be obsessed with that and not worried about maladjustment of the environment that may occur. I do not blame Senator Greenwood for this state of affairs. I believe that this is a grand opportunity for the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts (Mr Howson) to come in with all guns blazing and co-opt the various authorities that arbitrate on this situation.

Dr Dorward pointed out that it is quite possible that the Victorian Government will not use lindane. An analogy may be seen in the famous ‘Torrey Canyon’ oil pollution disaster when the British and the French adopted different control methods. I think that on balance Britain had fewer secondary effects on its beaches than France had. Applying that analogy to this situation, I looked in vain for some unbiassed or less committed government authority. Like everyone else in this chamber I have been inundating the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts with all sorts of matters, ranging from limestone to many other things, in respect of which I wanted him to instigate effective planning, utilising the Bureau of Mineral Resources to assess various alternative deposits - in fact the whole range of variations of environmental control. Now suddenly I find I am back in square one again. Again I use that term in a broad sense.

Senator Greenwood obviously has been instructed by the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. He has washed his hands of the whole affair and has adopted a Pontius Pilate attitude indicating that it is not for him to intercede. I get back to the answer given’ to me by Senator Drake-Brockman. I question whether the people in the Department of Primary Industry really are obsessed and whether they are aware that overkills can happen. Do they know what their effects can be? I asked a supplementary question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. 1 suggested going back to the biblical days and that the ibis and other birds could play a role in combating the locusts by natural means. 1 said: What will happen if you virtually inundate their habitat with all these pesticides?’ The Minister said that the River Murray Commission did the right thing in controlling water levels. I have the 1970 report of the River Murray Commission with me and I think my eyesight is pretty good but I cannot see any reference in it to water levels and control of the habitat. I think the people in the Department of Primary Industry are adopting a very cavalier attitude to this matter. They seem to think that I am just another one of those idiots who take up the conservation cause. That is their attitude. 1 know how they think. Senator Douglas McClelland well knows that you have to bear with this problem when you advocate any new cause. That is part of the cross we carry in this place.

Senator Georges:

– You bave our support.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I realise that and I know that Senator Georges is a very solid ally to have alongside one. I am far from satisfied that we can trust the Department of Primary Industry. It has a pretty inglorious record concerning its inability to control the export of kangaroo meat, lt played a very shabby role because there were a few dollars involved in that trade. 1 say respectfully to Senator DrakeBrockman who represents the Minister for Primary Industry in this place - 1 am sure Senator Poyser will appreciate this remark if he is present - that I feel that the Victorian Government is proving far more statesmanlike in its attitude to pesticides than are Premier Askin in New South Wales and Mr Crawford, the Minister for Agriculture in that State. I know that my New South Wales colleague, Senator Douglas McClelland, agrees with me in this regard. We find that Mr Howson, the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines and the Arts, is failing to take up any of these particular cudgels. I will sum the matter up in this way: I say to Senator Drake-Brockman and to Senator Greenwood that I have no confidence in any answer I will get back from the Department of Primary Industry because it is committed to a certain viewpoint. I do not know which Minister represents the Minister-in-Charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I would like to feel that tomorrow we could have an independent assessment by the Wildlife Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Some people are a little scornful about the effects these insecticides will have on the habitat of the birds. I wish those people would read of the chemical tainting of food. Some people run around extolling Bex, APC. aspirin and things of that kind that are no good to anybody. It is just a vicious circle. The simple fact is that a great deal of virus results from the overkill with insecticides and pesticides. Then the people who make products such as Vincents APC powders are able to make profits. If anything is to be banned, let us ban Vincents powders and preparations of that nature because they do not do anybody any good.

All these problems would be solved by the supervision of a Commonwealth department over the way in which the States apply these insecticides. I would also like to feel that the CSIRO Wildlife Division would provide an assessment. If necessary, the 2 State Ministers could be called in and advised as to the pesticides they should use. This is only one claim that will be made tonight but 1 know from correspondence I have received from quite a number of environmental groups that it will continue to go on. A most regrettable feature is that obviously the Department of Primary Industry has adopted a particular line. When the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts continues to adopt a Pontius Pilate attitude it does not say much for the research that Senator Davidson, Senator Rae and other people who served on the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution engaged in. The recommendations of that Committee have been virtually ignored.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I sense the feelings and frustration to which Senator Mulvihill has given expression because he believes that there is a problem. He wants to be assured that the problem is acknowledged and that appropriate steps can be taken, if they are not now being taken. I sense that this difficulty and frustration arise because he finds it hard to pinpoint the area of responsibility to which he can go to plead his case. It is a difficult matter, because we are not only confronted with a novel situation but we are also in this whole area affected by the constitutional problems of divided control.

The question whether pesticides may. or may not be used because of the harmful consequences which usage may produce is in terms of a legislative area something relatively new in Australia. There has always been a concern that the nation’s health could bc affected by the use of pesticides. I am not suggesting that that is a new aspect, but insofar as it is an area where responsibility lies it is not a Commonwealth area of responsibility but a State area, and any Commonwealth activity must essentially be indirect and persuasive. When we move into this emerging area concerning effects on the habitat of birds and the environment generally, once again we are essentially in a State area of responsibility. The Commonwealth has established a new Department of Thc Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. It has been stressed many times that it operates in a co-ordinating area. Undoubtedly there is a role which the Commonwealth can play in endeavouring to coordinate the activities of the States but there certainly is no power, as I sense Senator Mulvihill suggested at one stage, to direct the relevant State Ministers to adopt a particular course.

Quite apart from environmental matters problems are created by the interest of the Department of Primary Industry and the conceivable interest, to which Senator Mulvihill referred, of the Department of Education and Science, which is responsible for the administration of CSIRO. There is also the fairly pervading influence of the Commonwealth Department of Health, and in a position yet to be evolved in these areas there is the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a tangle of bureaucracy.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I note Senator McClelland’s comment and I appreciate why he makes it, but it is a problem which besets any government.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There is now a Ministry. Why should it not take over all this responsibility?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– That very question highlights the problems. There is the difficulty of the Ministry for the Environment taking over a problem which is essentially that of Primary Industry - the problem of protecting those people who are likely to be subjected to the ravages of the locusts as is in contemplation at present. It may be in due course a question of priorities. Is it more important to protect the hundreds of thousands of farmers who may have their crops destroyed or is it more important to protect that which is constituted by the concept of the environment and all the matters of which Senator Mulvihill spoke?

I sense that I am explaining the type of situation which necessarily confronts any government in the area to which Senator Mulvihill has referred. I can only assure him that 1 will convey to the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts what he has said tonight and ask him to give a reply to Senator Mulvihill. I sense that he may well have anticipated what the reply will be, but I can assure the honourable senator that he will have as much support as I am able to give to his representations that activity should be undertaken to explore the situation.

page 1220

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate advising that he has appointed Senator Douglas McClelland to serve on

Estimates Committee A in the place of Senator Keeffe.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.17 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 October 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19711006_senate_27_s49/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate 6 October 1971

NOTICE OF MOTION

The PRESIDENT:

SENATOR S. A. NEGUS

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POKE:TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

HEALTH

QUESTION

IRON ORE AND COKING COAL

Senator LAWRIE:QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator COTTON:Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator WILLESEE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Senator BROWN:VICTORIA

Senator GREENWOOD:Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator LAUCKE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator DONALD CAMERON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

QUESTION

WOOL: TRANSPORT COSTS

Senator GUILFOYLE:VICTORIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

QUESTION

TASMANIAN PETROL COSTS

Senator TOWNLEY:TASMANIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

TELEVISION STATION

Senator POYSER:VICTORIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator POYSER:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE: STUDENTS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL

Senator RAE:TASMANIA

Senator GREENWOOD:LP

QUESTION

IMPORTED SUNGLASSES

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:QUEENSLAND

Senator GREENWOOD:LP

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Senator YOUNG:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GREENWOOD:LP

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH DAM

Senator JESSOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator KANE:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

QUESTION

ASSISTANT MINISTERS

Senator DEVITT:TASMANIA

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Georges:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DEVITT:

Senator Georges:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Georges:

The PRESIDENT:

Senate
6 October 1971

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator COTTON:
LP