View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
24 November 1971

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON BLACK MOUNTAIN, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
- Petition
QUESTION
- HEALTH: COMMONWEALTH BENEFITS
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- TAXATION
QUESTION
- EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
QUESTION
- CONTRACEPTIVES
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES
QUESTION
- WOOL GROWERS ON KANGAROO ISLAND
QUESTION
- EDUCATION
QUESTION
- MOTOR VEHICLES
HEALTH: COMMONWEALTH BENEFITS
QUESTION
- COMPANY PROFITS
QUESTION
- INTEREST RATES
QUESTION
- AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- METRIC SYSTEM
QUESTION
- EGG POWDER
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- HOSPITALS
QUESTION
- SOLDIER SETTLEMENT
QUESTION
- HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL BENEFITS
QUESTION
- R EPA TR I ATION BEN E FITS
QUESTION
- ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS
QUESTION
- VICTA AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- REPATRIATION
QUESTION
- DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS
QUESTION
- PYRAMID SELLING
QUESTION
- HEALTH
QUESTION
- TANKER TRANSPORT AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION
QUESTION
- INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE CALLS
QUESTION
- WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT SCHEME
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION: SECOND SYDNEY AIRPORT
QUESTION
- MURRAY BRIDGE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
QUESTION
- REHABILITATION OF EX -SERVICEMEN
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE ACT
QUESTION
- ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR TESTS
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR TESTS
QUESTION
- WOOL DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
QUESTION
- GENERAL PRACTITIONERS
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
QUESTION
- WAVE HILL
QUESTION
- CANBERRA LAND SALES
QUESTION
- CANBERRA LAND SALES
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- UNITED STATES-AUSTRALIAN INSTALLATIONS
QUESTION
- HOUSING
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- VIP AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- COMMONWEALTH BANK BUILDING, SYDNEY
QUESTION
- EXPORTS
QUESTION
- WOOL
QUESTION
- INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS
SUSPENSION OF THE INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE
HOUSING
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM
AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY: SOCIAL SERVICES
- Formal Motion for Adjournment
- Don’t Panic Over Jobs, Lynch Says. Economy Sound
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIMARY AND SECONDARY INDUSTRY AND TRADE
SHOT AND GRIT OF CHILLED CAST IRON
- Tariff Board Report
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE
AUSTRALIAN WOOL BOARD
FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACT
FISHING INDUSTRY ACT
VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND GREAT BRITAIN
- Ministerial Statement

The PRESIDENT (Senatorthe Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2029

COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON BLACK MOUNTAIN, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Petition

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

Tothe Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

Thai the Australian Post Office proposes to construct a 640-foot high solid concrete tower. housing radiotelephony/television transmission facilities, on Black Mountain in Canberra.

That in the opinion of many responsible cit izens such a tower would seriously impair the beauty of this city and is likely to lessen the value ofthe BlackMountain Flora and Fauna Reserve.

That requests from residents of Canberra, and their Parliamentary representative, for information on the technical considerations supposedly favouring a solid tower have been refused by the Australian Post Office.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, In Parliament assembled, should, through its Standing Committee on the Social Environment, examine whether construction of a tower of this nature on Black Mountain is in the public interest, having particular regard to the need to preserve the beauty and environmental quality of the national capital.

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

–

The honourable senator’s suggestion that a fairer method of share taxation would involve taxation at a lower rate is arguable. It might even be questionable but perhaps arguable is the better word. The principle behind section 26A of the Income Tax Assessment Act is simply that income from share transactions should be brought to assessment and taxed on the same basis as any other form of income. It seems a fair and reasonable principle. A distinction between what is income and what is not in connection with share transactions has come in for a good deal of comment lately, but I think .that the uncertainty in the minds of the taxpayers concerned is generally much less than recent comment has suggested. The present provision has been in the law for a very long time. I think the consequences suggested by the honourable senator could be, as I said, arguable. Let us say they are debatable.

page 2030

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, concerns the projected entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community and its consequential effects on our rural exports. 1 ask: Are negotiations between Australia and Great Britain on individual commodities proceeding as a continuous undertaking on the official to official basis? Is the Government contemplating sending any specialist delegations in the near future?

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

– The discussions are being conducted on an official level on what might be called a fairly continuous basis, because obviously it means that people come and people go in these affairs. That does not necessarily mean that they work continuously week after week, but generally speaking they are operating all the time. The British Government has given an undertaking to hold commoditybycommodity discussions with Australia about the problems likely to arise in relation to Australian trade during the transitional period. These will be held in the light of the undertaking given by the Community to take action to deal with any abrupt dislocation of trade in agricultural products in the transitional period. The consultations are primarily between officials. They take the specialist character of the discussions into account and bring to bear their specialist knowledge of the industry where and when they require it.

page 2030

QUESTION

CONTRACEPTIVES

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that Australia is the only country which levies a sales tax on contraceptives? Was this deplorable situation revealed yesterday by the Acting Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Reverend Peter Hollingsworth, at a seminar in Melbourne? What reply does the Government make to his criticism that it is actively discouraging family planning by levying this tax at the rate of 274 per cent as a luxury item under the amusement tax? ls it not true that this tax hits hardest at the lower income groups who need contraceptives most? Will the Government adopt a more rational viewpoint on this subject and either remove or substantially reduce this iniquitous levy?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I am noi aware that sales tax on contraceptives is peculiar to Australia. Obviously somebody has stated that. 1 would need to have research done into it. While no doubt it would have been stated in good faith, nevertheless the world is a big place and I would have to check that statement. I come now to the substance of the question. The honourable senator referred to the imposition of ‘he sales tax at 27i per cent. He also made reference to the reason for the impostion of the sales tax. I would not comment on that matter. The matter is clearly a Treasury mat’er. Any Treasury matter has to be referred to the Treasurer for consideration. As I have said many times here over a good many years, at Budget time the Treasury and the

Treasurer have to look, in the Budget context, at a wide range of applications for exemption from sales tax and at the incidence of sales tax. Sales tax on this item would be one of the matters that they examine.

page 2031

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct this question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. The telephone directory in Western Australia has this year been divided into city and country directories for the first time. Was this really necessary? Does the Minister know that city people are supplied with country directories only if they apply by letter giving reasons why the country directory is required? Does the Minister know that country directories are provided only if the reasons given in writing are acceptable to the superintendent of the telephone directory section? Is it not possible to provide business firms with all directories on each new issue? Why was the directory divided in the first place? Does the Minister know that the Western Australia directory was not over-large and that it could easily have accommodated all the Western Australia telephone numbers without being divided?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I am sure that the Postmaster-General is aware of the factual matters to which the honourable senator has referred. I am unable to give an answer about the reasons for the various steps which have been taken or about the possible alternative courses of action which have been canvassed. I think, because of the comprehensive nature of the question, the best course would be for the honourable senator to place it on notice. I am sure that the PostmasterGeneral will arrange for an adequate reply to be furnished.

page 2031

QUESTION

WOOL GROWERS ON KANGAROO ISLAND

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that 5 farmers on Kangaroo Island in South Australia have been black listed, with a ban placed on their wool, by trade unions because non-union shearers and shed hands were employed during shearing? ls the Minister also aware that these shearers and shed hands were either farmers or farmers’ sons trying to earn extra money to assist them in their financial plight? Is the Minister aware that the majority of the 5 property owners involved are returned soldiers who are battling to make a living on Kangaroo Island? As this black ban is a clear case of compulsory unionism by threat and virtual blackmail, will the Minister point out to the trade unions the financial harm that they are doing to these people on Kangaroo Island who are already under great financial stress, in the hope that some semblance of decency and respect for the rights ot the individual might be shown by the trade unions lifting this most undemocratic black ban?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

page 2032

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– 4 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science whether he is aware that many divorce and social groups allege that a cause of the alarmingly high level of divorce is financial hardship due to crippling interest rates on hire purchase agreements. Will the Minister, therefore, introduce along lines similar to citizenship instruction, education in domestic economics and family budgeting for students in their last year of schooling?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for consideration.

page 2032

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made yesterday by the General Manager of General Motors- Holdens Pty Ltd that sales of medium priced cars in Australia have dropped from 24,180 in July this year to 18,900 in October, that in New South Wales the percentage of medium priced cars in October was the lowest since October 1970 and that as a result of this 290 production workers would be dismissed in Victoria and New South Wales. As these retrenchments in the motor car industry follow the retrenchment of 600 workers from South Australian factories in September this year, will the Government take such action as is possible to assist the Australian motor car manufacturing industry to sustain its capacity and work force, including any rearrangement in respect of the importation of cars or by stimulating the Australian economy?

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science whether he is aware that almost every major country except the United States of America has converted to the metric system of weights and measures. As the metric system will provide greater general efficiency and create a better understanding of international standards once it is introduced is the Minister in a position to inform the Senate what stage metric conversion has reached in Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I recall that this was a matter of elaborate statement within recent times. For the information of the honourable senator I mention briefly that the Metric Conversion Board has been constituted. I think that 12 major subcommittees have been established on a national basis; they do not specifically represent the particular fields such as trade, education, engineering or what you will from which the members have been appointed. Under these sub-committees advisory subcommittees with specialised functions have been set up and a number of regional, State and Territory committees have been set up under them. The Board, with the help of the specialised committees, is examining the application of the metric system to the whole field of our activity. It is getting proposals for the way in which metric conversion should be applied in various industries. In some industries it will be done in a short lime and in other industries it will take a comparatively long time. Of course, the period is being considered in relation to the natural obsolescence of plant that will be superseded when the imperial system is replaced by the metric system. I believe that ii is anticipated, given the cooperation which is forthcoming from industry and 1 hope also from State governments, that the main thrust of the metric changeover can be achieved by about the middle of this decade.

When the Act was introduced the whole of the decade was envisaged as the period of changeover but consideration leads us to believe that it will be achieved in the main by 1976, with the changeover in other industries shading off into the latter part of the decade. I refer the honourable senator to the report of the Metric Conversion Board further to amplify what I have said. If there is a particular aspect of the programme about which he would like information, I would be pleased on request to obtain it for him.

page 2034

QUESTION

EGG POWDER

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as the representative of the Prime Minister, aware that large surpluses of egg powder have accumulated with State egg boards? Does the Federal Government recognise the suitability of this product, being light in weight and of high protein and nutritional value, for shipment to assist in relieving the starvation of Pakistani refugees in India? Will the Government take positive steps to acquire portion of these surpluses as part of our assistance programme and arrange with the Indian Government for acceptance of this form of aid? If, as rumoured, this form of aid is not acceptable to India, will the Government explain the reasons to the Senate?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Minister representing the Minister for

Primary Industry: What funds were made available in the year 1970-71 for war service land settlement carry-on finance? How much of this is being used for legitimate settler assistance and is any being used for other purposes? What funds have been made available in the Budget this year for war service land settlement carry-on finance?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– As the honourable senator indicated, the Commonwealth Government still has a financial responsibility to some of the States under the Commonwealth war service land settlement scheme. He will recall that at the beginning of the scheme Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria supplied the capital and the Commonwealth shared the losses with those States. There was a different set-up in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania under which the Commonwealth supplied the capital and the States shared some of the losses. Because of our responsibilities under this scheme money is made available each year. Last year, according to the records I have here, $3,360,000 was made available and $2,973,000 was spent. The balance of the money allocated was not spent. The honourable senator asked what is to be spent in the coming year. The figureI have is $3,483,000.

page 2035

QUESTION

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL BENEFITS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I remind the Minister for Health that the week before last I asked him whether he would give consideration to requesting hospital and medical contribution funds to accept aseligible dependants of contributors full time students under the age of 25 years, bearing in mind amendments recently made to the taxation law which extended allowable deductions to include full time students under that age. As the Minister told me the week before last that he hoped to have additional information for me this week, I ask him whether he can provide me with any further details at this time.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONYes. lt is true that on 9th November Senator Douglas McClelland asked me whether consideration would be given to extending the terms of membership of health insurance funds to include as dependants of contributors full time students up to the age of 25 years. On 10th November I advised the honourable senator and other honourable senators that already the age limit was 24 years and that the question of extending this limit would receive full consideration at the next meeting of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Council. I am happy to say that the Council discussed this matter at its meeting on 1 7th and 1 8th November and agreement was reached in principle that extension of benefits to student children should be brought into line with the age level for student children for deductions allowable in the Income Tax Assessment Act. As honourable senators are aware, the Income Tax Assessment Act was amended and the amending Bill received Royal assent on 12th November. The amending Act included, inter aiia, provision that the maximum age of students receiving full time education at a school, college or university for whom a deduction is allowable from taxable income be extended to 25 years. In accordance with the resolution carried, as I mentioned a moment ago. action will be taken by my Depart ment to instruct all health insurance funds to take the necessary action to amend their rules accordingly so that full time students up to the age of 25 years will be in the dependant category.

page 2036

QUESTION

R EPA TR I ATION BEN E FITS

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation tell us whether all soldiers and other military personnel who have served in Vietnam are emit led to all repatriation benefits, covering particularly such matters as rehabilitation training, war service homes and total and permanent incapacity benefits? If not, can he te.II us in what way the position of those who served there is different from that of others who served in previous wars?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I will have to obtain the details because, as the honourable senator will understand, ‘service’ does not mean for one day or one week. Under the Repatriation Act a certain time is required for a person to be eligible, first of all-

Senator Murphy:

– Could you tell us, in general, in what way their position puts them at a disadvantage?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No; I would much rather seek the information.

page 2036

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, is supplementary to one asked previously by my colleague Senator Poke. Will the Minister, on behalf of the Government, acknowledge that the land in the Northern Territory which the Gurindjis propose to fence and use for grazing is, in fact, tribal land taken without treaty, compensation or even consultation and leased to a foreign based company? Will the Government now make a formal declaration that the area referred to belongs to the Gurindjis and neighbouring tribes?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think the honourable senator and. indeed, the Senate will understand and agree that this is properly a question to be referred to the Minister who holds the principal responsibility for the Department of the Interior, and not one to be answered by me. ft relates to a policy matter that properly belongs to him. I suggest that it be put on the notice paper.

page 2036

QUESTION

VICTA AIRCRAFT

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Does the Leader or the Government in the Senate recall that the Victa aircraft industry was compelled to cease operations in Australia and move to New Zealand because of lack of Government support? ls he aware that recent sales of this aircraft have been said to be quite dramatic? ls it not a fact thai the Victa is now being evaluated for use by the Australian armed Services because of its suitability for their purposes? Does not the whole course of the history of the Victa aircraft industry in Australia indicate a serious shortcoming on the part of the Australian Government, especially in such a viral and militarily significant industry? Because of the developments 1 have mentioned and the likely future need for this aircraft, can any action now be taken to encourage the re-establishment of this industry in Australia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

In my recollection the Victa aircraft industry is linked to a Tariff Board report which was adopted by the Government and which suggested that certain protective procedures which were sought or which had been operating should not be continued. My recollection is that it was a consequence of that Tariff Board report which was the dominating factor in the transfer of the industry from Australia to New Zealand. We all appreciate that a Tariff Board report is not a matter that is taken lightly. Nol only is evidence given on all the known factors associated with the industry or type of industry concerned, but the evidence is subject to crossexamination and is weighed for the merits and so on.

The honourable senator went on to say that he understood that the Victa type of aircraft was being evaluated by the Australian Services for a particular role. I would not put that under challenge at all. On the question of evaluation, as I learnt from experience when I was Minister for Supply, the evaluation of an aircraft by the Services does not necessarily signify that that aircraft will be chosen. Our own Project N was the subject of an evaluation - presumably that evaluation is continuing - as to its capabilities in terms of particular requirements. Nevertheless, I accept Senator Devitt’s statement that an evaluation of the Victa aircraft industry by the Services is taking place. As it is a New Zealand industry, there would be certain advantages because of the trade relations between Australia and New Zealand. 1 do not know anything further than that. I would need to obtain soma information. I think the question would be best directed to the Minister for Defence in the first instance, and I will arrange for that to be done.

page 2037

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Air, who represents the Minister for the Army in this chamber. I ask: If he cannot, as the representative of the Minister for Repatriation, give any details of entitlements available to ex-ser vicemen, can he, as the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, give some indication of the entitlement available to men who come directly under the responsibility of the Department of the Army? Is it not a fact that repatriation benefits available to members of the Army serving in Vietnam are severely limited and is not the Minister’s hesitation in answering the previous question asked by Senator Murphy because of his embarrassment in having to reveal the true situation?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator has asked me a question in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for the Army. I shall seek the information for Senator Murphy and I shall see that Senator Georges receives a copy of it.

page 2037

QUESTION

DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to an address given yesterday in Canberra at the Royal

Institute of Public Administration conference at which a speaker called lor a reassessment of what he described as the archaic’ distribution of local and Stale powers and further suggested a compulsory periodical review of fundamental components of administration which take into account changes in hoth urban and rural growth. I a?k: In view of the many changed demands made on local authorities and the changes in urban and rural growth, will the Minister give consideration to initiating some inquiry at Commonwealth and State levels into the distribution of local and State powers so that local authorities upon which increasing demands are being made will be able to function more effectively?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I would not question the statement that a lecture was given at the conference of the Royal Institute of Public Administration yesterday. I would not suggest that the topic discussed yesterday had any hitherto unheard of element because the matter of the various influences and the status of the various tiers of government is not a new one. lt is a long while since I served in local government, but this was a burning question when I was there. Senator Gietzelt has been in local government in more recent times than I have and he posed a question to me on this subject some time ago. Senator Davidson also has raised this question on a number of occasions in his own right.

We are living in a changing world which is changing the structure of government in Australia. It is to the credit of this Government, of which I am the Leader in the Senate, that we have made in recent times some move in relation to the variation of the financial structure of the third tier of government. So I have some reservations regarding a request that some new authority be set up within the confines of Parliament to look at the subject again. I think that there would not be a local government conference held each year - and a conference is held every year in every Stale, both at a municipal and shire level - at which this very issue is not raised. There would hardly be a symposium on government or similar forum at which this question is not raised. I am not trying to depreciate the significance and the importance of the question. The function that was held yesterday wa> a cla.*ic example of conferences at which the matter is raised. I really do not feel at this lime that we in the Senate, at any rate, should embrace any more responsibilities in relation 10 an examination of this matter is raised. 1 really do not feel at this present time.

AUSTRALIAN WOOL COMMISSION

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I preface my question by informing him that I will use the figure of S30m that the Minister gave me yesterday instead of the S300,n that I mentioned. I will accept his correction of my figure. Following last Friday’s Cabinet decision to provide another S30m of taxpayers’ money to the Australian Wool Commission, will the Government tell the people who are being slugged for this money what proportion of wool deficiency payments is going into the pockets of wealthy brokers and wool firms and to banks instead of to the struggling rural producers who really need the money? How much longer will the Government continue to pour money down the drain of an open ended deficiency scheme which means that taxpayers are subsidising these wealthy people and large companies while a severe depression blights the rural areas of Australia?

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Poke, when you are drafting these questions I think that you could eliminate a great number of the rhetorical phrases and terms that you embed in them.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I think that the question which the honourable senator asked shows that he does not understand the situation.

Senator Poke:

– I think I must understand it.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I do not know. Recently he quoted to me a report by Sir Norman Giles. He quoted only the portion that suited his point of view. He did not quote what Sir Norman said about those who criticise the Australian Wool Commission and how they base their criticism on uninformed premises. Sir Norman Giles is a member of the Wool Production Research Advisory Committee.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do not hold us in suspense. Read the report and get it over with.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I would rather hold the honourable senator in suspense. The Government has made its decision, having been furnished with information from the International Wool Secretariat, from the Australian Wool Board and from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Surely that advice is more substantial than the advice that Senator Poke is trying to give the Senate at present.

page 2040

QUESTION

INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Yesterday in reply to my question about a review of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act the Attorney-General said that a member of the House of Representatives ‘chose, as I understand from reading a Press report yesterday, to convey that letter to the journalist in question’. The letter referred to was one sent to the member by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General made that remark in a disapproving way. Does not the AttorneyGeneral know what is going on in his Department? Is it not a fact that the member, Mr Donald Cameron, revealed the contents of this letter to the House of Representatives during the debate on the estimates of the Attorney-General’s Department on 1 1th November? Will the AttorneyGeneral indicate whether what Mr Donald Cameron said at that time is correct - that in effect the provisions of the Act are ineffective in prohibiting the tapping of conversations if one hooks on to the end of the system rather than intercepting the conversation?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question contained a number of parts. I have spoken to Mr Donald Cameron since I answered the question yesterday. He has pointed out to me that he read into the Hansard of the House of Representatives nearly two weeks ago the greater part of that letter.

Senator Murphy:

– Why did you not know that yesterday?

Senator GREENWOOD:

- Mr President, I am endeavouring to answer a question and it is difficult.

The PRESIDENT:

– You have my protection, Senator Greenwood.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I had spoken to Mr Donald Cameron who informed me he had read into Hansard the greater part of the letter which I had sent to him. I had read the Press report on Monday and assumed at the time I was answering the question that there was more of the letter contained in the Press report than was cotained in Hansard. I am now assured that I am in error as to that fact. As to the substance of the question asked by the honourable senator, the matter that was referred to in my reply to Mr Donald Cameron was that the offence contained in the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act is the offence of intercepting a communication in its passage over the telephone system. Unless that is shown there is no offence.

page 2040

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT SCHEME

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry refers to an announcement made by the Commonwealth Government some months ago that it was prepared to give war service settlers first preference to purchase surrendered holdings which were established under the war service land settlement scheme. Is the Minister aware of the keen disappointment and concern of war service settlers at the alleged inordinately high reserve prices set on the surrendered holdings in the Upper Murray district of South Australia considering the run down condition of the holdings? Will the Minister reconsider these reserve prices with a view to reducing those levels to be more economic and attractive to the interested settlers?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I recall giving the honourable senator that information and I think at the time I said that this was a matter which had to be discussed between the Commonwealth Government and the State governments, with the emphasis on the State governments. However, I am not aware of the continued situation of which the honourable senator speaks. I shall make some inquiries of the Minister for Primary Industry and when I have some information I shall convey it to the honourable senator.

page 2041

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: SECOND SYDNEY AIRPORT

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Pending the outcome of investigations by the joint Commonwealth-State committee of inquiry into the location of Sydney’s second airport, has the Minister’s Department taken any action to acquire land adjacent to the 136 acres at Duffy’s Forest which has been sought by light aircraft interests? Furthermore, what avenue of appeal or submission to this joint committee have citizens opposed to any type of airport in the Duffy’s Forest area?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– No action to acquire extra land has been taken. The people who are concerned about this have a place lo which they can come to talk, and that is to my office. They have done so in the past and 1 am sure they will do so in the future.

page 2041

QUESTION

MURRAY BRIDGE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Yesterday in answer lo a question of mine on notice the Minister informed me thai the Murray Bridge telephone exchange was tentatively planned for connection to the national subscriber trunk dialling network during 1975. As Murray Bridge has a modern automatic exchange with STD facilities to Adelaide, what is the reason for Murray Bridge having to wait until 1975 for connection to the national network?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to add anything to what I said yesterday by way of a formal answer to a question on notice. I would suggest that the honourable senator put his question on the notice paper and I shall get the reasons for the statement that was given yesterday in answer to his earlier question.

page 2041

QUESTION

REHABILITATION OF EX -SERVICEMEN

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation follows on the questions asked of him by Senators Murphy and Georges. Can the Minister say whether full time educational training is available to servicemen returning Iron

Vietnam, should they desire it, to enable them to qualify completely for a trade or profession in the same way as servicemen from the Second World War when not only those who served abroad but also those who served within Australia were able to receive such educational training and assistance? If not. what type of educational training will be made available to servicemen returning from Vietnam? Will the Minister include that material also in the information which he has undertaken to make available to the Senate?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Since being asked the 2 previous questions-

Senator Georges:

– lt did not lake long, did it?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No. [ have found in my files an answer to a question on notice asked by Senator Cavanagh some time ago in which the Minister for Repatriation states:

Both discharged national servicemen and members of the Regular Army are eligible for repatriation benefits under the same conditions, provided they served on special service in a special area as defined by the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act.

Senator Murphy:

asked me for further detailed information as to what these benefits were and 1 said that I would s.;et that information for him. I have given that information. I said thai I would give the honourable senator a copy of it.

Senator Georges:

– That is not very clear. It is just as obscure as your previous answer.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges should allow the Minister 10 struggle on as best he can.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I would not expect Senator Georges to understand it. As to Senator Douglas McClelland’s question, there are certain vocational training and re-establishment loans available to all national servicemen, irrespective of where they served, and lo certain Regular Army servicemen. Again, f. would have to seek details of where and how the special vocational training operates and to whom it applies. This is why I did not want to answer the question, because it takes us into special areas on which I am not so fully informed as the Minister is. I shall obtain a detailed reply for the honourable senator also.

page 2042

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE ACT

Senator POYSER:

– In addressing a ques tion to the Attorney-General I refer to my question yesterday regarding the statement by the President of the Australian Union of Students and, in particular, to the list in that statement of 7 student leaders whom the Government is unwilling to prosecute, namely, Messrs Yates, Zerman, McLean, Marginson, Varley, Joyce and McDougal. In the Minister’s reply he dealt with these 7 cases without specifying which names applied to the case histories that he purported to outline. I refer to the single case which the Minister said had been subject to prosecution for failure to register and attend a medical. Is it a fact that this student. John Varley, received a call-up notice dated 8th April 1971 and that no attempt has since been made to enforce that notice? Further, will the Minister specify which other names apply to the case histories he quoted in his answer so that it may be determined whether this information accords with the documents in the possession of the 7 young men whom I have mentioned?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question is based on an assumption which is wrong. The assumption upon which it is based is that the Government is unwilling to prosecute persons who commit offences against the National Service Act. That is untrue. It has been stated to be untrue on so many occasions in this Senate that it is surprising that the honourable senator continues to repeat it. I mentioned yesterday with regard to the 7 names which had been contained in the Press release of the Australian Union of Students that inquiries were being undertaken with regard to 3 of them and, on initial appearances, it did not appear that any offence had been committed. With regard to the others I set out what the position was and I said ‘hat the statement of the Australian Union of Students that these people were wanted was not accurate. With regard to Mr Varley, he is a person who has been fined for failing to register fornational! service. He has been fined for failure to attend a national service medical examination. Additionally he has been sentenced to 7 days imprisonment. Subsequently he has been served with a call-up notice, and following his failure to adhere to that a summons was issued. I am informed that (hat summons has not been served and that a further call-up notice has now been received by the Commonwealth police for service on Mr Varley. But we are unable to ascertain where Mr Varley is. If the honourable senator has any information about the situation possibly he will facilitate the working of the system so that he can be personally satisfied that if there is a . failure to comply with this call-up notice- (Opposition senators interjecting)

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Honourable senators on my left seek to prevent the Attorney-General from continuing. He answers the question and they do notlike The answer. I shall not tolerate that situation.

page 2042

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts and MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities inform the Parliament why his Government recognises - even if only partially - land rights for some persons in Papua New Guinea but consistently refuses the same recognition of tribal land rights to Australian Aborigines and islanders?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– In answer-

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Cotton, was not the question addressed to Senator Greenwood?

Senator COTTON:

– It is a question which is directed to 2 Ministers because I represent the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities. I cannot find anything in the question with which I can really help. 1 would like to do so.

The PRESIDENT:

– You have always staled that you do not volunteer. But I recognise you as a volunteer now.

page 2042

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Prime Minister able to confirm that Mainland China has recently conducted nuclear tests? Can the Minister say whether the Australian Labor Party has raised any protest concerning this matter? If not, is the Minister able to say why the Australian Labor Partyraised protests against similar tests carried outby the French?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 think it would be accepted as general knowledge that nuclear tests have been carried out by Mainland China. This matter has been a feature of the news in more recent times, as everybody would be aware. I have not had the experience of responding to any questions in the Senate in which anybody has protested about nuclear tests carried out by Mainland China. As to the attitude of the Australian Labor Party, I am only a humble senator and it is very difficult to follow the logic of the Labor Party in these matters.

page 2043

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator WILLESEE:

-] ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: ls it a fact that this Government - the LiberalCountry Party Government of which he is a member - has on 2 occasions made protests to the French about the exploding of nuclear weapons in the Pacific?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Yes, it has.

page 2043

QUESTION

WOOL DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the brochure explaining the working of wool deficiency payments been distributed to wool growers as was promised by the Acting Minister for Primary Industry in a Press statement dated 15th November 1971? If so, when will the brochure be available to honourable senators?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I shall have to make some inquiries and obtain the information for the honourable senator.

page 2043

QUESTION

GENERAL PRACTITIONERS

Senator POKE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Is it possible for the Government to take any steps to persuade more medical students to become general practitioners, rather than research scientists and specialists? Is the Minister aware of the views of Professor Wilfred Mommaerts, Professor of Physiology and Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who recently told a seminar in Melbourne that a quiet revolution in medical education is occurring in the United States of America, created by students concerned with the needs of the under-privileged and who desire to create a modern variation of the old style family doctor?

(Question No. 1447)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

How many prospective Spanish immigrants have had their applications for entry to Australia rejected during the past 5 years due to the refusal of the Spanish Government to permit their departure?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

I am not aware of any cases of prospective migrants having had their applications for entry to Australia rejected due to the refusal of the Spanish Government to permit their departure. Applications are, however, made in the first instance to the Spanish Labour Delegate where the applicant resides, and I am not able to provide any information about any controls tha may be exercised by Spanish authorities before applications are submitted to the Australian Migration Office in Madrid.

The statistics available do not suggest that subsequent to Spanish migrants being interviewed and approved by the Australian Migration Office, permission to leave the country has been refused by the Spanish authorities. For example, in 1970- 71 approvals were given for 1,302 Spanish applicants and departures in the period were 1,149 Allowing for time lag between approval and movement and normal ‘wastage’, these figures are consistent with there being no refusal to approved migrants of permission to leave Spain.

page 2045

QUESTION

UNITED STATES-AUSTRALIAN INSTALLATIONS

(Question No. 1538)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

Has the authoritative journal, Janes All the Worlds Aircraft, reported that United States satellite photographs of Russian and Chinese missile tests are being relayed through a secret United States base in Australia.
Does the report slate that the base is believed to be at Narrungar, 300 miles north of Adelaide.
As the report also claims that Narrungar is controlled by the Pine Gapbase. will the Government reveal the role of the Pine Gap and Narrungar bases, which ensure that Australia will be an essential target in any nuclear war.
As the People’s Republic of China is now to become a member of the United Nations Organisation, will the Government ensure that Australia is not used for the purpose of spying on another friendly country.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

and (2) There was an article in Janes All the World’s Aircraftto which the honourable Senator refers. This article contains statements which stimulated speculation in the Australian Press and questions in Parliament about the purpose of joint United States-Australian installations in this country.
1. and (4) The article in question is not drawn from authoritative sources but, like other recent publications, appearsto be based upon speculative articles from various journals and by a varietyof technical writers. I made my position clear in my statement in the House on 14th September. I have nothing to addto that statement and have no intention of addingto speculation in the Press or in any other publication. This Government and our United Stales partners consider that the interests of neither country would be served by any enlargement on the official statements already made.

page 2045

QUESTION

HOUSING

(Question No. 1542)

Senator WILKINSON:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

How many houses were built in Western

Australia during the period from 1st January to 30th September 1971 and, during the same period, how many successful applications for the Commonwealth Home Savings Grant were made.

Does the Minister consider that the ceiling limit of $17,500 for a house, in order to qualify for a grant is adequate for all States of Australia, and why is each State not treated individually according to its finance needs, based on real estate and building industry costs.
Is the Minister reviewing the current ceiling level of $17,500 in respect to Western Australia; if so, when does he expect a decision to be made if not, would he be prepared to do so in the near future, so as to enable more young couples to benefit from the Scheme, particularly in Western Australia.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

Preliminary estimates by the Commonwealth Statistician show that 8,438 new houses were completed in Western Australia during the period 1st January to. 30th September 1971. During the same period 1,614 applications for Home Savings Grants were approved in that State.
Adoption of a single value limit accords with practice in other Commonwealth legislation granting benefits to individuals, namely that the conditions of the grant apply uniformly throughout Australia.
Changes in the value limit are considered as a matter of policy from time to time. The honourable senator’s interest will be -kept in mind on the occasion of the next review.

page 2045

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1552)

Semator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

How will the reduction of 3,000 in the intake of migrants over the Christmas period, announced on 26th October 1971 by the Prime Minister, affect intending migrants from countries where there is a backlog of applications for migration to Australia.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

During the next few months emphasis in movement will be on those people, from all sources, who are most likely to have little difficulty in obtaining employment, e.g. certain skilled tradesmen. Priority is also being given to family reunion and the movement of personal nominees.In particular, priority will be given to wives and dependent children of breadwinnerswho are already in Australia.

page 2045

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1557)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

How many applications for Australian citizenship have been (a) refused, and (b) deferred, in each of the past 10 years, on the grounds of inadequate knowledge of English.
What procedure does the Department of Immigration adopt to determine whether an applicant for Australian citizenship possesses an adequate knowledge of English.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

(a) and (b) Statistics are not maintained of the number of applications for Australian citizenship refused or deferredsolely on the grounds of inadequate knowledge of English. However, the following table shows the number of applications refused or deferred on the grounds of inadequate knowledge of English or lack of knowledge of responsibilities and privileges of citizenship in each of the past ten years:

For the grant of citizenship the phrase adequate knowledge of English’ is interpreted to mean an ability to speak the language and understand it. when spoken to, sufficiently well to enable an applicant to earn his living in an English speaking community and to engage in conversation on every day topics. The ability of an applicant to satisfy the requirement of an adequate knowledge of English is assessed in conversation at an interview the applicant has in connection with his application with an officer or representative of the Department of Immigration

page 2046

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 1588)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

Have any jet aircraft of the Royal Australian Air ForceVIP Flight taken-off or landed at Kingsford-Smith (Mascot) Airport between the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. on any day this year.
On how many occasions have such incidents taken place, and on what dates.
If such flights did leave Mascot, what was the destination airport, what was the time of departure, and who were the passengers.
If such flights arrived at Mascot from which aerodromes did the aircraft take-off, who were the passengers, and what were the times of arrival at Mascot.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

Yes.
See answer to 3 and 4.
RAAF VIP Jet Aircraft departed Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport during the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. during the period 1st January 1971 to 3rd November 1971 as follows:

page 2046

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK BUILDING, SYDNEY

(Question No. . 1600)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

How many lifts service the Commonwealth Bank Building in Martin Place, Sydney, and do they operate to full capacity between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.; if not, why.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Twelve.
The Bank advises that the lifts are operating to full capacity between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. apart from any that might be out of service.

page 2046

QUESTION

EXPORTS

(Question No. 1617)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Will the cessation of United States aid to under-developed countries seriously affect Australian export markets, particularly in Asia?
What steps is the Australian Government taking to overcome this problem?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

and (2) Although the United States Senate voted on 29th October to defeat the Administration’s 1971-72 Foreign Assistance Authorisation Bill, the Government’s understanding is that this does not mean the cessation of United States aid to developing countries. Congress is now examining new proposals on the United States aid programme.

Since United States aid is largely tied to purchases in that country a decrease in US economic aid would have little direct effect on Australia’s exports. It would be speculative to attempt lo assess any indirect effects on Australia’s trade of a reduction in US aid. The matter will be kept under reveiw as further developments occur.

page 2047

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yesterday Senator Kane asked me the following question: 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry why 8,000 bales of wool were offered for sale by tender in the week ending 12th November L97 1 . Why were they nol offered for sale by public auction? Why were not th:se offerings guaranteed by the Australian Wool Commission as to type and micron? What quantity was sold and by whom? 1 gave him some information and promised him that I would get more details. I now inform him that the Australian Wool Commission offered S.600 bales of wool for sale by tender in Brisbane during the wed ended 12 th November. The wool auction sale scheduled for Brisbane in that week had been cancelled as a result of industrial unrest. At the request of woolbuyers, the Commission therefore decided to offer some of its Brisbane wool out of stock to assist buyers who were short in their buying orders of particular types as a result of the cancellation of the Brisbane auction sale. All the wools offered were guaranteed as to type and micron. Only about 1,200 bales of wool were sold in this instance but it should be borne in mind that some of it may have filled orders that otherwise could have gone to competitive fibres.

page 2047

QUESTION

INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS

The Treasurer has advised that the Government has received many requests that deductions be allowed in respect of gifts lo organisations which provide help for the relief of suffering or distress overseas, lt has. however, consistently taken the view that this taxation concession should be limited, as far as possible, lo institutions or organisations which carry on their activities in Australia (including, for this purpose, the Territory of

Papua New Guinea). This policy was confirmed when the question came up again recently in relation to requests for the allowance of gifts to appeals on behalf of the East Pakistani refugees in India, the Government concluding that the most effective help it could give was further direct assistance.

Among the considerations which the Government has taken into account in determining its policy on this question is the fact that it must have regard to its commitments to provide economic assistance to developing countries and certain international organisations and emergency assistance such as that given to alleviate the plight of Hast Pakistani refugees in India. Financial assistance provided through taxation concessions to private aid appeals in Australia would detract from its capacity to provide such assistance. As il is, the Commonwealth is already, contributing, or is committed to contribute, very large sums for external economic assistance; the budgetary provision in 1971-72 for official development assistance is $186m (this figure does not include some additional relief to East Pakistan and lo East Pakistani refugees in India, nor does it include increases in calls that international development organisations will make on the Australian Government). In this connection, Statement No. 8 attached to the 1971-72 Budget Speech refers.

Nevertheless, the gift provisions of the income tax jaw are reviewed from time to time and Senator McLaren may bc assured thai the question of extending them to cover organisations engaged in programmes of overseas aid will be considered on the next such occasion.

page 2047

SUSPENSION OF THE INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE

On 14th October 1971, Senator Webster addressed a question without notice to me as Minister representing the Treasurer, concerning the suspension of the investment allowance. Senator Webster in particular was seeking the lifting of the suspension. The following information is now provided:

The Treasurer advised that the announcement that the investment allowance was to bc suspended and the introduction of the suspending legislation Icd to the receipt of a large number of representations covering a wide range of aspects. The Government, of course, carefully examined these representations, and their implications, against the background of the reasons which underlay the decision on suspension. As you know, however, we have decided that the legislation suspending the operation of the investment allowance will remain unamended.

Among the broader considerations which influenced the Government’s decision to suspend the operation of the investment allowance was the fact that the allowance represented a subsidy, albeit by way of a lax concession. That is to say, it reduced the cost of investment to the business concerned, but did not reduce the cost to the nation as a whole. At present rates of company tax, it was a subsidy to public companies at the rate of 9.5 per cent of the installed capital cost of eligible plant. Subsidies to encourage investment might, of course, be justified in particular circumstances, such as those which existed when the allowance was introduced, but it is quite another matter to suggest that they, remain a permanent feature of the tax law.

Genuinely’ economic investment will not be stopped by the suspension of the concession and the only effects of the suspension are likely to fall on investments which would be economic only after a subsidy from general revenue. There are, no doubt, likely to be some projects which are so marginal that the return from customers would not enable the investment to break even without the help of the allowance. But to give the allowance in those cases would involve encouragement of uneconomic projects and would not assist productivity. Except in such marginal cases, the suspension of the allowance will not do anything to reduce the relative attractiveness of new equipment which is more efficient than that which it supersedes.

page 2048

HOUSING

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 26th October,

Senator Donald Cameron:

asked me a question without notice about housing shortages in the Northern Territ ory.I undertook to provide the honourable senator with further information. The Minister for the Interior has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government is aware of the need to provide housingto meet demands generated by a rapidly increasing population and the steady growth in economic development in the Territory.

The 1971-72 Civil Works Programme, of the Northern Territory Administration injuries$5.4m for 325 houses at various centres inthe Territory. $6.9m has been provided for the Northern Territory Housing Commission for the same period.

With a view to increasing the number of houses comingonto the market in Darwin, the Government has also called applications from private developers for the subdivision of theBrinkin neighbourhood to provide land for private housing development. This will be additional to the land which is continually becoming available from the Government’s own development programmes.

Housing provided by the Administration and the Mousing Commission in recent years has been as follows:

By comparison wailing times in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne (at 30th Jure 1971) were as follows -

Canberra (Government Housing) - 32 and 34 months for 3 b/r and 4 b/r houses respectively. 21 and 80 months for 2 b/r and1 b/r flats respectively.

Sydney (NewSouth Wales Housing Commission) - 31 to 43 months for houses. 28 months for flats.

Melbourne (Victoria State Housing Commission) - 20 months for houses. 12 to 18 months forflats.

page 2048

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 28th October Senator Gietzelt asked the following question of the Leader of the Government in my absence:

Isthe Minister aware that Mr Geoffrey Mullen (a young man gaoled for 2 years for refusing to be conscripted for the war in Vietnam), has been described by the various gaol superintendents as being a model prisoner?
Docs the Minister know that Mr Mullen has served 7 months of his sentence but has been shifted to at least 5 different penal institutions?
Have these transfers been made at the request of the Commonwealth?
Does the Minister know that the present prison where Mr Mullen is incarcerated is admitted by prison authorities tohouse an unusually high number of prisoners with homosexual tendencies?
Can the Senate be assured that it is not the intention of the Government to harrass or break the spirit of this young man (who on a matter of high principle is paying a big enough price)?

Senator GREENWOOD:

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

No.
Mr Mullen has spent a brief period in 5 separate prisons and these transfers have been made by the New South Wales authorities in the ordinary course of prison administration and in his own best interest. The initial reception at Metropolitan Reception Centre, and the weekend stay at Silverwater Complex of Prisons were only normal transitional phases.
No. It is the policy of the Commonwealth that a person imprisoned for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth should be dealt with, while in custody, in the same way as a person imprisoned for an offence against a law of the State in which the person is imprisoned.
No. The allegation is not admitted by the New South Wales prison authorities.
Yes.

page 2049

AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM

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

– Mr President, I seek leave of the Senate to move a motion expressing the Senate’s gratitude and appreciation to the personnel of the Australian forces who served in Vietnam and who are now returning to Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GAIR:

-Mr President, I move:

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr President, we of the Opposition share the view that the nation’s gratitude should be extended to the persons who have been involved in this undeclared war in Vietnam, some of them against their will. All of them have carried out their duties, whether they disapproved of them or not, in the manner that would be expected of them by the nation. We have no hesitation in agreeing to the proposition so far as it says that. Many lives have been lost in this conflict. We have lost at least 473 men killed and at least 2,980 more have been wounded and maimed. We have divided our society. We have stained our reputation throughout the world but especially in our region, Asia. We have played our part in devastating a small peasant country in the name of democracy. Our efforts have been effectively negated by what has happened in Vietnam.

Back in 1965 when the Vietnam proposition came before this Senate I recall speaking in the debate and saying that the Australian Labor Party was unanimous in its disapproval of the Liberal-Country Party’s military intervention in Vietnam. It was against the United Nation’s chaner. It was against the wishes of practically all the Commonwealth nations; only a token force from New Zealand took part. It has been one of the most discreditable parts of our nation’s history. With the ending of it, along with what is said in gratitude to those who served, some of whom were forced to serve - we are grateful to them for the way they carried out this distasteful duty - we should not fail to pass our verdict upon this dreadful adventure which was indulged in mostly for political purposes.

This Liberal and Country Party Government went into a country where the troubles were a legacy of history, where the solutions were to have reforms, to have democracy, to have land reform, and to have equalisation of wealth. Bui what did the Government do? lt supported regimes which became the scandal of the world. One after another the regimes were pushed in and out. Corruption was rife. This was stated not only by those outside that country. I remember, when Diem was assassinated how the South Vietnam Embassy itself set out to attack his character and attack the corruption of the regime which our Government sent our young men to that country to support. Then we saw a continuance of a farce of democracy which did not last for too long because we have seen the fraud that has been perpetrated in recent times. That is the government that we recognise and are still supporting.

Senator Gair:

– lt is no worse than Red China, surely. There is a great democracy there!

Senator MURPHY:

– Senator Gair uses the words ‘no worse’. In his view the People’s Republic of China, or Red China as he calls it, stands for everything that is abhorrent. What he is really saying is: All right; 1 agree that they are rotten, they are corrupt, they are worthless and they are not worth supporting; but there are others who are worse than they are’. 1 do noi share his views about China; but let us stick to the point. We are involved in Vietnam. The Liberal and Country Parties involved us. At no time did we on this side share in that involvement. At no time have we accepted any responsibility for it. From the beginning we asserted our disapproval of what they were doing. They divided this nation on this question. We predicted what would happen, and it has happened. Their policies failed and they had to pull out of Vietnam discredited not only in the Commonwealth of Nations but in the eyes of the whole world for supporting these corrupt and rotten regimes. What has happened has been the sacrifice of our young men in an illegal, immoral, unjust and undeclared war. The Liberal and Country Parties were not even prepared to declare war. 1 have heard young men of this nation - some in uniform - expressing their concern that they were involved in this kind of war. The Liberal and Country Parties were too ashamed to declare war, because of the disgraceful position in which we in Australia were and which would have been revealed, it would have been revealed that we were breaking the United Nations Charter.

-I call Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson.

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

(4.13) - My Party and I support 100 per cent, the motion moved by Senator Gair. I will refer to the amendment a little later. I say with all the depth of feeling I can bring into this Parliament - I regret that I have to say it to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) - that in allThe time I have been here I have never heard anything so disgraceful come from the Leader of the Opposition as what 1 have just heard. We have before us a motion which I will read again:

That this Senate of the Australian Parliament places on record its appreciation and gratitude to the personnel of all Australian forces who served in the Vietnam conflict for their courage, dedication and sense of duty. Particularly dowe express our sympathy to the relatives of those Australians who gave their lives during this conflict.

Senator GEORGES:

- Senator Gair has contributed very poorly to this debate by way of interjection. If he intended to present this resolution to the Senate with sincerity. I think his behaviour since he moved the resolution is questionable.

Senator Gair:

– I was never found sitting on a road near (he gutter.

Senator GEORGES:

– Perhaps 1 have sat on a road in support of a very strong cause.

Let me proceed to the resolution which ought to be supported; the resolution that places on record ‘appreciation and gratitude to the personnel of ail Australian forces who served in the Vietnam conflict for their courage, dedication and sense of duty’. But the Opposition wishes to add the rider that we regret that this courage, this dedication and this sense of duty had to support a cause which was not a just cause and which has been indicated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) to have been an immoral cause. One wonders at the state of frenzy into which the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) worked himself because the Leader of the Opposition stated clearly that we consider the sacrifice these men made was a sacrifice that ought not to have been asked of them. Nevertheless the Opposition gives them its full appreciation and supports the resolution.

Bui 1 could not allow this matter to pass without referring to the second part of the resolution. Particularly do we express our sympathy to the relatives of those Australians who gave their lives during this conflict. We express our sympathy to those who were injured, who were hurt and who were maimed. Let it be known clearly by the Government that if the Opposition’s advice had been supported in the early stages of this war these men would not have been killed, injured or maimed and it would not have been necessary for this Senate to place on record its sympathy to the relatives of those men.

It sticks very much in my throat to say that it was the Australian Democratic Labor Parly which brought forward this resolution. What a pious and hypocritical resolution it is coming from the members of that Party because they more so than the Government are responsible for the deaths of these men and the position in which the relatives find themselves. If it had not been for the support of the Party which they represent in this place there would not have been a commitment in Vietnam. If men have died or have been maimed in Vietnam then those honourable senators must accept the responsibility. Yet, they come here and move a resolution of sympathy to the relatives. Mark you, if this Government stays in office much longe with the support of this crew of unmitigated humbugs, then further men will die. I say that further men will be sent to fight wars that we ought not to support. For that reason I point out that the DLP is misguided in moving such a resolution of sympathy because the resolution exposes the DLP’s hypocrisy to its full depth.

Senator WITHERS:
Western Australia

– 1 think it is a great shame that this debate has got out of hand this afternoon due to the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy). When I first heard about this motion which was to be moved by leave by Senator Gair, the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party 1 thought that he should be thanked for initiating such a move. There has been a fair amount of historical precedent for Parliament thanking the armed Services when they have ceased to be in an engagement, and I thought that this was the purpose of the motion. But the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate introduces politics into the Parliament’s thanks to the armed Services. I have always felt that it was one of the fundamentals of our type of parliamentary democracy that we should at no stage involve the armed Services in politics. Lord knows we have seen enough of this, curse in other parts of the wor’d where the armed Services have been involved in politics. And this afternoon we have the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate doing so here.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– 1 regret that it is necessary for me to speak in this debate. It was anticipated that the motion would be carried unanimously by the Senate without debate. 1 think it should have been.

Senator Keeffe:

– Why?

Senator LITTLE:

– Senator Keeffe is interjecting. He has made a statement that the Democratic Labor Party, in introducing the motion played politics. In actual fact the Democratic Labor Party, by leave of the Senate, moved the motion and had not. until I rose to speak, spoken to it. Senator Gair merely placed before the Senate his motion because he thought that this was the appropriate time for the Parliament to express one thing and one thing only - its appreciation to :he men who had carried out in a very wonderful manner a responsibility on behalf of this country. Because most of them have returned home and because others are now returning home, it seemed ro be the appropriate time to express the appreciation of this country, without indulging in the politics in which all of us have indulged on many occasions. We have different points of view. We have put them and defended them. 1 think we have that right. But this is hardly the time or place to re-hash the opinions that we may have had about the degree of responsibility resting in the Government that may have caused these men about whom the motion speaks to do the job that they have done.

– I do not mind dog fights. I have been in many in my day. 1 can fight them on the footpaths, I can fight them on the streets. I suppose that ! have a reputation of being able to hold my own when my opponents drag me down into the sewers. But this is not the occasion for a clog fight. 1 do not propose to be drawn into one. The motion is a simple one. The Democratic Labor Party, on whose behalf I now speak, accepts no amendment to the proposition that it has placed before the Senate. We cannot agree with the early part of the amendment. The second part expresses an opinion that could well be dealt with on some other occasion - and on that occasion there may be the same unanimity among members of the Senate that 1 hope this motion will have when it is put to the vote. These are matters for another occasion. T do not think that when we express the appreciation of the Parliament we should go into the more contentious issues involved in the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). I believe that his good sense and the good sense which I know exists in many members of the Opposition should prevail. I believe that they should recognise that this is not the time to express whatever opinions they may hold on the justification or otherwise for the struggle that has taken place in Vietnam or on the reasons and necessities for. and the manner in which that struggle has taken place.

Let us place on record the unanimous appreciation of the Senate for the sacrifices that these men who served Australia in Vietnam made, and at this point of time let us leave it at that. I would welcome the opportunity to engage in any kind of a dog fight on the other issues at. some other time. In discussing this motion, I refuse to discuss those issues. I have not discussed them nor have I alluded to them other than in advancing my argument to reject the amendment. That is the attitude of the Democratic Labor Party. If it is said to be political we will even accept that it is, for the purpose of gaining unanimity of the Senate. We are expressing in terms that only a parliament can express our appreciation of the men who gave all that they had to give because their country asked them to - and their country is represented by the Government.

The PRESIDENT:

– -Order! As there are 2 honourable senators on their feet, Senator Cotton, will you yield to Senator Douglas McClelland?

Senator Cotton:

– I will yield to Senator Douglas McClelland in order to allow the debate to proceed.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Senator Little staled that he understood that the motion moved by Senator Gair would be carried unanimously, but Senator Little and the members of the Democratic Labor Party have been in the Senate long enough and have been involved in the political working ofthe nation long enough to appreciate andto understand that the Labor movement in this country has consistently been opposed to Australian involvement in Vietnam. It is our responsibility to the Labor movement, to the people whom we represent andto the majority of Australians who oppose Australian involvement in Vietnam to continue to express, in accordance with our consistency to dale, the attitude of disapproval of thepresent Liberal-Country Party Government’s military intervention in Vietnam. In addition to expressing our disapproval of the Government’s involvement of young Australians in this war - kids who have been pulled out of their jobs against their will and sent to this horrible, filthy, dirty war - we have consistently deplored in this Parliament and elsewhere the paucity of repatriation payments made to young men, and in some cases to their dependants, who have been called upon to make the supreme sacrifice or who have been maimed, wounded or whose health has been impaired for the rest of their days because of the demands placed upon them by this conservative Government.

For those reasons and having regard to the attitude consistently adopted by the Labor movement over the years, and expressing the point of view of the millions of Australians who support us in this altitude, the Opposition has moved its amendment to Senator Gair’s motion. Of course, members of the Labor movement are prepared to place on record their appreciation of and gratitude to the personnel of all Australian forces wherever they might have served; they served because their services were demanded by this Government.

At the same time we would be betraying the faith that has been reposed in us if we did not continue to express our opposition to the use of Australian armed forces in this horrible war and to the paucity of repatriation payments made to servicemen and their dependents. Let us compare one or two of the repatriation benefits which were made available to servicemen discharged after the Second World War and those which are made available to those discharged now after their national service training, particularly if they had service in Vietnam.

Any man who served in the armed forces during the Second World War, be it outside or inside Australia, was entitled to Commonwealth rehabilitation training and he could choose any trade course or any professional course that he desired. And the Government, appreciative of the services that those men gave to their country, paid for and accepted responsibility for ensuring that they received complete training to make them skilled tradesmen or to equip them for professional life in this country. As a result of the Commonwealth rehabilitation training services which were available to men discharged after the Second World War and because of a government that was grateful to them and appreciated the services they performed there are today many lawyers, doctors, scientists, dentists and veterinary scientists carrying out their professions. Compare that sort of training which was given by a grateful government after the Second World War with the miserly educational training given by this Government to men who have been called up for national service today.

Today the educational training is very limited indeed. Training is available to those national servicemen who are able to resume their employment but who need training in order to avoid being placed at a disadvantage in their employment because of their absence during national service. Training is available to those national servicemen who had completed their education and training before call-up but who require a refresher course. Training is available to national servicemen who have acquired during their national service experience and skills which would be wasted or not fully used in civilian life without additional training. But how much of this training is given to them? Training is available for one year only on a full-time basis or for a niggardly 2 years on a part-time basis.

Senator Brown:

– If they apply for it within 6 months.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As Senator Brown reminds me, it has to be applied for within 6 months of the serviceman’s discharge. What educational assistance is the Government giving to these young boys who just shortly after they leave school are grabbed out of their jobs, shoved into the Army and sent to Vietnam? Is it not the responsibility of honourable senators on this side of the chamber who have expressed their opposition to these boys being sent away to raise their voices in opposition at this stage to the niggardly repatriation benefits made available to them? These young men are entitled to more than a mouthed expression of appreciation. They are entitled to more tangible assistance from this Government and from those who support it.

What is the situation in regard to repatriation payments? The poverty line in the Government’s subsidised health services scheme is $42.50 a week. If any man is receiving a mere $42.50 a week he is considered to be on the poverty line and is entitled under this Government’s health legislation to receive completely subsidised medical services. What is the total and permanently incapacity rate that the Government has provided in its current Budget? A mere $42.50 a week. How much is paid to a man who has both his arms amputated? He is paid $30.50 a week. How much is paidto a man who has both his legs and one arm amputated? He receives $30.50 a week, $12 a week less than the poverty line that the Government fixes in its legislation. How much is paid to the war widow? A mere $17.25 a week. How much is paid to the first child of a war widow by way of pension? A mere $7 a week. One could go on citing the figures provided in the Government’s Budget which was introduced in this chamber in August this year.

No matter which figure one picks out. one must say that the Government,far from being generous to these young boys who have been called upon to serve their country, has adopted a most niggardly and mean attitude having regard to the services they have been called upon to render and the sacrifices they have made at thedirec? tion and behest of this Government. It is the responsibility not only of , the Opposition but also of all members and senators of this Parliament to see that men who have served their country, wherever they have served and whether it was voluntary or conscripted service, are repatriated at a reasonable rate and compensated for the great disabilities with which they have been afflicted. If the Opposition did not express such an opinion now in support of its amendment it would not be fair dinkum to any of these men. We ask honourable senators in the Australian Democratic Labor Party and in the Government parties to think wisely when they vote on this issue.

Senator Cotton:

– They will.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Cotton says that they will. If they are sincere and if they are not merely mouthing appreciative words but have something more tangible which will assist in the formulation of a constructive rehabilitation policy, then the Government and DLP senators will support the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I bad hoped to have an opportunity to speak on the statement relating to theVietnam withdrawals which is still on the notice paper. 1 would have dealt with 2 aspects, one of which is covered by the motion moved by the Australian Democratic Labor Party, which I applaud and I rejectthe suggestion of the Opposition that it is in any way a gimmick. The other aspect is to set right in this context the job done in Vietnam. But first let me deal with the motion. We should extend our gratitude and show our pride not only to the personnel of the armed Services but also to those civilians and womenfolk who throughout our involvement in Vietnam performed such remarkable work. 1 am thinking here of the medical teams, the teams 1 have seen in Vietnam doingwonderful work amongst the civilians and particularly among the children. I am thinking of the people who gave civil aid and. of course, I am thinking of the members of our 3 armed Services. I am sure that everyone would want placed on record his tribute to the dedication, great courage and unsurpassed skill and professionalism a: arms displayed by the Australian soldier. The reputation of Australian servicemen in Vietnam and the Far East has done very great honour to this country. They have been magnificent ambassadors. I have been privileged to see them in the field and to experience the reaction of the Vietnamese to them. They have done this country great credit indeed.

My second point is to reject what I would call the meanness of mind - I am not one to use harsh words - that sought this afternoon to so modify this resolution as to emasculate it. Whatever the views of the Opposition as to the Tightness or wrongness of the war, the tribute to Australian soldiers should have been allowed to stand on its own.

Senator Georges:

– Why did you not move it?

Senator CARRICK:

– I would have been proud to move it, had I had an opportunity to do so.

Senator Georges:

– It would have been more readily acceptable.

Senator CARRICK:

– I would have been proud to move it. I accept Senator George’s suggestion. I am sure that my Party along with the Democratic Labor Party would go along with me, in my moving with the utmost pride this resolution. 1 do it without qualification because I say that it is meanness of mind to try to score some cheap political advantage by allying a lot of emotionalism to the resolution. lt is not so much the written words that Senator Murphy sought to add that I reject; it is the emotional words and, if 1 may say so, it is the corruption of the facts of history that I deplore. I should like to place on record not only our tribute to these people who have served but also our belief that the war in which they served was a just war, a war fought to assist a free and independent country to remain free and to assist countries of South East Asia to remain free. I should like to place on record that within the limits of the goals that were set militarily when we went into that war, our soldiers, in conjunction with our allies, have achieved those goals. Rather than have them come out with the whimper of defeat which has been described by the Opposition, they come out with great credit and great success. They have accomplished their goals.

– 1 am delighted that Senator Georges and I have found a point of separation, but in walking the ladder of history we have found complete concord. I do not wish to pursue this, except to say that on every test that the Opposition has advanced over the years to deny the war in Vietnam, those tests have proven wrong. 1 remind the Senate that the Opposition warned us that if we went into Asia we would make bad friends and provoke a world war. In fact, every country in South East Asia today is a better and stronger friend of Australia. Because of our commitment we are today highly respected in South East Asia.

I pay tribute to our soldiers, not only for what they did in South Vietnam but also because, by buying time over the last precious 6 years south of the seventeenth parallel it enabled those nations - Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia: - to understand the threat, to take internal steps and measures, to form great alliances, even if those alliances are rejected by the Opposition, and today to become far more secure and far better friends and allies of Australia than ever could have occurred. Therefore, in welcoming and indeed joining in moving this resolution, without qualification 1 add to it our congratulations on the success of a very great and dedicated undertaking.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I do not want to follow Senator Carrick down the ladder of history about which he was speaking. I find it interesting that he says that as an historical fact the war in Vietnam has been successful. I think that it would be a very brave man indeed who would make a judgment as to how the patient would progress. I hope that he is right. I hope that the poor, wartorn country does not nave to suffer a one millionth part of what it has suffered over the last few years. But this, is not the matter which is before us today. Honourable senators on both sides of the .chamber have talked about people becoming emotional. I think that the Australian Democratic Labor Party must have expected this situation when it introduced this motion, because whenever one touches- on the Vietnam war one touches on the most emotive issue which has faced the world over the last few years. Probably this is the most divisive issue of its kind in history. Never has there been such great debate over anywar. Probably this is because of the modern telecommunications available to mankind today. But whenever this matter is raised in a political chamber such as this one must expect emotion.

I am not condemning this. Emotion has been shown by more than one honourable senator this afternoon. This sort of thing is built into each man. But what has happened? A motion has been put forward by the Democratic Labor Party, a motion which the Australian Labor Party supports. But we ask that the Senate add 2 amendments to the motion. We ask that at the beginning there be added words showing that we dissociate ourselves from the decision to send Australian troops into Vietnam. Surely this is acceptable if honourable senators want to remove this matter from the political field? I keep my tongue in my cheek a bit about this matter. Most people in this chamber are pretty hardened politicians now. The DLP likes to tell us what tough politicians they’ are. They are forever telling us this. When they come up with something and say: ‘Let us wash our hands of politics in this manner’ - well, be that as it may. Certainly there is nothing offensive in the motion which has been put forward by the DLP. One cannot disagree with it. We willingly associate ourselves with it. At the same time, the moment this highly emotive and wholly divisive issue is brought into a political chamber I do not think one can blame the Australian Labor Party for asking to be disassociated from the whole argument which has been presented here today. Quite contrary to saying that by adding the words suggested by the ALP we are going to make this a gimmick or drag it into the mire of politics, I ask honourable senators to accept the amendment in the spirit in which the Australian Labor Party puts it. Honourable senators would thereby lift the motion out of the mire because they would be saying: ‘There is to be no argument about this. We still take the line which we have taken over all the years in our attitude towards the Vietnam war but in spite of this we go ahead with the motion’.

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Murphy’s amendment) be inserted.

The Senate divided. (The President - Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Byrne) agreed to:

That the resolution adopted by the Senate be transmitted tothe House of Representatives for its information.

page 2064

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY: SOCIAL SERVICES

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following letter from Senator Murphy. Mr President

In accordance with Standing Order No. 64, I intend to move on Wednesday, 24th November 1971- That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.29 a.m. - for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely,:

The promotion of the economy and the relief of unnecessary distress by an immediate increase in unemployment benefits and other social services.’

LIONEL MURPHY

Is the motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places).

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I move:

That the. Senate, at. its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.29 a.m. 1 do so for the purpose of enabling a debate on a matter of urgency, namely:

The promotion of the economy and the relief of unnecessary distress by an immediate increase in unemployment benefits and other social services.

Mr President, the purpose of this urgency motion is to draw attention to the unnecessary man-made misery flowing from this Government’s disastrous economic policies and to suggest measures which can have an immediate palliative effect on the illness these policies have inflicted upon our society. We of the Australian Labor Party believe that thousands of people should not be compelled to live at near starvation level merely because this Government is loo stubborn to admit that its recent Budget was based on grievous economic miscalculations. While the Government, despite all the evidence, persists in defending its Budget strategy, most competent observers agree that it was mistaken, quite apart from any added difficulties flowing from the international monetary crisis which could not have been wholly anticipated. There is near unanimity among economists, the financial editors of the major newspapers and leaders of industry that the difficulties which bedevilled the economy before August last have now been compounded by the Government’s Budget.

With industry slowing down, unemployment mounting, the rural sector in a desperate plight and confidence ebbing away, this was no time for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his economic expertise to take off on a pointless jaunt overseas. He left the country for no discernible reason except to be seen hobnobbing with the great for political advantage. He has come home, as most of us could have told him he would, empty handed. Now he is back the Opposition wants to confront him with the mess which he and his advisers created, to remind him that he did not make the problem go away just by going away himself. We want to put to him and his Government serious suggestions for immediate measures to relieve the hardship of growing numbers of the community and at the same time give a much needed fillip to the economy.

The source of our present difficulties is that the Government became so mesmerised by the problems of inflation that it ignored the economic indices that the rate of growth of employment and productivity would be depressed in the year 1971-72 and that unemployment would rise steadily if the then existing fiscal and monetary policies were maintained. What was required to stimulate the economy and the growth of employment and productivity was that last August’s Budget should have been at least mildly expansionary. Instead the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), muttering a lot of jeremiads about the alleged threat of a great outburst of demand inflation based on record savings in the banks, opted for a budget which provided no direct stimulus by way of expenditure to the level of activity in the economy. It was a budget which further dampened down demand by increasing the levy on personal income taxes from 2.5 per cent to 5 per cent. The result has been that Australia has joined the stagflation club; that is, it has addedto the evils of inflation the stagnation of its economy and mounting unemployment.

It is with the unemployment problem that I am particularly concerned today, and I think the Senate should be concerned, as all Australia is concerned. When I quote the disheartening figures of present and projected unemployed I remind honourable senators that I am talking of human beings, not just of statistics or an economic graph. I. would remind them also that if the experience of the major industrial countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, which preceded Australia into the stagflation club, are any guide, this type of unemployment, unless tackled quickly and thoroughly, tends to become chronic and permanent.

Just before he left Australia .in his recent trip the Prime Minister indicated that the October employment figures would be a ‘pleasant surprise’. If he finds any pleasure in these figures he is unfit for his high office. What do the October figures show? They show that 62,000 men and women were unemployed compared with 44,000 for the same month last year. The reason for the so called ‘pleasant surprise’ was that the rate of decline shown in the previous 2 months figures was not repeated in October and there was actually a slight drop in registered unemployed. But as the financial editor of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ stated on 16th November:

. the size of the seasonally adjusted movements in October are so small as to be of little statistical significance.

The financial editor, Mr Alan Wood, went on to state:

The issue of real interest is whether the downturn in the labour market is continuing if at a slower rate-. The October figures suggest that it is on closer analysis. The key forward indicator, the rate at which vacancies are being notified, continues to be significantly- below the levels of a year ago. In fact for the first time in 4 years it failed to record a significant increase in October (a rather important qualification to Mr Lynch’s statement that: ‘The main indicators for the month showed movements which were normal for October.)’ This suggests a continuing downturn in the labour market. In any case the Federal Treasurer has told us that his own departmental experts forecast higher unemployment after seasonal adjustment in January and February.

This is a time when seasonal adjustment factors operate to substantially moderate the actual unemployment figures, another reason for believing October is not representative.

And it is important to remember that these adverse trends in the labour market are operating at a time when the Budget is in its seasonal expansionary phase.

So, we see what is happening with the Budget. Mr Wood continued:

The Budget will not start to bite until the new year, when present trends will presumably be exacerbated. if the Budget was intended to be expansive we will strike the expansion early next year. If it was intended to be one which would contract the economy we will strike that contraction next year. There is no doubt that this Budget was intended to contract the economy and that we will suffer from this miscalculation that has been made by the Federal Treasurer. In short, there is no comfort to be derived from the October figures, especially by the 62,000 unemployed. The figures show an extremely unpleasant and dangerous trend in the economy.

The latest summary of the economic situation carried out by the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne is published in the ‘Australian Economic Review’ ot October this year. Each year this Institute, which has as its members some of Australia’s most distinguished economists and has a most capable research staff, publishes in April and October short term forecasts of the Australian economy which have come to be accepted as among the most authoritative in the country. The latest conclusions of the Institute are:

The current situation of stagflation will not remedy itself. Some Government action will be necessary to correct it. However, even if economic policies were reversed immediately, little effect on the economy could be expected in. 1971-72.

That means that little effect could be expected before 30th June 1972 even if the economic policies were’ reversed immediately. The Institute points out that a slackening of business demand is now evident. It says that the September survey by the Bank of New South Wales and the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia revealed that a majority of these manufacturers were no longer working at a satisfactorily full rate of operation. It added that few of them expected an improvement in general business conditions in the next 6 months, and therefore few planned to increase their , rate of capital expenditure, while many expected to reduce it.

The Institute’s economists : predict that there will be 5,400 fewer . employees in manufacturing’ in 1971-72- than- there were in 1970-71. This would be the- first such decline since 1961-62. Of ! course, with thousands of school leavers about to enter the work force and with migrants continuing to arrive, even though in somewhat reduced numbers, it is an alarming prognosis that industry will absorb fewer rather than more of these job seekers. The Treasurer himself already has forecast a higher level of unemployed in January and February, although he would not name a figure. How has the Government reacted to this situation? The only positive step it has taken has been an insignificant monetary measure that was announced by the Treasurer on 12th November. The Government has reduced interest rates on short to medium long term bonds, in order to reduce the relative attractiveness of government bonds to investors in the hope of easing the availability and cost of finance to the private sector. This action is like applying a Band-Aid when a blood transfusion is required.

Apart from this, ali we have had from the Treasurer has been a waffling lecture on the difficulties of implementing an incomes policy, which is one of the suggested cures of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research to which 1 have been referring. I acknowledge that an incomes policy is a complex and difficult matter, as overseas experience has shown. However, there is one immediate and simple step which the Government could take, and I strongly urge it to do so. The source of this suggestion is the same Institute. In case honourable senators on the Government side should feel inclined to ridicule this suggestion as coming from ‘just another bunch of academic economists’, let me remind them that it was just this bunch of academic economists which warned before the Budget of the dangers of an unduly restrictive Budget strategy; it was they who pointed to the signs of a downturn in the economy which evidently escaped the attention of the Government and its Treasury advisers in shaping this disastrous Budget.

The Opposition suggestion is that the Government should immediately take steps to raise unemployment benefits and pensions. This step is justified on 2 grounds: Firstly, it would immediately inject more purchasing power into the hands of the unemployed and those on pensions at a time of prospective rapid growth in unemployment. It could not have any cost-push inflationary effect as increases in unemployment benefits and pensions do not add to the cost of production, lt would increase the flow of money in the economy and therefore stimulate demand. That applies equally whether it is unemployment benefits in particular or social services in general. But an even greater justification is the humanitarian ground. With inflation expected to continue at least at an annual rate of 6 per cent, all social service benefits are being eroded. A further rise is urgently needed to cope with this inflation.

The present and anticipated increase in unemployment is either the intended or the unintended result of Government policy. Why should those thrown out of work by such a policy have to bear the burden of the Government’s miscalculation, to put it at its best, or deliberate callousness, to put it at its worst? A married couple of age or invalid pensioners are eligible for a weekly pension of $30.50. This is miserable enough, and should immediately be increased heavily. In contrast, an unemployed couple, possibly only a year or so away from eligibility for the age pension, qualify for only $18 a week. The benefit rates for the unemployed should be lifted to at least the rates for those who are aged or invalid. The rates that we pay to those who have fallen away in our economic system - those who are too aged to work, those who are invalid and those who have been thrown out of work either by some circumstance of their own or, as in the case of the tens of thousands who will be thrown out of work through no fault of their own, by deliberate Government policy - are such that they have to live in circumstances which are below the minimum necessary for reasonable comfort and dignity in a civilised society. Why should that be so in a country as rich as Australia?

Economists speak glibly about an acceptable level of unemployment. Unfortunately, temporary unemployment lasting for a few weeks is inevitable for some as a result of technological change or shifts in employment patterns. While they are between jobs these victims of industrial society must not be depressed below the poverty line. This kind of unemployment is bad enough. But it is intolerable to the civilised conscience that the morale of a large number of our people should be broken by their being forced to live in a state of penury and hopelessness for a lengthy period. Then they are faced with the problem of debt which will dog them for a long time even if they manage to gain reemployment. The Opposition urges the Government to take immediate steps to see that every citizen receives a weekly sustenance which is commensurate with human dignity. Our people have the right to live at a proper standard, not merely to exist. Other steps will have to be taken to reverse the totally unnecessary, man-made recession which has overtaken us and which threatens to deepen still further. In the meantime it is good economics, as well as basic humanity, to lift social service payments to at least the level of a modest living wage.

It seems that since the Prime Minister has returned from his overseas jaunt the harsh reality Of life in Australia today has been brought home to him. In the “Sunday Australian’ of 21st November he has apparently had a change of heart. He is quoted as saying:

I would like to see demand increase somewhat. In recent weeks we have decided [hat interest on Commonwealth securities would he lowered, and I did announce thai wc would reduce the number of migrant workers coming in over the Christmas period. In other words, the whole position has been looked at now by us. If we feel that action -has to be taken to stimulate demand, and consequently have its impact on unemployment, you can rest assured that we will take action.

They are the words of the Prime Minister. It is obvious to anyone that demand needs to be stimulated in this country. Apart from the statistics that I have quoted and the words of the economists, is not what is happening every day convincing enough? The Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd ls shutting down furnaces and its plants all over the country are not placing the orders they were. It is obvious that we are faced with a crisis of confidence and unless something is done to increase demand in this country there will be a terrible economic period reminiscent of but worse than what took place in 1961-62.

What will be the position if the economists are right, and there seems to be a certain consensus even spreading through the Government on this? The suggestion is: If we have to increase demand let us do it in such a way that we do. not increase the cost structure’. The Government says it wants to hold down wages. I will not enter into that argument with the Government. We do not agree with .this. But if we leave that one aside, there can be no possible economic objection to increasing the demand in areas such as social services where it will not increase the cost structure. Is it not common sense, then, that this should be done before it is too late? Other proposals have been made by Mr Dunstan which are sensible. He said that we should cut not only the interest rates but also sales tax and other matters which affect the cost structure. That is sensible and we would agree with it. Every one takes the view that there ought to be an increase in demand in areas where such a moye will not affect the cost structure.

If, as the Prime Minister says, his Government is committed to a policy of full employment, what is he doing to ensure that over 100,000 Australians will nol be unemployed in the new year? The Opposition challenges the Government to do more than pay lip service to this policy of full employment. Since the Prime Minister’s return there have been further pessimistic forecasts of the economic future. The Australian and New Zealand banking group on 22nd November released the results of a survey which is decidedly pessimistic about the business outlook in Australia and predicts a deteriorating labour situation. The bank in i”.s November publication of “Business Indicators’ shows a disheartening reflection of the widespread pessimism afflicting our economy- today.

The survey carried out by the bank analysed the positions vacant advertisements iri 2 leading classified advertising newspapers, the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ and the ‘Age’ in Melbourne. By doing this the bank is able to predict the behaviour of the most importan of the official statistics - the rale of notification of vacancies to the Commonwealth Employment Office, lt showed that the employment series fell substantially in October after adjustment for seasonal influences. The series had risen by 1.5 per cent in September after falling in all the earlier months of this year. The bank says the October fall probably points to a further decline in unfilled vacancies notified :o the Commonweatlh Employment Service and a simultaneous rise in the number registered as unemployed. The employment advertisement series showed similar movement in both Sydney and Melbourne after adjustment for seasonal influences. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ series fell by 3.8 per cent in October, while the ‘Age’ fell by 6.1 per cent, together giving a fall of 4.5 per cent. How much more evidence does the Government require before it moves to prevent wholesale economic disaster for Australia?

I have been quoting sources which presumably would appeal to honourable senators on the Government side. I have quoted business sources, newspaper editors, bankers and economists which presumably honourable senators opposite believe. We on this side know from what trade union leaders say. from what local government leaders say. from what people in country towns throughout New South Wales, Victoria and all of the other States say as well as from what is happening in the mining fields, in the workshops and in the factories that these statistics are bearing out what is the true position and that the future position will be much worse than is shown.

It is no use someone saying: ‘Look, it is no use talking about things; it will cause them to get worse’. We have had enough of that nonsense in here. Some people seem to think that because one gets up and speaks the truth about what is happening thereby one is causing it. There is no doubt that if something drastic is not done by this Government, and done immediately, we arc in for the most serious trouble in Australia. Even if the economists are right and even starting now, it will be extremely difficult, well-nigh impossible, to affect the deterioration that is going to occur up to the end of this financial year.

If that is right, the obvious measure should be taken. That measure has been pointed out to the Government. There are many things that should be done. One of them not only has good economic sense but is humanitarian. We should increase heavily the assistance given to those people who are already suffering unnecessary distress. We should put the money into the area where we can do something that is humanitarian, that is decent and that will also help the economy. If the Government is worth its salt at all why will it resist doin>> this?

– They are export earnings in credit, inflow of capital equally, reinvestment of locally earned profits, depreciations retained and items of that character. It is not right to assume, as some commentators are assuming, that this is a content of what is called portfolio investment. There is no evidence to support that view at all; rather the contrary. 1 can produce these figures for honourable senators. In the sense that I engage in this debate, as I said earlier, I regard this as a very proper place, in view of the long term occupancy of members of the Senate, to think about these matters.

I refer again to the very notable expansion in the overall Commonwealth scene. In 1949-50 total Commonwealth receipts were $ 1,104m while this year they are $8,800m, a multiplication of 8 times. This is reflected in increased strength, stability, growth, opportunity and living standards of the Australian people. So the proposition that the promotion of ;the economy by an increase in the unemployment benefit and, as Senator Murphy adds, some social services, is a consequential factor to be considered. We have to analyse the expression ‘promotion of the economy’. What does it mean? And what would additional social services and unemployment benefit do to promote the economy, if it needs to be promoted, which I doubt? First of all, there is the issue of whether the economy needs promotion and whether this can be done appropriately by an increase in unemployment benefit, and other social services. 1 have some notes on the condition of the economy. Our gross national product has increased in current prices by 12 per cent since October 1970. There is continued strong growth in total private investment spending; it is up by 14 ner cent ia the year. There is a sharp recovery in public spending; there is a reduced rate of growth in wages, salaries and supplements; there is a recovery in the gross operating surplus of companies; there is a moderated and continued upward growth in consumer spending of 9i per cent in the year. With personal incomes running very high, the moderate trend in consumer spending has been reflected in very high personal savings. For example, savings bank deposits increased by S265m in the September quarter of 1971 compared with $l62m in the same quarter last year. This country is notable for financing its development from its own savings and we ought to acknowledge that. We should be proud of our people for they have done a remarkable job. Private investment spending continues to run very high. Building approvals sugget thai thi trend will continue for some time, while private housing approvals have been increasing. Non-residential approvals have been increasing also but costs and prices continue to rise very strongly. The present annual rate of price increase is 7 per cent per annum.

There are some hopeful signs developing but nonetheless, on a total volume of advice including both local advice from the Public Service, from advisers in banks, from a wide range of opinion in the private sector and from the information available from overseas, a considered Budget was brought down, lt was designed to keep the growth rate up, to maintain employment and at the same time to do something about price stability without which this country could find itself in really serious trouble. These are disciplines which arc upon the whole of the Austraiian people and hey should be properly led in these disciplines by an understanding in parliaments and this is what we are seeking to achieve in this debate. The labour movement did ease in September but the movement was not repeated in October. The October figures show an improvement. Very briefly 1 would like to quote the figures. Dealing with the recipients of unemployment benefit, in October last year there were 10,282 while this year in October there were 18,171. So we are discussing at present 8,000 people, because last year nobody complained’ about the position: We arc complaining now about S.000 people. 1 suggest that somebody who has more time later could work out what 8,000 people getting some extra income would do to an economy if that economy needed to be promoted, as is suggested, but which in the year of present examination is running at a figure for total Commonwealth receipts of $8,800m.

So while we are concerned about this we must talk in reality of what the real issues are. The number of registered unemployed which I have given to honourable senators is equivalent to 1.1 per cent of the estimated work force. I suppose this is one of the lowest figures available anywhere in the free world. Equally we should concede the problems of the rural industries, the problems of droughts in some areas. 1 attended a 4-day seminar on the economy recently and it was said by one of the people there: ‘Really and truly, if you analyse these figures you will find the unemployment problem this .vear as against last year can be the compound of the difficulties of drought in some rural areas’. And that is where it has occurred; the increase in unemployment can be isolated to those areas. I cannot quote the figures because this was a private seminar and, therefore, they were not available. But this was the calculation of a man of some skill in this field. We look at these problems as a government and say to ourselves: ‘In the present Australian context of independence and with a tough world marketing scene, price and cost inflation are the problems with which the Government must grapple. lt must be brave and strong enough to tackle them and do something about them’. That is what we have sought to do.

I will not take a lot more time in this debate. I understand the meaning of the motion. If it is any help to honourable senators, 1 refer them to pages 114 and 115 of the Reserve Bank’s ‘Statistical Bulletin’ which contain a table headed ‘Indicators of Economic Activity’ covering the whole of the Australian scene back to 1968-69, which is a short span of time. It will be seen that there is quite a remarkable expansion in our country. That expansion can only be sustained by sound economic policy, by wise actions and, when time calls for it, by the Government taking such action as the total volume of information available to the Government dictates is in the public interest even if al that time it might not be as popular as some people would like. An exercise in Government responsibility is not an exercise in popularity, lt is an exercise in responsibility. When 1 look at the total scene I say to myself, with respect to Sena’ or Murphy, that Senator Murphy seems to be looking for an economic calamity. He is a bit like a professional political mourner.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As 1 listened to Senator Cotton I was reminded of Voltaire’s immortal character Pangloss whose slogan was: ‘All is for the best in the best of possible worlds’, lt is obvious that the Government remains unmoved by Senator Murphy’s eloquent plea for a reasonable standard of subsistence for the victims of the Government’s misguided economic policies. Apart from blaming our problems oh the seasons and on imponderable international occurrences, by way of reply to Senator Murphy’s carefully reasoned argument, we have had very little from Senator Cotton except a rather- philistine denigration of economists as such. Rather than attacking all economists he should have been honest enough to admit that in framing its Budget the Government had listened to the wrong economists.

How is the public to judge a government which says that $10 a week, eroded by a 6 per cent inflation, is sufficient unemployment benefit for a single man, or $18 a week is sufficient for a married couple, but which is prepared to pay out $300m in one year to prop up a dying industry merely to remain in office? It is estimated that $300m will be directed to the wool industry in this financial year in outright grants, loans, research allocations and promotion expenses. Yet it is the Australian Labor Party which is consistently accused by the Government and its spokesmen of being the spendthrifts of the public purse. But that is because instead of wanting to throw money away we advocate spending greater amounts of Government money on things such as health, education and, as we were advocating today, social services.

The Government says: This is unjustified and it will have no effect on the wellbeing of the economy because, after all, there will be only 100,000 or so persons unemployed in Australia in the next couple of months. So what is all the excitement about?’ That is also roughly the number of wool growers who are sharing the $300m to which I just referred. Many of them, such as the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), not to mention Goldsbrough Mort and Co. Ltd or Dalgety Australia Ltd,, are very far from the breadline, lt will, be interesting to observe the speed with which the legislation is introduced into this Parliament for the additional $30m wor.h of assistance for the Australian Wool Commission, an amount which the Leader of the Australian Country Party, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony), was able to extract from the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) almost before he had time to unpack his squash racquets. This will be in striking contrast to the pleas of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Greenwood) throughout the sittings, that legislation which he admits to be urgent is delayed by difficulties of draftsmanship. These difficulties apparently disappear when the Government dances to the tune of its coalition partner.

In allowing the County Party its head in squandering public money by refusing the eminently reasonable and economically sound and humanitarian proposals that have been put to the Senate by Senator Murphy, the Government stands exposed as a cynical sectional government which is using the public purse as a bribe, regardless of the consequences , for the nation. We are not debating the’ wool industry today, but t have cited the Government’s reaction in this regard merely by way of contrast with its inaction and its determination to perpetuate its inaction in the matter of unemployment benefits and pensions. lt illustrates also the hollowness of this Government’s claim that it is a responsible party when it comes to spending money while Labor is the party which would throw away the public’s money. Because it depends on the Country Party to stay in office, this Government will not face the fact that the only responsible way to spend money on the wool growers is in moving people out of the industry or into other forms of rural production.

But let me return to the matter of unemployment. No matter what Senator Cotton may say, all the signs are that the Government, in framing its Budget, was. badly advised and misread the economic indicators. Lt is generally agreed that the

Budget has not had time to bite yet and that the present drift in the employment situation is due to factors which were present when the Budget was being framed but which the Government chose to ignore. In short, if I may use a well worn phrase, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait till the deflationary Budget, which should have been expansionary, really takes effect. It is not necessary to rely on us for these dire predictions. The suggestion by Senator Cotton that Senator Murphy is a prophet of gloom who extracts these dire predictions from the top of his head, regardless of facts, just will not hold water. The Prime Minister himself, a couple of months ago, admitted that we could expect about 100,000 unemployed in January or February. Mr Snedden, the architect of this Budget, or rather the economic babe in the woods who put his signature to the documents that were put before him by his economic advisers, also admitted on the Australian Broadcasting Commission programme ‘Monday Conference’ on 1st November that the Treasury predicted higher and higher unemployment figures within the next couple of months.

The really disturbing aspect of recent unemployment figures is the ratio of vacancies notified in job applicants in each State. The economic writer, Christopher Jay. writing in yesterday’s ‘Financial Review’ estimated that as a rough rule of thumb an area where the vacancies-job applicant ratio is not below 0.80 has a reasonable employment situation, and concludes from the October statistics that none of the 6 Australian States is in a satisfactory employment position right now, quite apart from any possibility of matters worsening early next year’.

There are certain danger signals in the Australian economy and when Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd shares drop below $10 and that giant corporation begins to curtail production, the danger bell is ringing loud and clear, even though this Government refuses to harken to it. The economic authorities who were cited by Senator Murphy are not to be sneered out of court by the Government or by the Treasury. As Senator Murphy pointed out, they should be listened to if only because, so far as the Budget is concerned, they have been proved right and the Treasury has been proved wrong. It is not sufficient, as Senator Cotton has attempted to suggest in what I described earlier as a rather Philistine approach, to cater to the feelings of some people by suggesting that all economists are some sort of joke and that to quote one set of economists against another is to engage in some sort of gimmickry. After all, who are the people down at the Treasury whom the Government listen to in framing its Budget? Are they not economists? I repeat that it is not enough to denigrate all economists. Let the Government frankly admit what has become clear to the financial writers in the daily Press and to many industrialists - and if Senator Webster insists upon my naming one of them 1 shall name Sir Ian McLennan, the general manager of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. There are many others if he chooses to look at the financial Press.

Senator Webster:

– What did he say, senator?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not the quotation, but I can assure the honourable senator that he is just not reading the Press if he believes that there are no industrialists sounding a warning about the state of the economy. I should have thought that any honourable senator who would come into this chamber and suggest that there is an absence of warnings from industrialists would be admitting that he just does not read the newspapers. I do not need to labour that point because any honest man in this chamber would realise that the disquite about the economy is not confined to this side of the chamber and is not confined to financial writers but is spread right throughout the community.

The Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, from whose publication Senator Murphy quoted at length, is the only body outside the Government that is producing a detailed regular survey of the economy. The Institute warned, prior to the Budget, of the signs of a downturn in the Australian economy. I commend its latest publication, the ‘Australian Economic Review’ of October 1971 to honourable senators who really want to know what is happening in the Australian economy, instead of being lulled into the false Panglossian optimism which we have had from the Prime Minister, the Treasury and, tonight, Senator Cotton. This document contains tables setting out actual figures from 1969 to today and projected into 1972. Some of its conclusions are very chastening. For example it states:

Real household demand grew by only 2.3 per cent in 1970-71, the lowest rate of growth since the 2.2 per cent growth of 1965-66. In 1970-71 the low real growth rate was accompanied by a 6.1 per cent rise in the implicit price index for household demand. This very low rise in real expenditure is expected to be repeated in 1971-72, allied with another very, high rise in prices of 6.5 per cent.

I do not need to remind honourable senators that with the natural increase in the working population and with the intake of migrants which, though reduced, will continue, the. drop in the absorption of new employees which is evident in the economy carries with it an ominous threat of increased unemployment. I ‘have already said that this threat has been acknowledged and predicted by this Government’s Prime Minister and Treasurer. It has become part of the conventional wisdom in this country that a major cause of inflationary problems is an excessive rate of growth of expenditure by governments. This precept, which is parroted in newspaper editorials - of course that means most editorials - is echoed by those who believe that all problems will be solved by sacking a few thousand public servants and cutting back on government expenditure. This belief is furthered by the spectacle of the Government throwing away money on sections such as the wool industry just to stay in office. The Labor Party does not believe in feather-bedding in the public service or in the subsidisation of uneconomic industries, no matter how hallowed by time and tradition.

Senator Young:

– Is the honourable senator opposed to helping the wool industry?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am opposed to throwing the public’s money away. I want to know the reasons before $300m of public money is spent. Those reasons have not been given to me by the Government. We agree with Dr P. J. Sheehan of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University who stated:

Nothing seems more obvious in Australia at present than that there is a great demand and need for sharply growing expenditures by both State and Federal Governments. The plight’ of many pensioners and others depending on welfare payments, the continuance of poverty on a disturbingly wide scale, the apparently . perpetual crisis in the schools and hospitals, the need for reconstruction in the farm sector- not hand-outs -

. these and many other facts show beyond doubt that Australia, like most other Western countries, urgently needs large outlays by the public sector.

In support of his theory that it is a deficiency rather than an excess of government spending which contributes to the low demand and therefore to recession, Dr Sheehan points out that in the years 1959 to 1971 there have been only 3 years in which the Commonwealth Budget approached surplus. The first year was 1960-71 which was the financial year which ushered in the recession of 1961 and which almost cost the Government its office. The last 2 financial years - 1969-70 and 1970-71- are the other 2 years. We are now witnessing a substantial slowdown. I respectfully commend to honourable senators the conclusion . drawn by Dr Sheehan. He stated:

It is a mistake, I maintain,, .to think that there is a clash between the requirements of economic responsibility and the social need for increased public sector spending on such’ things as schools, hospitals and the alleviation of poverty. Not only is there no clash, but an analysis on purely economic grounds suggests mat a short-fall in real government expenditure relative to the level of receipts is pushing the economy into recession, and so an increase in real government expenditure or a cut in taxation is required. It is rare, and fortunate, that economic and social, imperatives .so coincide.

The greatest display of ignorance of the Labor Party on this issue is in the fact that even as between city and country the Labor Party is almost incredibly divisive. It regards country people as a lol of wealthy wool growers, lt is an almost incredible situation. Today the farmers are struggling and they and the people in the towns depend entirely upon the margin on costs. I believe it is sad that the motion was nol wider and was not developed in a more thoughtful way in terms of the ingredients and pressures on us, both internally and externally, lt is almost unbelievable that the Labor Party has adopted a soup kitchen approach as a solution. I invite the Senate to look to the constructive elements of teamwork in the community, particularly in increased productivity. Unless we do so we will suffer unemployment. If productivity is increased, pay packets will be bigger and employment will be increased.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– We of the Australian Democratic Labor Party would have preferred to discuss this proposition couched in a more worthwhile motion, but that is not our prerogative because a motion has been placed before us as a matter of urgency here tonight. The ambit of the motion, of course, allows for little concentration on some of the major problems of the economy because of the broad terms in which it has been cast. The motion refers to the promotion of the economy and the relief of unnecessary distress by an immediate increase in the unemployment benefit. Achieving the 3 ret part of the proposition may render the second part unnecessary. If we attempt to say that we are competent politicians at least we ought to tackle the first part of the proposition and promote the economy and therefore prevent action on the second part of it becoming necessary. There has been no major increase in the unemployment figures in this country at this time although there seem to be clear indications that this could happen if steps are not taken to prevent it.

The matter of social services is attached to the motion. Everybody knows the points of view of the Democratic Labor Party and other parties in this House about this subject because we have discussed them throughout the Budget debate. Why social services should become an urgent .natter again a couple of weeks later, and why the subject is tied to the economy in general and to unemployment benefits, makes one wonder whether this matter has been brought before the Senate for the purpose of achieving something or for the purpose of again highlighting the divisions in the Labor Party.

I must make reference to the two entirely contradictory statements I have heard the two Labor Party leaders make in the last 2 days when opening a debate on the same subject. I refer firstly to the Leader of the Opposition in another place, Mr Whitlam. He opened the Opposition’s case in a debate on a visit abroad by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) by saying:

I agree with the Prime Minister that it -vas valuable for Australia that he and so many senior Australian officials should have had the opportunity for talks with persons, and at places, and in times so close to these commanding events. I am not among those who criticise the Prime Minister either for his timing, his itineray cr his entourage.

The Leader of the Opposition in this place, Senator Murphy, when introducing his proposition, said that it was the height of folly for the Prime Minister to leave this country at this time; that he should not have left the shores of Australia but should have stayed here in Canberra and devoted all his attention to the economy of the nation and thus prevented the development of the tragic events that Senator Murphy envisages. I think it would be to the benefit of everybody if there was a little more consultation between the two Leaders of the Opposition before wc <* rc asked to debate particular propositions. If there was disunity on the simple question of whether the Prime Minister should or should not have gone abroad there could not be a good deal of unity on other propositions. We are not too certain whether this proposition we are debating would be supported by the Opposition in the other place.

In an analysis of the economy of this nation by the Leader of the Opposition and in his criticism of the Government 1 would have expected to receive from him more worthwhile information to add to the criticisms already offered very strongly by honourable senators silting in this corner of the chamber about the management of our economy in the last few years in particular. I would like to have heard him concentrate more on what we consider is one of the major causes of economic problems. I refer to the unbridled way in which the Government has promoted the increase in the interest rate, lt was interesting to find that only 2 nights ago the Liberal Premier of Victoria put his finger on exactly the same cause. 1 agree with the Minister for Civil Aviation, Senator Colton, that people involved with economics certainly disagree with many of the causes of inflation and depressions. But at least, apparently, we have unanimity of economic thinking on the part of the Democratic Labor Party and one of the hardpressed Premiers because the Victorian Premier was honest enough to say that if the Government could get the interest rate back to 5 per cent - and it was the Government which deliberately promoted its increase beyond that point - many of the problems flowing from this aspect would be solved and this would make a major contribution to the alleviation of the other problems in the Australian economy today. I wholeheartedly agree with him and 1 think economic history agrees with him. Today’s economic thinking and, I am sure, economic thinking in the future will prove that he is right, that a lot of our problems today arise from the fact that the Government has falsely tried to control an inflationary spiral in this country by the deliberate application of gradual increases in interest rates.

By that 1 do not mean that there should be a sudden reversal of this particular programme and that a huge margin should be slashed off the interest rate overnight. This is one thing that economists, amateurs or professionals, politicians or others, would agree on that you cannot make two rapid changes of a major nature in any economy, without suffering severe repercussions that are of no use to anybody at all. We are pleased to see that the Government has begun to turn the wheel the other way so far as interest rates are concerned and is gradually reducing them. We commend that idea. We hope that as a major measure in the balancing of the Australian economy that procedure will be gradually followed until interest rates are reduced to a more reasonable figure so that they will cease to place pressure on the price levels as they have been doing in the last 3, 4 or 5 years.

Many things have contributed to the economic problem of inflation that we have known up to date. Many of them are hidden and there is no one simple cure. One of the things that promotes an inflationary spiral is the application of the means test to pensions. Application of a means test forces the spending of a lifetime’s savings by people who have been hard working and reasonably well to do. Such people are faced with a basic injustice with the approach of old age because they have priced themselves out of receiving the benefits that are available to others. Therefore they rapidly spend in a short period of time an accumulation of savings that represents the work of a lifetime. That contributes to inflation. Honourable senators can produce the best economists in the world if they like to argue with me on this point but that is a businessman’s approach to inflation. Any sudden demand - and demand can be expressed only by money - that is pushed on to the market to buy the goods available is an inflationary pressure.

If the means test were alleviated this would do more to assist in controlling inflation than a sudden infusion of increased purchasing power amongst other pensioners. I am not suggesting that I am against giving pensioners more purchasing power at this time; I am merely drawing the comparison to show that one course can be far more inflationary than the other. Alleviation of the means test would persuade many people to hold on to their savings rather than to rush in and spend them, often on unnecessary things, merely to get rid of them in order to be eligible, for the pension. Action along these lines would be a slightly deflationary’ measure. We commend this sort of thinking to the Government and ask it to be positive on the question of inflation.

Undoubtedly strikes, particularly industrially useless political strikes, contribute to inflation. Some people may favour strikes for industrial purposes, as I do. Some may favour them for political purposes, but I do not. But whatever the purposes of a strike and no matter who favours them or does not favour them, this has nothing to do with the fact that they are inflationary. Anything that causes a cessation of the flow of goods to the market to meet the money and credit that is there waiting to buy them causes price increases and a tendency to inflation. That is another aspect that everybody should recognise as factual. If people want strikes, particularly if they want unnecessary political strikes, if they want to close down the big cities of this country for one day moratoriums and thereby reduce the number of working days in a year, they have to be prepared to pay in terms of increased prices and an inflationary spiral. Nothing will change that, no words of mine or any high sounding phrases uttered by any honourable senators in this place. That is an economic fact of life.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Your audience is going home.

Senator LITTLE:

– That does not concern me at all. It may concern Senator Wheeldon that there is no audience here. I imagine there are hundreds of thousands of people listening tonight to the radio and they will be able to judge what I say and what the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Murphy, said on the question of inflation. I leave it to them to judge who is talking commonsense and who is indulging in a lot of political ballyhoo. If Senator Wheeldon has no worthwhile contribution, other than to draw my attention to the gallery,, let me say that galleries may concern members of the Labor Party but we of the Democratic Labor Party are here to do a job for- Australia. That is all we are concerned about doing at the moment.

On the question of the alleviation of the suffering that is caused by unemployment, I wish to place before the Senate some figures on a comparison between the unemployment benefits and minimum wages paid in the last 10 years. I did a little research on this matter. I found that in 1960 the minimum wage, based on the figures for the 6 State capitals which give an average throughout Australia, was S27.60 a week. In 1971 the minimum wage, based on an average of the figures for the 8 capital cities in Australia, is $46.60 a week. Those figures show an increase of $19 a week in the minimum wage. One could suggest for the purposes of the argument that the minimum wage is supposed to keep a man, his wife and one child. In 1960 a married man with one child received $12.25 a week in unemployment benefits. In 1971 the figure has climbed to $19.50 a week. So the increase in unemployment benefits is $7:25 as opposed to the increase of $19 in the minimum wage.

I suggest that there would not be anybody in this chamber who would not’ say that a genuinely unemployed person who wants to work - noi a person who is permanently unemployable or deliberately unemployable because he is attending demonstrations half the time and is on employment relief - needs to receive about the minimum wage in order to keep his wife, his child and himself decently. In view of the fact that the minimum wage has increased by $19 a week and the unemployment benefits for a man, his wife and one child have increased by only $7.25 a week, we members of the Democratic Labor Party suggest that, if there i to be any increase at all - or even if there is not to be any increase - in the numbers of genuinely unemployed people who want to work and who are desirous of keeping themselves and not becoming a drain on the community, that increase of $7.25 a week over the last 10 years should be looked at very seriously by the Government. The present rate is not enough -o keep a family that finds itself in the situation of temporary unemployment on the standard on which we all would expect an honest, hard working family to be kept in this community. lt is obvious that the inflation, that has bedevilled our economy in the last 10 years has not been kind at all to the person who is genuinely unemployed for a period of time. It may be argued that this is one of the inflationary tendencies in the community and that the matter cannot be dealt with on the basis of a comparison between unemployment benefits and wages. It is a fact that today more than ever before there are 2 incomes going into many families because wives work. That in itself, without judging the rights or wrongs of whether wives should work - that is their own business - gives a family in which both the husband and the wife work much more money to spend and therefore much more money with which to contribute to an inflationary tendency.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Order! The honourable senators time has expired.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– When the leader of one of Australia’s great political parties brings a matter of urgency to the Senate, I think members of the public are entitled to believe that he will be able to present that matter of urgency in terms that they can understand, that he will be capable of instancing the problems that exist in the community and certainly that he will be able to state those measures which he regards as solutions to the problems that he says beset the community. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) has brought before the Senate a matter of urgency which commences with these words: “The promotion of the economy’. When one reflects on those words one wonders what a man with a legally trained mind really means in using them. I think Senator Murphy may have some regrets in that respect. We imagine that what he means is that at the present time the economy needs some fillip and he hopes that that will be provided in such a way that both business and labour forces will see a much brighter future for the Australian economy than members of the public in general are seeing at the present time.

Senator Murphy went on to make a purely political point in his speech by stating that an unnecessary amount of misery was created by processes of this Government. Again one can only wonder whether he was genuine in what he was saying and has a true sympathy for those who are unemployed at the present time or whether he was attempting to make a political point. Those who have spoken for the Opposition on this matter certainly fall into the latter category. Senator James

McClelland spoke of ‘victims of the Government’s misguided economic management’.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Shocking.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Senator Cavanagh says: ‘Shocking’. Of course, we see an Opposition which has had no power in this country for more than 20 years. In the years I have been in this place members of the Opposition have never on any previous occasion - 1 challenge any member of the Opposition to say to the contrary - pleaded for the payment of higher unemployment benefits to the unemployed in the community.

Senator Poke:

– It has been mentioned on numerous occasions in Budget debates. I have raised it myself. Probably you were not here. You have been here for only 24 hours.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Senator Poke is attempting to make a speech. He is quite right in that he has been here for many years. He knows what it is to be in Opposition because he has been there for 22 years. When he speaks he is able to refer to all the words he has ever spoken about unemployment benefits. The reason is that there has not been any unemployment in the Australian community in 22 years. In fact the management of the Australian economy has been such that those who have been anxious to work have been able to find employment in this community.

Today the Opposition brings forward a matter of urgency and says that its solution to the current problems is ‘the relief of unnecessary distress by an immediate increase in unemployment benefits’.

Senator Murphy:

– And other social services.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Let me say for Senator Murphy’s benefit that he made the only positive contribution by saying that he would support a policy of higher unemployment benefits, without stating exactly what that meant. He said that the unemployment benefits should be lifted to the level of a modest living wage. That is the Australian Labor Party’s basic contribution to the solution of the difficult situation that confronts us today.

The Opposition - perhaps correctly for an Opposition - has made no reference to the international situations which affect the

Australian economy today and which also affect every other country. I did not hear Senator Murphy mention the situation that exists in any other like country. Perhaps it is a matter for congratulation of the Australian Government or perhaps this community is very lucky, but certainly we have noi the unemployment rate that exists in any other like economy. The United States of America, as has been mentioned, has an unemployment rate of very nearly 6 per cent. In Britain the position is similar. 1 wonder what the Socialists did when they were in power in Britain not so long ago. They had an unemployment rate of approximately 5 per cent. What were the comments at that time from the members of a Socialist government? They maintained during the whole of their power in Britain an unemployment pool of something in the vicinity of that figure. That is something which this anti-Socialist Government would not stand for in the Australian community. Indeed, this Government has demonstrated for 22 years that it will pursue a policy of maintaining as full a position of employment as is possible in this community.

The cry wolf situation which the Opposition put forward is in relation to the present unemployment rate of 1.1 per cent in respect of which some 18,000 individuals are drawing the unemployment benefit. To me that is a serious situation. I would like everybody to be fully employed. 1 have some experience of the attitudes of the business sector and the labour force. This labour force is well supported by the altitudes of the official Labor Party in this place. Business is faced today, as it has been during the last 3 or 4 years, with a progressively increasing strike attitude, in order to advance the demands of what the labour forces require in the community.

One of the bases of the problem which we see in the Australian community today, and indeed one of the points which are conducive to unemployment, is the enormous escalation in wage rates which has occurred within the last 15 to 18 months. As has been mentioned by many senators, during the period from September 1970 to February last there was a wage rise of from 21 per cent to 24 per cent in various classifications of employment. No business can stand such a. rise for very long. Business must be able to gain increased productivity - extra output - in order to be able to cope with the huge wage demands that have been imposed on it. Senator Murphy kindly referred to the ANZ Quarterly Review and took from it some points he described as relating to advertisements which appeared for those- positions which may be available in the labour market. I quote from the ANZ Quarterly Review for July 1971 which refers to labour costs. The document states:

Rising wages are an obvious cause of concern, as they have a direct and immediate impact on costs and are a large proportion of total costs in all economic activities. While prices continue to rise as a result of increased labour costs, there will be a vicious circle. Higher wages result in higher costs, which must be passed ‘ on in higher prices to the extent that they cannot be absorbed by greater efficiency.

Perhaps we have heard over the period criticism of some of our great organisations. 1 instance the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd as one example of this. The Australian Labor Party had a great run on BHP not so long ago. The fact that BHP has had to suggest that there will be stand-downs has prompted the Labor Party to give some thought to this matter. If one looks at the average wage rises or the average increase in wages paid by BHP to its employees over the last 10 years, one can see that the annual increase is by 6.4 per cent.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Not enough.

Senator WEBSTER:

– From that comment we get an idea of the attitude of the alternative government. The consumer price index during that period rose by 3 per cent per annum. The price of BHP steel in the same period increased by 1.4 per cent.

Senator Georges:

– What about the surcharge the company put on?

Senator Poke:

– It put up the price by 6 per cent in one hit.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have just indicated that wages had risen by 23 per cent. I think that the facts are clear. Perhaps it is the Labor Party’s wish that there should be total socialisation in this community. I would be one who would see us benefiting by private enterprise. But here we see an instance where a great industry has been able to increase wages by approximately 6 per cent over the last 10 years whilst the price of its products have only increased by a little over 1 per cent over that period.

We should be greatly pleased when we compare our society with those of overseas countries. The Leader of the Opposition has criticised the overseas mission of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). The benefits derived from tours such as this are impossible to evaluate. But I hope that whoever happens to be in power in this country will take the opportunity to see that he makes himself well known to other countries, particularly those which have an association with our economy. I believe that tours such as the one just undertaken by the Prime Minister are most important. The Leader of the Opposition in another place toured China not long ago. We heard no comment or criticism of the expenditure on or the benefit that was obtained from that venture. It is interesting to note, as I point out for the benefit of the Opposition, that the average worker in China earns approximately 12c for each hour of the day he works. In Japan which has a private enterprise system, the income is 80c per hour. In Australia a worker receives an average $1.80 an hour. He is certainly much better off living in the political climate brought about by this type of government than under conditions which members of the Opposition claim they could offer.

We have in Australia a particularly fine society and during the time this Government has been in office we have had very little reason to be alerted to the problems of unemployment. This is because we have had a government which is ever alert to see that the unemployment situation is held in control. But not one mention was made by Senator Murphy or by Senator James McClelland, who was the second speaker for the Opposition, about the problem of inflation in the community. As I read th. problems of the economy of Australia it is more important that we should control inflation for the benefit of the worker, for the benefit of business and for the benefit of the individual living in retirement on a fixed income while the value of our dollar decreases. Certainly another important consideration is our primary industries. The most wonderful congratulations are due to the Government for the assistance which it has given during the last few years to that section of society. We have heard tonight, and we hear in Senator Poke’s questions every day in this place, criticism of the wool industry, criticism of the rural industries and criticism of this Government for the assistance that it has given the rural industries. I sincerely hope that those who are involved in a rural industry - those who live beyond the great metropolitan areas of this country - will see that they have a government that is interested in their problem compared with what we have heard from Senator Murphy and Senator James McClelland today. I think that such a comparison is beyond description.

I feel that an industry such as the wool industry should not have the finger pointed at it because it is able to obtain some S80m of support from the Federal Government and at the same time gain support from private industry. If there were $S00m available from this Government to the wool industry within the next year it certainly would not bc sufficiently large. But I put this proposition to the Senate-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Order! The honourable member’s lime has expired.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I enter this debate because of the seriousness with which I look at the Australian economy. I want to make some short replies to some of the speakers who have taken part in this debate. As usual, Government speakers constantly attack the workers. They say that the workers are to blame for everything that happens in this country. Senator Webster rounded off his speech by saying that Labor Party senators constantly criticise the wool industry.

Senator Webster:

– Hear, hear!

Senator CANT:

– Labor senators have not on one occasion, Senator Webster, criticised the wool industry. We have criticised the policy of the Government towards the wool industry. We say frankly now that the Government is throwing dough down the drain every day with its policies. Its policies are not the cure for the industry at all. Senator Webster talked about the high percentage of employment over the 22 years that the Government has been in office. He is a bit wet behind the cars because he forgets what happened in 1961-62 when 3.5 per cent of the work force was unemployed as the result, and a direct result, of Government policies. In order to cure the economy the Government deliberately set out to create unemployment, just as it is setting out to create unemployment today, lt is not doing it on such a large scale as in 1960-61 because it was nearly defeated in the 1961 election. It is a little more cautious now. If Senator Webster wants to examine the record of unemployment let him do so, because that is what he will find.

Senator Webster:

– You should examine it under the Labour Government in Britain. I hope you will say something about that.

Senator CANT:

They had the temerity to compare Australia’s unemployment figure as a proportion of the total work force with that of some other nation. We are not dealing with statistics; we are dealing with people. I am sure that honourable senators opposite do not understand what happens to an individual when he is dispossessed of his employment. In that situation a man suffers degradation, a loss of dignity and a sense of frustration. The loss of a man’s sense of being able to provide for his family is something to be witnessed and observed at first hand. Obviously that is something which honourable senators opposite have never done.

Let us examine the statistics. This is a serious matter which is not to be fobbed off in the way that honourable senators opposite have attempted this evening. The figures for August, which already have been referred to, show that there were 61,848 registered unemployed, which was 14,591 more than in August last year. According to the adjustments made to reflect the seasonally adjusted figures for those out of work, the figure was 75,000 unemployed. I make the point very firmly that those figures reflect only the number of people who go to the trouble of registering for employment. I am aware from first hand knowledge that for every person who goes to the employment bureau to register for employment there would be at least one or two others who do not do so. So the figures I have cited are a conservative estimate of the number who are unemployed. The number of job vacancies at that time in August was 34,673. That shows that there were 2 people looking for every job that was available. In the Melbourne ‘Herald’ of Wednesday, 8th September 1971, the following headline appeared:

Don’t Panic Over Jobs, Lynch Says. Economy Sound

The article by Vincent Matthews under a Canberra dateline, shortly after the Budget had been introduced and at a time when we were still debating the Budget, stated:

The Labor and National Service Minister, Mi Lynch, warned Australians today against being alarmist’ over unemployment.

Mr Lynch said there was an urgent need to stop trying to generate this psychology of gloom’ about Australia’s economic position. “The economy is sound. Our low unemployment levels, even assuming they reached 100,000 next January, are the envy of most industrialised countries in the world,’ he said.

That, in my view, is the height of callous ^difference on the part of the Government in its attitude to unemployment. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is reported in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ of 22nd October as attempting to allay our fears. The article states:

Confidence was all Australia needed to beat its economic problems, the Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, said last night.

If this confidence was there then I am sure the economy could be brought quickly to a pretty healthy stage. . . .

A little later he said:

We are watching the economy very carefully. We have plenty of scope for resilience and we could act quickly should we feel the time was ripe to do so.

It should be remembered that this article appeared in October, at which time the figures for September were available. It should be remembered also that the Prime Minister said that we could receive a pleasant surprise when the next unemployment figures were published. The next unemployment figures happened to be those for September when the registered number of unemployed was no less than 63,679, which was an increase on the previous month. At that time the number of job vacancies was 35,764. At that time we were still living in hopes. Today I obtained from the statistical service of the Legislative Research Section of the Parliamentary Library, which I understand received the figures from the Department of Labour and National Service, information to show that for October the number of registered unemployed was 62,330 and that the number of job vacancies was 40,534. It is interesting to note that the figure for October at 62,330 was higher than the figure for August and that between those times we had been told by the Prime Minister that all we needed to have was hope. Perhaps we need also faith and charity on the part of the Government - particularly charity. We were told also that we could expect some pleasant surprises from future employment figures.

It is interesting to note that the Government in the course of presenting the Budget argued very strongly against advice from leading economists and from sources which could never be said to be supporters of the Australian Labor Party. I refer particularly to the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia. In a report which appeared in the ‘Australian’ of 10th September 1971 under a heading ‘100 per cent drop in new money for industry’, we were told that a survey by the Bank of New South Wales and the Associated Chambers of Manufactures said that only 38 per cent of manufacturers were operating at a satisfactory full rate of operation. This meant that 62 per cent of our industrial capacity was under utilised at that time. This was about the time of the Budget debate. Since then there has been a further decline in the steel industry, which is a basic industry, and in recent times there has been a decline in the motor car industry. Notwithstanding what the Government said as justification for the nature of the Budget and notwithstanding the results that we predicted would flow from it, we read in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of 15th September, under the banner headline ‘We were wrong, PM admits’, the following report:

He said, ‘We will take action on the economy if necessary’.

The Prime Minister is reported as saying that he admitted to a serious defect in the strategy of the previous month’s Budget and that an inflationary increase in demand that the Budget had been calculated to counter had not developed. This only serves to prove conclusively that the Government just does not know where it is going. I am mindful of the fact that the Budget was designed to provide for a domestic surplus of $630m. I do not begrudge rural industries one cent of the money that has been made available to tide them over a difficult period. However, in my view the Government’s method of applying relief measures to resolve the problems of the rural industries are misguided. Nevertheless, the measures adopted by the Government have provided at least some relief.

In the short time available to me I want to point out that we do not believe for one moment that our proposal is the panacea for all the manifest ills of the national economy. However, we do believe that the people who are the victims of the Government’s mismanagement are entitled to special consideration. In addition to the proposal that we present to the Senate this evening I should like to refer briefly to the final remarks that I made in my speech on the Budget 4 weeks and 1 day after the Budget had been introduced. At that time I said:

I understand that the Prime Minister has indicated that the position is not beyond reversal. I believe that one of two things should happen. If the Government does not see fit to reverse the trend now, in due course it should consider the introduction of a supplementary Budget. Serious consideration should be given to the reduction of bank interest charges and an injection of finance into the public sector of the economy to help stimulate and revive a flagging economy.

I do not suggest that the Government took note of my wise words, but fortunately it has begun some measures to correct the obvious deficiencies in our national economy. I remind honourable senators again that, based on a domestic surplus of $630m and an average increase in Consolidated Revenue of between $400m and $500m, without the necessity to alter by one iota the incidence of taxation, we have at our disposal an amount in the vicinity of $ 1,000m. In view of this situation, is it too much to ask that the people who are the victims of the Budget, which the Prime Minister has admitted was wrong, should receive an increase, particularly in the case of recipients of an unemployment benefit, to allow them to live with some sense of dignity? I just say in passing that I recently watched a public affairs programme on television when the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) was being interviewed. The final question put by the interviewer to Mr Wentworth was: Mr Wentworth, could you as a single unemployed adult male worker live on $10 a week?’. I give Mr Wentworth credit. He said quite frankly. ‘No, of course I could not’. Do honourable senators realise how much $10 a week amounts to? Someone referred to the difference between standards of living. The matter cannot be looked at in the way Senator Webster looked at it. He referred to Japan where I understand workers receive something like 80c an hour compared with the X number of cents an hour we receive in Australia. The $10 paid to an unmarried adult male recipient of unemployment benefit amounts to no less and no more than 25c an hour on a 40-hour week basis.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– Many statements have been made by honourable senators on both sides of this chamber in this debate today about our economy and unemployment statistics. Before quoting some further figures may I say that since this Government’s inception for a record term of office one of its greatest achievements has been the maintenance of a full employment situation in Australia, unparalleled in any comparable country. It has been stated more than once today that we are dealing with people and not statistics. Here again there is a cardinal philosophy of the Liberal Party that there is a basic dignity required for each individual person. He is never a statistic; he is always an individual with needs, and the measures of the Government are based on that philosophy. The registered unemployed at the end of October are acknowledged to number 62,333. This is equivalent to 1.1 per cent of the estimated work force. The number of persons on unemployment benefits is currently 18,171. Therefore an increase in benefits would have a very small effect on overall spending in the economy. Those figures have been supplied to me for the purpose of this discussion.

I wish to relate the increases in the consumer price index since the date of the previous increase to the benefits which are paid as unemployment benefits at the present time. It is acknowledged that if the rates of benefit had moved in accordance with the consumer price index since the last change in June 1970 the present rate of $10 would be appropriately $10.72. The rate which is paid for a minor at the age of 16 to 17 would be $4.82 instead of the present rate of $4.50. Similarly, for a minor in the age group 18 to 20 the benefit would be $6.43 as against $6 which is currently paid. It is acknowledged that the benefit has not kept pace with the slight increase in the consumer price index.

Some other important figures perhaps have application to the discussion which we are undertaking in relation to unemployment benefits. In this connection I draw attention to a survey of the characteristics of recipients of unemployment benefit as at 27th February 1971. A table shows the classification of male beneficiaries in our population. I find that of the unemployment benefits which were paid 40.3 per cent were paid for a period of under one month. This is quite an important statistic. Similarly, 22.6 per cent of the benefits were paid for a period of one month and under 2 months. So twothirds of the benefits which were paid to males in Australia were paid for a period of under 2 months. A similar situation applies to unemployed women. For under one month 42.9 per cent were paid benefits and for one month and under 2 months there is a comparable figure of 22.2 per cent

These figures show the relativity of the term of unemployment to the total work force situation. They show that the degree of unemployment is of a short term nature for over two-thirds of the unemployed who receive these benefits. Other interesting statistics have been quoted in part by other honourable senators but not related directly to the countries to which I shall refer. Statistics show that in 1971 the rate of unemployment in Australia of 1.7 per cent compared more than favourably with that of the United Kingdom at 3.1 per cent, the United States at 6.2 per cent, New Zealand - with a record employment situation - showing only 0.2 per cent unemployed and Canada with 7.1 per cent unemployed. This figure of 1.7 per cent when compared with other comparable countries surely shows it is the policy of the Government to maintain full employment. Even in the situation of a world currency crisis, as at the present time, there is no marked deterioration in the policy followed by this present Government. We acknowledge that there could be long term effects of the world currency crisis at the present time. Surely the statements made by various speakers supporting the Government and by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) with regard to the economy in the most recent weeks show that there is Government concern and Government action - if it is required in any way - to preserve the policy which is fundamental to this Government.

I draw attention to the fact that the work test for entitlement to unemployment benefit as it applies under our present legislation is that a person must be unemployed, must show that the unemployment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike, must be capable of undertaking and must be willing to undertake suitable work and that he has taken reasonable steps to obtain it. It is hoped that the facilities of the Department of Labour und National Service in obtaining employment for those people temporarily displaced by movements in industry - particularly with regard to rural problems - will be used to the benefit of any person temporarily unemployed because it must be acknowledged that the present rural situation has increased the number which is given of those presently unemployed in Australia. In this regard we hope that the policies of the Government and its increasing concern for the rural sector of our economy will have the effect in the near future of lessening some of these problems, and of improving the employment situation of those who have been employed by the rural sector. I wish to read from a statement which will support Government policy. It was released by the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia and the Institute of Public Affairs. The heading on this quotation which appeared in the Australian’ stated:

An average family now is better off than in 1951.

Some interesting relative points were made in this article. In relation to an average factory employee it states:

In 1951 he had to work 3200 hours to earn enough money to buy a car. Today, he needs to work 1500 hours. A basket of groceries cost 4i hours 20 years ago, but today it is only three hours. To pay for 100 units of electricity then he had to work 2i hours, but in 1971 it takes one hour’s work.

A man’s suit was worth 90 hours in 1951 and 43 today.

So we go through the relative hours of work required to earn the consumer products which the average employee would seek to buy for himself or his family. In the 10 years from 1960 the average yearly increase in output per head in Australia has been 2.5 per cent which places this country twenty-second among international growth states. Figures have been quoted variously throughout this debate and references made to the policies of the Government which have been evident and accepted by the people of Australia continuously for a record term. We feel that the urgent nature of the motion which has been presented does not warrant the attitude which has been expressed by some speakers who stated that it would require a motion of this type to ensure that the Government would consider either the promotion of the economy or the relief of unnecessary distress by an immediate increase in unemployment benefit and other social services.

The record of this Government shows that social service benefits have been increased and developed to assist in areas of social distress in Australia to the degree that the economy can stand such new policies. I believe that in the Government’s present assessment of the economy should any social distress be occasioned the Government will be acting to ensure that the individual Australian employee and his family will not be suffering unnecessary social distress through temporary economic difficulties. With the statistics I have cited and the remarks I have made I conclude by saying that the Government has ensured continuous employment for the increasing work force we have developed and improved. I hope that the people of Australia will place on record the fine achievement of this Government throughout its term of office and the superb employment situation it has ensured.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not think the purpose of an urgency motion has been understood in this debate, especially by Senator Webster. He particularly by his remarks showed a lack of understanding of the intention of an urgency motion. The first factor in moving an urgency motion is that certain things arc urgent and should be discussed. In this instance the Opposition has referred to the promotion of the economy and the relief of unnecessary distress by an immediate increase in the unemployment benefit and other social services. Each speaker in this debate has agreed that promotion of the economy is necessary. Our unemployment figures may be small in comparison with those of other countries but I do not think that we should complacently rest on that record in the belief that we should wait until our unemployment situation reaches that of other countries before we express concern or take steps to promote the economy and reduce unemployment.

Whether our percentage of unemployment is 1.5 or only 0.5, there must be some concern at the distress caused through unemployment and the resultant poverty. Senator Laucke has said that noone could fairly accuse him of being callous and unconcerned about present unemployment. Senator Guilfoyle pointed out that if the unemployment benefit had moved with the consumer price index the benefit for a single man would have increased by only 72c a week since 1970. I do not think Senator Guilfoyle would disagree that it is wrong in 1971 to expect a single man to live on $10 a week, no matter for how short a time he is unemployed.

– But Labor was not in office in Tasmania for as long as the Liberal Party was in office in South Australia. However, irrespective of whether a Labor or a Liberal Party government is in office, South Australia is more subject to unemployment than any other State because of its reliance on the motor car and electrical appliance industries. In times of recession the sales of motor cars and electrical appliances are the first to suffer in all the States, but employment is hardest hit in South Australia. There is a lack of confidence in the future. Money is being hoarded instead of spent because people do not know whether they will be in or out of work next month. Just as South Australia is the first to suffer employment difficulties, it is the last to recover from those difficulties. It is not a question of which party is in government. It is a question of building up industries in a State which does not have the raw materials necessary for heavy industries. General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd has had to put off some men at its Elizabeth plant in South Australia because of a demarcation dispute, but its main difficulty comes from the fact that a slowing down in sales of its line of cars has occurred and it is permanently reducing its employment force in South Australia. Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd is completely closing down one of its plants at Whyalla and this will result in anything up to 160 personnel being dismissed from employment. What is going to happen to such men who live 250 miles away from other employment in Adelaide and who have settled in homes in Whyalla and possibly have their wives working there? This unemployment is not the result of the activities of the Labor Government in South Australia but, in the words of BHP, is the result of a falling off in steel orders placed with that company.

In the electrical goods industry a tendency has been developing to amalgamate operations in order to reduce labour. We see that Philips Industries Ltd is threatening the dismissal of 300 people in South Australia because it is combining its activities in that State with its activities in Victoria.

Senator Young:

– You mean they are transferring to Victoria because costs are too high in South Australia.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– We hear so many false statements from Senator Young, such as the untrue one he made this morning about Kangaroo Island, that I do not think I should reply to his interjection. Hawker Siddeley Electronics Ltd at Salisbury is threatening the displacement of 200 people because of the relocation of its industry with its other activities in Sydney. So we see the repurcussions of these moves throughout South Australian industry. If there is some recession facing the wool growers, who replace their cars every year, and if there is a recession for the wheat growers, South Australia is the State that is hit by the resultant unemployment. This matter is very important to South Australia.

Senator Murphy said in his address to the Senate that we should make money available to those sections of the community which of necessity must spend their money to purchase the goods that are being stockpiled in the factories. We had the Gorton government which believed in prosperity by means of reduced income tax. Then the new Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) increased income tax in the last

Budget and the reimposition reduced the spending capability of the workers. Senator Murphy suggested that we should provide more money for unemployment benefits and social service benefits. There are impoverished sections in all States and in all capital cities and Christmas is approaching. If the Government gave anything to those people it would do so in the knowledge that they would have to spend it. No-one who has spoken in this debate has suggested that he is satisfied with the unemployment benefits paid today. Some people may say that we have to face up to economic circumstances but the Government budgeted for a surplus and therefore budgeted for unemployment. The question is: In what way is the money to be allocated? Senator James McClelland pointed out that the Government is providing $300m - about $5m a week - for the wool growers of Australia. If that money were to go to the impoverished wool growers who would have to spend it for their livelihood it may have the effect on the general economy that everyone hopes it would have. But, for example, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who does not need it, and organisations like Dalgety’s and Elder Smith who do not need it are getting a chop out of it. The impoverished farmers will get an allocation from this money but they are mortgaged to Dalgety’s and Elder Smith. How can this help the economy when the money goes into the hands of a section of the community which does not spend it?

I believe that only 4 minutes remain of the time allowed for this debate. As in recent days we have developed the practice of trying to get a decision on debates on matters of urgency in order to get an expression of the opinion of the Senate, I now move:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 24

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allowed for the debate on the motion having expired, the Senate will proceed to the business of the day.

page 2095

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIMARY AND SECONDARY INDUSTRY AND TRADE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform the Senate that I have received from the Leader of the Government a letter notifying the appointment of Senator Durack to the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade.

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

– by leave - The statement I am about to make concerns the recent visit to the United States of America and Great Britain by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and was made by him yesterday in another place. Honourable senators will understand that when the first personal pronoun is used it relates to the Prime Minister.

I think most people in this House would agree that Australia stands on the threshold of a transitional period in its development as a nation. We are living in a world in which relationswith our traditional allies and friends and with the nations of the Asian and Pacific region are changing significantly. And so, having received invitations from both President Nixon and Prime Minister Heath, I believed it was wise to go to Washington and London. As honourable members know, I left Australia on 27 th October and returned last Thursday, 18th November. I believe this visit was timely, successful and to Australia’s advantage.

It was natural that as the head of a recently formed government 1 should welcome the opportunity for discussions with the leaders of 2 major powers who are traditionally close friends and allies of this country. With the passage of time there is inevitably a risk that changing circumstances might erode the understandings and contractual arrangements of long standing between us and put under strain the commitments embodied in them. Moreover, changes are taking place in the world strategic balance of power which are of fundamental importance to us. A new balance is emerging which includes the United States, the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, Japan and the European community, including Britain. In this situation the voice and influence of a medium power such as Australia is becoming increasingly significant. On behalf of the Government of this country, I wanted to establish close personal contact with leaders in the United States and Britain and to explore their thinking on major international issues, their attitudes to which are of importance to us. I also wanted to put at the highest level our own views on some of these bilateral and international questions.

My visit to America followed closely the United Nations vote on the admission of the People’s Republic of China which created a new situation in the world body and in the Asian region. It followed Dr Kissinger’s return from his second visit to Peking. And, as it happend, it occurred at the same time as the defeat of the foreign aid Bill in the United States Senate. It came shortly before Mr Laird’s visit to Vietnam and President Nixon’s planned announcement of further American troop withdrawals from that country. It also preceded the President’s planned visits to Peking and Moscow. My visit to the United Kingdom followed immediately after the House of Commons had voted in favour of British entry into the European Economic Community. It also preceded Sir Alec Douglas-Home’s present attempt to find a solution of the Rhodesian problem. In the international economic field the world’s currency arrangements are in disorder and the stability and growth of international trade are threatened.

In the United States, I had lengthy and very frank discussions with President Nixon, Secretary of State Rogers, Defence Secretary Laird, Deputy Secretary Packard, Dr Kissinger, Under Secretary of the Treasury Volcker, Chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality Russell Train, and Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I also had discussions with many others including the Republican Leader in the Senate, Senator Scott, the Secretary for Commerce, Mr Morris Stans, who is to visit Australia shortly, the ManagingDirector of the International Monetary Fund and the chairman of the ExportImport Bank. All of these talks were very frank and friendly. I have returned with the firm impression that the American Administration is well disposed towards Australia. This reinforcement of our relationship at the personal level is worth while in itself.

An important result of my visit was the public reaffirmation by President Nixon of the continuing strength and validity of the ANZUS Treaty. President Nixon gave me an unconditional and unqualified assurance that ANZUS is as valid today as it was when it was signed 20 years ago. The ANZUS Treaty, as honourable members will know, provides that in the event of an armed attack on any one of them or on their forces in the Pacific area, the United States, Australia and New Zealand would each act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. The reaffirmation is important for 3 reasons: Firstly, it was described by the President as ‘one of the fundamental pillars of American policy in the Pacific’, giving it a special emphasis at a time when a new balance of forces is emerging throughout the world; secondly, it was a most positive public affirmation of the Treaty following the announcement of the Nixon Doctrine which outlined new American attitudes in the Asian and Pacific region; and thirdly, it came at a time when a minority in Australia was doubting its worth and others were downgrading its importance. I should add that, in all my discussions on this subject, it was clear that we shared the view that ANZUS is more than a treaty. It is the symbol of the close co-operation which exists between Australia, the United States and New Zea land. But more than that, in addition to providing for the annual meeting of Ministers, it furnishes a framework of practical co-operation under which there is constant exchange of information and views of the greatest importance to Australia. Senator Fulbright, who has been critical of many of America’s involvements beyond its shores, also said - to use his own words - ANZUS was different’ and was a commitment of indefinite duration. None of this must suggest any easing off in our determination to strengthen and enlarge our defence capacity. We are a nation of increasing influence in the world with a fundamental responsibility for our internal and external affairs. This responsibility is ours and ours alone. But if circumstances beyond our capability arise, we know we have reliable allies.

On my way home I discussed defence strategy in the Pacific with the United States Commander-in-Chief, Pacific, in Honolulu. We spoke of the continuing danger of Communist subversive and insurgent activities throughout the region. I also remind the House of the uncompromising speech by the Chinese delegate to the United Nations on his first appearance at that forum earlier this month. We have no hostility to the great Chinese people who have contributed so much to the culture and history of mankind and we favour an accommodation with them. But we should not forget that this great revolutionary power in Asia still holds fast publicly to its policies, including its support of national liberation movements. We will seek to advance our own dialogue but we will proceed with caution.

In my talks with the Secretary for Defence, and Deputy Secretary Packard, who has recently visited this country, I raised the question of the security of the Indian Ocean. It was agreed that the increased Soviet naval presence does not constitute a serious threat at present to the vital sea lanes across the Southern Indian Ocean, but it was also agreed that the situation needs to be watched with care. The Soviet presence, of course, could be built up and sustained, especially if the Suez Canal were to be re-opened. I am satisfied the United States is fully aware of the political and strategic importance of the Indian Ocean and agrees that a careful watch should be continued in this area.

The United States will continue visits and transits by its naval ships and naval exercises in the Indian Ocean. They have welcomed the possibility of using facilities at Cockburn Sound and are, with the United Kingdom, maintaining a communication station at Diego Garcia.

During my talks with President Nixon and Mr Laird we exchanged assessments on the situation and the future in IndoChina. The view, which I questioned closely, was put forward that Vietnamisation in both the military and the economic sense was making very good progress and that the situation in South Vietnam was much more stable and promising than seemed likely 9 months ago. I was also informed of American intentions regarding troops to remain after the withdrawal of American combat forces and on the maintenance of air and naval support for the Vietnamese forces for some time to come. I informed the President of our decision in principle to assist in the training of Cambodian troops in South Vietnam after our own combat forces are withdrawn if practicable arrangements can be made in conjunction with the other countries concerned. The President and other members of the Administration expressed their appreciation in the warmest terms of our constant support and help in Indo-China. If I might digress for a moment, our hope in Vietnam and indeed in Cambodia and Laos is simply that these countries will have the opportunity to live in peace and to determine their own futures, rather than have imposed upon them, by force, unwanted Communist regimes. Can anyone in this House seriously contest the sense and propriety of this objective? In essence our policy towards Cambodia, which attracted so much public interest while I was overseas, is to play a modest part through aid and training programmes in helping to give that country a chance to survive as an independent non-Communist state. As I have emphasised before, there is no question of sending Australian military advisers or instructors to Cambodia.

The Australian Government has been giving much thought to the question of the environment. I took the opportunity while in Washington to have discussions with Mr Russell Train and other members of the council on environmental quality. From these discussions I gained valuable insights into American experience of the problems of dealing with pollution and environmental protection measures, especially in the context of a federal-state relationship. They are willing to assist and advise in this field where they have already made some notable advances. In Washington, I took advantage of the presence of the Prime Minister of India, Mrs Gandhi, to have a full discussion with her on the situation in the east of the sub-continent. After this meeting I sent another message to President Yahya Khan urging upon him once again the need to deal with the elected representatives of East Pakistan and with Sheikh Mujibur Raman. During the discussion, Mrs Gandhi said she would welcome a visit by Australian members of Parliament to see for themselves conditions in the refugee areas. During my discussions I invited President Nixon to visit Australia at a time when it would be possible for him to do so.

I turn now to my visit to Britain. In London I had detailed discussions with the Prime Minister, Mr Heath; the Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home; the Minister for Defence, Lord Carrington; the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Barber; the Minister responsible for British relations with the European Economic Community, Mr Rippon; and the Governor of the Bank of England. I also addressed the Cook Society, the Confederation of British Industries and the Australian- British Trade Association. Naturally, I spent a great deal of time discussing the British entry into the European Economic Community. I started from the point that while we had been disappointed at the terms agreed upon for British entry, these terms were now a fact and we should look towards the best arrangements we could make for the future.

Generally, I expressed the hope that Britain, having made its decision, would now use its influence to ensure that the community was outward-looking and international in its approach; that it should be flexible in its approach to world trade, rather than regionally exclusive in its attitude. And I also pressed strongly for assurances that during the transitional period, the British would adopt as helpful an attitude as possible to Australian commodities affected by the British entry. I was assured by Mr Heath, Sir Alec Douglas-Home and Mr

Rippon that Britain would use its influence to see that the European Economic Community adopted an outward-looking policy. The point was made to me that Britain depended heavily on its trade and, consequently, the widest area of multi-lateral trade and payments was a source of strength. The point was made to me also that a weak Britain would be of little use to its old Commonwealth friends. A strong Britain within the EEC would be of value to countries like Australia. Mr Rippon also explained fully the inclusion of a clause in the entry agreement that if imports of an agricultural commodity subject to import levies were seriously affected or likely to be affected by British entry, either Australia or Britain would have the right to raise the matter before the commission.

Assurances - the value of which admittedly can only be fully tested in time - that Britain would, during the transitional period be ready to discuss on a commodity basis those commodities likely to be affected by British entry into the Common Market, were reaffirmed to me. The point was also made to me that it would be desirable for the industries concerned to be active in presenting thencases themselves. I urged upon British Ministers the need for the EEC to adopt measures to ensure that the exports of tropical produce from Papua New Guinea are in a no less favourable position than those from other developing countries which are to receive special treatment. Notwithstanding that Papua New Guinea is still a trust territory, the British are hopeful for early progress towards agreement on this matter. I should tell the House that I questioned repeated assertions that although the United Kingdom is to enter the Common Market its bilateral relationship with Australia would not change. I can report that I was assured by Britain’s Ministers that there was a pervasive desire to maintain the closest possible co-operation with Australia.

During my talk with the Chancellor, I raised with him my concern that the voluntary restraint on the movement of British capital to Australia should not be maintained, while, at the same time, movements of capital were liberalised in respect of the EEC countries with consequent disadvantage to the traditional flow to Aus tralia. Honourable members will be glad to learn that I received an assurance of the fullest consultation and co-operation before any decisions are made. When Britain enters the EEC she will be creating a situation in which her long standing trading preferences in the Australian market will come to an end. Our policy in any negotiaton of new arrangements will be based on recognition of the principle that trade, to be successful in the world of today, needs to be multilateral. In my discussions with persons involved in commerce and industry, I repeatedly emphasised the point that despite some problems, our economy was fundamentally sound and that we could look to a long term annual growth rate of around 5 per cent or more. These views were generally well received and British interests with whom I discussed the matter continue to regard Australia as a country of promise and a suitable place for British investment. Mr Heath and I agreed - and this was followed up later in my talks with the Minister for Defence and the Foreign Secretary - that even closer consultation and communication should be effected between the two Governments. This included strong confirmation of the policy that the British and Australian High Commissioners should have, when needed, immediate direct access to the respective Prime Ministers. At the same time, we would take the opportunity to step up our direct contact with other EEC members and strengthen our representation in Brussels.

I had useful and wide-ranging discussions on defence matters with the British Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Foreign Secretary. I was assured that the Heath Government intends to maintain its political interests and defence commitments in South East Asia. We reviewed the five-power defence arrangements for assistance in the defence of Singapore and Malaysia. The signature of the new arrangements on 1st November reflects the readiness of the Heath Government to make a contribution to the security and stability of our region which is both welcome and timely. I am aware that the British Government is actively considering, with other Governments in the five-power arrangement, further areas of co-operation in the defence field. There was a close identity of views on the security of the

Indian Ocean. I was left in no doubt about British concern for the implications of the Soviet naval influence in the area.

Mr Heath indicated to me that his Government intends to maintain a naval presence in the Indian Ocean. This reaffirms his statement to the conference of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Singapore last January. We has useful opening discussions directed to increasing defence co-operation in the Indian Ocean area. Work is proceeding on proposals about improved procedures for coordinating resources and surveillance. I was given a survey of the situation in Western Europe, including NATO. I was also informed that Britain would maintain its commitments to SEATO, in which it still sees itself as a ‘full partner’.

I want to turn now to some of the matters which are common to my visits to America and Britain. As a result of my visit, the Australian Government now has a deeper appreciation of American and British thinking on a wide range of international issues of impor lance to us, such as: The British entry into the EEC; the future of China and Taiwan; the future for Vietnam and Cambodia; the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean; overseas trade; President Nixon’s forthcoming visits to Moscow and Peking the international monetary situation; and the Rhodesian situation. For our part, I was able to give American and British leaders a clearer picture of our Govenment’s thinking on the role we expect to play in the Asian and Pacific region. And to emphasise that, while we are a dependable friend, we shall make our own independent judgments based upon our national interests.

I took the opportunities available to me in my discussions to emphasise our changing role in a changing world. I emphasised the need to take full account of Japan in the emerging balance between the United States, China and the Soviet Union in North Asia. I emphasised the role we are seeking to play in regional economic cooperation and regional defence cooperation in South East Asia. I emphasised the importance of a stable and peaceful Indonesia in South East Asia and the weight we gave to our relations with that country. I believe the administration in the United States, the Government in Britain and leading representatives of the media in both countries now have a greater awareness of Australia - as a country of stability and increasing influence in the South East Asian region. I believe, too, that they may now be more conscious of the importance and vitality of Japan and Indonesia in the Asian region.

I have been concerned for some time to find that, perhaps because we are so far from North America and Europe, ignorance about Australia and misunderstanding of some of our policies are still quite widespread in these areas. For this reason. I talked in New York over 2 special lunches to the editorial writers and correspondents specialising in Foreign Affairs of the ‘New York Times’ and of Time Life Incorporated. A member of my party did a similar briefing on Australia’s role in South East Asia for the ‘Washington Post*. In London, at a similar lunch I was able to speak to the editors of nearly all the main newspapers published in England. I believe this was worth while in focusing the interest of leading opinion formers in the media in the United States and in Britain on Australia and its prospects and policies. My mission also received considerable public notice in the media of both countries, particularly in the responsible Press. And I think this, too, served to project Australia effectively to the man in the street.

I turn now, Sir, to the international currency situation, a difficult, unresolved problem for us all. I discussed the situation with the President and members of the Administration in Washington - with the Prime Minister and senior Ministers in London - and with high officials and trading and financial interests in both countries. In both Washington and London I emphasised that Australia wants an early resolution of the present impasse as being a matter of the greatest importance for the whole trading world.

I pointed out the impact which the United States import surcharge and the uncertainty about exchange rates has had on the market for some of our products, including wool. I mentioned the charges that temporary expedients could harden into dogmas and that a widespread slowdown in economic activity could result. Unless there is an early, sensible and adequate readjustment in trade and currency arrangements, competitive devaluation could occur, and increasing protectionism in trade develop, with a consequent threat to economic stability and growth around the world. I stressed, particularlyin the United States, the indirect implication tor Australia of any sharp check of economic growth and trade in third countries, such as Japan, as a result of the United States’ measures. There were dangers in isolating Japan, which has to be seen as a country finding a new role in the world, and particularly a role in the economic development of South East Asia. I have made it clear that, in relation to currency matters, Australia reserves its position. We will take our decision when any realignment is settled. Our decision will be based on the interests of the Australian economy and the Australian people.

In America I urged on the Administration the need to remove barriers in the way of world trade in agricultural commodities and raised at the highest level the problems we face in our attempt to export Australian wool and meat to the United States. These discussions were followed up at other levels. There are good grounds for believing that the United States is seeking ways of being helpful to us in respect of both wool and meat.

Sir, in concluding this outline, I think it would be appropriate to say something about Australia and where we stand today. I believe that my visits to New York, Washington and London did something to project Australia to a Britain, which is becoming increasingly involved in Europe, and an America which is subject to varying degrees of pressure to withdraw from its overseas involvements, and toremind them that they have in the southern hemisphere: A vigorous, like-minded but independent friend; a country of great prospect, of influence and stability in the South East Asian region; a country willing and able to make its contribution to a secure and stable Asian and Pacific area increasing in economic strength.

I pointed out that we have our problems - such as inflation and the state of some of the rural industries - which we must solve - but, at the same time our friends should not lose sight of the fundamental soundness of the economy and the great promise of this country. For our part we should concentrate on representing Australia to the world as a tolerant, stable, healthy member of the international community - increasing in size and strength as it develops, but threatening no-one. I attempted to do this during my tour. In short, we in the Government will direct our energies to building a greater Australia based on self-confidence, determination, co-operation, and a vision of an unlimited future.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I move:

I ask for leave to make my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19711124_senate_27_s50/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate24 November 1971

COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON BLACK MOUNTAIN, AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Petition

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

HEALTH: COMMONWEALTH BENEFITS

Senator McLAREN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator PRIMMER:VICTORIA

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

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator TOWNLEY:TASMANIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator CARRICK:NEW SOUTH WALES

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

QUESTION

CONTRACEPTIVES

Senator GIETZELT:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

Senator NEGUS:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GREENWOOD:Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

QUESTION

WOOL GROWERS ON KANGAROO ISLAND

Senator YOUNG:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

Senator Cavanagh:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

Senator Cavanagh:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Cavanagh:

The PRESIDENT:

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator MCAULIFFE:QUEENSLAND

Senator WRIGHT:Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator BISHOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

HEALTH: COMMONWEALTH BENEFITS

QUESTION

COMPANY PROFITS

Senator WILLESEE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Senator McMANUS:VICTORIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Senator WRIEDT:TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:CP

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator WHEELDON:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

Senator GREENWOOD:LP

QUESTION

METRIC SYSTEM

Senator DRURY:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

EGG POWDER

Senator LITTLE:VICTORIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:

Senator WRIGHT:LP

Senate
24 November 1971

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

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

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP