Senate
1 May 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 1143

DEATH OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR ARTHUR FADDEN

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · New South Wales ^ · ALP

Mr President, I move:

That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death on 2] April 1973 of the Right Honourable Sir Arthur Fadden, G.C.M.G., a member of the House of Representatives far the Division of Darling Downs from 1936 to 1949 and for the division of Mcpherson from 1949 to 1958, for many years Leader of the Australian Country Party, a former Minister of the Crown, Prime Minister of Australia in 1941 and Leader of the Opposition betweeen 1941 and 1943, places on record its appreciation of his long and distinguished public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and family.

Sir Arthur Fadden was undoubtedly a man of history, regardless of whether one agreed with his political views. He had a long and distinguished parliamentary record. He was held in high regard by the members of the Australian Parliament and by the Australian people. His passing was felt by many in this Parliament and throughout the community as a deep personal loss of one who was not only a man of public affairs but also a friend of the Australian people. He was for a brief period a wartime Prime Minister. He was responsible for 1 1 Budgets whilst Treasurer. He was Deputy Prime Minister for 10 years, Acting Prime Minister for a total of 692 days, Leader of the Australian Country Party for 18 years and a member of the House of Representatives for 22 years.

Sir Arthur Fadden was a man of special qualities. Those qualities showed throughout his long parliamentary record. He lived through stirring times - through lively times. In all of those times he not only exercised his political judgments but also contributed to the humanity which runs through political affairs. Not always but on many occasions there is a need for the kind of warmth, wit and understanding which Sir Arthur Fadden exhibited, together with his vigour, his sense of good play, his zeal and his energy. Many quotations have been made today in the House of Representatives from his numerous sayings and stories over the years. One of his best known comments was that as Prime Minister, like the flood, he reigned for 40 days and 40

13363/73”- S-I46J

nights. Sir Arthur’s period as Prime Minister was short. It occurred during the blackest episodes of the war in Europe . and when we were on the brink of the war in the Pacific. He was engaged in the great controversy over the return of Australian troops from Africa to deal with the situation in the Pacific. He had to exercise very great political judgment in matters which arose affecting the United Kingdom, the whole conduct of the war and also Australia’s position in the war. He and his successor, John Curtin, had very difficult issues to deal with. The whole weight of government was on their shoulders in a very hard time for Australia.

His attitude to life may be deduced from what he himself said - this is another famous quotation of Sir Arthur Fadden - about Curtin. He said:

The best and fairest 1 ever opposed in politics is easy to nominate - John Curtin. I don’t care who knows it. In my opinion there was no greater figure in Australian public life.

That is a tribute within a tribute. By his own words, in speaking about John Curtin, Arthur Fadden indicated his own magnanimity and stature. He was a well loved Australian. We mourn his passing. The effect of this motion is to place on record that great public service which he performed and to convey sympathy to his widow and family. He has passed physically but he remains amongst us as a great Australian - a man of warmth, sympathy and great political standing.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition supports the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy). The Government Leader has largely covered the illustrious career of the late Sir Arthur Fadden. He spent 22 years in this Parliament. In that time he gave distinguished service to the Parliament itself and also to the nation, and particularly to his own party. He held a number of portfolios and for a short time he was Prime Minister of this country. But he is more accurately remembered for his role as Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister in the Liberal-Country Party coalition. He served in this role from 1949 to 1958. I think it is fair to say that the combination of Sir Robert Menzies and the late Sir Arthur Fadden was a very fortunate one for this country because that combination was the basis for much of the prosperity which Australia has enjoyed over the past years. I think it can be said without contradiction that this prosperity has been due to the successful combined efforts of Sir Arthur Fadden and Sir Robert Menzies.

As Treasurer few have equalled his stature, and as a monument to his insight stands the Reserve Bank of Australia which was separated from the Commonwealth Bank during his administration as Treasurer. The worth of this action is still visible today. As a man he was liked and respected by members of all political parties. On behalf of the members of the Opposition I convey to his family and all those he leaves behind him our deepest sympathy.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Western Australia

– I rise to add my tribute to those of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) as well as the many other tributes which have been made publicly throughout Australia and further afield to the late Sir Arthur Fadden. On behalf of the Senate members of the Party which he led for so many years with such great distinction, I express my deep appreciation of the warm and sincere expressions of sympathy made by his colleagues and political opponents. They alone speak volumes for Sir Arthur’s popularity as a politician and as a person.

I am the only member of the Australian Country Party presently in the Senate who served in the Parliament with Sir Arthur. I express my own sympathy to Lady Fadden and her family. Arthur Fadden was the type of Australian that Australians are proud to acclaim, a man who doggedly fought his way to the top yet remained always humble and good humoured. Men are fortunate indeed if they possess such a combination of qualities, but he possessed other equally fine attributes.. I refer to his extreme integrity and faith in his own ability. They were apparent throughout his distinguished career but at no time were they more manifest than during his record 11 years as Federal Treasurer and his 18 years as Leader of the Australian Country Party. Sir Arthur was a legend in Queensland, his home State. The Brisbane ‘Courier-Mail’ of 23 April said this of him in an editorial:

He was a great fighter but never a brutal fighter. He had the respect and friendship of people of all political colours, yet he never lost the common touch. He was a simple, friendly man.

Mr President, I quoted those few words because none could more aptly describe his nature. This Parliament and this nation were fortunate to have had his service. -

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

Mr President, it is with a very deep sense of sorrow that I rise to support the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy). Arthur Fadden and I were friends for more than 40 years. I knew him before he was elected to the State Parliament on 11th June 1932, on which day I too was elected to the State Parliament, and while we were there we consolidated the acquaintenance that had existed between us up till then and we became good friends. He was making his mark in the Opposition in the State Parliament particularly on matters of finance. In budget debates and such like he would lead for the Opposition.1 In 1935 he was defeated after having changed from one electorate to another. Twelve months or so later Sir Lyttleton Groom died, he having been Speaker of the House of Representatives and a member of the Nationalist Party, the United Australia Party, or whatever title he and his colleagues were carrying at the time. But that did not’ prevent Artie Fadden winning the Darling Downs seat as the Country Parry candidate and-Tie told very many amusing stories about his campaigning in that election. His great “aid at that time was Ted Maher, who was Leader-‘ of the Opposition in the State Parliament. -

Subsequently I became Premier arid Treasurer and Arthur Fadden and I used to meet periodically at Loan Council meetings and Premiers Conferences, and I can, assure you, Mr President, that our relationship then was not always harmonious. Neither pf us barred any holds and we fought very vigorously, T as Premier and Treasurer seeking’ to get as much as I could from the Commonwealth pool and Artie resisting my efforts to the best of his ability on behalf of the Commonwealth. But our differences of opinion and :our- fights were always concluded by Artie giving me a hearty slap on the back and saying: ‘You little B, come and have a drink’. We - would have a drink and talk over things from a State point of view. We would find that we did not disagree very materially on major problems. That went on for a number of years.’

I recollect very clearly having a post mortem on our Loan Council meetings and our fights and the subsequent Press reports that were issued. The Federal Treasurer would be reported as saying one thing and the State Premier would be reported as having said something different. I found a weakness in his armour. In one of my Press statements I referred to him as an ‘ex-Queenslander’. That cut him to the quick. He said: ‘I do not care what you say about me, but please do not refer to me again as an ex-Queenslander’. His heart was in the State of his birth. He had grown up in the north - not under rich circumstances. His father was a police officer. He had no university training and referred to the school which he attended in the country town of Walkerston outside Mackay as the Walkerston University’. He started employment as a billy boy or in some like capacity in a sugar mill. He obtained employment in the Mackay City Council and became the Town Clerk. He studied accountancy and entered into partnership as an accountant with a man,I think, named Sutton in Townsville. He was a. very competent, conscientious and dedicated professional man in the field of accountancy and he built up a very big practice.

Artie Fadden was liked by all people who were privileged to know him. It is true that he was a great storyteller. He had a fund of stories which he used to retail from time to time. To his credit, let me say this as one who knewhim intimately: With all his geniality and his natural aim to please - for he never trailedhiscoat, looking for trouble - if an issue arose he never ducked it. He was prepared to make a stand on matters on which he had conviction and in which he believed. If he was attacked in clubs or anywhere else about his ‘little budget’ or anything else, he stood his ground. He never ran away, made excusesor blamed the Prime Minister or anyone else. He took the full responsibility. On the occasion of the introduction of his ‘little budget’, someone said to him: ‘How are you going, Artie?’ He replied: ‘You should know. I sent out invitations for a party recently and I conducted it in a telephone box’. He implied that his friends were so few. He had a great sense of humour. He had an indispensable requirement for greatness, particularly in public life. He had the great fortune of having a good mate in life in Lady Fadden. She was an admirable lady and a devoted wife and mother. The children all idolised their father and he idolised them. As a family unit, they were an inspiration. I was privileged to visit their home on many occasions. The devotion, the esteem and the mutual respect that were evident in that home were indeed pleasing and gratifying and, I say again, an inspiration. That family was probably the major contributing factor to the success of Artie Fadden in public life. He said to me more than once: ‘I do not care who likes me or who dislikes me publicly. At least I know that when I go home I will be well received and that my family at least will support me. That is all that I am damn well concerned about.’ That was his attitude.

Artie Fadden was a human man. He understood men, particularly working class men. I have been in cities and towns in North Queensland when he has been present also. I have seen for myself the respect that working class men have shown him and the devotion and admiration that they had for him. In his day, Artie had been one of the boys. He had played football. Indeed, he was the first secretary of the North Queensland Rugby League. He was a boxer also. He told some funny stories about occasions when he had been pitted against some ‘blow-in’ from the south who had been a professional fighter and he had been given a hiding. He told stories about the days when he played with the black minstrels who were country people entertaining themselves in their own simple decent way. He participated in every phase of life in the community in which he lived. He contributed something. He gave friendship and looked for it. I am satisfied that Artie Fadden will be judged very mercifully and with much advantage to himself for the amount of friendship that he has given to other people, particularly those in the poorer sections of the community, for the understanding that he has given to people who sought advice of a professional character from him but could not afford to pay for that advice, and for his charity to very many worthy causes, through companies in which he was interested, as well as directly from his own pocket. The long term served by Artie Fadden in this Parliament was of advantage to this country which is the poorer because of his passing.

Senator MAUNSELL (Queensland)I wish to support the motion before the Senate. I was not actually associated with Sir Arthur Fadden, as Senator Gair was, in the period when he was a member of this Parliament. As a matter of fact, apart from meetings of the. Australian Country Party in Queensland, I did not have a great deal to do with Sir Arthur until the last few years and particularly since I have lived in Townsville where Sir Arthur Fadden had his business. Sir Arthur still visited Townsville for a few days every month. Fortunately, he stayed at my neighbour’s house and I was able to see him quite often. It was always a pleasure to listen to his new jokes and to the old jokes. I can recall one dinner party that we had a few months ago at which Sir Arthur started telling jokes at 8 o’clock and at midnight he was still going. I had not heard any of those jokes before, and I have heard plenty of jokes in my time. The jokes were concerned mainly with his early days in Townsville.

Sir Arthur was a particular friend to me from the time I was elected to the Senate. His advice was always sound. It was not only the soundness of his advice but also the way in which he delivered it which meant that one seldom forgot that advice. 1 remember what he said to me at a party that was held in Brisbane on the night when my election to the Senate was declared. I think it was about 2 o’clock in the morning and Sir Arthur was on one side of me and Ted Maher on the other, both giving me advice. Artie said to me: ‘Do you know anything about music, lad?’ I said: ‘I learnt music when I was a youngster. I have played everything from a mouth organ to a violin, but not very well’. He said: ‘When you go to Canberra there are 2 notes which you have to remember - C sharp and B natural’. I have remembered that ever since. It certainly was very sound advice. On behalf of the Country Party in Queensland, of which he was a great stalwart, I extend our deepest sympathy to Lady Fadden and the members of his family.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I support the motion, which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy), expessing condolence to the family of the late Sir Arthur Fadden. My association with Sir Arthur Fadden goes back to the time when I first became a senator. That was in 1946. The association continued from that time until he retired from Parliament. He was held in very high esteem not only in the Parliament but throughout the country. I would say that his most outstanding characteristic was the extra ordinary width, of- his talents and- the quality of his personality. In my view, he was a classic example of a- man who had. . his values in the right order of priority for he believed and knew, in his maturity, that to be able to smile was to disarm. He appreciated people. With his sense of humour, people were attracted to him naturally, and they were impressed by his other qualities.

I call on Rudyard Kipling for a quotation. Sir Arthur was. truly a man who could mix with crowds ne’er lose his virtues and mix with kings ne’er lose the common touch. He went through his life leaving among the people with whom he associated the memory of a happy, kindly and forthright personality; but those people were always in no doubt that he was a man of determination and integrity. His contemporaries in Parliament who met him on committee work and in other spheres have suffered a ‘ personal loss as a result of his passing, but they will retain a continuing pleasure in having known an outstanding parliamentarian and- a gentleman. I wish to extend to his family my sincerest sympathy in their loss of a great husband, father and citizen of the Commonwealth.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I, too, wish to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government , in the Senate (Senator Murphy). I knew, the late Sir Arthur Fadden fairly well. Although I was never in Parliament with him, I was closely associated with him in our political organisation in Queensland. I found him a good and loyal friend at all times. He was the son of a police sergeant in Walkerston, a little town near Mackay. It has been said that his parents could not afford to give him a secondary education, yet through his own efforts he rose to be the man in charge of the finances of the nation. He had a tremendous fund of stories and anecdotes and could keep people entertained for a long while. He was a very goodhumoured man. I believe that , the large crowd at his funeral was testimony , to the high respect in which he was held. I, too, extend my sympathy to Lady Fadden and the family.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I join in supporting the motion of condolence to the family of the late Sir Arthur Fadden which has been moved by the Leader of the Government in . the Senate (Senator Murphy). Usually I leave it to the leader of my party to express condolences, but on this occasion I believe that I. should say something because I think I can fairly claim to have known the late Sir Arthur Fadden longer than anybody in this chamber or the House of Representatives. 1 remember as a boy at the great age of 12 years and 10 months setting out to apply foi a job in a solicitor’s office. Arthur Fadden recommended me to the solicitor and 1 received the position. I remember the kindly actions and deeds of Arthur Fadden in those far off days. I remember him when he served as a clerk in the Council of the Town of Mackay, which later became the City of Mackay. He became the Town Clerk of Mackay.

As was pointed out by Senator Gair, Arthur Fadden also became a public accountant. I remember his brilliant achievements in his accountancy examinations. It was from there that he decided to step forth into the accountancy world. He moved from Mackay to Townsville and established a very successful accountancy practice. In his early days before he came to this Parliament he was very colourful. As has been mentioned, he lived and was educated in the little town of Walkerston which is about 9 miles from the City of Mackay of which, as I have said, he became the Town Clerk. As Senator Gair said, whenever Sir Arthur Fadden visited Walkerston he would point to the State school and say that it was the ‘Walkerston University’ where he was educated. Some of his great fun and jokes emanated from those days.

Sir Arthur Fadden used to speak of his activities in amateur theatre, such as the ‘Nigger Minstrels’ show. I recall in later days his mentioning that one of the people in the Nigger Minstrels show was none other than George Wallace senior who, honourable senators might remember, became Australia’s No. 1 comedian. Sir Arthur Fadden was a creator of humour himself. I remember him telling a story about something that happened when George Wallace was performing on the stage at the height of his career. Sir Arthur went behind the stage to see George Wallace and said to him: ‘Well, George, you have come a long way since those ‘Nigger Minstrels’ days. You have made a great success. You have done very well’. George said: ‘Yes, I have, Artie. How have you done?’ He said: Blimey George, I am only the Prime Minister of Australia’. Apparently George did not realise what public activities were going on.

Very often people who tell stories are known as humourists. Sir Athur Fadden did not just tell stories; he created them. He had that natural sense of humour and fun. It was very funny to hear of some of the pranks which he played on the Mayor of Mackay when he was Town Clerk. He had that sense of humour which made everyone love him. But I think that what we in this Parliament must remember is that Sir Arthur Fadden had a very fine public spirit and he achieved great success in his public life. He gave devotion to his parliamentary career over many years. As was pointed out by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I think the records will show that his achievements in his parliamentary career are the true memorial of Sir Arthur Fadden. He is famed in the various areas in which he served in this Parliament.

To me probably the characteristic which stands out most in my mind is that Sir Arthur Fadden was a warm and human person. He was a simple person and because of his simplicity he understood the simple problems of people. It made him more human and he adopted a warm and human approach. He was ever ready and willing to help to encourage and to do what he could for anyone. He was a colourful personality in private life and in public life. I believe that his name will be remembered long after the names of many of us are forgotten. I am sure that not only some members of the other place but also some honourable senators including Senator Wright who has been here the same length of time as I have, will remember that when Sir Arthur Fadden left, a small function was held for him in our’ Government party room. Everyone was deeply touched by the little farewell we held because of our love and affection for Arthur Fadden. I believe that he touched our hearts and minds more than many other people who have passed through this Parliament. On this occasion we remember the great public man that he was. He was a wonderfully warm human being. He was, as Senator Gair so ably mentioned, a wonderful family man. Lady Fadden was also a Mackay girl. I extend to her and to her family my warmest sympathy. I believe that as the years roll by Artie Fadden will be remembered in this place and in the minds of all Australians who knew him. As the one in this Parliament who knew him for the longest period I feel that I can offer this tribute today. He passed away while I was overseas during the Easter recess. With his passing we have lost a great public personality. I have also lost a very warm friend.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– It is necessary for me to add to the tributes which have been made. I could not rest happy unlessI made a short, individual expression of tribute to a very able, energetic and genial Australian whose friendship I had the honour to share. My memory is greatly enriched by the merry hours and stimulating conversations we had together. I simply rise briefly so that his family will be reminded of a very firm friendship, deeply seated by our confidence in his ability and manhood.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.

page 1148

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT:

– I make the following announcement as a conjoint statement of the Presiding Officers. In the early hours of Sunday, 22nd April 1973, an explosion occurred at the front of Parliament House. This matter was investigated by the Australian Capital Territory Police. Subsequently an arrest was made and the matter is presently before the courts of the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Gair:

– Was he a Croat?

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not know. The damage caused by the explosion was small but the occurrence highlights the need for an adequate security system in Parliament House. Honourable senators will be aware that over the past 18 months increased security measures have been taken in and around Parliament House. Late last year, with the agreement of Mr Speaker, a study group was established to report on all aspects of security in Parliament House. This inquiry is proceeding. In the interim, general rules, based on experience, are in force. These are subject to variation from time to time when the need arises. Since the events of the morning of 22nd April the guard outside Parliament House has been increased. Honourable senators may be assured that the Presiding Officers are maintaining a constant oversight of the security of Parliament House and will keep honourable senators informed of future proposals.

page 1148

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator WITHERS:

– I address my question to the Attorney-General. As to the occasion when the Yugoslav Ambassador told the

Attorney-General that 3 naturalised Australians who were originally Croatians had been executed, will the Attorney-General inform the Senate, firstly, where that conversation took place and, secondly, whether other matters were mentioned during that conversation; also, will he now give to the Senate in substance the whole of that conversation?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Yes, the conversation took place in my office and other matters were mentioned in the conversation; and no, I will not give the honourable senator the substance of the whole conversation.

page 1148

QUESTION

SMUGGLING OF BIRDS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, in his capacity as Minister for Customs and Excise, whether he has seen the comment in northern newspapers about the increase in the activities of parrot pirates’ , and smugglers and the effect of those activities on Australian-parrots?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– For a number of years there has been a very serious problem in regard to the smuggling of birds and other fauna from Australia to be sold principally in Europe. Also there has been acertain amount of smuggling the other way, and from Australia’s point of view this is perhaps more dangerous because of the possible introduction of diseases which could be extremely destructive of other fauna. Bird diseases, in particular, could cause tremendous havoc in Australia if they were introduced into a bird population unused to them. A special detection squad has been set up in the Department of Customsand Excise. In the last 18 months this squad has been responsible for about 17 successful prosecutions and. more than $13,000 has been recovered in fines. Also, prosecutions have been instituted by State fauna authorities and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals with which the Department of Customs and Excise works in close co-operation. Every endeavour is being made to stamp out these activities.

The smuggling to which the honourable senator has referred is a very heartless form of crime because most birds which are smuggled die. The birds are packed in conditions which amount to very severe cruelty. It is common for more than 20 birds to be put into a cigarette carton or liquor carton. I think that on one occasion some 80 birds were put into the lining of a man’s jacket. Of course, most of the birds die from this type of treatment. The price paid for the birds is so high that the smuggling goes on. I am having examined the possibility of taking some of the profit motive out of this activity by permitting the legal export of birds to proper zoos. There are a large number of private zoos in Europe which are extremely well conducted. I think that this possibility ought to be explored. If we exported birds in this way, perhaps some form of export tax could be imposed and the money gained could be used for conservation purposes. Also an examination is being made of the possibility of allowing some form of legal importation of birds. In this way conditions could be controlled and the profit motive could be taken out of what is a very dangerous and cruel form of crime.

page 1149

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. On the occasion when the Yugoslav Ambassador told him that 3 Australians had been executed in Yugoslavia, did the Ambassador expressly request the Attorney-General to keep the information he was giving him confidential? If he did not, what were the circumstances which warranted the assumption by the Attorney-General that the matter should be regarded as unofficial?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– As I have already indicated through the Press - a statement was made by me after I had spoken to Mr Whitlam, I think on the Wednesday of last week, about the matter - it was quite clear from what was said by the Ambassador that this statement was not to be released but that it would be released by the Yugoslavs themselves on what was 1 think their Thursday and our Friday. It was 12th April there, which, by reason of the time difference, meant it would have been 13th April here. A statement was to be made by them. It would be impossible if in these circumstances statements were to be released. In that sense-

Senator Carrick:

– Why did you not tell the Prime Minister?

Senator MURPHY:

Mr President, there has been an interjection about not telling the Prime Minister. This is a matter which has been canvassed heavily in the Press. Let me deal with it. I have said that the official channel of communication on matters of this kind is the Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs or its Embassy in Yugoslavia. The simple fact is that I assumed that the official channels would be used; but the official channels were not used. It is obvious in those circumstances^ - the point has been made - that I should have told the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Department of Foreign Affairs. I accept that. There is no question about that. It is obvious that this breakdown in communication to which I was a contributor ought not to have occurred. As to the other matter - and let that not obscure the main issue - the announcement was made by the Yugoslav Government. I have indicated the circumstances in which the Yugoslavs again made an unofficial approach, as they emphasised, to my Department on the Friday. I will repeat what I have said publicly. I said:

On 13th April, the Yugoslav Counsellor called on the Attorney-General’s Department again on what he emphasised to the then Acting Secretary and an official of the Foreign Affairs Department was an unofficial visit.

The Counsellor gave the text of the Yugoslav announcement in Belgrade and then explained that he and his Ambassador had not considered it proper to call on the Foreign Affairs Department unless to convey, the information formally, and said he was uncertain whether this would be conveyed formally to the Australian Government through the Australian Embassy in Belgrade or by his Embassy in Canberra.

Other important issues are arising out of this matter. I hope that those important issues will not be obscured by the simple fact inherent in what has been put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

page 1149

QUESTION

CURRENCY REVALUATION COMPENSATION

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I wish to put a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Has the Government agreed that any industry, be it primary or secondary, adversely affected by the recent currency revaluation may put a case to the Government for special consideration of the disabilities suffered? Has any such application for revaluation compensation been received from the Devonport based company A. Wander Ltd which claims to have been seriously harmed by revaluation affecting approximately 90 per cent of its exports, especially those to its valuable Thailand market, and that, as a consequence, staff retrenchments are mooted?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not have any knowledge of the activities of A. Wander Ltd.

I think I should get some information from the Treasurer and give it to the honourable senator.

page 1150

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I address a question to the Attorney-General. When the Yugoslav Ambassador told the AttorneyGeneral that 3 naturalised Australians had been executed, did the Attorney-General institute any inquiries as to the conduct in Australia of the 3 persons concerned? What information has the Attorney-General to give to the Senate as to the facts discovered in relation to the 3 persons? Will the Attorney-General lay on the table of the Senate all documents and reports arising out of such inquiries?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– As I have said, the official announcement was made on the Friday. I left the country on the next day. I was overseas during the next period but there was an Acting Attorney-General during that period. I am not sure whether any inquiries were made by him. I have some information before me but I do not think it is in a form which would allow me to give it to the honourable senator easily. If the honourable senator would like me to pursue the question of the conduct of these persons while in Australia I will do so.

page 1150

QUESTION

HOBART AIRPORT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation aware of the confusion which occurred at Hobart Airport during the Easter holiday break due to the poor facilities at the Hobart terminal? Will he say when some action will be taken to update this terminal so that the increasing number of travellers to Tasmania can have more room and a little more comfort in a modern terminal?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Works · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not aware of any congestion that occurred at the terminal at Hobart. I shall refer the question to the Minister for Civil Aviation to see whether he can supply any information to the honourable senator and whether he proposes to take any remedial action.

page 1150

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that 17th March, the date now given on which

Australian citizens were executed in Yugoslavia, was the day after the day - or, on Senator Murphy’s explanation today, 2 days after the day - on which the dawn raids were made on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation headquarters in Melbourne? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the secret documents declassified as a result of those raids were made available or could have become available to any persons associated with the Yugoslav Embassy? Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will inquire whether the release of the ASIO documents prejudiced in any way the lives of these men? If the men could not have been proved guilty of crimes charged by the application of Australian law, will the Government pay compensation to the Australian widows and children of the men executed?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– At the time to which Senator Little has referred the documents were not declassified. Therefore they would not have been made public and they would not be in the hands of any of the Yugoslav authorities.

page 1150

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: AUSTRALIAN AMBASSADOR

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for the Media make available to the Senate details of any arrangements made by the Australian Broadcasting Commission to cover the arrival in Peking of Australia’s first Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, Dr Fitzgerald?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Arrangements were made by the Australian Broadcasting Commission for an Australian Broadcasting Commission journalist, John Pennlington, and a camerman from Hong Kong to accompany to Peking Dr Fitzgerald, the recently appointed Australian Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China. As a result Mr Pennlington was able to send back to Australia films and news reports of Dr Fitzgerald’s arrival. I might say that I have just been advised that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has received advice from China that Mr Pennlington and the cameraman have now had their visas extended to the end of May to enable the ABC to cover the visit of a Government trade mission, which will be led by the Minister for Overseas Trade, Dr J. F. Cairns. The Chinese Government has also allowed Mr Pennlington and the cameraman to tour outside Peking and at the moment they are touring central China for the purposes of sending to Australia news reports, cable reports and film about China. Their visas originally were for 10 days but have been extended by the Chinese authorities until the end of May.

page 1151

QUESTION

BOSNIA INCURSION

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister of State who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister tell us what official communications have come to the Australian Government, either to any Minister or to any department, relating to the Bosnian raid? Will the Minister on behalf of the Government table all such communications in the Senate?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– There is information of the Bosnian raid in the Department. I think the detail has been pretty well publicised.

Senator McManus:

– We have heard nothing of it; we were told only that there was a raid.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I understood it was published in the papers. I do not think there was any secret that there was a Bosnian raid.

Senator McManus:

– We have not had the details.

Senator WILLESEE:

– All right. The second question is: Will I be able to table those documents? 1 will ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 1151

QUESTION

SHELTER FOR GUARDS AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Mr President, my question without notice is directed to you and is consistent with the statement you made earlier regarding the use of guards around Parliament House. I ask you whether you have noted that the people who are required to carry out this job have been soaked to the skin because of the bad weather we have had today. I now ask: Can outside shelters be erected for the protection in adverse weather conditions of police and other guards who are required to man posts around Parliament House?

The PRESIDENT:

– I undertake to have that looked at.

page 1151

QUESTION

VISIT OF DELEGATION FROM NORTH VIETNAM

Senator McMANUS:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Does the delega tion from North Vietnam at present in Aus; tralia include representatives of the South Vietnamese Vietcong? Is not the reception of such representatives a serious breach of diplomatic etiquette in view of the fact that we officially recognise the South Vietnamese Government, and the Vietcong is a terrorist organisation fighting the legitimate Government? What truth is there in reports attributed to the Minister who appeared at the reception that Australia will officially recognise the Vietcong?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– The team visiting Australia at the moment is visiting unofficially. Its members are not the guests of the Government.

Senator McManus:

– There was a Minister at the reception.

Senator WILLESEE:

– You have asked me a question and I am answering it for you. It is an unofficial team; it was not invited here by the Australian Government and no arrangements have been made for its members to see Ministers in their official capacities. At the moment we recognise the Government of North Vietnam and we recognise the Government of South Vietnam. There are no negotiations going on with the PRG at the moment on the question of recognition.

page 1151

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. In answer to a previous question he stated that several new and important issues had been raised by the announcement from Yugoslavia. Could he give the nature of these new issues and could he also state why this Parliament had not previously been informed of any action to protect Australian naturalised citizens in Yugoslavia subsequent to that raid into Yugoslavia?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The issue of dual nationality - it is not necessarily new - has been with us for some time. This was under consideration by the previous Government. I understand that there was some division of opinion in the previous Government on the question of dual nationality. It raises very important questions. Some of these were raised by the Minister for Foreign Affairs with the Yugoslav Government after this announcement was made, and include the right of the Australian Government to be informed and to be able to take action in respect of persons who, although Yugoslav citizens, are also Australian citizens. It is a very important question and one which I think will take a great deal of resolution. But the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the Yugoslav Government was that we ought to have been informed about the persons. The second part of the honourable senator’s question asked what action was taken.

Senator Rae:

– The honourable senator asked why no action was taken.

Senator MURPHY:

– I think he asked why no action was taken initially. The question cannot be answered by anyone in this Government so far as I am aware because the persons were arrested, if my recollection serves me correctly, in August of last year. The matter was then one for the previous administration if it were aware of it. That is the time at which one would have expected that something would be done, if it were possible for anything to be done. What the Minister for Foreign Affairs did was to say that this administration ought to have been informed of the position because the persons had dual nationality. His views and complaint were expressed to the Yugoslav Government several weeks ago.

page 1152

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Special Minister of State. Does the Labor Government pose as being deeply concerned about the rights of Australian citizens? If so, will it, as a matter of urgency and in the interests of natural justice, establish a public inquiry to ascertain all information relevant to the execution of the 3 former Croats and their notified punishment by the Communists in Yugoslavia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Yes, we are very concerned about the rights of Australian citizens. That is why the Prime Minister protested immediately to the Yugoslav Government about the execution of 3 people who were naturalised Australians. We ask that in all cases in which any Australian citizen is arrested in any country for any offence, whether it be minor or major, we be informed so that our embassy in the country concerned can take an interest in the matter and do whatever it possibly can. We are entering into negotiations and are having further talks with the Yugoslav Government about this very difficult question concerning those countries in the world, one of which is Yugoslavia, that recognise dual citizenship. We hope that arising out of these negotiations this matter will be cleared up and that we will be able to establish the situation in the way we want it. As to establishing a public inquiry, I do not think that this is the type of inquiry we should have. We have already made known the Government’s protests. I believe that they express the right attitude with which everybody would agree. We are concerned about this. I think that the talks ought to be allowed to develop to see how we can improve the matter in the future.

page 1152

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that the 3 persons executed by the Yugoslav authorities were involved in a guerilla style invasion last year against the legal Government of that country? Is it not true that soldiers of the Yugoslav army were killed in this incursion and that the normal protocol arrangements could not be expected to apply to their illegal activities in a country recognised by the previous and present Governments as a friendly country? Did not the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation documents tabled in the Senate include the names of these 3 terrorists suspected of being involved in subversive activities in Australia?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Yes, the statement that was issued by the Yugoslav Government did indicate that these men had been participants in the illegal incursion into Yugoslavia and that, in the course of that incursion, a number of Yugoslav soldiers were killed. I think the honourable senator is correct when he says that there was a reference to those persons in the documents tabled. I am not at this moment quite certain of that, but I think he is correct.

page 1152

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Special Minister of State: When, where and in what circumstances were the 3 Australian citizens - Horvat, Keskic and Vlashnovic - arrested in Yugoslavia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– The circumstances were because of the Bosnian raid, but where in Bosnia that was I cannot pinpoint exactly for the honourable senator. I am a bit vague as to the exact date. Somebody may prompt me on that. I do not know exactly the date of the arrest. I could find out for the honourable senator.

page 1153

QUESTION

JOINT HOUSE COMMITTEE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the need for a meeting of the Joint House Committee to be held this week to discuss and to resolve matters of an urgent nature, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate take the necessary steps to secure the appointment without delay of the senators nominated to this Committee?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I think that a question of this nature in relation to the Joint House Committee has nothing to do with the Leader of the Government in the Senate. This is a matter for the Senate to decide. I am very doubtful about the question. I ask the honourable senator to put it on notice.

page 1153

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN STAFF COLLEGE: TRAINING OF THAI OFFICERS

Senator GAIR:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it true that Thai officers have trained at the Australian Staff College since 1967? Is it true, as reported, that further admissions of Thais to the College have been refused on the ground that ‘accommodation is inadequate’? If so, does this indicate a further step by the present Government to cast off Australia’s traditional friends, and is it a move to destroy the South East Asia Treaty Organisation?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I will answer the last part of the Question first. No, if this report is true, it is not a move to destroy SEATO. No relationship exists between the 2 factors. I understand that Thai officers have been trained at this College but I do not know from what date. I am not sure what the future training program is but I will find out the details and let the honourable senator have them.

page 1153

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which I direct to the Special Minister of State, refers to the 3 Australian citizens who were executed in a foreign country. When did the trials of these 3 men take place? What was the nature of the trials - court or military, secret or public? What charges were made against the accused?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I will find out the details and let the honourable senator have them.

page 1153

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I refer to the conviction and execution of 3 Australian citizens in Yugoslavia, and ask the Minister assisting the Prime Minister: Has the Commonwealth Government sought to obtain a transcript of the evidence of the trials and of subsequent appeals in this matter? If not, why not?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I do not know whether we have. I will certainly find out and let the honourable senator know.

page 1153

QUESTION

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: ENDANGERED SPECIES

Senator GEORGES:

– I attract the attention of the Minister for Customs and Excise to World Wildlife magazine which suggests that nothing in the history of conservation is likely to compare with the Government’s action on. the question of endangered species. Can the Minister indicate to the Senate the progress in the Government’s plan to protect endangered species through Customs controls?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– In the past week or so I have found it more enjoyable to read magazines on wildlife conservation than to read the newspapers. I know that there has been a great deal in wildlife magazines around theworld on what has been done by Australia. The simple fact is that we have moved from a position of, I think, being rather backward in the protection of our wildlife - certainly in relation to export - to a position in which we are one of the world leaders in .this respect. I will state, what has been done (firstly in relation to the preservation of crocodiles. In Australia crocodiles were very nearly extinct. The figures that were given to me showed that the crocodile population had been reduced to one-tenth of one per cent of the former population. The position was really serious, and it still is.

Senator Little:

– Zero population among the crocodiles.

Senator MURPHY:

– It was not a question of zero population growth; it was a question of a rapidly diminishing population. The steps which we have take to prevent the export of any crocodile, skins or products, except from recognised crocodile farms or for sciencific and/ or educational purposes, have been the wisest steps which we could have taken for the preservation of crocodiles. Steps have been taken also in relation to the importation of whale meat or products. These steps have been helpful in the preservation of a number of species of the whale. While I was overseas I spoke to the relevant British Minister. The British have taken certain steps which have placed them among the world’s leaders. Perhaps I should not say anything about Britain’s former position. Rapidly, around the world action is being taken in that field.

The law for approximately 50 years - 1 think it was enacted in 1923 - has been that kangaroo skins should not be exported without the permission of the relevant Minister. That law has been operative effectively from 1st April so that no kangaroo skins at all are being exported. There have been discussions between the Commonwealth and the State Ministers concerned with fauna, and an endeavour is being made to institute a proper system of co-ordinated management which will ensure that the kangaroo population will not be damaged further. It is hoped that the system will be worked out and instituted fairly promptly. Once the facts of the matter, as distinct from the assumptions about it, were examined closely, it was quite obvious that a great deal needed to be done to save the kangaroos.

Australia has become a party to the convention on endangered species which took place in the United States of America in March, I think it was, and which was an enormous step towards the protection of endangered species. We have joined, for the (first time, some international bodies which are concerned with the preservation of the species. Of course, we have a new department - the Department of the Environment and Conservation - which is working actively in this regard. I think it is fair to say that in many ways the new Government has made giant strides in the direction of conserving our natural species.

page 1154

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Will the Government allow a committee of inquiry from the Australian Croatian community to visit Yugoslavia and investigate the circumstances of the trial and execution of the 3 Croatian born naturalised Australians?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I do not think there would be any objection to anybody visiting any part of the world. We would have no objection to it. On what business people wanted to go would be entirely their own concern; we would not ask them why they were going.

page 1154

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Do the records of the Department of Foreign Affairs indicate that the then Australian Ambassador to Yugoslavia made any representations whatever to the Yugoslav Government seeking information regarding the arrest of Australian citizens, which became public knowledge soon after the Bosnian incursion? If no such representations were made, was this not an indication that the then Minister for Foreign Affairs was completely disinterested in the incident and the fate of those Australian citizens?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I am not sure what happened in those far off days, but my recollection is that the information we had was that these people were killed in the raid.

Senator Poyser:

– Was a protest made?

Senator WILLESEE:

– Frankly, 1 do not know, but 1 can find out for the honourable senator.

page 1154

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. It is understood that the Prime Minister formally protested to the Yugoslav Government following the announcement from Yugoslavia of the execution of the 3 Australians. As all relative information was apparently unknown to the Prime Minister at the time of his protest, will the Minister detail what further action has been taken by the Prime Minister regarding this matter?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

Senator Guilfoyle is right: The Prime Minister made an immediate protest and, as everybody knows, he did not have the full information at that time. The present situation is that our Ambassador is having talks with the authorities in Yugoslavia concerning this vexed question of dual citizenship. As I said earlier, we want to be informed by any country if any of our nationals - no matter how they became nationals - are charged. It does not matter what the charge is, whether a minor charge or a serious charge; we expect to be informed so that the whole weight of our representation in the country in which the person is charged can be used. From time to time this happens in certain countries. Sometimes it concerns minor charges and sometimes it concerns major charges. We always do whatever we can. We keep in touch with the people charged. We make sure that they have counsel to represent them and we do all the sorts of things which we would do for people charged in our own country.

A problem has arisen regarding the Yugoslav Government’s attitude to dual citizenship. The Prime Minister has ordered that special talks be held to try to reach the position where the situation in Yugoslavia regarding dual citizenship is exactly the same as that in any other country.

page 1155

QUESTION

IMPRISONMENT IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I ask a question of the Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Australian Ambassador in Yugoslavia or any of his officers or any official acting on behalf of the Australian Government visited or sought to visit the Australian citizen Ludvig Pavolovic who is reported to be serving a long gaol sentence for alleged offences similar to those for which the 3 men were executed? If no such visit has been made, why not?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I do not know whether any such visit has been made. I will certainly make inquiries to find out.

page 1155

QUESTION

IMPRISONMENT IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator CARRICK:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is supplementary to the question just asked by Senator Hannan. Will the Australian Government take immediate steps to have Australian officials, including competent lawyers and interpreters, visit the man Pavolovic in gaol in Yugoslavia to explore fully whether justice has been done to him and whether he can throw any light upon the circumstances surrounding the 3 executions.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– If this gentleman is an Australian citizen, yes, we will do that.

page 1155

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– -I ask the Special Minister of State in his capacity as Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the- Prime Minister, the Special Minister of State or any other Australian Minister or official questioned the Yugoslav Prime Minister, Mr Bijedic, or any other member of his party during their Australian visit in regard to the detention or execution of any Australian citizens or residents by the Yugoslav Government?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I did not question Mr Bijedic or Mr Vidovic with whom I had talks because the information which we had at that stage was that these men had been killed in the raid on Bosnia. It was not within our knowledge that these people were being held in gaol. Therefore I certainly did not raise this matter and I doubt that anybody else did.

page 1155

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PASSPORTS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs: fs it not a reasonable conclusion that possession of an Australian passport does not mean that a person is entitled to indulge in illegal operations in a foreign country.

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Yes. Merely the carrying of an Australian passport or any other passport does not give one a licence to break the law.

page 1155

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Special Minister of State. Did the Australian Government discuss with the Yugoslav Prime Minister the circumstances of those who allegedly took part in the so-called Bosnian incursion of June 1972 and their subsequent fate? If so, what information did the Yugoslav Government provide on this matter?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– A little while ago I answered that I did not discuss this matter with any of the Yugoslavs who visited Australia. I do not know whether anybody else did.

page 1155

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What specific evidence is in the possession of the Australian Government which has linked each or any of the- 4 Australian citizens executed or imprisoned ‘in Yugoslavia with .any alleged Croatian terrorist activities in Australia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I think this would come more within the responsibility of the Attorney-General. I shall try to find out what I can for the honourable senator as to whether there is a connection and I shall let him know.

page 1156

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator GIETZELT:

– Will the AttorneyGeneral, as a result of his recent talks with French Government Ministers, tell the Senate whether, in his opinion, the people of France have been made aware of the intensity of feelings of the Australian people against the proposed atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– When I was in Paris over a week ago I formed the impression that this was so. I stated this publicly when asked by a representative of the French television station. I think the people of France are not really aware of how much feeling there is in this country, and I think in other countries, against the continuance of nuclear testing in the Pacific by the French Government.

Senator Webster:

– Do you think the Chinese are aware?

Senator MURPHY:

– In reply to the interjection of the honourable senator, I think it is important that the people of other countries - France, China or anywhere else - should be aware of the feelings of other people in relation to the tests and also the view which has been taken about the danger of those tests. I think that, as the awareness of the peoples of the world of the dangers of these tests grows, so will the intensity of feeling and the pressure upon all governments to cease conducting tests of weapons which not only are destined to destroy mankind but also in their very manufacture and testing are harmful to human beings.

Mr President, while I am on my feet I would like to comment on an interjection made a little earlier about questions and answers. You. Sir, suggested that some analysis had been made of the number of questions that had been asked by various senators. I wonder whether it would be convenient for one of your officers to make an analysis of the answers that were given to those questions? 1 would not be surprised if up until today 1 have answered more questions in this place than have been answered by all of the Ministers in the House of Representatives put together.

page 1156

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Special Minister of State, in his capacity as Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Has any formal reply been received from the Yugoslav Government in response to the protest note forwarded on 13th April? If not, is this delay far greater than the terms of the protest warrant? Has any indication been given as to when a reply will be received? What further action is the Government proposing to take to ensure that a government with which it claims to have friendly relations will respond promptly to communications addressed to it?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– No, we have not had a reply to our protest and we have not had an indication of when the reply will come. If, in our judgment, the reply is being long delayed we will press the Yugoslav Government for a reply.

While I am on my feet I would like to point out that Senator Young - at least I think it was Senator Young; I have been asked several questions and I am a little confused as to who asked them - asked me a question to which I was unable to give an answer at the time. I think it was Senator Young who asked me whether we had made any representations to try to ascertain some details of the trial. My information is that we have sought details of the trial.

page 1156

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Special Minister of State, in his capacity as Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the deep national concern regarding the execution of Australian citizens in Yugoslavia and the concern expressed in this chamber, as well as the multiplicity of questions addressed to him over various areas of this whole matter, will he consider laying down, for the information of the Senate, the Parliament and the nation, a statement on the whole of the information in the hands of the Government relating to the Bosnian raid and the execution of these citizens so that the whole matter may then be displayed for the information of Australia and this chamber?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I will put it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that this be done. However, I make the suggestion that if the information we are seeking is not long delayed it may pay us to wait so that this information can be incorporated in any statement that Mr Whitlam may decide to make.

page 1157

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator RAE:

– I ask the Special Minister of State, in his capacity as Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it a fact that the Yugoslav Government at all times claimed that the 3 executed Australians were killed in the Bosnian raid until it claimed on 13th April 1973 that these men had been executed? Which statement does the Government now believe to be the lie? Has any protest been made to the Yugoslav Prime Minister at this diplomatic deception? Was it a particularly serious breach of diplomatic relations, in view of the fact that it is now alleged by the Yugoslav Government that the executions took place only a few days before the Australian Government, at great expense, entertained the Yugoslav Prime Minister?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– The .answer to Senator Rae’s first question is yes, we were informed at the time of the Bosnian raid that; all the participants in it were killed. The honourable senator asked which of the statements we now believe. I believe the second one. This matter has been drawn to the attention of the Yugoslavs.

page 1157

QUESTION

INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTS WRITTEN IN THE CROATIAN LANGUAGE

Senator LITTLE:

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. As some of the documents seized in the raids on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation were in the Croatian language, can the Attorney-General inform us who the interpreters were who were employed in the examination of those documents, from where they were obtained and when the examination of those papers began? On what date did persons previously not having access to the documents first get such access?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am unable to answer as to who was doing the interpreting. I understand that there are official interpreters who are normally used in these matters, but I do not really know.

Senator Little:

– Will you find out for us?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, I will obtain that Information. As to the other questions that arose out of that part of the honourable senator’s question, I will look into those matters.

Senator Little:

– I will put them on notice.

Senator MURPHY:

– It might be a convenient course to- take to put the whole question on notice.

page 1157

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Special Minister of State in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, refers to the execution of Australian citizens in Yugoslavia and in particular to reports that some persons who did not take part in the so-called Bosnian incident were arrested while visiting relatives. I ask: Has the Government followed up these reports? If so, will the Minister inform the Senate of the details of any action taken as a result of inquiries made?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I have not seen any report that people were arrested while in Yugoslavia visiting their relatives, but I will certainly have the matter checked out and let the honourable senator know.

page 1157

QUESTION

DUAL NATIONALITY

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a further question to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of relations with Yugoslavia, can we have an assurance that any discussions on the subject of dual nationality will include Greece, mindful of misunderstandings that occur in . that part of the world?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– The question of dual nationality has been underlined’ by the incidents in Yugoslavia. I repeat that we want to protect our citizens wherever they are and whenever ‘ they are in trouble, irrespective of whether they may be in minor or major violation of the law. I should think, although I do not know specifically, that we would have taken up this matter with Greece. It may be that there are other countries where these problems will arise. If so I am certain that after the Yugoslav talks our interest will be extended to those other countries.

page 1157

QUESTION

MR BIJEDIC: VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I desire to ask a question of the Special Minister of State in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Was there any discussion during the visit to Australia of the Yugoslav Prime Minister of the rights of holders of Australian passports, particularly Australian citizens born in Yugoslavia who are visiting Yugoslavia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I did not have any conversations at that level. I do not know whether anybody else did. After all when a dignitary from another country is visiting one’s country one does not go over the whole gamut of the problems that can arise between nations. It is all right to be very wise after the event. I repeat that I did not have any conversations and I doubt whether anybody else did.

page 1158

QUESTION

POTATOES

Senator McMANUS:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Primary Industry. Will the Minister state the Governments’s policy on the importation of potatoes from countries where exotic potato diseases exist? What precautions are taken, particularly in Victoria, which is a leading source of seed potatoes? A disease called golden nematode was introduced from the United States and 2 serious diseases exist in New Zealand.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

– I have no specific information on the matters raised by Senator McManus. 1 will obtain an answer and supply him with it.

page 1158

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator MILLINER:

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Has he been made aware of the widespread approval and appreciation of the people of Australia of his efforts to influence the French Government to abandon its expressed intention of using the Pacific Ocean for the purpose of conducting nuclear tests, to the disadvantage of the inhabitants of the many areas that would thus be adversely affected? Will the Minister accept the thanks of the vast majority of Australians who applaud the initiatives he and the Australian Government have taken to discourage the use of nuclear power for other than peaceful purposes?

The PRESIDENT:

– The question will go on notice.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

- Mr President, I think I can say-

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ordered the question to be put on notice. If you ask for permission to intervene you may.

Senator MURPHY:

– I think I can save the use of the notice paper, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Then, you should make, your reply brief, Senator Murphy.

Senator MURPHY:

– I give the firm response yes to both questions.

page 1158

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator KANE:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to an earlier question asked by Senator Gietzelt about the background of 3 naturalised Australians executed in Yugoslavia. I ask: Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that in the documents tabled by him there is no evidence of any extremist or terrorist background to at least one of the executed men, namely, Mirko Vlashnovic?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I did express some lack of certainty about the matter which was asked of me by Senator Gietzelt. I think the most satisfactory course to follow is for the question to. go on notice so that a proper examination can be made of it and an answer given with certainty.

page 1158

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to an earlier question that was directed to him by, I think, Senator Gietzelt concerning information which he gave on French television about the nuclear tests. I ask: Is it a fact that the telecast of a pre-recorded interview on the second Government controlled television channel in Paris was different from the actual pre-recording? Is it a fact that one question and answer were omitted from the telecast seen by French viewers? If so, what was omitted?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I have a copy of the transcript of the interview in France. I was asked the following question:

Could you explain to the French people the effects of nuclear testing in Australia 1 gave the following answer:

Yes, it’s simple: Every man, woman and child in Australia has in their bodies radioactive material from the French tests as well as other tests. ‘ Our scientists tell us that there are dangers that are known; there are unknown dangers also from that material. It could be deleterious, it could cause cancer, it could cause genetic damage, serious genetic damage - we think that that should not happen against our win.

page 1159

QUESTION

MR BIJEDIC: VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State in his capacity as Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Was he personally aware at the time when the Yugoslav Prime Minister visited Australia of the detailed records available in the Department of Foreign Affairs of numerous Australian citizens not connected with any alleged Bosnian raid being imprisoned and, in at least 2 cases, killed while visiting Yugoslavia? If he was aware, why was no discussion held with the Yugoslav Prime Minister about the fate and the whereabouts of many of these people? If he was not aware, will he find out from his Department why he was not informed?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– No, I was not aware, by means of departmental records, of this matter. 1 do not know that the Department was at fault in not briefing me on it. 1 had general discussions, along with Mr Whitlam and Senator Murphy, with the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia and these other people. We decided at that meeting that it was a bit silly for us to sit there, so the meeting broke up until the following day. I spent a couple of hours with a representative of the Yugoslav Foreign Ministry. These things were not mentioned. We were talking about world affairs and that type of thing.

page 1159

QUESTION

RAID ON HOME OF CROATIAN

Senator HANNAN:

– Does the AttorneyGeneral recall that about a month or 6 weeks ago I asked him for a report on the midnight raid, without warrant, on the Canberra home of a Croatian pensioner, one Franjo Till? The Minister will recall saying that he had an answer to my question. It is possible that 1 have missed seeing it in Hansard, but I have not been able to trace it. I ask the Minister whether I may have an answer as soon as possible to this very serious inquiry because on the surface it would appear that this man has suffered a grevious wrong.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Yes, the honourable senator is entitled to an answer. If it does not appear in Hansard it should appear shortly. I will see whether a copy of the answer can be given the honourable senator during the course of the day.

Mr BIJEDIC: VISIT TO AUSTRALIA

Senator MARRIOTT:

– My question is directed to the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If the Minister does not know th’e precise answer to my question, will he endeavour to obtain it? Does he know whether the information which came from moderately reliable sources is correct that the man who came to dinner at the Lodge and who was heralded and guarded in Australia as the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia is not in fact, as we know the Prime Minister, next in order of seniority to the President but in fact is approximately fourth or fifth down the line of seniority in his own country? If this is correct, was it known to the Government prior to his arrival in Australia?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I do not quite get the significance of the question. The Prime Minister of any country who comes to Australia will be received in a proper manner, and we did this in relation to the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia.

Senator McManus:

– Was he the Prime Minister? It is asserted that he is only number 6 on the list; he is not the Prime Minister at all.

Senator WILLESEE:

– If a person comes to Australia properly accredited as the Prime Minister of a country, I think the Australian Government will accept that.

page 1159

QUESTION

MEAT: PRICE CONTROL SCHEME

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry table for the information of the Senate the report to the Government by the Australian Meat Board on a possible pr’-.e control scheme for meat?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Yes, that document will be made public as from today. Very limited copies are available at the present time, but I will table the report in the Parliament.

page 1159

QUESTION

STATUS OF AUSTRALIANS IN BRITAIN

Senator MULVIHILL:

– 1 direct a further question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. By way of preface I refer to a lengthy answer he gave me to a question I asked about the status of Australians in Britain under the United Kingdom Immigration Act. I now ask the Minister whether he can explain why correspondence I have received from Australians in Earls Court indicates that his answer is far more detailed than one given 6 months ago by the previous Minister, although the previous Prime Minister spent a weekend with the British Prime Minister at Chequers.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is explained by the difference in the Prime Ministers. It is explained by the difference in their efficiency, and it is a tribute to the good sense of the Australian people which was displayed on 2nd December last.

page 1160

QUESTION

TELEPHONE TAPPING

Senator RAE:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to his recent report which indicates that approximately the same number of approvals have been given by him for telephone tapping by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation during the first 3 months of this year as were given during the whole of last year. Will the Minister report the number of approvals given by him in respect of each State of Australia?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is evident that the honourable senator has misconstrued the information in the report. The report mentioned a date - I think it was a date in Marchrand presumably that was when the report was prepared. The report gave the number of approvals for the 12 months prior to that date. The assumption that the honourable senator is making is quite erroneous. I should indicate to the Senate that the kinds of arithmetic which might be applied to these figures do not take into account the fact that authorisations may be given for a certain period of time, that authorisations may be in respect of the same telephone, and other factors which make it quite dangerous and unwarranted to make the kind of assumption that the honourable senator has made.

I think it was important that the Australian people be given some indication of the way in which this Act was being operated. However, I do not think information should be given as to, for example, the number of authorisations granted at any particular time because it is obvious that this information might be utilised contrary to the interests of this country. But it is important that the Australian people know that the number of approvals is of that order. Even taking into account what I have indicated, the honourable senator can be assured that he would find only some minimal change in the figures when compared with those of previous years. The suggestion of the honourable senator that in some way the number of approvals has suddenly increased is quite erroneous. I simply say that if the occasion arises when it is proper to indicate what the number is - after an event or after some period - this will be done, but we do not propose to follow the course of automatically stating the number, and we certainly would not, as the honourable senator asks, give a breakdown of the figures State by State.

page 1160

QUESTION

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRICES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I ask the

Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it correct that the Government has announced the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Prices? Has the membership of this Committee been announced as yet? Has the Committee met to discuss and decide its future program of inquiry? If not, why did the socalled chairman-elect of that committee indicate a policy of boycotting products whose prices were said to be unjustified? Can the Minister say whether it is the prerogative of a chairman-elect of a parliamentary committee to anticipate what will be committee policy?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I think the question should be placed on notice in order that a proper answer might be obtained. I am not sure who in fact should be answering such a question - whether it is for me to answer or for the President, or whether it ought to go through to the Speaker of the other House.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Or whether it should be answered at all?

Senator MURPHY:

– Or, as the honourable senator himself suggests, whether it should be answered at all. I ask him to put the question on notice.

page 1160

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask, in view of the obviously private nature of the discussions which took place between himself and the Yugoslav Ambassador on 9th April, whether the Attorney-General has sought to ascertain who was responsible for making public to the Press the substance of what the Yugoslav Ambassador told him about the execution of 3 Australian citizens in Yugoslavia. If he has sought to ascertain who gave the information to the Press, is he able to confirm that neither he nor the Prime Minister nor any member of their respective staffs made the information public?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I think the person who gave it to the Press was a journalist, a Mr Laurie Oakes.

Senator Greenwood:

– Who gave it to him?

Senator MURPHY:

– The honourable senator could well ask Mr Oakes - and I would be interested to learn the answer.

page 1161

QUESTION

CHINESE NUCLEAR TESTS

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. As he has indicated that the French Government was good enough to give him television time to explain the attitude of Australia to French nuclear testing, will the Attorney-General direct Dr Stephen Fitzgerald, the Australian Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China, immediately to request that Government to give him radio time in China to express Australia’s deep opposition to the continued testing by China of atomic devices?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I explained what had happened with the French television. As to the matter of communicating to the People’s Republic of China the views of the Australian Government on nuclear testing, my understanding is that this has been done. I recall that it has been raised here several times before and that when Senator Wright was the Minister he suggested that the Australian Labor Party had never spoken out specially about the Chinese testing. He was gracious enough to admit later that in fact I had protested and that the Prime Minister had raised this matter with the Chinese when he was on the first visit to China while Leader of the Opposition.

My understanding is that in the last few weeks the Australian Government has sent to the Chinese Government its protest against China’s nuclear testing. So I think that this Government has done all it can to make clear to the world and to all who contemplate testing that it objects to it, and that this should not take place. By every means possible we have endeavoured to do that. I have done it myself, we have scientists who are doing it, and there is a swell of opinion right round the world against nuclear testing, and we make no discrimination whatever.

Whoever is engaged in the testing is engaging in something which is against the interests of mankind. That is where the Australian Government stands, and in doing that it is expressing the will of the Australian people. My understanding is that even the previous Government had made objections. The former Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, stated - I think towards the end of his term - that he was against the tests and that this was the view of the Australian people.

Senator Rae:

– This was in the middle of the year.

Senator MURPHY:

Senator Rae interrupts to suggest it was in the middle of the year. I accept that, if he recalls it. The general view of the Australian people is one of objection. I would hope that on this issue there would be no real division of opinion between the Government and the Opposition. I do not think there is. I am not quite sure about the attitude of the Democratic Labor Party but I would think that the mass of the Australian people as well as the great political parties are against those tests and we will continue to exhibit our protests against the testing by anyone.

page 1161

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS AND OTHER MAN-MADE RADIATION

Senator CARRICK:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Since the Minister has repeatedly stressed the vital importance to the people of Australia of increases in man-made radiation, why has the Minister consistently refused to provide any specific technical information in answer to various questions put by me on the notice paper over recent months, including a number of which still remain on the notice paper? Will the Minister produce a clear statement for the people of Australia setting out the specific hazards of the French nuclear tests as alleged by the Government and indicating also, to obtain perspective, the nature, degree and sources of other man-made radiation including aircraft flights, X-ray and sunbaking?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The honourable senator is aware that the Australian Government has announced its intention of going into the International Court of Justice on this matter. Dealing with the scientific aspects of the matter has involved a consideration of the opinions of scientists elsewhere and of scientists in Australia. It is important that this information be gathered and that a proper assessment be made. I inform the honourable senator that the Academy of Science was asked to report to the Prime Minister so that the opinion of the foremost scientific body in Australia could be known on this matter. 1 have announced the summary of its conclusions. I would hope that the honourable senator would have seen that while 1 was in Paris I announced the summary of its conclusions.

Senator Carrick:

– Why cannot this Parliament get it - not Paris?

Senator MURPHY:

– My understanding is that the report of that Academy will be tabled shortly in this Parliament. I agree with the honourable senator that of course it is important that the matter be publicised. It is also important that these matters be properly considered. There are all sorts of steps which have to be taken.

Senator Carrick:

– I have been waiting for 2 months.

Senator MURPHY:

– A lot has occurred in those 2 months and a lot of work has been done. I have done a good deal in this field. If he thinks the time has elapsed with nothing happening he is very much mistaken. Since we last met here I have been to the other side of the world on this issue and a great deal of work, has been done. This Government is setting out as strongly as it can to do everything it can in this field and I hope that the honourable senator’s quite proper interest in the matter and his curiosity as to the assessment will be very soon satisfied.

page 1162

QUESTION

ENTRY INTO AUSTRALIA OF CHINESE NEWS TEAM

Senator MARRIOTT:

– In addressing a question to the Minister for the Media, I wish to return to the subject of the People’s Republic of China. Earlier today, the Minister told us of the great privileges bestowed by the bountiful goodness of Peking China to permit an Australian Broadcasting Commission cameraman and a newsman to stay in that country for a given period. Will he inform the Senate now or in the near future how many, if any, Peking Chinese cameramen and newsmen have been allowed into Australia? What restrictions, if any, as to time of stay and areas of travel are put on them?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As I understand it, the People’s Republic of China has recommended to the Australian Depart ment of . Foreign Affairs that 2 Chinese correspondents be allowed to enter Australia. I understand that arrangements, are being made in this - regard. …

page 1162

QUESTION

EXECUTIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA

Senator WEBSTER:

– I address a question to the Special Minister of State. Earlier today he stated that the Australian Labor Government had lodged a protest with the Yugoslav Government at the execution of the 3 Australian citizens. Is that a fact?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Yes. I think it has been advertised in the newspapers very widely. At the moment Mr Whitlam got to know of this, he lodged the protest.

page 1162

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEAT BOARD

Report

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

Mr Deputy President, during question time I indicated my desire to table a report from the. Australian Meat Board. Would it be appropriate for me to do so now?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Yes.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I table a report by the the Australian Meat Board.

page 1162

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS:

Report on Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1973

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to make a statement in my capacity as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs concerning the reference by the Senate to that Committee of the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1973.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It will be recalled that on the last sitting day of the Senate, 12th April, on the motion of Senator Rae it was resolved:

That at the end of the motion for the second reading be added the words ‘but in the opinion of the Senate this Bill should be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affair’s for consideration and report on 1st May 1973’.

That is today. As Chairman of that Committee, following the carrying of that motion, I called a meeting of the Committee on the following day, Friday, 13th April. Certain discussions were held by the Committee about its jurisdiction to consider the matter referred to it. On the motion of Senator Wright, it was resolved to call certain officers of the Department of Social Security before the Committee to elucidate certain matters in the Bill which Senator Wright considered raised certain legal problems. The first day on which it could be arranged for the Committee to receive the evidence of these officers was yesterday. Certain members of the Committee could not fit it into their schedules to meet until yesterday. In due course, the officers attended and were questioned. The Committee has now instructed me to inform the Senate that it is not possible to bring in the report which it was charged to bring in today because it is not possible to report adequately without quoting from or annexing the Hansard report of yesterday’s proceedings. This Hansard report will not be available until later this week. An opportunity then has to be provided for the officers concerned to correct their evidence and for the secretary of the Committee and myself to prepare a draft report which will then be considered by the Committee on the earliest possible occasion, which is Tuesday of next week. I therefore move:

That the time for presenting the report from the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Bill 1973 be extended to Thursday, 10th May 1973.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1163

THE QUEEN AND THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Ministerial Statement

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– by leave - I wish to make a ministerial statement on behalf of the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Whitlam). In accordance with tradition, when I use the personal pronoun T in this statement it will be a reference to the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, not to me. The statement now commences.

I shall later be seeking leave to make a brief, general statement about the visit overseas from which I. returned yesterday. I first wish to make a statement on certain legal and con stitutional matters arising from my discussions in Britain. I discussed with the Queen, by an arrangement made in advance, her Australian style and titles and new arrangements for the accreditation of Heads of Mission by Australia and to Australia. The Queen’s Australian style and titles were last amended in 1953 when the Parliament was invited by the Prime Minister of that day to approve, and did approve, that the Royal style and titles should be:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

That Bill in the Australian Parliament followed a discussion at a meeting in London in December 1952 on the Royal style and titles, having regard to the constitutional relationship then existing between the Prime Ministers and other representatives of Commonwealth countries. The Prime Ministers and the Heads of Delegations then agreed that it would be appropriate for each member country to have in its own style and titles a common element but otherwise to use for its own purposes the form of titles which would suit its own particular circumstances. They agreed that the common element should consist of a reference to Her Majesty’s other realms and territories and her title as Head of the Commonwealth.

The titles which the Australian Parliament approved in 1953 incorporated that common element and proclaimed its own particular territorial and other references. Other Commonwealth countries adopted their own formulae. In the result, a variety of formulations emerged. This, as the then Prime Minister said in connection with the 1953 Bill, is not to be seen as some form of oddity or disunity. It simply reflects the fact that the Commonwealth comprises a great variety of peoples and forms of Government. My Government feels however that the 1953 formulation now requires amendment.

It has concerned me and my Government that it is not now sufficiently distinctively Australian. It still contains the special references, and in fact gives first place, to the Queen’s title as Queen of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Further it is our view that one of the ancient references - ‘Defender of the Faith’ - has no historical or constitutional relevance in Australia.

I have spoken about these matters to the Queen. She very much welcomes a. distinctively Australian Style and Titles. Accordingly

I am able to announce that I have her full concurrence in an amendment, if the Australian Parliament approves, which would result in dropping the specific reference to the United Kindom and the reference ‘Defender of the Faith’. The new formulation will be:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

It retains in full, as honourable members will note, the common element agreed upon in 1952. My Government will introduce a Bill directed to this new formulation as soon as possible. As with the 1953 Bill, the proposed Bill will, on being passed by the Parliament, be reserved for Her Majesty’s pleasure.

In the matter of diplomatic accreditation, my discussions with the Queen have had an equally happy outcome. It has been the practice in the appointment of Australian Ambassadors to other countries, and also in the appointment of High Commissioners to countries not within the Queen’s realms, that is to say, republican countries within the Commonwealth, for the Australian Government to make its proposals to the GovernorGeneral and to ask the Governor-General to seek the Queen’s approval. The same situation has operated in relation to the accreditation of Heads of Mission to Australia. The practice has been for the government concerned to put forward informally the name of its proposed Ambassador and to seek agreement before proceeding to formal accreditation. Agreement has, up to now, been forthcoming only after the approval of the Queen on a recommendation made through the GovernorGeneral. From now on, with the Queen’s full approval, all these matters will become matters for approval by the Governor-General on the Queen’s behalf - the Queen, of course, being kept informed of appointments of Australian Heads of Mission by the GovernorGeneral, and of the recognition of Ambassadors or other diplomatic representatives appointed to represent the interests of the foreign states in Australia.

These new procedures will provide a new and highly practical simplicity in accreditation questions. However, the Letters of Credence which Australian Heads of Mission present to the Head of State of the country to which they are being accredited, and also the Letters of Recall of their predecessors, will continue to be signed by Her Majesty as the Australian Head of State. Her role in this regard will, however, be made much clearer by the pro posed amendment of the Royal Style and Titles, whereby the only country named is Australia. Similarly, Letters of Credence and Letters of Recall from foreign countries, being communications between Heads of State, will continue to be addressed to Her Majesty though they will, of course, be accepted by the Governor-General on the Queen’s behalf.

These arrangements are all the more important in view of the very much higher number of accreditations now compared with, say, 20 years ago. In 1953, for instance, Australia had 28 Ambassadors and High Commissioners abroad and there were 29 Ambassadors and High Commissioners accredited here. In 1972 the corresponding figures were 74 Australian Ambassadors and High Commissioners abroad and 55 Heads of Mission here. To’ illustrate the position in another way, in the year 1953 the actual number of appointments of Australian Heads of Mission requiring’ the Queen’s approval was 3. In the latest full year 1972 the number was 30.

The next matter is the matter of abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. Last Tuesday Mr Heath and I had a valuable exchange of views about this matter. I had earlier discussed it with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham; the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, Sir Alec Douglas-Home; and the United Kingdom Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson, Q.C. The outcome of the discussions in London is that the Australian Government will introduce a Bill as soon as possible requesting and consenting to the enactment of United Kingdom legislation abolishing appeals to the Privy Council in the remaining instances in which appeals still lie from Australian courts. The Bill will draw upon all powers available to the Australian Parliament under the Statute of Westminster and under the Constitution. The purpose of the Australian Government is to make the High Court of Australia the final court of appeal for Australia in all matters. That is an entirely proper objective. It is anomalous and archaic for Australian citizens to litigate their differences in another country before judges appointed by the government of that other country.

This is not the first time that the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council has been raised in the Australian Parliament. I have myself raised the matter on several occasions.

Eight years ago, when Sir Robert Menzies was Prime Minister, I initiated a debate on it. Five years ago the Parliament passed the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act. In introducing the Bill for that Act the then Attorney-General said that the Parliament was being asked to take an historic first step towards the establishment of the High Court as the final court of appeal for Australia. He said that the Bill was a tribute to, and that it would still further enhance, the standing and prestige of the High Court of Australia. With all those sentiments, the Australian Labor Party, at the time, thoroughly agreed. The discussions that I had in London last week and the action that I am now outlining to the House are a logical, further and final step in the process of making the High Court of Australia Australia’s final appeal court.

The Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 abolished appeals from the High Court to the Privy Council in all constitutional, federal and territory matters. As a result of the Act of 1968 appeals now lie to the Privy Council only in respect of decisions of the High Court given on appeal from a State supreme court in a State matter and in respect of decisions of State supreme courts in State matters. This leaves aside questions as to the limits Inter se of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth and the States. On such questions , an appeal may be brought to the Privy Council only if the High Court itself certifies that the question is one which ought to be determined by the Privy Council. No certificate has been given by the High Court since 1912. In 1968 the Australian Labor Party moved an amendment, which was not accepted, that would have made final the decision of the High Court given on appeal from a State supreme court in a State matter. The legislation I am now foreshadowing will make provision to that end.

There remain then for attention appeals from State supreme courts in State matters. It seems that some States support abolition and that others do not. It would be incongruous in the extreme if for some States the High Court were to be the final court of appeal in State matters and if for other States it were to be the Privy Council. There would still be the exceptionally expensive and lenghty process of successive appeals to the Full Court or Court of Appeal of a State, the High Court of Australia and the Judicial Commit tee of the British Privy Council. The situation plainly requires action at the national level. I accordingly took the matter up with the United Kingdom Prime Minister. The United Kingdom takes the view that the question whether appeals should be brought to the Privy Council from the courts of a Commonwealth country is essentially a question for the Commonwealth country concerned. An Australian initiative is therefore required. I think it correct to say that the United Kingdom would wish moreover that whatever can be done in and by Australia should be done in and by Australia herself.

One way of proceeding is for the Australian Government and Parliament to request and consent to the enactment of United Kingdom legislation. There will then be opportunity for the validity of the legislation of the Australian Parliament to be challenged. If there is no challenge, or if in the event of challenge the validity of the legislation is upheld, the Australian Government would expect the United Kingdom Government to introduce into the United Kingdom Parliament the legislation requested by the Australian Government and Parliament. The result would then be that the High Court of Australia would be, as it should be, the final court of appeal for Australia in all matters. I emphasise that these matters represent no disruptive departure from the past. In the great tradition of British constitutional monarchy, we march still from precedent to precedent - albeit with a (firmer, more, self-confident, more purposeful tread than ever before. I present the following paper:

The Queen and the Privy Council - Ministerial Statement, 1st May 1973. and move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

Mr President, the statement which has just been delivered by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) is too important for me not to make a short comment on it now before seeking the adjournment of the debate. I hope that, some time before the Senate adjourns for the winter recess, this matter will be debated in full. The statement falls into 2 parts. One has to do with the Royal Style and Titles and the other with accreditation. I am informed by my colleague,

Senator Greenwood, that many of these matters were put in hand by the previous Government. I would imagine that we on this side of the Senate would not wish to take strong exception to what is proposed in this respect.

The second part of the statement deals with the matter of appeals to the Privy Council. Here, again, the Senate is well aware that the previous Government and the Party which I lead in this place now initiated such a Bill. What strikes me as extraordinary in this matter is that the Prime Minister should, in effect, unilaterally decide to do something which affects the States without first consulting the States on the matter. In this matter, I will speak first personally as a senator from Western Australia and not as Leader of the Opposition. I was sent here by the electors of Western Australia to make certain that the rights of Western Australia and of the Government of Western Australia under the Constitution were upheld as far as is possible. One would have thought that, as a Premiers Conference is to be held in Parliament House on, I think, Thursday of next week, before the Prime Minister moved unilaterally in this matter he would at least have had the courtesy to consult the State Premiers. He may have done so, but he does not allude to it in his statement. Before the Senate is called upon to consider a Bill on this matter, we on this side will seek the views of the State Premiers. The abolition of appeals to the Privy Council is not a new matter. Most honourable senators will be aware that under the original referendum Bill, which was approved at a referendum in the 1890s and which the founding fathers took off to the House of Commons, there were to be no appeals to the Privy Council. It was only at the insistence of the then Colonial Secretary, the Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, that the present provisions were included in the Constitution.

I am interested in the change of heart by Mr Whitlam. On 4th April 1968, when he was Leader of the Opposition, as reported in House of Representatives Hansard, Volume 58, page 853, he said:

It is impossible for this Parliament or for the State parliaments, by legislation, to abolish appeals from the State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council. This is because the Australian States opted out of the Statute of Westminster. The Australian States are still British colonies. If they wanted to abolish appeals from their Supreme Courts to the Privy Council they would have to ask the British Parliament to repeal the Judicial Committee Appeals Acts of 1833 and 1844. This would emphasise Australia’s dependence on Britain. An alternative course - and I do not suggest that this is free of legal doubt - would be for this Parliament to pass a Bill for a referendum and for the Government to put that referendum to the people to abolish these appeals. This would emphasise our independence.

The interesting point about that quotation is that as Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister was very keen on asserting Australia’s independence. He also said that if the Australian States wanted to abolish appeals they would have to ask the British Parliament. Now he takes the view that only the Australian Parliament need ask the British Parliament.

The other quotation to which I draw the attention of the Senate is from a speech made by the late Dr Evatt as Attorney-General in 1942. There was before the Parliament a Bill to adopt the Statute of Westminster. In the course of his remarks in the House of Representatives - I have not the exact page number of Hansard - Dr Evatt said:

The practical effect of the adoption of section 4 will be 2-fold: first, a ready indication to the courts of whether or not the legislation applies to the Commonwealth; that is, does it contain the requesting and consenting clause, or not? The request and consent must go from both the Parliament and the Government of the Commonwealth, not merely from the Government. Some years ago . . . one or two of the States said that they did not like section 4, without a preamble in the adopting legislation to the effect that the Commonwealth would not ask the Imperial Parliament for legislation in respect of a matter that really came within the jurisdiction of a State. My answer to that would be, first, that the Parliament of this country would not make such a request, and secondly, that if it did, the Imperial Parliament would not enact the legislation. Honourable members will notice that this does not say that the Imperial Parliament will always act upon the request and consent; the provision is negative - not to pass legislation without the request and consent …

This Bill will not in any way disturb the balance of powers between the Commonwealth and the States. That can be altered only by the people acting under section 128 of the Constitution.

I know that that was a long time ago. lt was 31 years ago, if my mathematics serve me right. Mr Whitlam’s statement was made a little over 5 years ago. Dr Evatt’s statement tends to emphasise that in 1942 the then Attorney-General had a proper sense of the rights of the State parliaments and State governments in this matter. I am not arguing the merits of whether appeals to the Privy Council ought to be abolished or continued. I am arguing the method by which the abolition is sought to be brought about. It is for that reason that I hope that before the winter recess we will have a full and frank discussion of the statement. Therefore I ask for leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1167

FUTURE OF ASIAN RESIDENTS OF CHRISTMAS ISLAND

Ministerial Statement

Senator WILLESEE:
Special Minister of State · Western Aus tralia · ALP

– by leave - I wish to inform the Senate about certain decisions that the Government has made concerning Christmas Island. The only commercial activity on Christmas Island is the extraction and export of rock phosphate and phosphate dust. The life of the commercially usable portion of the phosphate deposit at expected rates of extraction is about 20 years. When the phosphate industry ceases to operate there will be no economic future on the Island for the Asian residents that would be appropriate to their experience and skills. There are no indigenous inhabitants of Christmas Island. Asian workers brought mainly from Singapore have been employed in the Island’s phosphate industry since mining by the Christmas Ialand Phosphate Co. began in 1899. Most of the present Asian resident population came to theIsland since World War II or were born there. Since 1966, almost all workers brought to the Island have been on 3-year terms of employment and have been repatriated at the end of their contracts. Prior to this, Asian workers were recruited for indefinite stay. At 30th June 1972, the resident Asian population, excluding contract or fixed term employees, was 1,856, and was made up of 911 Chinese, 494 Cocos Malays - originally from the Cocos (Keeling) Islands - 22 Eurasians, 124 Indonesians, 5 Indians and 300 Malays. By and large, they are an industrious, law abiding community with an exceptionally good record of racial harmony.

Most of the people who came to the Island as adults had little formal education but have acquired useful skills as a result of their employment in the phosphate industry. Those who came as children or were born there have had the benefit of primary and secondary education. The curriculum is based on the Singapore curriculum with some modifications and senior students sit for the University of London general certificate of education. A technical training centre provides appren ticeship courses for school leavers and technical training for secondary school students. Those who successfully complete the apprenticeship course gain qualifications conferred by the Western Australian authorities. Various improvements to the educational system recommended by an educational adviser in 1970 are being made as rapidly as possible. Under an agreement entered into in 1958, the phosphate operations are controlled by the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission on behalf of the Australian and New Zealand governments, each of which has a 50 per cent share in the enterprise. This agreement superseded a similar agreement entered into in 1949, the year after the Australian and New Zealand governments acquired the mining rights from the Christmas Island Phosphate Co. The Commission employs the British Phosphate Commissioners to manage the mining and other operations and it is the Commissioners who employ the majority of the Asian workers on Christmas Island.

Phosphate from Christmas Island is of high grade and is the cheapest source for both Australia and New Zealand. Christmas Island supplies about one-third of the 2 countries’ total requirements of phosphate rock. In addition, about 150,000 tons of phosphate dust are exported annually to Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Christmas Island has been an Australian Territory under the control of the Commonwealth since 1st October 1958. when Australia took over control from Britain. Under the agreement with the New Zealand Government, the net expenditure of the Territory’s administration is met by the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission. Under the Christmas Island Act 1958, adults who were British subjects and ordinarily resident on the Island on 1st October 1958 could opt for Australian citizenship within 2 years of that date. Those who were not 21 years on that date could opt for Australian citizenship on turning 21 years and up to 2 years thereafter. People born on Christmas Island on or after 1st October 1958 are Australian citizens by birth. At 30th June 1972, 497 Asian residents of Christmas Island were Australian citizens by birth or exercise of an option.

Because there will be no economic future for the Asian residents of Christmas Island when the phosphate industry ceases to operate, the Government has decided that such residents who are not on fixed terms of employment should be given the opportunity to resettle progressively elsewhere at a rate that will not adversely affect the operations of the phosphate industry and will enable replacement to be made by recruitment of contract or fixed term workers. Many of the Asian residents have greater ties with Singapore or Malaysia than with Australia and are likely to opt to go to those countries if they are accepted. Some 1,250 appear to have clear rights to go to Singapore, Malaysia or Indonesia through their possession of the citizenship of those countries. The remainder have Australian citizenship - about 500 - or undetermined citizenship - about 90. Those Asian residents who are not contract or fixed term workers and who are Australian citizens will be entitled to residence in Australia on application. Such applicants will be counselled to arrange employment and accommodation before coming here. Those Asian residents who are not contract or fixed term workers and who are not Australian citizens will be accepted for residence in Australia on application subject to availability of employment and accommodation and to health and character checks where deemed necessary. Those who did not qualify for residence in Australia under these provisions but who were not able to go to another country would be regarded, in principle, as acceptable for residence in Australia.

Resettlement will be a gradual and voluntary process. Every effort will be made to equip the people for resettlement through education and training on the Island, scholarships, resettlement grants and appropriate reception arrangements. This will be done for all permanent Asian residents, irrespective of the country in which they settle. A resettlement committee comprising officers of the Departments of Immigration, External Territories and Labour will oversight the arrangements. Subject to negotiations at present being carried out with the New Zealand authorities, the Christmas Island Agreement Act 1958 will be amended to permit the Christmas Island Special Fund to be drawn on progressively to finance measures to facilitate resettlement. As the Act now stands the fund can only be used immediately prior to the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission ceasing to function. This fund is being built up by a levy on each ton of phosphate rock exported from the Island and now stands at approximately $2m. The Christmas Island Acf will also be amended to enable young people on the Island who may now under that Act opt for Australian citizenship at 21 years, to opt from 16 years with parents’ consent. This would bring Christmas Island into line with Australia, where young migrants may become Australian citizens at 16 years with parents’ consent.

These people have rendered a service to Australia by helping to operate an industry that has been and still is extremely valuable to Australia. The decisions are also in keeping with the spirit of an undertaking given in 1958, when Christmas Island was taken over by Australia, that any applications for entry to Australia by Asian residents of the Island would be given sympathetic consideration. The Australian Government accepts that it must look ahead to the time when the phosphate industry will cease to function and the Asian residents will no longer have a source of income on the Island. It is confident that by giving the Asian residents the opportunity to resettle off the Island in a planned, gradual way, the Government will be discharging Australia’s obligations towards these people and will be acting in their best interests. The Government for its part will be making every effort to ensure that resettlement proceeds smoothly without disruption to the phosphate industry or adverse effects on the people concerned. I am happy to say that this policy was endorsed by the former Government, and this ensures a bi-partisan approach to tha human problems involved. I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I move:

The adjournment is not being sought on the basis that there will be any problems. But having regard to the fact that we have received the statement only this afternoon, the opportunity should be taken by the Opposition to examine what has been said. I note the last remarks of the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) that it is recognised that this is a continuation of a general policy which has been adopted in the past and that there is a bi-partisan approach. Nevertheless, in case some occasion is sought to be taken to say some words on that policy, I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1169

PRIME MINISTER’S OVERSEAS VISIT

Ministerial Statement -Senator MURPHY (New South Wales - Attorney-General and Minister for Customs and Excise) - by leave - I have another statement headed ‘Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit - Statement to the House by the Prime Minister on 1st May 1973’. I inform the Senate that this statement was made in the House of Representatives this day by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). I will read the statement to the Senate, it being understood that the personal pronoun ‘I’ refers to the Prime Minister. : I wish to report quite briefly to Parliament on the overseas visit from which I returned yesterday. Subject to the requirements of the legislative program, I hope later in the session to be able to make a comprehensive statement to the House on the broad perspectives of the Government’s foreign policy. Honourable members will know that I led the Australian delegation to the Fourth Meeting of the Pacific Forum from 17th to 19th April in Apia, Western Samoa. For the first time there, 7 Commonwealth countries were represented by their heads of government, as were the 2 countries with observer status, Papua New Guinea and Niue. Through leading the delegation to this meeting myself I wished to emphasise .the very deep interest which the Government takes in the affairs of the South Pacific. The Australian Government seeks to play a co-operative and helpful role in this area but in no way wishes to dominate in the region.

The Forum itself is so arranged that the great differences in size and economic strength between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and the Pacific Islands on the other can be ameliorated by meeting as equals in its informal atmosphere. I believe that on this occasion, as before, the meeting of the Forum was useful and successful. I am sure that these meetings will continue to consolidate regional co-operation between Australia and New Zealand and the islanders in the South Pacific.

At its first session the Forum adopted a joint declaration deploring French nuclear tests in the Pacific. This declaration was an Australian initiative fully supported by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Kirk, and promptly agreed to by all other members of the Forum. We hoped that a declaration would have more impact than a reference in the communique. We were able to cable this declaration to Paris on the first day of the meeting while the Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, was there for the talks which he was conducting at that time with the French Government. The Forum also requested me to take up with the British Government later in my visit the question of French tests in the Pacific, since that Government is responsible for dependent territories in the area including Pitcairn Island, the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, the Gilbert and Ellice. Islands Colony and, in part, the New Hebrides. This I did. I was also , pleased to announce to the Forum a voluntary contribution of NZ$250,000 for 1974. This contribution, which is made to the South Pacific Commission, is in excess of our assessed contribution and in addition to the $A15m 3-year aid program announced in 1972.

Fiji and other members of the Forum also accepted an Australian proposal that there should be a conference of Labour Ministers from Forum countries .to discuss labour and related matters in Austalia later in the year. I also indicated Australia’s willingness to organise an international training course in export development for the Island members of the Forum in Australia in November. I left the Forum for Vancouver and London before the final day, on which the Special Minister of State led the Australian delegation. In Van-, couver the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr Pierre Trudeau, extended to me the courtesy of meeting me for private talks while my aircraft was in transit.

The value of these talks was in no way diminished by the informality of the occasion and they confirmed my long-held belief that there are many areas in which Australia and Canada should co-operate more closely than in the past. We face similar problems in relation to our need to improve the status of our Aboriginal people. We face similar problems related to foreign ownership and foreign investment. We can, I believe, develop fruitful and more regular consultations on trade matters of common interest, our approach to questions in the United Nations, and law of the sea and multi-national corporations. I have arranged with Mr Trudeau that our Governments should consult more closely and directly on these matters and that we should telephone each other as a matter of course when matters of mutual interest arise which affect Canada and Australia.

Before going into details about my London discussions, 1 would like to place on record the Government’s general approach to relations with the United Kindom. The Australian Government’s aim is to make our relations with Britain an integral and important part of our general international relations and not something apart as they have tended to be in the past. Our relationship with Britain is inevitably changing. The changes we have made or propose to make on such matters as the powers of the Governor-General, appeals to the Privy Council, a new national anthem, the Queen’s Style and Titles and the amendment of the oath of allegiance are in no way directed against Britain, They are solely intended to put our relationship on a more mature and contemporary basis and to reflect the development of a more independent Australian identity in the world. Indeed, what the Australian Government is seeking to achieve in its relations not only with Britain but also with a number of other countries - the United States, China, Canada, and our Asian neighbours, for instance - is to give formal recognition to what has already happened, as the necessary foundation for a realistic, more independent, more mature foreign policy. What we seek to do is no artificial convulsion of contrived nationalism. This is certainly well understood and appreciated in London.

My talks with Mr Heath, Sir Alec DouglasHome, Lord Carrington, Lord Hailsham and other Ministers covered a wide range of matters of mutual interest in the foreign affairs, defence and constitutional fields. I explained to Sir Alec Douglas-Home and other Ministers and officials the decision of the South Pacific Forum in relation to French nuclear tests. I said that I was not speaking only on behalf of Australia but of the 7 countries of the Forum, all of which were associated with the Commonwealth. I indicated that the Forum countries believe the United Kingdom should talk to the French. This would appear to be a natural consequence of our close Commonwealth relations, of Britain’s major role in the negotiation of the partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and of its responsibilities, as an administering power, in respect of a number of Pacific territories. Honourable senator’s will be pleased to know that Sir Alec Douglas-Home said he would study the views expressed at the Pacific Forum meeting and by myself and that he would draw them to the attention of the French Government. Sir Alec also pointed out that the United Kingdom had already urged the French to sign the partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

In Rome I was received by His Holiness the Pope in private audience. I regard myself as privileged to have been able to discuss many matters with this gentle and wise man. He welcomes the establishment between Australia and the Vatican of diplomatic relations, as a convenient means of communication and as facilitating the practical matters which need to be transacted. The Holy Father said, however, that even this sensible development of diplomatic machinery could not increase the depth of his regard for Australia and its people, and the warmth of his recollections of his visit to this country. I took advantage of my brief visit to Rome to call on the senior Italian Minister in Rome at the time of my visit, Signor Colombo, who is, as honourable senators will know, the predecessor of the present Prime Minister of Italy, Signor Andreotti, who was away from Italy. Signor Colombo has an especially high reputation in European Economic Community circles.

I outlined to Signor Colombo the present Government’s thinking on foreign policy matters. I found a close identity of views between our 2 Governments on all matters which we discussed; for example, the recognition of China and North Vietnam. I also explained to Signor Colombo our attitude to continued French nuclear testing in the Pacific. I posed the question to him that, if the tests were as clear and as harmless as the French suggested, then could they not be conducted in Corsica. I was given to understand in clear terms that the Italian Government understood the concern of Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islanders in a continued atmospheric testing in the Pacific and I was left in no doubt as to what the reaction of Italy would be if the French were to conduct nuclear tests in the Mediterranean.

On the way home I had talks in Mauritius with the Governor-General and the Prime Minister and Leader of the Labour Party, Sir Seewoosagur Rangoolam. I told the Prime Minister that we would welcome Mauritian representation in Australia and, apart from our need for area consultation, the opportunity that this might provide to tell Australians of the great pleasure they could derive from visiting the star and key of the Indian Ocean; that we were happy with the way in which the 26,000 migrants from Mauritius have settled without difficulties in Australia. I also assured the Prime Minister that our modest aid program under the special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan would continue, and offered further assistance in the trade promotion field and marketing. I raised, as I did in each countryI visited, the question of French atmospheric nuclear tests. The house will understand that traditional French influence in Mauritius is substantial. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister indicated that he would consider what he might say on this matter when he visits Paris shortly, and, in the meantime, indicated that he would have the question raised with the French Ambassador in Mauritius. The Prime Minister is clearly aware that, travelling as it does from west to east, fall-out from French testing affects his country as much as it does ours.

In conclusion, I would inform the House that during the 14 days I was away, including Easter week, I believe I was able to emphasise our growing interest in regional cooperation in the South Pacific, to take steps to put our constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom on a more mature and rational basis and to clear away any misconceptions that may have existed about our relations with the United Kingdom, to establish as Prime Minister personal contact with Her Majesty the Queen and the Pope, and to pay a goodwill visit to the small but important Commonwealth country of Mauritius. In each of the 4 areas in which I stopped, the South Pacific, the United Kingdom, Italy and Mauritius, I was able to outline the general direction of the Government’s foreign policies and the more independent stance we are taking in 4 diverse and widely separated areas of the world, I move:

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I propose to move that the debate be adjourned. In doing so I draw attention only to the unsatisfactory character of the last part of the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). He stated:

In each of the 4 areas in which I stopped, the South Pacific, the United Kingdom, Italy and Mauritius, I was able to outline the general direction of the Government’s foreign policies and the more independent stance we are taking in 4 diverse and widely separated areas of the world.

This is a statement which, interesting as it may read as a travelogue, lacks what the Australian people and this Parliament have been waiting for for several months and that is a clear, definite statement of the foreign policy which this Government is following: what are the implications and consequences to the Australian nation of the totally different slant which our foreign policy has been taking since 5th December. I note that the Prime Minister has indicated - unfortunately there is no promise about it - that he hopes that there will be a comprehensive statement on the broad prospectus of the Government’s foreign policy. We of the Opposition believe that this is long overdue and that the Prime Minister ought to take the people of Australia into his confidence and state what our foreign policy is to be. It is of no satisfaction for us to be told that he talked to these various leaders around the world stating the general directions of Australian foreign policy, simply telling us in the Parliament that he made these statements to a number of people and not telling us in substance what he said. That is the unsatisfactory nature of his statement. Because there is no assurance that we will be given a statement on foreign affairs from the Government during this session I feel that we ought to have this vehicle available to us at some later stage so that the Opposition can express its dissatisfaction with the lack of a clear and coherent statement of where this Government is taking this country. Having said that, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1171

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:

That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of business of the Senate, notices of motion Nos 1 and 4 and Government Business, orders of the day, Nos 7, 8 and 10 to 13.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I think the arrangements were made between the Whips.

Senator Greenwood:

– Having received an assurance that this has been agreed to I will not object.

Senator MURPHY:

– If there has been no agreement we will undo this arrangement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 5.50 to 8 p.m.

page 1172

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers) - by leave - agreed to:

That Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield be granted leave of absence for 2 months on account of absence overseas.

page 1172

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Public Service Bill 1973

States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bill 1973

Excise Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1973

Excise Bill 1973

Papua New Guinea Loan (Asian Development Bank) Bill 1973

Loan Bill 1973

Excise Tariff Bill 1973.

page 1172

RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - I inform honourable senators that I have received a letter from the President of the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory forwarding the terms of a resolution passed by the Council on 12th April 1973. In accordance with the request contained in the resolution, I bring to the notice of the Senate the terms of the resolution. The resolution reads as follows:

That the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate in the Australian Parliament be requested to bring to the notice of their respective Houses the opinion of this Council that it is appropriate that legislation on matters of a non-Federal nature in the Northern Territory be the exclusive prerogative of the Legislative Council to which body the Federal Parliament has properly delegated full powers in that respect.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

Mr Deputy President, the resolution that you have just read was drawn to my attention earlier today. I wish to place on record the fact that the matter is being dealt with by the appropriate Minister in the House of Representatives whom I represent in this place.

page 1172

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 2) 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

This Bill, the second amending social services Bill to be introduced in the current session, is designed to give effect to the election policy speech undertaking of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that pensioners receiving age and invalid pensions, including wives’ pensions, or widows’ pensions in Australia will be able to receive those pensions wherever they choose to live. This right to unlimited transferability of pensions will not depend on the negotiation of reciprocal agreements with other countries; consequently, the limitations on the period of travel which now apply in respect of pensioners moving between Australia and the countries with which we have reciprocal pension portability agreements will no longer operate. Moreover, special residence qualifications will no longer be required for portability of pensions.

The substance of this Bill represents a radical departure from the present arrangements for what is called portability of social security pensions. Under present arrangements for portability to occur - that is, the right to draw Australian pension benefits outside of this country - a pensioner has in general to have been resident in Australia for at least 20 years after reaching the age of 16 years and additionally can only attract portability rights in 4 countries: Italy, Greece, Turkey and Malta. There are also long-standing reciprocal social security benefits rights for Australians in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. These are comprehensive reciprocal rights as distinct from pension portability.

The extension of portability rights beyond the limited number of countries mentioned was dependent on increasing the number of countries with which reciprocal arrangements could be established. The last Government, through the then Minister for Social Services, certainly embarked on such an objective but the results were not equal to the enthusiasm with which they set about this task, as the following table shows. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows) -

In addition, the Government of Luxembourg was approached in June 1972 through the Australian Ambassador to Belgium but the response was that there was no concrete interest in the project. Representatives of the Government of Cyprus in London expressed interest but there had been no substantial developments by the time of the Australian general elections in December 1972.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– We do not intend to forbear with such a cumbersome, slow moving and inadequate process for providing pension portability. We have sliced through the gordian knot.

Portability will now be provided without any requirement for reciprocal arrangements with other countries. That is, a person drawing Australian pension can take that pension right anywhere in the world after 10 years Australian residence in the case of age pension;’ after 5 years of such residence in the case of invalid pension where the invalidity occurred in Australia, otherwise after 10 years residence in Australia. No period of residence is required in the case of widowhood where the couple were permanently resident in Australia when the husband died. This is truly a substantially generous improvement on pension portability practices to- the present. lt comes in recognition of the special rights and needs of migrants in this country - justice too long denied them.

For too long migrants have been told by past governments of their valuable contribution to the development of this nation. But for equally as long too little has been contributed by those governments towards the special needs of so many migrants especially during their difficult period of adjusting to a new, alien and not always hospitable society. Too often they have been seen as and treated as front line fodder for our industrial system, as the disproportionate representation of some migrant groups among the semi-skilled and unskilled work classifications indicates. This disproportionate representation in these employment categories incidentally is also evidence of the socio-economic upward mobility which their presence has allowed many Australian residents of longer standing. The presence of migrants in this country has been valuable to this nation and has given it and its people a far better future than would have been achieved otherwise. There is much that should have been done to assist many migrants and we intend remedying this neglect. What is proposed in this Bill is only a small part of what has to be done - of what should have been done for too long.

Now let me give some detail about this Bill. Under this Bill, pensioners who have gained the right to receive an Australian age, invalid or widow’s pension by satisfying the appropriate residence qualification by actual residence in Australia, including periods of absence counted as residence under the Social Services Act but excluding periods of residence in Britain or New Zealand treated as residence in Australia by virtue of our reciprocal agreements with those countries, will be able to continue to receive their pensions overseas at the rates current, and under the conditions applicable to the payment of pensions, in Australia. Wives’ pensions will also be payable overseas. This right to continue to receive a pension overseas will operate in the same way as if the pensioner had remained in Australia. Thus, for example, if a widow pensioner remarries overseas, her pension will automatically cease.

The Government’s proposals for unrestricted portability of pensions will apply to pensioners leaving Australia on or after the date on which the enabling legislation becomes operative on receiving the royal assent. It is necessary to draw the eligibility line somewhere and retrospectivity would have been difficult to apply equitably. This cut-off point is consistent with the principle incorporated in legislation introduced by the previous Government providing for pension portability under reciprocal arrangements made with other countries.

Moreover, the Government’s proposals render unnecessary the provisions of the present legislation enabling payment to be made in respect of a period of up to 30 weeks on a pensioner’s return to Australia after a temporary absence, and for the payment of pensions to pensioners who go to live in an external territory. Of course, the rights of such pensioners who are absent from Australia on the date this legislation becomes operative will be fully protected.

Pensioners receiving their pensions in Malta, Italy, Greece and Turkey in accordance with the reciprocal pension portability agreements entered into under the legislation introduced by the previous Government not only will have their existing rights preserved but also will be brought within the new provisions, that is, they will be able to continue to receive their Australian pensions but the requirement that they live in one of the 4 countries mentioned will no longer apply. Action has already been taken to advise the governments of Malta, Italy, Greece and Turkey of the Australian wish to terminate the agreements made with those countries which, as far as Australian pensioners are concerned, will become redundant

Australian pensioners going to Britain or New Zealand for permanent residence at present lose their Australian pensions but may receive, under . our comprehensive reciprocal agreements on social security with those countries, the pensions of the country in which they are living. Australian residence, for this purpose, is translated into British contributions or New Zealand residence respectively. These agreements thus require review in the light of the Government’s decision to pay Australian pensions abroad and the necessary action has . already been initiated.

The reciprocal pension portability provisions currently incorporated in the Social Services Act permit the grant of a pension outside Australia only where a pensioner has a continuing entitlement and where a ‘transfer’ from one type of social service pension to another is involved. These provisions will be retained but also extended as I will indicate in a moment. Complementary legislation is being introduced to permit the payment overseas of pensions payable under section 92 of the Repatriation Act. The Bill now before the House will permit a pensioner receiving such a pension overseas to transfer to an age, invalid, wife’s or widow’s pension payable under the Social Services Act. The pensioner medical service will, as at present, continue to be available only in Australia, as will the concessions provided by the Commonwealth in respect of radio and television licences and telephone rentals. However, funeral benefits and the special pension payable for. 12 weeks after the death of one member of a pensioner married couple will be available for pensioners receiving their pensions overseas.

Pensioners overseas will not receive supplementary assistance as the eligibility conditions could not properly be applied; in this respect the Bill maintains the situation incorporated in the pensions portability legislation enacted last year. However, when each member of a married pensioner couple in Australia is qualified for supplementary assistance, the rate payable to each is half that which could be payable if only one were a pensioner. The Bill makes provision for the increase of supplementary assistance to the single rate, subject to eligibility in other respects, to the member of a pensioner couple remaining in Australia when his spouse is absent

Human nature being what it is, cases could conceivably arise where people who have previously lived in Australia might aim to return to Australia for the specific purpose of receiving a pension, after which they would again leave this country. As a deterrent to such action, the Bill provides that where a person applies for a pension within 12 months of his return to Australia, any pension which may be granted will not be payable overseas if he leaves Australia within a year of the date of his last return to this country. It is realised, however, that unforeseen circumstances - for example, the death of a husband or wife - could arise which would provide a bona fide reason for a change in plans to reside in Australia. In these circumstances the requirement of 12 months residence in Australia before the pension can be transferred overseas will be waived.

As J have indicated, pensioners who have gained the right to receive an Australian social service pension by satisfying the appropriate residence qualification or who are receiving a wife’s pension will be able to continue to receive their pensions overseas without restriction. While it will benefit mainly aged, invalid and widowed migrants who wish to return to their former homelands, either permanently or temporarily, it will apply equally to all pensioners. It will thus in future be possible for pensioners to visit, or live with, their children or other relatives who have settled or are working overseas. This Bill marks another instalment in the implementation of the Whitlam Government’s progressive policy in the social welfare area and will be followed by many other measures designed to ensure that we resume our rightful place as a pioneer and leader in this field. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1175

REPATRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a- second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to amend repatriation legislation to enable repatriation Service and other means test pensioners to continue to receive their pensions when they leave Australia. Repatriation war pensioners, as you know, Mr Deputy President, rightly receive their entitlements no matter where they live in the world. The Bill will mean that Service pensioners and other means test pensioners such as widowed mothers and aged parents of deceased ex-servicemen will be entitled to continue to receive their pensions under the Repatriation Act if they leave Australia. This will honour, in the Repatriation field, the Government’s undertaking to allow all Australian residents who have gained the right to receive any social security pension to enjoy that right wherever they choose to live.

Under the amendments to the Repatriation Act to be effected by this Bill a Service pensioner will be free to leave Australia and live in another country while retaining his pension entitlement. While supplementary assistance will not be payable overseas, the Bill provides that, if one of a married couple receiving supplementary assistance travels overseas, the spouse remaining will be paid supplementary assistance at the single rate during the absence of his or her partner. Any former resident presently living overseas who returns to Australia may receive the Service pension, if eligible. However, he will not be able lo transfer the Service pension overseas unless he remains in Australia for a period of at least 12 months. This is designed to prevent persons normally resident overseas from returning to Australia just to receive a pension and take it back with them.

In addition to providing for continuation of payments to pensioners wherever they choose to live outside Australia, the provisions introduced by this Bill will also allow a social security pensioner living overseas, if he wishes and is otherwise eligible, to transfer to a repatriation Service pension, or vice versa, thus giving him the same rights in this respect as would be available to him in Australia. Because the intentions of the population affected by this measure are unknown, it is not possible at this time to assess the overall costs but, generally speaking, they will be relatively small and insignificant in comparison to the effect of removing this unnecessary limitation on people who have earned the right to benefits in the service of their country.

The Bill also provides for minor amendments to the principal Act. The first amendment substitutes a new definition of ‘child’ in section 83 to clarify the intention that a child who has attained the age of 16 years must be undertaking full-time education and be wholly or substantially dependent upon the pensioner parent before being recognised for service pension purposes. The second amendment authorises the extension of benefits under the repatriation regulations to student children over the age of 21 years. Parliament has given its approval in the Repatriation Act 1973 to the recognition of these children in the Repatriation Act itself and this amendment will enable the relevant provisions of the repatriation regulations to be extended to them. The third amendment applies to the principal Act new drafting principles which are being introduced by the Parliamentary Counsel. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 1176

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - I inform the Senate that I have received the following message:

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

That a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report on -

environmental aspects of legislative and administrative measures which ought to be taken in order to ensure the wise and effective management of the Australian environment andof Australia’s natural resources and

such other matters relating to the environment and conservation and the management of Australia’s natural resources as are referred to it by-

the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, or

resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the committee recognise the responsibility of the States in these matters and seek their cooperation in all relevant aspects.

That the committee consist of 4 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, 2 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, one member of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives, 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker ofthe House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the Prime Minister nominate one ofthe Government members of the committee as Chairman.

That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any lime when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.

That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any recess or adjournment of the Parliament.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members of the committee have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy on the committee.

That5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee.

That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy, Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 1176

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Australian Army: Defence of Australia

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I move:

I have great pleasure in moving this motion because it has been a matter of some concern to the members of the. Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that up to the present they have been unable to embark upon a number of matters which they anticipated were to be referred to the Committee. The Committee has met and elected a very efficient and experienced Chairman in Senator Drury. Our staff is ready. We are all rearing to go. I am very pleased indeed to move this motion that this reference be made to the Committee because it will enable us to set to work on consideration of this important question. I do not propose to debate the question because this is not the place to do it. It will be. debated by the members of the Committee when they make their decision. All I have to say is that there have been considerable changes in the Australian Army in recent months. Every member of the Senate has a regard for the security of his country and would want to ensure that our Army was adequate to its great tasks. I therefore, move this motion for an examination of this very serious question by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.

Senator BISHOP:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · South Australia · ALP

– The Government does not have any objection to this reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. Maybe I should refer very quickly to the sorts of things the Government has tried to do in relation to these matters. I accept what Senator McManus has said, namely, that some of the matters probably would be better examined by that Committee. But may J refer briefly to some of the things which the Government has tried to do? As everybody knows at present 2 reviews are being conducted, initiated by the Government. One of the reviews, of course, is into the necessary strength and the efficiency of the Australian Army and the other one is that announced by the Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, some weeks ago in relation to the efficiency and so on of the Citizen Military Forces. There are a number of specified criteria for the examinations.

In addition to the reviews being conducted by our defence advisers and experts, the Government has initiated a number of basic reforms which will have the effect, we think, of establishing the Australian armed Services, as a completely efficient and professional; body. I refer, of course, to the new pay scales, the new Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund agreements and other procedures which have been instituted by our Ministers and our Government which have given the Services a number of new aspects which are complementary to the idea of having a new professional service. Having made those brief comments, I repeat that the Government has no objection to the reference as proposed by Senator McManus being made to the Committee. I simply mention those matters as a preamble to the matters which might be investigated.

Senator WITHERS:
Leader of the Opposition · Western Australia

– The Opposition also supports the motion moved by Senator McManus.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1177

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Thailand

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I move-

That there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the following matter - Thailand.

I move this motion because the country of Thailand plays a major and a growing part within our region and in the world. Since the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has completed and tabled a very full report on Japan and because the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has undertaken a study of Indonesia, I believe that Thailand is a country of self-selection. Thailand has tended to escape world notice, primarily, I think, not because of its intrinsic significance but because it is a quiet country which is not noisy in world affairs. Its situation nevertheless is such that it is of critical importance. It could be described as a hub in the affairs of Asia, lying as it does to the north of Singapore and Malaysia and to the south of Indonesia. It is a country of some 30-odd million people who have pursued, as their name implies - the word Thai’ means free - a great belief in freedom and peace.

Thailand at this moment - it has been for some time - is subject to insurgency in its north east provinces and on its Malaysian borders. The stability of Thailand could be critical to future peace in Asia. The achievement of peace in Indo-China, if peace comes, may well focus attention on the future stability of Thailand and the position of the United States of America in Thailand and its future maintenance or otherwise of air forces or ground forces in Thailand. All of these things, together with the whole question of the future of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation, are of great importance. While SEATO perhaps may not be meaningful to some nations, it is vitally meaningful to Thailand and to the Philippines, being the essential defence pact of those countries. It is against that base that I move this motion. I understand from the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee, Senator Drury, that he and, I should imagine, his colleagues have no objection to this reference being made to the Committee. I commend the reference to the Senate.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party supports the motion for the reference of the matter of Thailand to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. We do so with enthusiasm because we realise the critical position occupied by Thailand in the whole South East Asian situation. About 18 months or 2 years ago I had the opportunity of visiting a number of countries in South East Asia, including Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, and I was in Thailand for a short period. The one concern of the first 3 nations I mentioned was that there is a definite communist threat from the north. That penetration is occurring down through Vietnam and Cambodia. If it breaks into Thailand and through Thailand then immediately it is on the Malaysian border. Already there is insurgency on the Malaysian border - and there has been for years - with Chin Peng operating with his guerrilla band on that frontier. The concern of Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia is that if communism breaks through there, then it will break through to Malaysia, then to Singapore and then to Indonesia. Let us recall that we have only one land frontier - that is with West Irian which is part of Indonesia. Those countries are all vulnerable, and they are vulnerable for different reasons. Malaysia is vulnerable because there is in that country, and has been for years by virtue of its ethnic composition, a Chinese-Malay confrontation which in 1969 resulted in the massacre of 1,000 or more Chinese at the hands of the

Malays. The Malays have a certain political superiority, the Chinese have commercial superiority, and that is one cause of the confrontation.

There is similarly a vulnerability in Singapore and, because of its size and economic situation there is a vulnerability in Indonesia which in 1965 barely staved off an attempted communist coup which would have converted that country into a communist society. Those countries know they are vulnerable. The linchpin of their defence in a sense rests upon the integrity of Thailand, and if Thailand is broken through and into, these countries become vulnerable. Indonesia becomes a victim of the southward aggression and then we would have a communist society with a land frontier with Australia.

I know it is cynically said: ‘Does Australia expect 12 million Chinese to come down in junks and invade this country?’ Of course, that question answers itself: we do not expect this. But is that the only way in which an assault of some character could be launched on this country? I ask this question: At what point of time since World War II did the world stand closest to international war? I think the answer could well be that it was when the Soviet Union had obtained land accommodation in Cuba, within the area of the United States, and set out to mount missile landing weapons on that piece of territory. At that stage there probably was not one Soviet soldier within 5,000 miles of the United States, but the position was so critical that America had to go to the brink of war and deploy her fleet in the face of the advancing Russian missile carrying ships. In other words, all that was necessary to bring the United States to that parlous condition was that some power not friendly to her had managed to establish land accommodation in a strategic position which rendered the United States geographically vulnerable. That is the type of thing which I personally am afraid of in relation to the downward thrust in South East Asia: the possibility of a Cuban type enclave. That is why the integrity of that region, apart from the integrity in the right of its own people, is so strategically important to Australia, and therefore the integrity of Thailand, which I call the linchpin of the southern axis, becomes of increasing importance.

For those reasons I welcome the reference put down by Senator Carrick. I hope it will be accepted by the Senate and that we shall get a total examination of the significance of Thailand to South East Asia and to the security of this country.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I have gathered that the tempo of this discussion has been in rapid fire utterances, therefore my contribution to the debate will be put on the same basis. Having listened to Senator Byrne speak on this question of Thailand, I do not think any honourable senator is unaware that South East Asia as a whole is composed of conflicting cultures. We could all learn a lesson from the massive number of books that have been published about the post-war mistakes made in South East Asia by the French, then by the United States and to a lesser degree perhaps by other nations. Of course, we shall have to watch Thailand and other countries to see what their future is to be, but anybody who is familiar with the rather middle-of-the-road magazines ‘Newsweek’ and ‘Time’ would know that what keeps creeping through is the familiar pattern which has developed in other parts of South East Asia. We are told that the present Government in Thailand controls the cities but does not have very much control of the rural areas, and there is talk of rural guerrillas, who is financing them and that sort of thing. If there was one lesson which the French and later the United States learned it was that if one is going to fight ideological battles one has to win the great mass of apathetic Asian peasants who are interested only in their rice fields. There is no need for me to recount all that went wrong with the hamlet program in South Vietnam but I question the need for an inquiry of the nature that has been suggested.

Many honourable senators were or are members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. For instance, Senator McManus was a member at the same time as I was, and I think he is a member still. I fail to see what this Senate can get about a subject which is located thousands of miles away and which is primarily external in character.

Do not get me wrong: I believe that in many of the internal problems that have confronted Australia Senate committees have proved to be trail blazers in providing alternatives. However, it seems to me that somebody is not doing his job if our ambassadors in various areas of South East Asia cannot give us a fair picture. I do not think I am transgressing Standing Orders in saying this. One of the privileges of serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee was to get briefings and access to documents. Before Sukarno moved off the world stage he was a sick man and power blocs were waiting to take over. We got that information from our very effective officers of the Foreign Ministry. It may be President Nixon this week but President Truman said that the buck could not be passed further.

If there was any deterioration in the internal situation in Thailand whereby a Peking or Moscow type coup d’etat could occur, I do not think the Australian Government or any other non-Asian government would put an expeditionary force onto the land mass of Asia. At long range are we able to do anything to assist a government? With the diplomatic dispatches that the Australian Government derives from its ambassadors in the field, is there any need for a Senate inquiry? Our man in Bangkok should be able to give us all the answers. 1 cannot see at this stage that the United States is doing anything other than propping up a military junta. I say as a socialist that there are occasions when one talks about semi-authoritarian rule. Some of my colleagues might at times be impatient with Lee Kwan Yew but he makes Singapore work because he has eliminated corruption as far as is humanly possible. Every time I read about the present rulers in Thailand with their nubile mistresses and their Cadillac cars I wonder how much money is coming from Australia or the United States to supply these top class call girls who are living with these leaders. I am not suggesting that it is a question of the private life of the ruler of a country as such. But if he is to get support from the peasant masses, they do not buy this sort of person. In the early 1950s in South Vietnam, there was a gentleman called Bao Dai who spent most of his time on the Riviera with fast oars and-

Senator Primmer:

– Faster women.

Senator MULVIHILL:

Senator Primmer interjected very well. This is the point I am getting at: Are we repeating that mistake? I do not question the sincerity of Senator Carrick when he states that we need a watching brief in Asia. But we could take the position a little further and adopt this attitude: Have the Western Powers always to have armed forces in an Asian countries for them to avoid a takeover? That is a debatable point. When it came to the disposal of Sukarno, it was Indonesian elements that resisted. I know some of the counter arguments that could be advanced about brinkmanship, about waiting too long and all this sort of thing. We all know that if the government of a country moves too fast in regard to internal reforms, sometimes the position blows up in its face. The fact was that Suharto and General Nasution and other people happened to be on deck and they took counter measures. I know that a government can always over react. All of us can be guilty of that. But the fact was that it was an all Indonesian show. It has been suggested that Thailand is to become more like Singapore. I do not have much faith in the present ruler of Thailand. I believe that in the future, by all means we should give aid to a Singapore that has something to show for it. But I am very dubious about other parts of Asia receiving aid which only prolongs some dynasty that is inherently corrupt. This is the fear 1 have. 1 say again that perhaps our ambassador in Bangkok could give us a fairly effective advice as to whether at a given time we should give aid or at another time we should move right out of the area. This point was raised by no less a person than ex-Senator Gorton when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs. In regard to left wing countries and non-aligned attitudes, let us imagine a South East Asian country adopting the Rumanian position. It might have oppressive internal conditions but it would skilfully play Peking, Moscow, probably the United States of America and to a lesser degree other countries, one against the other. So far as Rumania is concerned, every year goes by without a war. It may be expediency, but it works. This is the attitude 1 would take: I believe that we should not be committed to any extent.

Senator Byrne referred to some of the upheavals - I do not quarrel with him - that have taken place in rural Thailand. I do not know what good is done by the big United States bombers that are stationed there. We had some Royal Australian Air Force personnel there also. It is inevitable that the march of the peasant proletariat will go on. It is no use our making speeches here about it. The best that can be hoped for is that the proletarian leaders are more concerned with the welfare of their own countries than with being a vassal state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or China in an expansive mood. At this stage we cannot say that that will come about. On balance, I believe that there is no need for this inquiry simply because I have confidence in the officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Also, I believe, with due respect to previous governments that this Government is particularly lucky in that we have in the Cabinet an ex-South East Asian diplomat, the Honourable W. Morrison. I believe we will avoid the mistakes at a foreign office level which I know the United States State Department is also trying to avoid for the future. For that reason, I oppose the motion.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia · ALP

(8.45) - 1 do not want to delay the Senate. This debate is merely referring to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the following matter: Thailand. As this session gets under way, we are starting to pick up some of the matters with which we were dealing in the previous Parliament. The Committee will bring down its recommendation as was done in reference to Japan. There is only one point I throw in for consideration of the honourable senator who has moved this motion and of the Committee itself. I think that the Committee did this when it considered the reference on Japan. When we have a reference as wide as that of Thailand, it reminds me of the motion which I think was carried and which was moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson in the last Parliament. It was that we should refer to these Senate committees references in tight packets which they can handle. From the debate tonight, it appears that the interest lies in the strategic position of Thailand, the insurgency that has taken place for so long on its borders and the whole question of the strategic situation in South East Asia. I have no great objection to this. But I just wonder, for the sake of having things done a little more neatly and making it easier for the Departments concerned to look at these matters, whether something more definite could not be stated in the reference. It may well be that the Committee will decide that it will not look at the whole subject of Thailand, embracing such questions as new temples versus old, and aid for Thailand versus aid for other South East Asian countries but that it will just examine the strategic situation. I offer no objection to the motion. I just put forward the suggestion that this matter could be taken up by the Committee on this occasion. But I also suggest that in any future references, the more specific the Senate could be the more effective the work of the Committee concerned would be in the final analysis.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1181

COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES

Consideration resumed from 7 March (vide page 220), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That a Committee of Privileges be appointed to consist of Senators Cant, Devitt, Greenwood, Murphy, O’Byrne, Withers and Wright.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1181

QUESTION

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Debate resumed from 7 March (vide page 221), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That a House Committee be appointed to consist of the President and Senators Keeffe, Guilfoyle, Jessop, Laucke, McLaren and O’Byrne.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The bringing on of this motion for the appointment of the House. Committee has taken me a little by surprise. May I inquire from you, Mr Deputy President, or from the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) who is at the table, what is the present representation on the House Committee?

Senator Laucke:

– It is shown in item 8 on page 449 of the notice paper.

Senator BYRNE:

– For a long time, the Australian Democratic Labour Party found no representation on the Senate Standing Orders Committee. I just forget what is the present situation. It has not found representation on the House Committee. The House Committee is entrusted with the general disposition of the functioning of the House in its many aspects and activities. It seems to be a most inappropriate situation that a Party is not represented on this Committee. There can be no politics in this whatsoever. It is a matter of smooth, efficient and convenient functioning and the utilisation of the facilities of the House. I think that it would be an excellent idea if a representative of the Australian Democratic Labor Party could be included in this Committee.

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

– There is no Country Party member on the Committee, either.

Senator BYRNE:

– That is true. Of course^ there may be a Country Party member from another place on the Committee. The House Committee is a joint committee, is it not?

Senator Withers:

– It is both separate and joint. Sometimes it meets separately and sometimes it meets jointly.

Senator BYRNE:

– The one to which we are now directing our attention is-

Senator Withers:

– When it meets with members of the House of Representatives and senators present it becomes a joint committee. When it meets separately, it is a Senate Committee.

Senator BYRNE:

– When our Senate Committee meets with the House of Representatives Committee - a similar committee - I have no doubt that on the House of Representatives Committee there will be representatives of the Country Party. At least in the functioning of the amalgamated committee there will be a representative of the Country Party. That would not assist members of the Democratic Labor Party who have no members in another place. It would seem to me that the Senate should contemplate increasing the size of the membership of this Committee. The appointment of an additional Senator, thus expanding the membership of the Committee by one, if it is possible to do that, would accommodate the appointment of a representative of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. That action may not be possible in the light of the consolidation of the 2 Committees. Perhaps the numbers are limited. It may be that the number of senators that we can appoint to the Joint Committee is limited in relation to the strength of House of Representatives representation. Therefore, it may not be simply a matter of adding another senator by our action here. I should be pleased if the Special Minister of State, who is at the table, will inform me whether that is the position or whether a place may be made available for another senator on this Committee. If so, could I suggest that a representative of my Party be appointed to the House Committee? After the honourable senator has indicated that, I may be able to make another speech, by leave of the Senate.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I may be able to help Senator Byrne. As I understand the position, the Standing Orders provide that there shall be a House Committee consisting of the President and 6 senators. I further understand that it has always been traditional for 3 senators from each side of the chamber to make up those 6 senators. I do not think that Senator Drake-Brockman will mind my saying that by agreement between his Party and my Party, my Party took the 3 nonGovernment Senate positions on the House Committee. I understand from a question that was asked this afternoon by Senator McLaren that some urgency exists about the appointment of senators to this Committee today. This is because some urgent business awaits the consideration of that Committee. What I am prepared to do - and Senator Byrne or other honourable senators can take it or leave it, or try some other method - is this: I feel that I may be able to convince one of my colleagues to resign from the Committee and to make arrangements for a member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party to fill the vacant position.

Senator Byrne:

– That would be most generous.

Senator WITHERS:

– I cannot promise that result, but I undertake to see whether that can happen. I suggest that, at the moment, the motion should be agreed to as it stands and, if this happens, I will undertake to see whether I can arrange for a member of the Opposition to resign from the Committee and be replaced by a member of Senator Byrne’s Party. If Senator Byrne agrees to that, his problem will be accommodated.

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

– I do not wish to upset the applecart but I think that we are running away with the idea that every Party has to be represented on each Committee that is appointed.

Senator Byrne:

– We are not suggesting that.

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

– I do not think that Senator Byrne is suggesting that. But I do think that the honourable senator should have discussed this matter first with other honourable senators. If 3 honourable senators from each side of the Senate are to make up a committee membership of 6, okay, we will take our turn. The Country Party and the Democratic Labour Party on a proportional basis each is entitled to one in every 12 while the 3 Independents are entitled to one in every 20 in respect of appointments to committees. Should an Independent senator rise on each occasion when senators are appointed to a Committee and make a fuss on that basis? I doubt whether any Independent senator is a member of any Joint Committee.

Senator Byrne:

– It is not so much a matter of my Party being represented on the Committee as it is a matter of making each committee as representative as possible.

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

– That may be so. But the point is that the membership of these committees is not big enough to make them as representative a possible. On that argument, if this committee is to be made a committee representative of the Senate, senators from the Country Party and the DLP as well as an Independent senator should be appointed to it. We ought not to be fighting about these matters if we are to accept that these Committees are to operate in the interests of honourable senators as a whole. If the wish is that 3 senators should be appointed from each side, so let it be. I am quite happy about that. If Senator Byrne wishes a member of his Party to be on a committee, he should talk to other honourable senators to see whether they will agree to such an appointment. But I think that we are overdoing it. That is the only reason why I rose. We have no right to demand representation on every committee.

Senator Byrne:

– Nobody was demanding this as a right.

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

– No, but the honourable senator is pointing it out. The honourable senator’s Party has been a great help to us when an Independent senator has sought appointment to a committee. But if this argument is to be carried to its logical conclusion and if the membership of a committee is to be representative of the membership of the Senate, I point out again that an Independent senator must be appointed to each committee.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am rather surprised that Senator Byrne should rise in this chamber tonight and put up the same argument as he presented on 7th March when he secured the adjournment of consideration of this motion to appoint the House Committee. Senator Byrne has had at least 7 weeks in which to confer with members of the Opposition and to reach some conclusion as to who should be represented from that side of the Senate on this Committee. During question time today, I pointed out to the Senate that very important business awaits transaction by this Committee within the next 7 days; otherwise we might find in the Parliament or in the precincts of Parliament problems which we wish to avoid.

If Senator Byrne perseveres with his argument here tonight we may find that this Committee will not be appointed for another week or perhaps even longer. I repeat that we need to avoid a possible problem which could arise with respect to the functioning of the Parliament. I am surprised that Senator Byrne with the experience that he has had in this Parliament has not taken the opportunity in the last 7 or 8 weeks to resolve the matter that worries him. 1 hope that he will recognise the offer that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) has made to him in good faith, I believe, to talk to members of his Party and to determine whether a position can be found for a DLP senator on this Committee. I hope that Senator Byrne, in the spirit that exists in respect of this matter, and recognising the need to get this Committee functioning, will take notice of the promise that the Leader of the Opposition has made to him.

Senator BYRNE (Queensland) - by leave - I am indebted to Senator Willesee and I accept the strictures from Senator McLaren. This matter should have been more fully discussed and I should have come along perhaps with a firm proposition. I am indebted to Senator Withers for the understanding that he has demonstrated and for the offer that he has made. We would be quite happy with that. We would be reluctant to displace any senator that the Opposition has chosen to appoint to this Committee. We would not pursue the matter in any way to the point where that action became necessary if any honourable senator did not wish to retire, from the Committee or if the Opposition suggested that it should be represented by the 3 senators nominated. In the circumstances, I am indebted to Senator Withers. It is unfortunate that I did not come along with a firm proposition. Nevertheless, what is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition would be acceptable if the matter can be resolved in this way. I agree that it is important that the Committee should continue its deliberations.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– I have heard a brief portion only of the remarks which have been made on this matter. I do not accept the strictures which are made against the Australian Democratic Labor Party on the grounds that it felt that, if possible, it should be represented on this

Committee. I have been in this Parliament for 14 years. I have never yet seen a report of the. House Committee.

Senator Milliner:

– You are wrong.

Senator McMANUS:

– I have not.

Senator Milliner:

– Well, you are wrong. You cannot read; that is why.

Senator McMANUS:

– If somebody will send me one, I will be able to read it.

Senator Milliner:

– You have been shown one.

Senator McMANUS:

– I have not been shown any report of the House committee. It is all very well for people who are members of parties which are represented on a committee and who can get reports of decisions of that committee to rise and to say that other members have no right to be represented on that committee. But I strongly object to those honourable senators saying that we have no right to be on that committee when no steps are taken at all, as far as I know, to make available to all members of the Senate information as to what a committee is doing. 1 do not accept that the sole duty of a committee is to make reports to the parties which are represented on that committee. When a committee sends along to the DLP copies of its decisions, information as to its meetings, and copies of its minutes, we will be in a position to determine our course. Perhaps we will not want to be represented on that committee.

Senator WILLESEE:
Special Minister of State · Western Australia · ALP

– Thanks to Senator Withers, I think that we have reached a solution by which the request of the Australian Democratic Labor Party can be accommodated. I certainly have no great objection to the DLP being represented on this Committee. I think there would be advantages in having views covering as wide a spectrum as possible in the Parliament and in its committees. Senator Byrne accepts that perhaps this could have been done differently. Perhaps we could have had talks about the matter. I do not think that this is a serious problem, especially if Senator Withers* most generous offer is taken up by the DLP.

Senator McManus has said that he has not seen any reports from the House Committee. I remember a couple of them. One was on the rights of and facilities to be provided to senators. That report presented by the House Committee contained some rather revolutionary proposals. One report that I am sure Senator McLaren will remember - I have a copy of it in my hand - is the report by the Senate House, Committee relating to senators’ dress in the Senate chamber. I would have thought that everybody would remember that report.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1184

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion (by Senator Willesee) proposed:

That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 24 of the House of Representatives that the following matter be referred to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings for inquiry and report:

Whether the televising of portion of the parliamentary debates and proceedings is desirable, and

If so, to what extent and in what manner the telecasts should be undertaken.

That the Committee, for any purposes related to this inquiry, have power to send for persons, papers and records.

That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The Opposition does not oppose this matter being referred to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. I think the motion was initiated by our colleague in another place, the honourable member for Bradfield, Mr Turner. It was amended, I think at the instance of the Leader of the House (Mr Daly), to its present form. There seemed to be general agreement among all the parties in the other place on the amended motion. I have my own ideas about it, but 1 should not prejudge the Committee’s report. We do not oppose the matter being referred to the Committee.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– The Democratic Labor Party supports the matter being referred to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. It is only just that the Committee should examine the situation. As to any recommendation that the proceedings of Parliament be televised, I can only say: ‘God forbid’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1184

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Debate resumed from 10 April (vide page 973), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 25 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.

That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

Consideration of House of Representatives message as follows:

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

That a Joint Committee be appointed to consider and report on -

foreign affairs and defence generally; and

such matters as may be referred to the committee -

by the Minister for Foreign Affairs;

by the Minister for Defence; or

by resolution of either House of the Parliament

That the committee consist of 8 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, 4 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, 2 members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives, 4 senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, one Senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate and one Senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party in the Senate.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the Prime Minister nominate one of the government members of the committee as Chairman.

That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 4 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

That the committee or any sub-committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to meet and transact business in public or private session and notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That 7 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee and 3 members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee.

That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy Chairman when acting as Chairman, have a casting vote.

That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, appointed in the previous Parliament, relating to any matter on which that committee had not completed its consideration.

That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– The motion is the normal formal motion which comes forward at the commencement of each parliament and which sets up what was known as the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs but what in this Parliament will be known as the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. As far as I know, there is only one clause of the message to which we take exception, and that is clause (5). We have been taking exception to similar clauses relating to the appointment of chairmen of committees. Clause (5) reads:

That the Prime Minister nominate one of the Government members of the Committee as Chairman.

We have consistently moved amendments to the effect that the committee elect as chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister. Some people would say that this is a piece of parliamentary nitpicking, but we on this side of the chamber believe that committees ought to be able to appoint their own chairmen and that the position of chairman of any committee should never be part of the Executive patronage. We well know that the Government Party, by its procedures, decides who will be chairman. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) can nominate a member as chairman; but we know, as we knew in respect of our own Party, that the Party will determine who is to be the chairman, lt is not a matter of trying to take something away from the Prime Minister. He knows the situation, as did all previous Prime Ministers, it is basically a matter of establishing that parliamentary committees ought to be in control of their own affairs. They are parliamentary committees and not Executive committees. Once we allow the intrusion of the Executive into the decision as to who will be office bearers of a committee we tend to downgrade the role of committees.

The Government has agreed with us on this matter. Senator Murphy has agreed with our thinking. I know that Senator Willesee has, too. Originally similar motions stated that the committees would consist of members appointed by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. We took exception to that wording because we believe that the members should be nominated by the respective leaders, in spite of the fact that we indulged in this system while in government. Many of us were unhappy about it. We believe that members of committees ought to be appointed by resolution of the Senate or the House of Representatives so that committees are the servants of the Parliament and not of the Executive. I will have to draft an amendment. No doubt someone will speak for 2 or 3 minutes while I am drafting it. In the meantime I foreshadow that at a later stage - in 2 or 3 minutes time, after someone else has spoken - I shall ask for leave to move an amendment along the lines that the Committee have the right to nominate the Chairman of the Committee but that he be a member nominated by the Prime Minister.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– The Australian Country Party supports the motion in general. It has been agreed among senators on this side of the chamber that the Country Party shall have a member on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. I support the plea by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) to Senator Willesee that the Senate accept the amendment, as it has accepted previous similar amendments. We support the proposed amendment to be moved by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator WITHERS (Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition) - I ask for leave to move an amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WITHERS:

- Senator Willesee may require an adjournment of the matter in order to consult his colleagues. The amendment relates to paragraph (5) of the message, which reads:

That the Prime Minister nominate one of the Government members of the Committee as Chairman.

I move:

  1. Leave out paragraph (5), insert the following paragraph: (5) That the Committee elect as Chairman of the Committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister.
  2. At end of paragraph (3), add - with a request for the concurrence of that House in the Senate’s modification of the resolution transmitted to the Senate by that House.

This may well be said to be parliamentary nitpicking, but I believe that it is the way in which parliamentary committees ought to operate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– The amendment is consistent with previous amendments with which we have agreed. Since the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) is being consistent, we will be consistent. We will offer no opposition to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 1186

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Consideration of House of Representatives message as follows:

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following Resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

That a Joint Committee be appointed to -

examine and report on all proposals for modifications or variations of the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on the nineteenth day of November 1925, as previously modified or varied, which are referred to the committee by the Minister for the Capital Territory; and

examine and report on such other matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory as may be referred to the committee -

by the Minister for the Capital Territory: or

by resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the committee consist of three Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, one Member of the House of Rep resentatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, one Member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives, two Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and two Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the Prime Minister nominate one of the government members of the committee as Chairman.

That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.

That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any recess or adjournment of the Parliament.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That five members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, and two members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee.

1) That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.

That the committee have power to consider and make use of the minutes of evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, appointed in previous Parliaments, relating to any matters which are again referred to the committee.

That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members of the committee have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy on the committee.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

-I move:

  1. That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 29 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a joint committee to examine and report upon certain matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

I understand that a similar amendment dealing with the election of the Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory will be moved. If it is moved, we will agree to it.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– I believe that the Senate should agree to my spending a little time in speaking on this matter because the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is a very important Committee to the people of the national capital. The Committee means much to the people. It was born in the Senate way back in 1957, and the idea was that it should be a Senate Committee. The Committee has been reappointed from parliament to parliament. In fact, 2 helpful things eventuated on the memorable and historical one-day sitting of this Parliament on 25th November 1969. The first was the appointment of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse and the other was the setting up again of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory.

From its inception the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has worked very hard for the people of this Territory. It has held some 11 inquiries. Under the terms of its franchise and responsibilities it has studied 50 statutory variations to the plan of the national capital. Previously the Committee comprised of 5 senators - 3 Government senators and 2 Opposition senators - and 4 members of the House of Representatives, with a senator as the Chairman. The government of the day felt that the Senate should have the greater number of member on the Committee. In the message that we are considering, the House of Representatives is being given a greater number of members on the Committee. The Opposition parties have agreed not to oppose this more, but I believe that it is a retrograde step from the Senate’s point of view.

The idea of the Committee started in the Senate. It was supposed to be a Committee consisting only of senators, but the House of Representatives requested membership on the Committee and the Senate felt that at least the member for the Australian Capital Territory should be a member of the Committee.

So Government and Opposition members in the House of Representatives were appointed to the Committee. The members from both Houses on the Committee have worked in great co-operation and tenaciously on all the references and duties which have been given to the Committee. I was privileged to be the Chairman of the Committee for some three or four years and during that time the Committee accomplished quite a lot, as it did under other chairmen.

I must say that never once did the idea of party politics or ministerial control or interference become apparent on the Committee. But as has already been indicated, we object to paragraph (5) of the message which has been sent to us by the other place which states that the Prime Minister shall nominate one of the Government members of the Committee as the Chairman. In addition to what has been said previously on this matter, I believe it should be emphasised and put into the record that the Parliament does not believe that any committee chairman should be beholden to the Prime Minister for any period of time. The chairman of a committee must be elected by the members of the committee. As Senator Withers has said, it is true that normally - almost without exception - the person who becomes the chairman of a committee is the one whom the Government Party agrees should be the chairman. But it is possible that another Government senator or member could become the chairman of a committee if a committee is allowed, as has happened in the past, a secret ballot to elect a chairman. So believing that it should be in the hands of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory to elect its Chairman, on behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment to the motion of concurrence in the House of Representatives’ resolution:

  1. At end of paragraph (1), add - subject to the following modification - leave out paragraph (5), insert the following paragraph:
  2. That the committee elect as Chairman of the committee one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate’.
  3. At end of paragraph (3), add - with a request for the concurrence of that House in the Senate’s modification of the resolution transmitted to the Senate by that House.

Amendment agreed to.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 1188

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Joint Select Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives message No. 30 as follows:

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

That a joint committee be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the Northern Territory as are referred to it -

by the Minister for the Northern Territory; or

by resolution of either House of the Parliament.

That the committee consist of 3 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Prime Minister, one Member of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, one Member of the House of Representatives nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the House of Representatives, 2 Senator nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

That the members of the committee hold office as a joint committee until the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time.

That the Prime Minister nominate one of the government members of the committee as Chairman.

That the Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee.

That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.

That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any recess or adjournment of the Parliament.

That the committee have leave to report from time to time and that any member of the committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report.

That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members of the committee have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy on the committee.

That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, and two members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee.

That in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy Chairman presiding at the meeting have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote, and that, In other matters, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman have a deliberative vote only.

That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · New South Wales · ALP

– I move:

  1. That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 30 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee to examine and report on certain matters relating to the Northern Territory.
  2. That the provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition (9.16

– The Opposition does not oppose the motion, but it has 2 amendments to move to the message. The first amendment is similar to the amendments moved in relation to other committees tonight, that is, to delete paragraph (5) and to insert that the Committee should elect as Chairman of the Committee one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister. The second amendment arises as a result of an arrangement made between myself and the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate (Senator Drake-Brockman). I move:

  1. At the end of paragraph (1) add ‘subject to the following modifications’:

    1. Paragraph (2), leave out the words ‘2 senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate’, insert ‘1 senator nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and1 senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate’; and
    2. Paragraph (5), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph:
  2. That the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members nominated by the Prime Minister’.
  3. At end of paragraph (3), add ‘with a request for the concurrence of that House in the Senate’s modifications of the resolution transmitted to the Senate by that House’.

This is just a matter of 2 of the Opposition parties sharing out the 2 Opposition positions on the Committee. I take it that the Government is not worried about that situation.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · New South Wales · ALP

– There may be some reason to object, butI cannot think of it as the moment.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The Australian Country Party supports the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers.) I wonder whether the wording which Senator Withers used in relation to paragraph (5), which referred to the Prime Minister nominating one Government member as Chairman of the Committee, will show up correctly in Hansard because I think it was the view that the Chairman should be elected by the Committee itself.

Senator Withers:

– That is right.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not know whether that was the wording which Senator Withers used. Certainly the Country Party supports that point. As regards the second matter raised, Senator Murphy had some problem in deciding whether in actual fact there is any worth in the Country Party being represented on such a Committee. Perhaps I should draw his attention to what has occurred in the Northern Territory over a period of years and indicate that the seat of the Northern Territory is at present held by the Country Party. For a third term in succession Mr Sam Calder gained the seat with a majority which was as handsome as that obtained on previous occasions.

Senator Murphy:

– But the Country Party in the House of Representatives already has representatives on the Committee. I am not raising any objection.

Senator WEBSTER:

– No, but as we see it, it is very important that the Country Party in the Senate should be represented on the Committee. One realises the great strength of representation which the. Country Party has enjoyed in the Northern Territory, lt is important that that political complex be represented. Over many years we have proposed Mr Calder to the Northern Territory. Perhaps he is the most experienced man ever to stand for that seat. He has been not only a flyer in the Territory but also a pastoralist. In his time he has run a station of about 2,000 square miles and for 30 years he has been a resident of the Territory. If that is insufficient to indicate that the Country Party requires representation on any committee which is proposed to investigate matters, whatever they may be, as proposed by the resolution which is sent to us in message No. 30 from the other place, it is well to draw attention to the 11 seats which are held by elected members in the Legislative Council. The Country Party in its own right holds 5 of those seats. The others are divided between the Australian Labor Party and some independent groups in the Territory.

Undoubtedly the significance of the Country Party impresses itself on Senator Murphy. He is well aware that Dr Goff Letts is a member of the Council. Bernie Kilgariff comes from Alice Springs and represents that area. The President of the Legislative Council, Mr Greatorex, is a member of the Country Party as is Mr Kentish from Arnhem Land who probably knows more and has a greater background in relation to the problems of Aborigines than any other member in the Northern Territory. Of course, Mr MacFarlane represents the Elsey area. If Senator Murphy was concerned he should not be concerned now that the Country Party should claim representation on such a committee. I fully endorse the amendments which have been proposed but a problem is presented to the Country Party. This is probably because of our knowledge of the representation in the Northern Territory and from the progressive independence which is being gained by the Legislative Council. I wish to move a further amendment and I ask that it be circulated. Its basis is that there should be a definite aim by any committee which is set up and which comprises members of the Federal Parliament who are to constitute themselves into a committee which is applicable to the Northern Territory. Such a committee should have as its main aim the advancement of political responsibility and constitutional reform for the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. I have used those words in the proposed amendment. While agreeing to the setting up of the. Committee we think that there should be some modifications. I move:

I shall mention one or two things which come to mind as obvious reasons why these amendments should be moved. It was the Labor Government which considered setting up this Committee. Its thoughts may have been thoughts of good will towards the Northern Territory. If that is so it is surprising that political advancement and the responsibility of the Legislative Council should not be the main aim. The Labor Party has presented a series of matters as justifying this Committee but it does not mention that matter. The aim of the previous Government was constitutional reform for the Northern Territory. The Territory is some 500,000 sq miles in area and about 2,000 miles from Canberra. Yet the Labor Party has proposed that a further committee of the Federal Parliament should be set up for some purposes which are not described in the motion for setting up the Committee. The Country Party feels that if a committee is the wish of the Government that committee should have as its prime thought the ways in which further responsibility can be handed to the Legislative Council and the people of the Northern Territory. Over the years there has been a gradual handing over of power by the former Government. Prior to the last election a series of matters was put forward by the member for the Northern Territory as responsibilities which should go directly to the Legislative Council.

Since this Government has taken office those matters have not been reported upon. We are very anxious to hear whether it is the view of the Labor Government that furthers responsibility is to be granted to the Legislative Council or whether it is the wish of the Government to guide the committee. Perhaps this is the intention of paragraph 5 which was opposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers). This paragraph provides that the Prime Minister shall nominate one member as chairman. Perhaps that was to bring about a greater direction of affairs from Canberra. We do not believe that this is right. Honourable senators on the Government side are objecting, but it is the wish of the Country Party and, I believe, of the Opposition in this place that greater independence be granted to the Northern Territory. It is fair to suggest that that is not the view of the Labor Party. In the few months during which the Government has been in office we have seen a gradual eroding of State responsibility and an attempt to bring about Federal control. We have seen this in so many areas. There has been a direction in relation to matters such as education. We have seen the power of the Federal Government in relation to finance under housing agreements. Even the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) has suggested that he is all wisdom as to how the various States should develop their areas. It is certainly not my view that there should be a centralisation in Canberra in relation to these matters.

I am quite frightened that this Committee which is being set up will act against the interests of the people in the Northern Territory. I wonder whether some discussion was held with members of the Labor Party who are members of the Legislative Council. Was the promotion of this Committee brought about by discussion with those members? I am inclined to think that it was not but, undoubtedly, their advice will be had at some future time, if not now. 1 cannot imagine that any Legislative Councillor is anxious to see those things happen which are currently happening in the Northern Territory. Last weekend there was a disastrous announcement by the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Enderby) that some 32 square miles immediately south of Darwin will be acquired by the Commonwealth. This is without any consideration being given to the rights of the individuals who own or control the land. It is a monstrous action. Indeed, the people of the Territory will let the Minister know their views. But action of great moment is taking place there. I refer to the responsibility for the Police Force of the Northern Territory being taken away from the Territory and placed in the hands of the Attorney-General and the matter of urban land development being placed under the control of another Federal Minister. All of these matters will make not only the members of the Legislative Council but also the people of the Northern Territory more hostile towards the acts of this Federal Government.

The Australian Country Party holds the view that it must not oppose the establishment of this Committee, although I doubt that it has any particular value. But we demand not only that the amendments as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to by the Senate but also that the proposal which I have circulated and moved as an amendment be agreed to by the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · New South Wales · ALP

– Without closing the debate, 1 will move that the debate be now adjourned so that the amendments can be considered by the Government.

Debate (on motion by Senator Murphy) adjourned.

page 1190

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · New South Wales · ALP

– The next matter which in the normal course of events would be dealt with is the extradition Bills. However, I wish to move that consideration of these Bills be postponed. I would like to indicate what has happened. Some understanding was reached that we would move on to the extradition Bills. However, it was put to me a short while ago that we would save the time of the Parliament if an amendment to the extradition Bills was proposed by the Government to deal with a further situation. This action would avoid consideration of a further legislative proposal in respect to another matter connected with other legislation which is coming forward. We believe that it might be convenient and might save parliamentary time if we were to defer consideration of these Bills for several days. I am sorry that 1 have not been able to communicate this proposal to the Opposition.

Senator Byrne:

– Or to the Australian Democratic Labor Party.

Senator MURPHY:

– Or to the Australian Democratic Labor Party, the Australian Country Party, the Independents or my own colleagues in either House. But a proposal has been put forward that we would have to introduce another Bill to deal with a fresh situation arising from the Montreal Convention. This proposal would necessitate further legislative action. It is thought that if we could make an amendment to the present extradition Bills we would not have to introduce another extradition Bill or Bills. It might be convenient to take this action now while this legislation is before the Senate. I believe that it would be preferable to defer consideration of these Bills at the moment and make the necessary amendments to them rather than to pass the legislation now and in a few weeks have to consider another legislative proposal in regard to extradition. Regrettably I have not had the opportunity to advise honourable senators of these developments. I suggest that we should not proceed with the extradition Bills now but that we should go on with the next matter that is before the Senate.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The next matter before the Senate is Order of the Day No. 4 - Death Penalty Abolition Bill 1973.

Senator Withers:

– We were not expecting to debate that tonight.

Senator MURPHY:

– Would the honourable senator like to go back to the AddressinReply debate?

Senator Withers:

– I think that we should lake that course of action.

Senator Webster:

– Before Senator Murphy leaves the subject of the extradition Bills, may I ask one question which might assist in the making of amendments?

Senator MURPHY:

– Is the honourable senator speaking of the extradition Bills?

Senator Webster:

– Yes.

Senator MURPHY:

– May I move thenand the honourable senator can speak to this - that we proceed immediately to Government Business, Order of the Day No. 1. Perhaps that would be a convenient course to follow.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Durack) - The motion is that we revert to Order of the Day No. 1.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am told that Order of the Day No. 1 will be brought on anyway, even if I do not move my motion.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I can understand the position in which the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) finds himself. I agree that to postpone consideration of Orders of the Day Nos 2 and 3 is the most sensible thing to do. In this way we will be able to consider proposals in one Bill instead of having 2 bites of the cherry. The only problem that we face is that members of the Opposition have programmed themselves to the expectation that Orders of the day Nos 2 and 3 on the extradition Bills would occupy the balance of the night.

I do not pretend to understand the legalities involved in these Bills but I know that some very nice points will be raised. I do not think that the. Opposition is ready to debate the Death Penalty Abolition Bill. I certainly am not ready to debate the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2). I take it that Senator Keeffe is still in continuation on his speech in the Address-in-Reply debate. However, he is not in the chamber at the moment.

Senator O’Byrne:

– We are getting him. I suggest that Senator Cavanagh might speak on the Death Penalty Abolition Bill and that we could then proceed to debate the AddressinReply when Senator Keeffe is in the chamber.

Senator WITHERS:

– The best way out of the problem at the moment may well be for Senator Cavanagh to finish his speech on the Death Penalty Abolition Bill and then for whoever is desirous of speaking next to move the adjournment of the debate. In any case I can formally take the adjournment of the debate for someone else. By the time Senator Cavanagh has finished his speech, we should be ready to go back to the Address-in-Reply debate. Without appearing to be hard to get on with, knowing both Senator Cavanagh and Senator Keeffe I would say that they could probably bat out the next 70 minutes between them.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I will be speaking for only 10 minutes.

Senator WITHERS:

– I imagine that the honourable senator most likely will do something about that. The situation with which we are faced is a little difficult, but I understand the problem. This is one of the problems which we face from time to time in this place. I know that some of my colleagues feel a little more strongly about this matter than I do, but I think that this is the only sensible way to deal with the situation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Senator Webster, do you wish to speak? If you do, you will need to seek leave.

Senator Webster:

– As I understand it, the extradition matter has been deferred.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · New South Wales · ALP

– I move:

That the Senate proceed to consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day, No. A - Death Penalty Abolition Bill 1973.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1192

DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 April (vide page 989), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Works · South Australia · ALP

– I regret that the debate on this Bill has come on only for the purpose of filling in time until we are ready for something else. I cannot understand the position taken by Senator Withers when he says that he was not prepared for the debate on the Bill. The remarks that I am now making are a continuation to those which I made on 10th April. Honourable senators will appreciate how difficult it is to pick up the threads of the speech that I made on that date. The date today is 1st May so honourable senators can see the time that has elapsed since I last spoke on this subject. On that occasion I spoke more in anger at the statements that had been made. Honourable senators will recall that my opening remarks on that occasion were made in acceptance of the challenge of Senator Webster that senators on this side of the chamber were not prepared to debate this question. As I said on that occasion, the Death Penalty Abolition Bill or a Bill related to the subject has been before this chamber on 4 occasions. On this occasion honourable senators on the other side of the House have a free vote on the subject. I do not think that there is any need for - a further adjournment of the debate on this legislation to enable honourable senators opposite to prepare material to assist them in their speeches.

Senator Byrne:

– Why does the Minister say that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– As honourable senators opposite have already voted on this subject on 3 previous occasions, I imagine that their votes will be the same on this occasion.

Senator Byrne:

– The Minister may have convinced some of them to change their minds.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It is not necessary to convince honourable senators opposite to change their minds because this is one occasion on which I am confident that I am on the winning side. In view of previous voting patterns,, I do not think it is necessary for me to convince any honourable senator to change his mind. An examination of the debate which has ensued on this Bill will reveal that Senator Withers, Senator Greenwood and Senator Webster have already spoken. The obtaining of a party directive is not involved on this occasion. The only issue involved is whether there is any honourable senator who is not prepared to debate the Bill at this stage but who desires to make a contribution to the debate. As yet nobody has been named. This is a Bill which originated in this chamber. I would like this Bill to be passed by the Senate and forwarded to the other place for it to determine its fate.

In my previous contributions to debates on this subject I recited my opposition to hanging. I said that the taking of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth cannot be justified in modern society. On a previous occasion I recited what I thought to be the origin of the idea of hanging. I said that it was done by the state more as an example than as a desire to take an eye for an eye or a life for a life. The authority I was quoting from then referred to the original practice in England of bringing offenders from a gaol to a public square and hanging them, more as a deterrent to others than for any other reason. I have found on investigating the position further that that was not quite the reason for the origin of hanging.

The history of the method of putting to death in England those who were convicted of treason is, 1 think, worthy of recording in Hansard. While it was more callous than the present method of hanging there was a tradition associated with every action in the taking of the life of someone found guilty of treason. I am indebted to a book which was written about a person named Coke, who was a Crown Prosecutor in England for many years until he was imprisoned for 7 months in the Tower of London. He came out fighting and finished up as the great champion of liberty and the mover of the Bill of Rights and the Bill of Liberties. Coke explained fully why what would seem to us in our modern society to be beastial attitudes that were adopted during the time when he was Crown Prosecutor were a necessary tradition of English society. Everything that was done had a meaning and was justified by tradition. A different situation exists today in that we hang someone just because he has taken the life of someone else. There is no other reason for doing so than as a form of punishment or as a deterrent. A book entitled ‘The Crown and the Throne’ gives the history of Coke and relates the trial in which Sir Walter Raleigh was found guilty of treason in England. I think it is significant to refer to the penalty in England for treason.

Senator Hannan:

– The decision relating to Raleigh was a bad decision, was it not?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The death penalty was never carried out because of public opinion in England at the time. I am not referring to it in order to show whether it was a good or a bad decision; T am referring to it to show what the Chief Justice thought about someone who was found guilty of treason in England. When Sir Walter Raleigh was found guilty Chief Justice Popham, raising both hands with the deliberation of an aged man, set a black cap on his head and said:

Sir Walter Raleigh, since you have been found guilty of these horrible treasons, the judgment of this court is, that you shall be had from hence to the place whence you came, there to remain until the day of execution. And from thence you shall be drawn upon a hurdle through the open streets to the place of execution, there to be hanged and cut down alive, and your body shall be opened, your heart and bowels plucked out, and your privy members cut off and thrown into the fire before your eyes. Then your head to be stricken off from your body, and your body shall be divided into 4 quarters, to be disposed of at the King’s pleasure. And God have mercy upon your soul.

I turn now to the occasion of Guy Fawkes plot to blow up the House of Commons. The agitation in England then was for a more brutal penalty to be imposed that the traditional penalty. It was suggested that those who were engaged in plotting to blow up the House of Commons should be wrapped up alive in lead or be set upon the highest pinnacle in a city square and allowed to starve to death. As Crown Prosecutor in the case, Coke gave the reasons for the then method of treatment of those found guilty of treason. Though speaking to the court, Coke was also speaking to the Parliament. He was trying to get it not to do something more brutal but to do something that had tradition and meaning to it. Coke said:

After a traitor hath had his just trial and ls convicted and attainted, he shall have his judgment: To be drawn to the place of execution from his prison, as being not worthy any more to tread upon the face of earth whereof he was made.

That was the reason for drawing upon a hurdle. Coke went on to say:

Also, for that he hath been retrograde to nature, therefore is he drawn backward at a horse-tail. And whereas God hath made the head of man the highest and most supreme part, as being his chief grace and ornament, he must be drawn with his head declining downward and lying so near the ground as may be, being thought unfit to take benefit of the common air. For which cause also be shall be strangled, being hanged up by the neck between heaven and earth as deemed unworthy of both or either; as likewise, that the eyes of men may behold and their hearts condemn him. Then is he to be cut down alive, and to have his privy parts cut off and burnt before his face as being unworthily begotten and unfit to leave any generation after him. His bowels and inlay’d parts taken out and burnt, who inwardly had conceived and harboured such horrible treason. After, to have his head cut off, which had imagined the mischief. And lastly, his body to be quartered and the quarters set up in some high and eminent place, to the view and destestation of men, and to become a prey for the fowls of the air.

We read about horrors being committed in 1973. The punishments of the past were based on tradition. While we have done away with many of the more sordid methods of execution we still retain hanging in Australia.

It is not based on our history or on our tradition. No one here has ever considered it in the light of its origin, namely, that the individual was unworthy of inhabiting either heaven or earth and had to be hanged somewhere between. That was the purpose of hanging. We have the situation in Australia today where the only purpose of hanging is as a reprisal. It goes to show that we are no more civilised than were our ancestors in Great Britain in the 16th Century. Without a reason, without a purpose, we simply hang someone by the neck. We do so for no other reason than that he has committed a murder; he has taken a life.

Once he has been found guilty of murder the judge who pronounces sentence is not permitted to take into consideration the whole range of provocations which may have led him to murder. If by some fluke he is found guilty of manslaughter, it could well be that the judge, taking into consideration the factors which provoked him, will impose a smaller penalty or even a light penalty. On most occasions there is a difficulty in explaining to the jury the difference between murder and manslaughter. We have reached the stage in this debate where everyone has agreed that there are no reliable statistics to show whether the death penalty is a deterrent to murder or whether crimes of murder increase or decrease as a result of the abolition of the death penalty. If someone is driven to the desperation of taking a life in a modern civilised community, the trend these days is to say that there is something mentally wrong with the person and that he needs treatment rather than punishment. Our system of punishment is such that if he is considered to be a menace to society he can be removed from society until such time as it is considered that he is no longer a threat to society. This is the alternative to this cruel, hateful, spiteful system that we have in modern days of demanding an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

I cannot take the matter any further. It is the intention of the Senate now to proceed with the debate on the Address-in-Reply. I leave it at that. Labor Party senators will not have a free vote on this question because it is and it has been for a long time Labor Party policy to abolish the death penalty. The death penalty is enforceable in only a few States at the moment. I am told that there are either 7 or 9 prisoners waiting in Mel bourne’s death row for a decision on their cases. We know in advance how honourable senators on this side of the chamber will vote and we have had some indication that sufficient of the progressive element on the other side of the chamber will vote with us to ensure the success of this Bill in this chamber.

Debate (on motion by Senator Laucke) adjourned.

page 1194

QUESTION

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH

Address-in-reply

Debate resumed from 15 March (vide page 493), on motion by Senator Primmer:

That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency, the Governor-General be agreed to:

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY:

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

Upon which Senator Withers had moved by way of amendment:

That the following words be added to the AddressinReply, viz: ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion and regrets that - The Government in its conduct of the nation’s affairs has subordinated the security and welfare of the Australian people on whose behalf it should govern to the factional decisions of the Conference and Executive of the Australian Labor Party, in that:

without regard to either economic or social consequences it intends to award Government contracts to employers who will comply with trade union policies;

in defiance of its election policy, it attempted to introduce compulsory unionism for Commonwealth public servants;

it has pursued and intends to pursue defence and foreign policies which are contrary to Australia’s international treaty obligations and which ignore or reject long established bonds with traditional and trusted allies; and further the Senate views with alarm -

economic decisions which take no account of their impact on the nation’s exporters and their employees; and

the Government’s lack of action to curb runaway inflation’.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I suppose the Address-in-Reply debate is one of the major debates to take place in the life of the new Government. Unfortunately, because of intervening legislation and other matters, it has been conducted on an irregular basis and speeches have been fitted in as time became available. The Governor-General’s Speech is probably the most instructive and informative document delivered in this chamber in the last 20-odd years. It is a very lengthy document. It is probably one of the longest speeches that has ever been delivered by anyone on the occasion of the opening of the Parliament. It is certainly much longer than the famous 25-word speech that was delivered here a few years ago.

I want to refer to a number of the points raised in the Governor-General’s Speech, and I want to take the opportunity to expose some of the matters which I think confront this nation at the moment and which we ought to be looking at seriously. During the course of his speech the Governor-General said:

My Government has already begun exploratory, discussions with Australia’s neighbours, friends and allies on ways of developing new arrangements for regional co-operation free of .military or ideological overtones. My Government believes that our close relations with the United States, our growing partnership with Japan and the speedy and successful normalisation of relations with the People’s Republic of China provide a realistic and fruitful basis for such an Australian initiative.

Let us compare this statement with what was happening a year ago. At that time we were still involved in a war in South Vietnam; we still had Australian troops committed to the area; we had troops in other areas of IndoChina, whether or not the Government of the day admitted it; and we had a great hostility towards the People’s Republic of China. We know of the criticism of the previous Prime Minister when a decision was taken by the then Leader of the Opposition to visit China. We know of the famous Tasmanian conference where the Prime Minister of the day decided to be highly critical. We know that subsequently on the eve of the delivery of this speech the former Prime Minister discovered that the American President also was going on the China trail. Those things have all changed today and relations with China have been normalised. We have no troops committed in Indo-China and we are in the happy situation where, generally speaking, Australia’s relations are improving continually in the Asian sphere.

In his speech the Governor-General referred to the creation of an independent united Papua New Guinea. Since 2nd December and, more particularly, since the appointment of the Minister for External Territories, there has been a continuing process of giving to Papua New Guinea the indepen dence for which it so bravely worked over so many years. By the end of this year there will be very little control by the Australian Government over the affairs of Papua New Guinea. The Governor-General then referred to the importance of the Commonwealth of Nations as an active instrument for justice and peace and for political, social and economic advancement throughout our region as well as in Africa and the Caribbean. Today a vast difference can be seen in this area because Australia now pursues an independent role. Our delegates to the United Nations and its various agencies no longer look over their shoulders to see which way Big Brother is voting.

Senator Hannan:

– They look at China first.

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 suppose if the honourable senator were running the United Nations it would be a different story. 1 want to make the point that the United Nations was conceived in a spirit of peace. The ambition of all of its original conferences was to see that war did not come to this world again, but if hostilities did break out it was intended that the agencies of the United Nations Organisation be used to dampen them down and eliminate them. I think it is significant that at various times some members of the Opposition have spent much of their time and energies decrying the United Nations Organisation. They say that it has come under left wing control in the way that the World Council of Churches has come under left wing control. It is a case of looking for the old bogy under the bed every night. This Government will give all its support to the United Nations, and we believe that it is the duty of every so-called free country to see that this great world organisation carries out the job which it was set up to do. The Governor-General went on to refer to the fact that Australia had now ratified the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons on or under the sea bed. Although the Opposition when in government did give some sort of approval in principle to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, it never ratified that Treaty because it wanted to leave the back door open in case it should be necessary at any stage to stockpile nuclear deterrents of some form or other.

I think we ought to take this opportunity to look at this particular field. We know that so far as nuclear tests in the Pacific are concerned there has been great danger to residents in this country. The Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) on his recent visit to Paris made a very strong case for cessation of the tests and at this stage I am not prepared to say that those attempts were unsuccessful. In the last 3 or 4 days the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions carried unanimously a resolution to oppose France’s continuation of the tests. Again on an international level, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had successful talks with leaders of the British Parliament.

In August 1967 I raised publicly, for the first time so far as I know the question of the amount of nuclear fallout on Australia and quoted figures for various areas. It was conclusively shown at that time that elements such as strontium 90, iodine 131 and other elements included in fallout were heaviest on the Atherton Tableland in north Queensland, some 10 or 20 times heavier than on, say, Launceston or Melbourne. Those with long memories might recall that at that time a gentleman named Titterton, who was the then Government’s adviser, said that the statements made were quite foolish and were not consistent with fact. But it was equally significant that in the next year and the year following it was not possible to get from the Government of the day the amount of fallout because, it said, the layman would not understand it. I now appeal to the Attorney-General to publish in layman’s language at the first opportunity the amount of fallout measured at the various monitoring stations in this country and a description of the various elements of it, because at long last a body of scientists is prepared to say that damage is being done to Australians and to other people in the Pacific area from the fallout from the French tests. It is no longer unpopular to protest but it will be darned dangerous if we do not protest and if nothing is done to stop the tests. I was amazed to hear Senator Carrick ask at question time today for details of the actual fallout in Australia. I think he would do well to remember, as would other members of the Opposition, that it was the former government which took all possible measures to suppress information concerning fallout from the French tests. I am hopeful that the proposed approach to the International Court of Justice will be successful if all other measures fail. But if the approach to the International Court of Justice is also unsuccessful then in the name of humanity and for the sake of our unborn children, and in particular the tiny children of today we ought to take other measures, and if a ship is to sail into the area of the French explosions, I for one will volunteer to sail on it. I believe that Australians ought to have the courage of their convictions, particularly those who live in the high rainfall areas where the most damage is being done.

Let me return to other aspects of the Governor-General’s Speech. At page 5 of the printed document the Governor-General referred to the wide ranging series of measures to improve Australia’s social security system. We would do well to run through some of the points made in that section of the Speech. Firstly, the means test will be ended during the current Parliament. On this one aspect alone we saw 20 years of inaction and it was not until the Opposition, then the Government prior to 2nd December, found itself going down the political drain that it decided to try to match Labor Party policy. But only the Labor Party consistently over many years had said that this country could abolish the means test. The Governor-General went on to say that all Australians entitled to social security payments may receive them wherever they choose to live without the need for reciprocal agreements with other countries. Mr President, tonight we have seen introduced into this chamber 2 Bills to do just that.

The Governor-General said also there would be twice-yearly increases of $1.50 each in the basic rate of pensions until they reached 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The first $1.50 has already been granted and made retrospective to the first pay period after 2nd December. When in opposition the Labor Party continually asked that the Budget increases be made retrospective to the date of the Budget, and equally regularly we were told that this could not be done because of various accounting procedures and all the other things that tied it up. In other words because of red tape or because the Government of the day was too mean to allow pensioners to obtain increases as they were announced in the Budget, invariably the increase was paid in the first or second pay day in October even though the Budget was delivered in August. However, in the name of humanity the Australian Labor Party Government decided to make these payments retrospective so that every pensioner in this country was able to receive the $1.50 increase not from the date when it went through both Houses of the Parliament. But restrospectively to December of last year.

Next, the Governor-General referred to the fact that a National Hospitals and Health Services Commission will be established to survey and develop regional co-ordination of health care delivery. In this chamber during, I think, the first week of the current session I raised certain problems associated with the run down health scheme in Queensland, and virtually the only public reaction from the State Minister of Health was his statement that this was part of a plan to downgrade the Queensland hospital system. It cannot be downgraded further. It has been allowed to run down over a period of 14 or 15 years until today it is one of the worst hospital systems in any State of Australia. There are hospitals without doctors, hospitals with insufficient staff and hospitals with operating theatres that ought to have gone out with the ark. There are conditions of employment for hospital staffs that have to be seen to be believed.

Here I should like to make another brief reference to the Townsville General Hospital on which some of my speech on that occasion was centred. I am advised that in the maternity section there is an allocation of napkins for babies which is set at about 300, and that when the tiny babies run out of napkins the nurses have to tear up old sheets or tea-towels or something else to use in place of napkins. Who decides what the quota of linen will be for the maternity section? Apparently it is the hospital Secretary. So the whole system is very outmoded. I have the very greatest admiration and respect for the medical profession who staff the so-called free hospital organisation in Queensland and for the nurses who act as very good back stops for the medical profession. We cannot blame the matrons or the hospital superintendents. As in a lot of other cases, one must go to the top of the tree. With a State government Minister for Health administering short sighted policies and a worn out State Government, we cannot expect anything better. The sooner something can be done by the Commonwealth so far as my State is concerned, the better off we will be.

In another great field of social endeavour the new Labour Government has set off at a very smart pace to up grade the standards of living for Aborigines. Perhaps I should quote the paragraph from the Governor-General’s Speech which deals with this matter:

My Government recognises that the worst social inequalities, the worst poverty and the worst health problems bear upon the Australian Aboriginal people. In attempting to remove this national shame, my advisers seek the co-operation of the State Governments. They will not, however, permit any State Government or State agency to frustrate the clear will of the Australian people recorded so overwhelmingly in the 1967 Referendum that the national Government should assume constitutional responsibility for Aborigines and Torres Strait islanders. My advisers will not hesitate to use these full constitutional powers granted by the Australian people in asserting and establishing the national will on this matter.

Among many measures already announced, my Government will give priority to establishing Aboriginal land rights and to ensuring that Aborigines are truly equal before the law.

I will refer to that last paragraph first. Already an inquiry is being conducted into the restoration of tribal lands to Aborigines and islanders of this country. It is not a question of whether they will receive restoration but the manner in which they will receive it.

Senator Jessop:

– How was the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs received on the Torres Strait islands? Was he received with open arms?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I think the honourable senator believes a couple of isolated newspaper reports. It is probably all that he can read and it is probably all that he wants to believe. Let me say quite clearly and unequivocally that so far as the tour of the Torres Strait islands by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Bryant) was concerned, it was politically successful and successful from the point of view of the islanders. But an attempt was made to sabotage it by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. I am pleased to be able to say that the attempted sabotage was not successful. Perhaps we might just dwell on that matter a little further for the enlightenment of the honourable senator.

This area was a matter for discussion in an urgency motion moved by the Opposition in the Senate, I think a few weeks ago. It is true that the Premier of Queensland visited the Torres Strait islands areas some weeks ago. I think that it is equally true to say that he had never heard of Boigu Island, Dauan Island or Saibai Island until he had a fear that this territory was going to be part of Papua New

Guinea. This area has high prospects in hydro-carbons. I said previously and I repeat that the Premier of Queensland had no interest in the islanders living in those areas until he became involved in this aspect of the matter. The Commonwealth Minister for Aboriginal Affairs did a’l of the things that ought to have been done by a responsible Minister. In other words, he notified the Queensland Department that he intended to make a tour of the area.

That was when the first act of sabotage of the Commonwealth Minister’s tour was instigated. It was impossible for him to be able to convey messages to islands of the Torres Strait. It was equally impossible for messages to be conveyed from island to island. But it was not impossible on a public holiday - I make this charge quite clearly - for someone to influence one of the islanders to get out a message to make sure that the chairman of an island council was not allowed to speak before the television cameras. In other words, this was a splendid opportunity for the chairman of an island council to tell the Australian public the islanders’ story in regard to the 3 islands that are in alleged dispute. But it was forbidden indirectly by the State Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs. Large sums of money have been coming from the Commonwealth, not only in the short life of our Government to date but also in the life of the previous Government prior to 2nd December 1972 for Queensland to develop such things as kindergartens, swimming pools and other such things in this area. But it was never expended. So I suggest to the honourable senator who has interjected that rather than have shots from the sideline he might have a look into his own organisation at the State level.

One of the handicaps that the Commonwealth Parliament has to face is that, in spite of the fact that it is a number of years since the 1966 referendum was conducted, the previous Government did not carry out any surveys on health, employment, housing or educational requirements for islanders or Aborigines. So the Labor Government has had to start from scratch even to compile the statistics needed to implement a proper plan. When the referendum proposal was carried in 1967 the majority of Australians voting in favour of it was substantial. It ought to have been a warning to the Government of the day at least to start forward planning. But it did not do this. We are finding this an additional handicap in implementing our own policies. It will not deter the Minister or the Labor Government from implementing the policy in full as stated in our Party platform. I think that the attempt by honourable senators opposite to write down the importance of the trip to the Torres Strait islands is merely cheap political small talk.

Senator Jessop:

– The honourable senator is being nasty now.

Senator KEEFFE:

– One does not have to be nasty to the honourable senator. It is the sort of thing that he invites on himself. It is further stated in the Governor-General’s Speech:

My Government aims to make local government a genuine partner in the Federal system. To promote financial equality between regions the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act will be amended to authorise the Commission to inquire into and report upon applications made for grants for local government purposes. Discussions will be held with the States aimed at providing local government in each State with a voice and vote in the deliberations of the Loan Council.

This is another forward move made by a forward looking Government. For years, the Labor Party in Opposition protested very loudly about the inability of the Commonwealth to provide the type of funds that were required merely to let local Government survive. In other words, it was right at the bottom of the scale. This was the place where the previous Government wanted to keep it. When the previous Government made moneys available in reasonably large sums, the tendency was to put all sorts of tags on it so that it could be used for this purpose and for that purpose and could not be touched for anything else. Invariably, the money was delivered through the various State governments. But the policy of the new Government will be to allow the third tier of Government in this country a responsible voice at the top of the scale.

Another great area that has to be covered is the field of housing generally. I am talking not only about Aborigines and islanders but also people in all sorts of low income brackets. When the new Minister for Housing (Mr Les Johnson) rejected certain plans some weeks ago there was a great outcry. I think that the first great scream came from the isolated State of Victoria. The Government iri that State said that it would not co-operate.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Is it an isolated State?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am sorry to pick on the State that the honourable senator represents. But it happens to be under the domination of a hill-billy government similar to that in Queensland. The provision of cheaper housing for people in the lower income and fixed income brackets is a must. This is something which ought to have been looked at in the last 2 decades, but it was never considered. The tendency of the previous Government was to encourage speculators and others to move into the field of housing. It was virtually impossible to obtain a housing loan from a banking organisation. But a borrower could go around the corner to a subsidiary of that same banking organisation and obtain a loan.

Let me quote the case of a family that I know. This family wished to borrow a reasonable amount to purchase a home of its own. It went to a number of banking institutions and in every instance its application was refused. That family came to a particular bank which also operated a hire purchase company. The bank refused to lend the money at 7i per cent or 8 per cent per annum, but it said to this family: ‘Go to our hire purchase company around the corner and you can have all the money that you want at 131 per cent per annum to build your house’. This shocking state of affairs was encouraged by the former Government. Regardless of what action is taken by non-Labour governments in some of the States, the Commonwealth Government will go ahead with its objective of providing cheaper housing for people and, at the appropriate time, cheaper land, too, for building.

The Governor-General also stated in his Speech:

Legislation will also be introduced to reform the system of War Service Homes, which will be known henceforth as Defence Service Homes. 1 remind members of the Opposition of the Australian involvement in the infamous war in Vietnam as a result of which, through the actions of the former Government, many Australian youngsters saw service in that country. The former Government said that it could not provide those youngsters with war service homes or with repatriation benefits. In fact, some of them were treated most shabbily when they returned to this country. There were others who were injured before they could be sent to Vietnam. They were the conscripts who were called up against their will and found themselves involved in a war about which they knew nothing but which the former Government decided would be good for their hearts and souls if they participated in it. They received nothing at all except normal Commonwealth compensation. Many of these injustices have been rectified in the brief period in which my Party has been in government. Problems in other areas will be adjusted as soon as we possibly can take action to do so.

Senator Jessop:

– When are you going to abolish the Senate?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The sooner the Senate is abolished and people like you are forced to get out and do something, the better off we will all be. Let me return to the GovernorGeneral’s Speech. The Governor-General said-

Senator Jessop:

– I think that you are holding office under false pretences.

Senator KEEFFE:

– You make an awful noise but you do not make much sense. The Governor-General said in his Speech:

The Government proposes to restore the Inter-State Commission to plan and provide modern means of communication between the States.

We have seen action in this respect already in a couple of areas, particularly in the proposed construction of the interstate pipeline. The Governor-General stated further:

As part of a continuing and comprehensive fight against inflation, the Government will establish prices justification machinery, involve the national Government in the field of consumer protection, establish a Parliamentary Standing Committee to review prices in key sectors, and strengthen the laws against restrictive trade practices.

Again I am happy to be able to say that even after this short period in government most, if not all, of those proposals are under way or are about to be established.

The Governor-General said also:

The Government will bring in early legislation to curb tax avoidance. The Government’s intentions have already been announced with respect to misuse of life insurance premiums and superannuation contributions, the purchase of company shells, capital subscribed to mining companies and the status of Norfolk Island.

My time is limited and I will not be able to go into detail with respect to those proposals. But I repeat that these are actions which the Government has already decided to take. This is an area in which decisions have been taken, committees have been set up and some legislation has been presented already.

I think it is significant that, in this chamber, there appears to be a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to hold up the passage of legislation. I do not know-

Senator Laucke:

– You have no proof of that statement.

Senator KEEFFE:

– There is no need to start crying about it because this is precisely what you have done.

Senator Laucke:

– That is incorrect.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is precisely what you have done since the first week.

Senator Davidson:

– Who took out the Bill dealing with extradition?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Action was taken to expedite its passage.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, do you think that you might restore the unruly Opposition to a little order, please? Its members cannot hear each other interjecting. I repeat the charge that there has been a deliberate attempt by some sections of the Opposition to hold up legislation in this chamber. (Opposition senators interjecting) -

Senator KEEFFE:

– How would you like a double dissolution? Would that be nice? You would enjoy that wouldn’t you? Not only has the Opposition held up vital pieces of legislation but also it has attempted to alter legislation in certain respects which are not consistent with the policies of the Opposition when the effect of such amendments on legislation is considered in retrospect. At least on every occasion when the former Opposition moved amendments to Bills which came before the Senate, there was some sort of logic and forward looking plan in its action. Its amendments were not of the type that have been moved by the present Opposition which seems merely to wish to conduct a filibustering contest to hold up the passage of legislation designed to enact the policies on which my Government was elected.

Senator Laucke:

– That is not true.

Senator Davidson:

– You are filibustering now.

Senator KEEFFE:

– You are very noisy now. You are like a camp of mynah birds. If you take a good clear look at your consciences you will see that what you say is not true.

Senator Young:

– My conscience is clear. Can you say the same?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Are you finished? I take this opportunity to commend the Government and the advisers to the GovernorGeneral for the very detailed address that was presented at the opening of this Parliament on 27th February 1973. That Speech will go down in history as one of the most forward looking policies ever documented and presented to this Parliament. As time goes on and as we have the opportunity to draft additional legislation, the Australian people who, if we take note of the opinion polls, are already well satisfied with the Labor Government, will rally even more to that Government.

Senator Young:

– Ha, hal

Senator KEEFFE:

– I see that Senator Young is enjoying great gusts of mirth over there. I might say that while he and his colleagues are prepared to come into this House, and, at question time and at other times in the course of the parliamentary day, carry on the sort of circus in which they seem to be indulging at present, they will lose even more public support. It does not matter how far ahead they forecast their punches in an effort to try to get public support for the things that they say they will do in this or in the other chamber, things do not work out like that in practice. Visitors who sit in the public galleries of this Parliament are not prepared to listen to a question time in which members of the Opposition act generally like clowns. Finally, I say again that this is merely the beginning of an era. For the comfort of members of the Opposition, I say that it is more than possible that we. will occupy the Government benches for longer than the 23 years that they were here.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I think that it is well to take some note, in the first instance, of the traditional and formal wording of the Address-in-Reply to the Speech with which His Excellency the Governor-General opened this session of the Parliament. Those words are:

We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.

It is a good thing to see the use of those words continued as a parliamentary tradition because so much is contained in the 2 sections of those lines. We express loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen and respect to her represetative in Australia.

Debate interrupted.

page 1201

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

page 1202

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

page 1202

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: POPULATION

(Question No. 34)

Senator KANE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Has the fertility rate in the United States of America dropped below the replacement rate necessary for zero population growth.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAN D - The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth Statistician has advised that statistics are not yet to hand which would enable an exact calculation of total fertility for the United States of America in 1972. However he has arrived at an approximate estimate based upon the provisional statistics issued for 1972 by the United States National Center for Health Statistics. Total fertility for 1972 was about 2,070 per thousand women. Replacement fertility, the level of reproduction con sistent with ultimate zero population growth, under contemporary conditions of mortality in the United States of America averages out to 2.11 children per woman over a life time. The figure allows for deaths among women before they reach child-bearing age, and also for the fact that slightly more males than females are born. Thus total fertility in 1972 is estimated to have been one to two per cent below replacement level. Notwithstanding, 1,294,000 persons were added to the population in 1972 due to natural increase, the excess of births over deaths. The rate of natural increase was 6.2 persons per thousand population.

The Commission of Population Growth and the American Future in its report on 27th March to the President and Congress of the United States commented ‘Even if immigration from abroad ceased and couples had only 2 children on the average - just enough to replace themselves - our population would continue to grow for about 70 years. Our past rapid growth has given us so many young couples that, to bring population growth to an immediate halt, the birth rate would have to drop by almost50 per cent and today’s generation of parents would have to limit themselves to an average of about one child.

page 1202

DEPORTATIONS

(Question No. 81)

Senator CARRICK:

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

  1. How many persons have been deported from Australia, or are under process of deportation, since this Gov ernment took office.
  2. What are the full names, nationalities or former nationalities, last places of residence in Australia and ages of the persons deported.
  3. What were the reasons for their deportation.
  4. To what countries were they deported.
**Senator DOUGLAS** McCLELLAND - TheMinister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. From the time the present Government took office until the15 March 1973, the number of persons deported and about to be deported total 128. 1. and (3) The Minister is not prepared to release the names and former addresses of the persons concerned. It is undesirable to publish those personal details which could be harmful to individuals without serving a useful purpose. However, the following tables show the nationalities, ages, last States of residence and the reasons for deportation. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The persons who entered illegally comprised mainly ship's deserters. Of these, 22 were provided with further seagoing employment by the responsible agents. The rest of those deported were without exception returned to their former homelands. {: .page-start } page 1204 {:#debate-81} ### WHEAT: EXPORTS TO RHODESIA {:#subdebate-81-0} #### (Question No. 30) {: #subdebate-81-0-s0 .speaker-KPA} ##### Senator KANE: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice: >What were the monthly exports of Australian wheat to Rhodesia for the 12 month period prior to the Government's banning of further wheat exports to that country? **Senator WRIEDT-** The Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The decision not to allow further wheat shipments to Southern Rhodesia was announced on 13th December 1972. Shipments in each of the previous 12 months were as follows: {: #subdebate-81-0-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- On 29th March 1973, **Senator Lawrie** asked me the following question without notice: 1 direct my question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Can the Minister inform the Senate when the plan to close all Australian Post Offices on Saturday mornings will be implemented? Will the Minister give an assurance to the Australian people that ample notice of Saturday morning closure will be given to those people who transact post office business on that day so that suitable alternative arrangements can be made? The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply: >There is no plan, at this stage, to close all Austraiian Post Offices on Saturday mornings. However, the cost of staffing counters at official post offices on Saturday mornings is generally very high compared with the volume of business being transacted, and this is being looked at as part of an examination of the Department's overall financial position. > >You may be assured that if a change is made adequate notice will be given. {: .page-start } page 1204 {:#debate-82} ### POST OFFICES: SATURDAY TRADING {: .page-start } page 1204 {:#debate-83} ### PRIVATE NURSING HOMES: FORM NH5 ADMISSIONS {:#subdebate-83-0} #### (Question No. 96) {: #subdebate-83-0-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are private doctors who refuse to complete the nursing home form NHS breaking any State or Commonwealth law. 1. Is there any evidence that public hospital administrators are directing resident medical officers to complete the NHS forms when private doctors refuse to do so. 2. Is there evidence that some hospital administrators are threatening honorary medical staff that they will not receive any more hospital beds for their private patients unless they comply with instructions to complete form NHS and so permit public hospitals to send patients to nursing homes. 3. If there is such evidence, what is the Minister's attitude to such actions. **Senator DOUGLAS** McCLELLAND- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. There is no evidence available to my Department that public hospital administrators are directing resident medical officers to complete the form NHS when a private doctor refuses to do so. However, Medical Superintendents of Hospitals do have a responsibility to make beds available in public hospitals for admission of urgent cases. In this regard they are no doubt arranging for NH5 forms to be completed where necessary to enable the transfer of patients from hospitals to nursing homes. 2. and (4) There is no evidence available to my Department that Public Hospital Medical Superintendents are coercing or threatening honorary medical staff. {: #subdebate-83-0-s1 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
ALP -- On 14th March, **Senator Marriott** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Secondary Industry, without notice: >Is the Minister representing the Minister for Secondary Industry able to inform the Senate whether any aspect of the Australian Government's policy has in part or in whole been responsible for the announced decision of a consortium of companies not to proceed with plans to construct in Australia a large industrial complex based on the steel industry? Would this unfortunate decision come to be classified as the worst blunder in the first 100 days of the Whitlam Administration? The Minister for Secondary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I assume that the **Senator refers** to press reports that the Australian Steel and Mining Corporation Ltd, a consortium of overseas companies, has abandoned plans for a $ 1,500m steel making project at Jervis Bay. I am informed that the decision by this Corporation was taken on commercial grounds, after the completion of a 3 year feasibility study indicated the concept as originally planned would not be economically viable. Instead the consortium has anounced proposals for the establishment of a smaller plant at Jervis Bay. It is anticipated by the consortium that the cost of this project will be $200m and that Australian companies will be invited to take up a substantial equity interest. {: .page-start } page 1205 {:#debate-84} ### ABANDONMENT OF PROPOSED STEEL COMPLEX {: .page-start } page 1205 {:#debate-85} ### AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: RESERVES {:#subdebate-85-0} #### (Question No. 145) {: #subdebate-85-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the acreage of (a) Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve, (b) Black Mountain Reserve, (c) Mount Ainslie, (d) Mount Majura, and (e) parklands in the Jervis Bay region of the Australian Capital Territory. 1. Have the acreages of these areas been increased since August 1972; if not, is any increase contemplated. **Senator WILLESEE-** The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. The acreage of the areas questioned is as follows: The areas of Mount Majura are not yet fully determined. Discussions are taking place with the NCDC at present regarding the boundary lines. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No increases have been made in acreage since August 1972. A small addition is proposed for Tidbinbilla Nature Reserve. {: #subdebate-85-0-s1 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator WILLESEE:
ALP -- On 6th March 1973, **Senator Negus** asked the following question, without notice: >I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory by stating that, contrary to the general view, although the wearing of seat belts in late model cars is now compulsory the accident rate on the roads of the Australian Capital Territory has not declined. I ask the Minister whether this is so because many motorists in the A.C.T. are able to exceed the speed limit by 10 to15 miles an hour and apparently get away with it? Does the Minister consider that the 'only way to keep speeds down and reduce accidents is to have governors fitted to vehicles of continual offenders? Does he consider that inability to control cars at speeds is one of the major causes of accidents? Would it not help reduce the accident rate if penalties included suspension of the car registration and driver's licence of second or third offenders charged with speeding. The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The seat belt restrains the user, reducing personal injury rather than preventing accidents. Given Canberra's population growth (about 30 per cent) and increased vehicle registration and driver licensing (nearly50 per cent) over the past 4 years, the death rates and the injury rates have shown a steady decrease over that period with a particuarly sharp drop in the injury rates for 1972. Some drivers in the A.C.T. as elsewhere will exceed the speed limit but research evidence indicates that fast driving is not always a causal factor in traffic accidents, though it may enhance the consequences if a crash occurs. Factors like large speed differences in a traffic stream have significant consequences. Accidents often have multiple causes including the humans involved, the vehicles they drive or rode, the roadway systems and the overall environment in which the other three elements interact. Although the applicability of speed-limiting devices for cars has been the subject of extensive study, no suitable solution has been found. There is no guarantee that the driver under punishment would not use another vehicle if his was not registered Licences are suspended on the decision of the Courts after review of individual circumstances. {: .page-start } page 1205 {:#debate-86} ### ROAD ACCIDENTS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY {: .page-start } page 1206 {:#debate-87} ### INFLUENZA VIRUS {:#subdebate-87-0} #### (Question No. 165) {: #subdebate-87-0-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- Asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization geneticist, **Dr. S.** N. Fazekas, put forward the suggestion that senior mutants of influenza virus are capable of being laboratory produced before they evolve naturally. 1. Has this suggestion been established as factual and currently practicable. 2. Will this enable the early, production of new Influenza vaccines offering greater protection or even long-term immunisation. 3. What is the progress of this work at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and elsewhere. **Senator MURPHY** - The Minister for Science has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question; {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Some scientists are satisfied that **Dr Fazekas** de St Groth's theory has been established and can be used for practical purposes, but it is not universally accepted. 2. The theory provides a basis for anticipating most changes in the virus and so producing vaccines which induce antibodies that act against mutant strains. It is important to emphasise that there are 2 types of mutant change in the influenza virus. Within a sub-type, change takes place from a junior to a more senior strain. This type of mutation, often referred as 'drift', has been duplicated in the laboratory. Changes from one sub-type to another sub-type, which take place at longer intervals of about 10 years, are referred to as 'shift'. These changes have not yet been brought about in the laboratory. All changes within a sub-type ('drift') can now be anticipated, according to the theories of **Dr Fazekas** de St Groth. Immunisation with a vaccine against a senior strain confers protection against all strains within the same sub-type that are junior to it. Only partial protection against a senior strain is given by a junior vaccine. At present vaccines cannot be produced to protect against new sub-types arising by, means of shift', as changes from one sub-type to another cannot yet be predicted. However, **Dr Fazekas** de St Groth is working on a technique that he hopes will make such predictions possible. 3. CSIRO understands that the Pasteur Institute has produced a senior vaccine which has been cleared for human use as being non-toxic and without side effects. {: #subdebate-87-0-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP -- On 15th March, **Senator Marriott** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, without notice: >Can the Minister inform the Senate whether, if problems associated with the ship 'Straitsman' are overcome and it is returned to the King Island Service, that service will include the port of Stanley on Tasmania's north-west coast on which many thousands of dollars have been spent to enable it to provide correct facilities for servicing the 'Straitsman'? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The Australian Government is deeply concerned that an adequate shipping service be provided to King Island. Steps have already been taken to achieve this end. > >On 15th March a meeting was held between representatives of the Australian and the Tasmanian Governments with a view to arriving at an agreement whereby the Tasmanian Government would be responsible for the service. Considerable progress was made to reach a mutually satisfactory arrangement and I hope the negotiations will be successfully concluded shortly. > >The proposal put to the Australian Government envisaged the Tasmanian Transport Commission operating a service between Victoria, King Island and Stanley. {: .page-start } page 1206 {:#debate-88} ### KING ISLAND SHIPPING SERVICE {: .page-start } page 1206 {:#debate-89} ### PRIME MINISTER: VISIT TO INDONESIA {:#subdebate-89-0} #### (Question No. 203) {: #subdebate-89-0-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: >Will the Prime Minister indicate the names and official duties of all persons who accompanied him during his recent visit to Indonesia. **Senator MURPHY-** The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to my answer to his Question No. 87. {: .page-start } page 1207 {:#debate-90} ### PRIME MINISTER: TRAVEL TO PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND INDONESIA {:#subdebate-90-0} #### (Question No. 87) {: #subdebate-90-0-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- Asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the cost of the aircraft chartered by the Australian Government to take the Prime Minister and his party to the Territory of Papua New Guinea and Indonesia and return. 1. Was a suitable VIP aircraft available. 2. Would it have been possible to use a VIP aircraft in conjunction with commercial international airlines where the party numbers might have exceeded the VIP aircraft's capacity. 3. What were the names of all members of the party and in what capacity did they travel. 4. What would have been the cost of travel if commercial aircraft facilities had been used. **Senator MURPHY-** The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The net cost to the Australian Government in respect of the aircraft chartered to take the Prime Minister and his party to Papua New Guinea and Indonesiais expected to be $18,300. (To compare with answer (5) it is necessary to add $1280 for the fares of those officers whose duties involved travel by commercial airlines on the forward or return journeys). 1. Yes, but see answer (3). 2. An RAAF BAC-111 aircraft could have carried the whole party but not by the most direct route and the chartered Boeing 707 provided the following advantages: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. a total saving in transit time of six hours including elmination of four refuelling stops; 1. A consequent ability to undertake more commitments in the time available; 2. Representatives of the press were able to accompany the Prime Minister throughout; 3. Increased safety deriving from use of a four engined aircraft - particularly where long journeys over water are involved. 3. Prime Minister: The Hon. E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P. **Mrs Whitlam.** Miss C. Whitlam. Minister for External Territories: The Hon. W. L. Morrison, M.P.* **Mrs Morrison.*** Distinguished Australians with Indonesian associations: The **Hon. Sir Richard** Kirby, who was Australian Representative on the United Nations Security Council Committee of Good Offices on the Indonesian Question 1947 and 1948. Lady Kirby. **Mr B.** Grant, Journalist and author of 'Indonesia' 'Foreign Affairs and the Australian Press' and 'Crisis of Loyalty'. Prime Minister's Office: **Dr P** . Wilenski, Principal Private Secretary. **Mr J.** Spigelman, Senior Adviser. **Mr E.** Williams, Press Secretary. **Mr E.** Walsh, Public Relations Officer. **Mr D.** White*. Media Officer. Miss C. Summerhayes, Personal Secretary. Miss B. Stuart, Personal Secretary to **Mrs Whitlam.** Miss L. Hore, Assistant Press Secretary. Office of the Minister for External Territories: Miss P. Warn*, Private Secretary. Officials: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: **Sir John** Bunting, C.B.E. **Mr M.** J. Wilson. **Mr B.** V. Cogan. Department of Foreign Affairs: **Mr K.** C. O. Shann. **Mr R.** A. Woolcott. Medical Officer: **Dr J.** F. Hammett. Security Officers: Sergeant B. Brown. Senior Constable R. Massey. Official Photographer: **Mr J.** Crowther. Sixteen members of the press also accompanied the Prime Minister (one to Papua New Guinea only). *To Papua New Guinea only. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. There are no direct commercial flights between Port Moresby and Jakarta and only limited connecting flights. Cost of travel Canberra/Sydney/Port Moresby / Singapore/Jakarta/Singapore/Sydney/Canberra - the most direct route but with considerable disadvantages - would have been $18,794.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 May 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19730501_senate_28_s55/>.