Senate
13 May 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1301

DEATH OF THE HONOURABLE C. L. A. ABBOTT

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate of the death on 30 April of the Honourable Charles Lydiard Aubrey Abbott who was a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Gwydir from 1925 to 1929 and from 1931 to 1937. Between 1928 and 1929 Mr Abbott was the Minister for Home Affairs. On behalf of the Senate I have forwarded a message of sympathy to the relatives of the deceased. As a mark of respect to the memory of the late honourable gentleman I invite honourable senators to rise in their places. (Honourable senators having stood in their places)

The PRESIDENT:

– Thank you.

page 1301

NATIONAL COUNTRY PARTY OF AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia Leader of the National Country Party in the Senate

– I desire to inform the Senate that the parliamentary party of which I am Leader in the Senate is now to be known as the National Country Party of Australia.

page 1301

PETITIONS

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-I present the following petition from 52 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.

Compete unfairly with private insurers.

3 ) Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Office

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I present a petition from 125 citizens of Australia praying that the Parliament reject the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.I would like the petition to be read but as it exceeds 250 words I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reason for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. 5 ) That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. 6 ) That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 1301

NOTICES OF MOTION

Government Business: Precedence

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

– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, for the remainder of this period of sittings, Government Business take precedence of General Business on Thursdays, after 8 p.m.

Days and Hours of Sitting

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

– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That, on and from Tuesday, 20 May 1975, and for the remainder of this period of sittings, the sessional orders as varied, relating to the days and times of meeting of the Senate and adjournment of the Senate be further varied as follows:

1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the days of meeting of the Senate shall be Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of each week; and that on Fridays the hour of meeting of the Senate shall be 10 a.m.; and

That, unless otherwise ordered, the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 4.30 p.m. on Fridays.

page 1302

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled:

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Cause the loss of jobs and future prospects of employees and agents of the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  2. 2 ) Compete unfairly with private insurers.
  3. 3 ) Require large taxation subsidies for a lengthy period.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and

Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.

  1. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  2. ) That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  3. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated ) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman. (4 petitions).

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable The President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Office

To the Honourable The President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. 6 ) That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Brown.

Petition received.

Assistance to Farmers in East Gippsland

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully requests that:

  1. the report before the Minister of Agriculture entitled A case for assistance to the farmers in the isolated districts of

East Gippsland’ be fully endorsed by the Australian Government as it is by us,

  1. the recommendations of the said report should be initiated in East Gippsland as soon as possible;
  2. (a) East Gippsland should be used as a test area for recommendations of the report in the 1 975-76 financial year, and that all benefits gained by East Gippsland farmers be given to all those farmers eligible for them when this scheme is introduced on a wider basis, preferably in 1976-77 financial year this section being irrelevant if the Government should decide to introduce the scheme on an Australiawide basis either this financial year, 1975-76 or next financial year, 1976-77, the earlier date being desirable;
  3. the said report be instituted in all isolated districts of Australia with regard to the particular circumstances and situation of each;
  4. the Agriculture Department publish a report indicating the feasibility or otherwise of this suggested plan in the case of both East Gippsland and all other isolated districts;
  5. pursuant to section (iv) of this petition that the Agriculture Department publish a report discussing the feasibility of the recommendations of the aforesaid report, that copies of such reports be made widely available in isolated areas in such locations as post offices and stores as soon as such a report has been completed.

Your petitioners beg that the Parliament should take immediate action in this respect.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Wriedt.

Petition received.

page 1303

VIETNAM CABLES

Notice of Motion

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the Senate censures the Minister for Foreign Affairs for knowingly misleading the Senate in relation to the contents of cables sent by the Prime Minister to the Australian ambassadors in Saigon and Hanoi.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TasmaniaLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– In view of Senator Greenwood’s motion, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1303

MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Motion of Censure

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I move:

At the heart of our system of responsible government is the accountability of the Executive to the Parliament. Ministers are members of the Parliament. They are responsible to the Parliament for the discharge of their ministerial duties. Ministers are stewards of a trust and in the Parliament they may be asked questions as to how they have discharged that stewardship. It is of the very essence of the system under which this country is governed that when questions are asked of Ministers honest answers are given. The Parliament ought not to be misled. The Parliament ought not to be lied to. The Parliament ought not to be denied that knowledge which is essential to the proper government of the country. There are ministerial tactics by which an evasion of a question may be attempted and, of course, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) is adept at that particular tactic in this chamber. There are the occasional slips of the tongue. There are the occasional mistakes. This motion takes no account of those incidents. What we are concerned with is the conduct of the Minister for Foreign Affairs when, in answers to questions on a matter of public moment, he misled the Parliament and misled the Senate, knowing that the answers he was giving were inconsistent with the facts which he had told the Senate were known to him.

The circumstances in which this matter arises are concerned with 2 cables which were sent by the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, to the Australian Ambassador in Saigon and the Australian Ambassador in Hanoi in early April of this year. We now know the text of those cables and we are able to set alongside the text the answers which the Minister gave to the Parliament at the same time as he was denying requests that these cables be tabled so that their contents could be looked at. We know that the answers which the Minister then gave are inconsistent with the text of the cables as they have now become revealed. What we have now been able to ascertain is that the Minister knowingly misled the Senate. For that the Senate must assert the authority which any House of Parliament would assert and display its displeasure and censure the Minister for his conduct.

To elaborate the matter in a detail which makes unmistakable what the Minister has done, let me refer to the facts. On 8 April of this year when the Parliament resumed the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock, asked Mr Whitlam whether representations had been made to our Ambassador in Saigon and our Ambassador in Hanoi and whether in effect the representations were the same to each side. The Prime Minister said that the representations which had been made were not in the same terms because the breaches which had been alleged by Hanoi and by Saigon were not all of the same kind. He refused to table the cables. He failed to say in answer to the question what the precise representations were. He said that they were not the same representations. He implied that one was directed towards complaining about military breaches and that the other was concerned with political breaches. He simply concluded by saying that the Government had communicated with both sides. That was the answer of the Prime Minister to the first question which Mr Peacock had asked and it was simply an indication that cables had been sent. Otherwise it was a non-responsive answer.

On the same day, during a censure debate in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister was challenged by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to place on the table of the House of Representatives the cables that would demonstrate that he had been even-handed in his dealings with breaches of the Paris agreements by the parties to those agreements. He was asked by the Leader of the Opposition to allow the Leader of the Opposition to look at those cables so that the truth and veracity of the Prime Minister could be tested. The Prime Minister had said- and this was what led to the request by the Leader of the Opposition-

We have lost no opportunity to encourage the Vietnamese parties to implement the agreements to the full, and to deplore the breaches of the agreements by both sides.

I simply say that the Prime Minister there was asserting that he had adopted an even-handed course to each of the parties.

In the same debate in the House of Representatives on 8 April Mr Peacock said that the Government was giving tacit approval to the Government of North Vietnam. He made the allegation and he did not qualify it. Secondly, he said that a cable went on 3 April stressing that the Paris Accords be implemented and that in particular article 4, chapter 12, be implemented. He also said- this was the third allegation he made- that on the same day or the day after a cable initially couched in similar terms went to Hanoi. The fourth allegation he made was that that cable went on to refer to the activities in South Vietnam as being inspired by the Provisional Revolutionary Government- the PRG. The fifth allegation he made was- he did not quote the exact words- that he understood that the cable contained words to this effect:

We understand that for public relations purposes it has to be said that pressure is being applied to the Saigon Government to get it to implement the Paris Accords.

The clear implication of Mr Peacock ‘s statement, as he went on to demonstrate, was that these cables showed that the Australian Government was adopting to Hanoi a sympathetic view which was different from the view that it was adopting to Saigon and that the protestation that the Government was even-handed was untrue. Of course he urged, as the Leader of the Opposition had urged, that the cables should be tabled so that the truth could be ascertained. That request was denied by the Prime Minister, as it was denied in this place subsequently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

On the following day, 9 April- the day after this debate had occurred and the day after the allegations had been made by Mr Peacock- the Prime Minister said in answer to a question.

  1. . I have noticed suggestions that there was some difference in the tone of the communications.

Later in the answer he said:

The communications . . . were substantially the same.

He referred to the sharp tone of the note to Saigon and he said that Mr Peacock would have been surprised to find that there was an equally sharp tone in the note to Hanoi. He concluded by saying that there was no truth whatever in the allegations that Mr Peacock had made. Very shortly that explains the position as it developed over 2 days in the House of Representatives. Those allegations were made responsibly by Mr Peacock, who is the shadow Foreign Minister in the alternative government. Those allegations were given widespread publicity, and it ought not to be regarded as of no consequence that allegations of that seriousness were made.

In this place on 9 April Senator Willesee spoke in the course of a debate which had been initiated by Senator Withers, and in a moment I will return to that debate. In this chamber on 10 April Senator Willesee was asked a question on this matter and he said that the cable informed both sides that we wanted to see the Paris Peace Accords carried out by both sides. He said that there were no major discrepancies in the cables sent by Australia to Hanoi and Saigon. He went on to indicate specifically what he thought of the allegations which had been made by Mr Peacock. I shall indicate the statements which he made. On 10 April he said:

The point that honourable senators opposite are getting at is that Mr Peacock made a very definite statement about the words that were in the cable to North Vietnam. I said last night that the Prime Minister had said that there is not one atom or truth in Mr Peacock’s statement. Honourable senators should stop basing their questions on a lie.

On 9 April, the day preceding, he had responded to a debate initiated by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers, who had made the gravamen of his charge in the course of a debate on a matter of urgency that these cables existed and that they had berated South Vietnam and had displayed an indulgent attitude to North Vietnam. Senator Withers indicated in his speech that the Government had a greater receptiveness to North Vietnam and a greater understanding of North Vietnam and was not concerned in any way to support or understand the cause of South Vietnam. That point was made, and made indelibly, by Senator Withers in the course of his speech. He said that the Government was prepared to condemn the United States of America but was not prepared to engage in any similar condemnation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The ground was set for the Foreign Minister to deny, if he was prepared to deny, the allegations by Mr Peacock which had formed the basis of Senator Withers’ charges against the Government. It ought to be recalled that the matter of urgency which Senator Withers raised drew attention to the duplicity of the Government. When the Foreign Minister replied, he was replying to a charge of duplicity. What did he say? He said:

I have seen the cables. There is not one atom of truth -

Then there was an interjection which may or may not have precluded him from finishing the sentence. He said further:

I have read them before and I have read them again this morning. The statements that have been made are quite untrue.

There ought to be no doubt as to the impact of that part of Senator Willesee ‘s speech. He was saying that the allegations- I have stated the 5 matters which were asserted by Mr Peacockwere quite untrue. Implicit also in that part of Senator Willesee ‘s speech was the implication that Mr Peacock was a liar. From what has been revealed now, it ought to be clear where the deception lies and where the misleading has occurred.

Senator Willesee ‘s conduct reveals his unfitness to hold an office which requires candour, honesty and a respect for the Parliament. He ca.culatedly misled the Parliament. Obviously when he used the words ‘I have read the cables before and I have read them again this morning’ he was knowingly misleading the Parliament. His opening words were that Senator Withers’ motion had been based on a complete untruth. He claimed that Senator Withers’ allegations and, by implication, Mr Peacock’s allegations were allegations that had been dreamed up. He said that the allegations which had been made by Mr Peacock were allegations about phoney cables. The whole impact of this speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs was that there was no truth in the matters which had been raised by Mr Peacock. The fact is that Mr Peacock illustrated what the cables subsequently revealed. I have a Press report of the cables as verified by reports by the Department of Foreign Affairs. I shall read into Hansard what each of the cables said. We said to Saigon:

We wish you to take every opportunity in discussion with members of the RVN (Government of South Vietnam) to reinforce the position expressed in the Prime Minister’s letter of 13 March to President Thieu that:

All parties in Vietnam will resume working togetherwhether within the established machinery or under new arrangements- towards a peaceful and enduring settlement in Vietnam.

A prime requirement is for the RVN to carry out in good faith the provisions of chapter 4 of the Paris Agreements, especially article 12 on the NCNRC (National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord), and chapter 5 on reunification and to state the view that until that requirement is met there is no chance of there being an early end, or even significant reduction, in the violence which is causing so much suffering.

You should also make use of the PM’s Press Statements to say (see separate telegram).

We should like you if and as circumstances permit to make this Australian position known to South Vietnamese who are not members of the Government but who might yet play an influential political role.

Please keep us informed of what you have been able to do.

I refrain from comment on that until I have read the telegram which was sent to Hanoi. This was approximately 4 times longer, which immediately suggests that there is a substantial difference, and it is quite apparent from what was said to Hanoi that it was completely different in tone. That cable stated:

We wish you to make representations as soon as possible to the DRV (North Vietnam) and PRG (the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam) at a suitable senior level to reinforce the views expressed in the Prime Minister’s letter of 13 March to DRV Foreign Minister, Mr Trinh, and to state the Australian attitude towards the present fighting in South Vietnam and the implementation of the Paris Agreements.

In addition to handing a copy of Mr Whitlam ‘s statement made today, you should say that:

We would genuinely like to see in Saigon a Government which will genuinely negotiate for reunification as provided for in the Paris agreements.

We appreciate that Thieu has given no indications that he is willing to do that, and the Australian Government understands the sense of frustration which has given rise to renewed recourse to military pressure on Thieu although it cannot condone that recourse.

In this connection, the Australian Government believes it would have a most favourable effect if the PRG were to make it clear that recent military operations had had the aim of applying pressure to secure the observance of the ignored political provisions of the Paris agreement and that the operations would cease when satisfactory assurances were offered by Saigon that these political provisions would be implemented.

We shall be urging on the Thieu Government the necessity of carrying out in good faith the provisions of chapter 4 of the Paris agreements, especially article 12 on the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord and chapter 5 on reunification.

We continue to hope that it will soon be possible for the parties to the conflict to resume working togetherwithin the framework of the Paris agreements or under new arrangements- towards a peaceful and enduring settlement in Vietnam, and that the parties to the conflict will so act as to enable the violence which is causing so much suffering to be reduced, and as soon as possible brought to an end.

You may also confirm with the DRV and PRG that the Australian Government is contributing through international organisations such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (with whom the PRG has been in contact) to humanitarian assistance throughout South Vietnam, and that the Australian Government stands ready to contribute generously to the longer term task of post-war reconstruction.

We appreciate that the foregoing approach may be interpreted by the DRV and PRG as simply an attempt to cut across an inevitable military victory. The acting Minister nevertheless considers that the approach should be made at this point of the war and notes the continuing statements to you and publicly about the PRG desire for a negotiated settlement conforming with the political provisions of the Paris agreements.

Please advise us of the DRV and PRG responses.

I am sure that from a reading of those telegrams it is so apparent that their tone is different and that the approach which the Government adopts to the Hanoi Government is a sympathetic, understanding approach which contrasts vividly with the sharpness of the curt note directed to Saigon that it is unreal to say that there were no substantial differences, as the Prime Minister has said. There was a world of difference. It was completely untrue to say that what Mr Peacock had said bore no relationship to what was in those cables so that the Minister for Foreign Affairs could truthfully say that Mr Peacock’s account was completely untrue and was based upon a lie.

Let me detail what Mr Peacock had said and let us consider what was contained in the cable. The first thing Mr Peacock had said was that the Government was giving tacit approval to the Government of North Vietnam. One might, to establish that fact, have gone through the record of answers which Ministers of this Government have given to questions about Vietnam during the period the Government has been in office. One might look to a whole host of allied activities and statements, for example the statements of 3

Ministers of this Government in the first month of their taking office about the conduct of America in relation to the Vietnam conflict. One might refer to a host of other matters. One could draw from those facts an indication of a tacit approval of the North Vietnamese cause but that, for the purpose of what we are discussing today, is delving far into history.

Let us look at what is contained in these cables, because that is where the heart of the Opposition ‘s charge against the Foreign Minister lies. In the first place, therefore, the cables clearly gave tacit approval to North Vietnam. The Government said that it understood the frustrations of North Vietnam, but it did not say anything to the effect that it understood the frustrations of South Vietnam. I would have thought that any country subjected to the aggression to which South Vietnam was subjected would have frustrations which any even-handed Government would be at least prepared to acknowledge; but the Government was not prepared to acknowledge that South Vietnam was subject to aggression, let alone that there were frustrations. The cables adopted the North Vietnamese line that President Thieu was not genuinely negotiating for reunification. It was not the view of President Thieu, but it was the view which was constantly peddled by North Vietnam and the PRG that President Thieu was not genuinely concerned with renegotiating. That was the line which the cable adopted to Hanoi. The cable did not express to South Vietnam that it appreciated that North Vietnam was wanting a military victory, which was the fact and which might at least have shown even-handedness by an appreciation of North Vietnam ‘s objectives.

The cable urged South Vietnam to refrain from continuing to breach the agreement; to do that which it was not then doing, and that was to work for reunification and the establishment of the National Council of Reconciliation and Concord. But the cable did not urge North Vietnam on its part to observe the agreement and to withdraw its additional troops from South Vietnam. In that sense there was no even- handedness. The cable told the South Vietnamese that there was no chance of an early end to the fighting until South Vietnam had done certain things. If that is not an ultimatum to South Vietnam that as far as the Australian Government was concerned it had to do certain things which it knew North Vietnam was insisting upon, then words have lost their meaning. The cable had not told North Vietnam to desist from the fighting which one might reasonably have supposed it could have done if there was a desire on the part of the

Government to be even-handed. The cable had told North Vietnam what the Government was saying to South Vietnam but it certainly did not tell South Vietnam what the approaches were that the Government was making to North Vietnam. The cables told North Vietnam that the Government was prepared to help financially for post war reconstruction, but there was no suggestion of any such offer to South Vietnam.

One might go through those cables to establish that tacit approval, and refer to a host of other omissions in what was said to South Vietnam and contrast it with what was said to North Vietnam, but the point is unnecessary. It has been done in countless newspaper editorials and it has been sufficiently evidenced by what I have already indicated. Therefore no one could reasonably say that that allegation of Mr Peacock’s was not substantially true; no one, of course, except the Minister for Foreign Affairs who is the subject of this motion of censure. The second point which Mr Peacock has made was that the cable had gone urging compliance by Saigon, but not Hanoi, with chapter 12 of article 4. It is a fact that that cable had gone and that was in fact what it had said. The third allegation was that on the same day or the day after a cable initially couched in similar terms went to Hanoi and that that cable went on to refer to the activities in South Vietnam as being inspired by the Revolutionary Government. It is quite clear that such a cable had gone. That is a fact. It is equally clear that the cable did accept the general line that it was not North Vietnam but the Provisional Revolutionary Government which was conducting operations in South Vietnam.

One has only to look at the context in which Mr Peacock spoke in the House of Representatives to ascertain that he was making the point that the Government was accepting the fiction which has been well established by those who have examined the Vietnamese scene that the Provisional Revolutionary Government was merely the tool of Hanoi, that it was merely a vast propaganda machine, and that behind the PRG were the forces of North Vietnam. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will recall that the following day, in answer to a question, he said that no one would deny that it was North Vietnamese forces which were in South Vietnam and he really did not know why anyone was asking a question about it. That indicates that as far as the Government was concerned it had accepted that there were North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam and that therefore reference to the fact that the PRG was responsible in South Vietnam is, in Mr Peacock’s words, reference to the activities in South Vietnam as being inspired by the Revolutionary Government.

One then comes to the final and possibly most significant of Mr Peacock’s allegations. He said that words were used to the effect that Australia understood that for public relations purposes it has to be said that pressure is being applied to get Saigon to implement the Paris Accords and what the cable indicates- what Mr Whitlam ‘s words indicate- is that Australia believes that it would help, that it would have a favourable effect, if the PRG were to make clear that the aim of the military operations was to pressure Saigon into implementation of the Paris Accords.

Senator Missen:

– Whether it is true or false.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Irrespective of whether it be true or false, as Senator Missen has said. The substance of what Mr Peacock said and what the cable contains is the same; that is, to use Mr Peacock’s words, it was a public relations exercise which we understood and that what was happening in South Vietnam with respect to the North Vietnamese forces was directed to pressuring the Saigon Government into accepting the Paris Accords. What the cable was saying was that we believed that it would help if it were to be made clear that the aim of the operations was to pressure Saigon into implementing the Paris Accords. For it to be said- because that was the real heart of what was involved in Mr Peacock’s allegations- that Mr Peacock was dreaming up his allegations, talking about phoney cables and saying something which was a lie, which was a complete untruth, reflects on one person only and that is the person who made those allegations about him; that is, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The cables were far from evenhanded. Encouragement was given to North Vietnam and it was encouragement which was not identified by any similar encouragement to South Vietnam.

I doubt that there has been a commentator or reporter in this country who has addressed his mind to the substance of those cables who has not drawn the conclusion that the Prime Minister misled the country and that, insofar as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has adopted in the Senate what the Prime Minister has said- that is, that there was not an atom of truth in Mr Peacock’s allegations- and has gone further and said that what had been alleged by Mr Peacock was a lie, he was compounding the offence of which commentators have adjudged the Prime Minister to be guilty. One does not have to go through a host of newspapers. The ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘, in one of its most scathing editorials that I can recall, has stated that the Prime Minister has lied to the Parliament and that he has deceived the Australian people. Even the Sydney afternoon newspapers have uniformly adopted the view that the Prime Minister made statements which have now been shown to be far from the truth.

The fact that Senator Willesee is the Foreign Minister adds to the seriousness with which the Opposition views the allegations. We are faced with a period in this nation’s history which is fraught with a peril which we sought long ago to avoid. We have seen a communist takeover of the 3 States of Indo-China in the space of a month. We have seen reports of increasing communist insurgency in Thailand and we have seen reports of renewed insurgency in Malaysia. We have heard expressed by the Prime Minister of Singapore his view of the calamity of what has happened. We are receiving increasing reports of the apprehensions in Japan and the fears of South Korea that they may face renewed aggression. In these circumstances we are faced with difficult times and there are immense problems facing this nation. It is tremendously important that, as far as it is able, this nation should face its future unitedly and with a common approach to the fact that there is a danger which we ought to be prepared to resist and do all within our power to meet and to overcome, and overcome in the way that conciliation, negotiation and discussion can permit.

For this nation to have a Foreign Minister who, in the matter of these cables, is prepared to tell the Senate something which is so far removed from the truth that no one will accept his word in similar circumstances in the future is to embark upon that future with a great concern. We believe that the requirements of the parliamentary institution necessitate that where there is a misleading such as that which has occurred, and in the circumstances in which it has occurred, we should not let the opportunity pass without castigating the Government in the most serious manner which is open to the Senate. Therefore I move the motion that the Senate censures the Foreign Minister for knowingly misleading the Senate in relation to the cables which were sent to the Australian ambassadors in Hanoi and Saigon.

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

- Mr Presi-dent, I could hardly believe my ears when in his concluding remarks Senator Greenwood, speaking presumably on behalf of his Party, used the words ‘negotiation and conciliation’ in regard to

Indo-China, when the whole of the thrust of his Government was to bring about a warlike situation in Indo-China and to bring about a military decision and not a peaceful one. Who has been talking about negotiation and conciliation over all the years of this terrible war? It has been the Australian Labor Party that has done that and it has been fought all the way by the previous Government, now the Opposition.

If honourable senators listened carefully to Senator Greenwood they will know that he used words such as ‘the impact of what happened’, ‘it was inferred from what Senator Willesee said ‘, it was inferred from what Mr Peacock said’, ‘it was inferred from what the Prime Minister said’. In the course of my speech I will quote exactly what Mr Peacock said and exactly what I said about what Mr Peacock had said. When I stated that what Mr Peacock had said was based on a lie, it was based on a lie. He had not seen the cables at that stage. He had got a leak and he had misunderstood the leak. That is very clear if honourable senators are fair minded enough to look at what Mr Peacock said- not what he inferred, not what I inferred, not what the Prime Minister inferred. Senator Greenwood said that the cables ‘were telling the Government of North Vietnam ‘, ‘were telling the Government of South Vietnam’. The cables did not tell the governments anything. The letters told the governments what they should do. What the cables did was to instruct our ambassadors how to follow up the letters. Indeed, that is the deceitful part of what Senator Greenwood is putting up. He is an intelligent enough man to know the difference between a letter between governments and cables sent to our ambassadors.

The allegations concerning cables and other communications with Hanoi and Saigon originally raised by Mr Peacock in the House of Representatives on 8 April were revived by publication of the text of the cables in the Melbourne Age’ of 29 April. The ‘Age’ report suggests that its publication of the cables shows that previous statements by the Prime Minister and by me relating to the cables are ‘not correct’. The quote from Mr Whitlam on which the ‘Age ‘ and Opposition critics rely is as follows- and I quote Mr Whitlam ‘swords:

Of course I have noticed suggestions that there was some difference in the tone of the communications I sent to Hanoi and Saigon.

Later on Mr Whitlam said:

  1. . there is no truth whatever in the allegations that the honourable member for Kooyong has made. He has even purported to quote from a cable. The quotation which he purports to make is inaccurate.

And that is true. What the Opposition and the Age’ have attempted to do is to separate the cables of 2 April from the Prime Minister’s letters of 13 March. However, as both the cables make clear, their principal purpose- and it was stated in the first paragraph of each- was to reinforce the position expressed in the Prime Minister’s letter of 13 March’ to each party. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister was referring to both letters and cables when using the word ‘communications’. Both the ‘Age’ and the Opposition conveniently ignored what the Prime Minister said in answer to a question by Mr Peacock on 8 April referring again to the communications to Hanoi and Saigon. The Prime Minister said:

There have been communications certainly in the last 3 to 4 weeks but there were also communications 2 years ago in the middle of 1973 and they have been to both sides. They are not in the same terms because while it is true that there have been gross breaches of the Paris Accords by both North and South Vietnam and by the Provisional Revolutionary Government and perhaps by the United States of America, nevertheless the breaches have not been all of the same kind.

I repeat that the Prime Minister said there that there was a difference in the cables and he gave the reasons. Let me repeat again what the Prime Minister said about the communications. He said:

They are not in the same terms.

Taken together the 2 communications to Saigon and the 2 communications to Hanoi are indeed substantially the same’- that is, they are the same in substance. The texts have now appeared widely in newspapers and there is no question that some people, including members of the Opposition, are determined to cling to the admitted fact that they are not identical as meaning that they are not the same in substance. All reason and logic will not change their preconceived and prejudicial view.

A great deal has been made of the sentence in the cable to Hanoi which reads:

We appreciate that Thieu has given no indications that he is willing to do that and the Australian Government understands the sense of frustration which has given rise to renewed recourse to military pressure on Thieu although it cannot condone that recourse.

Much criticism has been made of the word understands’ although Opposition spokesmen frequently tend to leave off the final phrase which reads ‘although it cannot condone that recourse’. The Opposition contends that the word ‘understands’ represents Australian approval of North Vietnamese actions. Perhaps if I were to make an analogous statement about events a little closer to home it might display the absurdity of the Opposition’s position. If I say that ‘I understand the sense of frustration at being out of office which gives rise to members of the Opposition making untruthful statements in an attempt to undermine this Government although I cannot condone that recourse’, would any person seriously believe that my use of the word ‘understand’ in that context means that I approve of the contemptible course of action that the Opposition is presently engaged in? Of course not. My statement makes it clear to anyone with even a modest grasp of the English language that I do not- I repeat ‘not’- condone the action that I have described, as indeed the Prime Minister made it quite clear that the Australian Government did not condone the recourse to military action undertaken by the North Vietnamese and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.

Further criticism has been levelled at the section of the cable which says:

The Australian Government believes that it would have a most favourable effect if the PRG were to make it clear that recent military operations had had the aim of applying pressure to secure the observance of the ignored political provisions of the Paris agreements and that the operations would cease when satisfactory assurances were offered by Saigon that these political provisions would be implemented.

It is suggested that this particular statement represents advice to the PRG as to the way in which it might conduct a public relations campaign. Of course this interprets the statement as meaning that the PRG should make it clear to the world at large. In fact it is obvious that this suggestion, which was designed to stop the fighting and bloodshed, had to be made clear in the first instance to the Government in Saigon. However, the Opposition has never shrunk from basing any campaign on misconstruction of Government statements. The Opposition has been keen to ignore the statement which says:

  1. . the foregoing approach may be interpreted by the DRV and the PRG as an attempt to cut across an inevitable military victory.

If Opposition claims that we support Hanoi were correct we surely would not have been making any such approach but would have been refraining from doing anything which might have impeded military victory. Further evidence of our desire to stop the fighting and support the implementation of the Paris Peace Agreements was indicated by my reaction to a statement issued on 9 April by President Giscard d ‘Estaing of France who said:

To put an end to the suffering of the South Vietnamese people … to allow it to preserve the characteristics to which it is attached, there exists no solution other than the urgent application of the provisions set out in Article 12 of the Paris Accords envisaging the undertaking of a political solution and which stipulates: in a spirit of conciliation and without seeking mutual elimination. This solution requires the setting up of a national council of reconciliation composed of 3 equal parties. For this procedure to take place political authority must be exercised in Saigon exclusively by persons who make known their will to carry it out. Refusal to make the changes necessary to begin the search for the only political solution henceforth possible, whatever the obvious difficulties, will result only in the misfortune of the Vietnamese people and the disappearance of the chances which remain for it to preserve the diversity of its beliefs and characteristics.

Because of my concern for the necessity to help stop the fighting I issued the following statement the next day. Let me quote it in full. It is headed The Paris Agreements’ and states:

The Foreign Minister, Senator Don Willesee, said today that the Australian Government welcomed President Giscard d ‘Estaing ‘s call in Paris on 9 April for the urgent application of Article 12 of the Paris agreements. This article provides for the establishment of a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord in South Vietnam.

Senator Willesee said that the Australian Government had consistently called for the implementation of the political provisions of the Paris agreements, particularly Article 12, as well as for the implementation of the military provisions of the Agreements.

He recalled that the Prime Minister had made clear Australia’s position in respect of breaches of the Paris Agreements in his letters of 13 March to President Thieu and Foreign Minister Trinh. These positions had been reemphasised in telegrams to Saigon and Hanoi early in April.

Senator Willesee reaffirmed the Government’s hope that the parties to the conflict will soon resume working towards a peaceful and enduring settlement.

There has already been too much bloodshed, misery and destruction’, Senator Willesee said. ‘The sooner the parties respect all aspects of the Paris agreements, the sooner this human tragedy will end ‘.

I now come to the demand by the Opposition spokesman for foreign affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock, that I should resign on the basis that I have misled and deceived the Parliament. I can only say that Mr Peacock bases his charge on 3 statements I made in the Senate. The 3 statements as set out in Mr Peacock’s call for my resignation are as follows: On page 853 of Hansard of 9 April 1975 this statement appears:

I have seen the cables. There is not one atom of truth–

At page 854 of Hansard of 9 April 1975 this statement appears:

I have read them before and I have read them again this morning. The statements that have been made are quite untrue.

At page 931 of Hansard of 10 April 1975 this statement appears:

I said last night that the Prime Minister had said there is not one atom of truth in Mr Peacock’s statement. Honourable senators should stop basing their questions on a lie.

Mr Peacock’s statement then went on to say:

It is now quite clear who was telling the lie.

Mr Peacock is particularly adept at quoting out of context. It will be seen that the person guilty of deception is Mr Peacock and not I. Let me put the quotations in context. The first one makes it quite clear that I was referring to a quotation which Mr Peacock had made the previous day in the House of Representatives. He said:

I submit that further on in this cable words to this effect are used: ‘We understand that for public relations purposes it has to be said that pressure is being applied to the Saigon Government to get it to implement the Paris Accords: ‘

That is what he said and not what he inferred, as Senator Greenwood tried to say. He said that in the cable these words or words to this effect were used:

We understand that for public relations purposes it has to be said that pressure is being applied to the Saigon Government to get it to implement the Paris Accords.

In referring to that particular statement by Mr Peacock, I said:

The purported quotation from the cable is just plain wrong.

It is wrong. One cannot find anything like those words in the cables that we sent to our ambassadors. Now I add the Peacock quotation. After I had said: ‘The purported quotation from the cable is just plain wrong’, I said, as Mr Peacock has quoted:

I have seen the cables. There is not one atom of truth -

At that stage Senator Sim interjected, which is not unusual, and my sentence was never finished: The next quotation was again a reference to Mr Peacock’s purported quotation of the words appearing in the cable. In context it reads:

I have seen these cables. I say that those words did not appear in those cables.

What is deceitful about that? What is wrong about that? Those words do not appear in the cables. Then I said what Mr Peacock has quoted me as saying, namely:

I have read them before and I have read them again this morning. The statements that have been made are quite untrue.

They are untrue. It does not matter how one looks through the cables, those words or words to that effect do not appear in the cables. The last quotation refers to the words which Mr Peacock purported to quote from the cable to Hanoi. In context the quotation is as follows:

The point that honourable senators opposite are getting at is that Mr Peacock made the very definite statement about the words that were in the cable to North Vietnam.

Then Mr Peacock’s quotation comes in again:

I said last night that the Prime Minister had said that there is not one atom of truth in Mr Peacock ‘s statement. Honourable senators should stop basing their questions on a lie.

They were basing their questions on a lie. I repeat that those words or words to that effect do not appear in the letters or in the cables. At no stage did we ever say or intimate that we were merely sending a cable or instructions to South Vietnam for the purposes of publicity. Honourable senators will recall that the last time the Opposition called for my resignation was over the Ermolenko affair. Perhaps I should remind honourable senators that far from being a matter for resigning, my actions in that affair led not only to Mr Ermolenko now being present in Australia but also to his parents being here. Indeed, it permitted concert goers in Melbourne last week to hear the Ermolenkos, father and son, play a Bach double violin concerto at a very successful concert. I can only say that this call for my resignation by Mr Peacock has even less basis than the previous call for my resignation over the Ermolenko affair.

I want to make it clear by way of summary that in dealing with this matter of the communications to Hanoi and the communications to Saigon and deciding whether they were substantially the same, it is important to realise that one may consider the letters of 1 3 March separately, or the letters of 13 March combined with the cables of 2 April together, but one cannot do what both the Opposition and the ‘Age’ newspaper have sought to do; that is, to consider the cables of 2 April whilst disregarding the letters of 13 March. The cables contained supplementary instructions to the Australian ambassadors based clearly on the foundation of the letters addressed to the Ministers. The fact that the letters are the basis for the cables is explicitly stated in the first paragraph of each cable. That is the crux of the matter. Whilst I do not expect an Opposition blinded by prejudice to accept this, I am sure that the Australian public will have no difficulty in appreciating it.

In a more general sense, the thrust of the Labor Party’s policy, both in Opposition and in government, has been to stop the fighting and to get negotiations under way. Equally, the thrust of the policy of the Liberal and Country Parties has been quite the opposite. As a government they denounced all negotiations and encouraged every escalation of the war. In this sense, and this sense alone, the policies of the Opposition succeeded; ours failed. We always sought a political settlement. We were urging it 3 weeks before Saigon fell. We failed. For as long as they held power the Parties opposite sought a military solution. They have now got it.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– This is one of the most serious matters that have come before the Senate, certainly in my time here. It is a matter which the ‘Sydney

Morning Herald’ described as the gravest political scandal since Federation. Nothing that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) has said has in any way altered the impact of what the censure motion contains. Indeed, the facts given in his explanation convict him out of his own mouth. The circumstances are that over a period of some months the Opposition has alleged that the Government was using double standards- that it was using double standards in the Middle East and in Vietnam- and that privately it was pursuing a pro-communist line in Vietnam while claiming publicly that it was being even-handed.

Against that background a member in another place, Mr Andrew Peacock, asserted that 2 cables sent to Vietnam- one to Hanoi and the other to Saigon- on 2 April were diametrically opposed in their content. To that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) responded that the cables were substantially the same. The Prime Minister had drafted those cables in his role then as the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon his return to Australia, picked up his task as Foreign Minister and was fully aware of the dialogue of the Prime Minister and of the Prime Minister’s statement and commitments. The Prime Minister had stated repeatedly during the days beforehand that there had been a totally even-handed policy as between Hanoi and Saigon and that the cables of 2 April were substantially the same.

It was against that background that Senator Withers raised a matter of urgency in this Senate, and Senator Willesee responded. The whole tenor of Senator Withers’ argument was that the 2 cables were not substantially the same. The whole tenor of the Minister’s reply was that they were the same. Senator Willesee, as the Foreign Minister, stood in this chamber and supported his Prime Minister in an argument that the 2 cables were substantially the same, that they were the same in substance. If Senator Willesee had known, as he must have known, the contents of the cables- indeed, he said that he had read them and re-read them- it was his duty as the Foreign Minister to indicate to this Senate the differences in the cables, if such differences existed, but he remained silent on the differences. He sustained the Prime Minister’s conspiracy. He maintained the Prime Minister’s argument and assertion that the 2 cables were substantially the same. Let there be no doubt about what the Prime Minister said. I quote from page 1358 of Hansard of 9 April:

The communications I sent to Hanoi and Saigon were substantially the same.

That is plain language- quite plain language. When the contents of the cables were revealed, they were seen to be diametrically opposed. The whole of Senator Willesee ‘s response to the matter of urgency raised by Senator Withers was to support the assertion by the Prime Minister that the 2 cables were the same. When their contents were revealed, one thing became clear. The first cable, the cable to Hanoi- a very lengthy cable, a cable couched in fulsome, warm, supporting languagewas a cable urging on the Hanoi Government and giving it advice as to how best to present bloody murder in the terms of a public relations exercise. This cable bore no resemblance to the second cable. The second cable was a brief cable- roughly 100 words, by contrast with approximately 800 words. It was a berating cable based on entirely false premises.

An examination of the cables reveals that the Prime Minister could not have distorted the facts more. In the Saigon cable he berated the South Vietnamese Government for a breach of the Paris Agreements and for failure to continue the talks. Yet the Prime Minister knew- his Department of Foreign Affairs knew- that the breakdown of the talks had been caused by Hanoi, by the PRG, not by South Vietnam. He deliberately wrote a distortion, an entire untruth, into the Saigon cable. He knew also- his Department had advised and had published- that the primary breach of the Paris Agreements was by the North. The Department of Foreign Affairs publishes a document called ‘International Issues’. In the edition dated 30 January this year, which must have been known to the Prime Minister and approved by him, there is an article headed ‘Vietnam: Two years under the Paris Agreements’. This article is a severe condemnation of the North as the aggressor and as the major factor in the breach of the Paris Agreements. I read one paragraph under the subheading ‘Paris Agreements’ to illustrate this point:

Neither side has been blameless in violating the provisions of the Agreements, but in the cease fire aspect the head of the Canadian contingent (which preceded the Iranians) on the International Commission of Control and Supervision (ICCS) laid almost all the blame for cease fire violations on the NVA/PRG forces.

That is a clear statement from the Department and from the International Commission of Control and Supervision. The fact is that the International Commission and the Department said that the main breach of the cease fire and therefore the main cause of the aggression was by the North. If one reads this document one finds chapter after chapter indicating the breaches of the Paris agreements. Yet the only side that was berated, and berated severely, for a breach of the Paris agreements was the side that was virtually blameless. Let us look at the Paris agreements so we can get in true perspective the 2 cables which are so diametrically opposed in substance. I shall read from the document itself. It states:

A ceasefire shall be observed throughout South Vietnam as of 2400 hours GMT on Jan. 27, 1 973.

Article 3 states:

The parties undertake to maintain the ceasefire and to ensure a lasting and stable peace.

Paragraph (b) states:

The armed forces of the two South Vietnamese parties shall remain in place.

Can there be any greater breach of the Paris agreements than the breach by the North, the Vietcong or the Provisional Revolutionary Government, which instead of remaining in place pursued a murderous aggression from the ceasefire positions to Saigon itself? Article 7 lays down the methods of enforcement of the ceasefire and then allows for periodic replacement of armaments, munitions and war material on a one for one basis. Does the cable at all berate the North for the fact that it breached that Article severely? On the contrary. All the berating is of the South. Does the Prime Minister point out that at the time the ceasefire occurred approximately 145 000 Vietcong or PRG troops were in the ceasefire positions and that at the fall of Saigon that figure had escalated to approximately 600 000? Does the Prime Minister point out that from Russia and China heavy amounts of armaments and munitions- much more than replacement amounts- had come to help in the fall of the South, all in breach of the Paris agreements? In the face of this what does the Prime Minister do? Incredibly enough, all these matters are set out in the Department of Foreign Affairs document which points out the breaches by the North in terms of escalation of troops and armaments, the breaches of the observance of the ceasefire lines and the breaches in terms of talks. Quite contrary to this document and to the Paris agreements generally the PRG insisted that it would have no talks at all with the South until there was a resignation of Thieu and until all American support had been completely removed from the South. It was clear that Russian and Chinese support would continue but that support from America, even on a one for one basis, must cease.

The cable which was sent to Hanoi is approximately 800 words in length. What does it do? First of all, it indicates rather apologetically that the Government may feel that what it is saying may interrupt an outright military victory. It is an apologia. The Paris peace talks sought to enforce a ceasefire at the stop lines of January 1973. But apologetically the Whitlam Government says: We hope that it will not be taken that we are trying to interrupt an outright military victory’. The cable does not mention the basic breaches by the PRG, its escalation of men or armaments or its aggression, except by using some wonderful euphemisms. It mentions the PRG’s sense of frustration. What about the sense of frustration of the millions of people in South Vietnam who were encircled by the aggressors from the North and subjected to bloody murder? What an apologia for the North- ‘a sense of frustration’! The cable then gives some gratuitous advice as to how the PRG might seek to explain to the world why it was breaching the Paris agreements and why it was driving with its full military forces on to Saigon. It is important to notice that it states:

In this connection, the Australian Government believes it would have a most favourable effect if the PRG were to make it clear that recent military operations had had the aim of applying pressure to secure the observance of the ignored political provisions of the Paris agreement -

Does anybody believe that the purpose of the PRG was to put pressure on the South to observe the Paris agreements? That is what the public relations exercise was supposed to be. The Whitlam Government knew that was not true because in a document of its own publication it set out the untruth of that. The Whitlam Government knew that the breach of the peace talks happened because the PRG had decided that it would not continue with the peace talks, that there would be no peace talks because the PRG was going to set terms in conflict with the Paris agreements. But knowing this the Government, quite corruptly, dishonestly and in an utterly lying fashion, set out to put down a public relations scenario to explain away a drive of bloody murder by the euphemism of putting on political pressure. Honourable senators should not forget what the Government said. I read precisely what it said: . . the Australian Government believes it would have a most favourable effect if the PRG were to make it clear that recent military operations had had the aim of applying pressure to secure the observance of the ignored political provisions of the Paris agreement -

Here was an utterly dishonest and an utterly corrupt situation. Nowhere in the other cable was there any reference to this. They are 2 utterly dissimilar cables. This situation applies right through the cables. What does the cable to Hanoi say? It berates Hanoi and says ‘You must observe the Paris agreements’ as if it is doing any wrong when it is the PRG that has called off the talks. The cable continues:

A prime requirement is for the RVN to carry out in good faith the provisions of chapter 4 of the Paris agreements, especially article 12 of the NCNRC (National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord), and chapter S on reunification and to state the view that until that requirement is met there is no chance of there being an early end, or even significant reduction, in the violence which is causing so much suffering.

The simple fact of the matter is that if there were to be a direction of that injunction it should have been to the North and not to the South, because it was the North and not the South that was causing the breach of the peace talks.

Senator Wriedt:

– I think you had better read your pinks because you were talking about the cable to Hanoi and not Saigon.

Senator CARRICK:

-I read the cable to Saigon and I read part B of the cable to Saigon. I will present it to the Minister, if he wishes, to show that the cable was in fact to Saigon and not to Hanoi.

Senator Wriedt:

– You said Hanoi the first time.

Senator CARRICK:

-If I did I am sorry. I referred to the cable to Saigon.

Senator McLaren:

– You cannot always believe the newspapers you read.

Senator CARRICK:

– It is very fortunate that because of a newspaper the truth was revealed. It hurts the Government at this moment that the truth was again revealed by newspaper action. At this point it becames quite clear that on analysis the 2 cables are certainly not substantially the same. It is quite clear that in substance they are totally different. In substance there is this brief, irritated, irritable cable to Saigon growling at Saigon because it is not doing what this Government says it should do, even though the Government knows that Saigon cannot do it and is not to blame. In the other cable there is a series of statements which the Government knows to be lies because its own Department says they are lies. Its own Department publishes information proving that the Government is lying. The Government, knowing this, corruptly uses the information to show its full support.

Why did the Government want to hide these 2 cables? It wanted to hide them for a very simple reason. It is not just the lie itself that is important in this respect but also the purpose of the lie because this cable reveals that not only the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, but also the whole Government have been and are supporting a pro-communist foreign policy at its fullest possible pressure. The real situation is that the lie has been stated in order to cover up the fact that massive pro-communist partisanship has been shown by the Government. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has said: ‘But you must go beyond the cables. You must go to the letters of 13 March. An examination of the letters of 13 March will show that they were different in substance. In any case the whole of the debate of early April was on one thing- whether the Government sent identical or substantially identical cables to Hanoi and Saigon- to which the Government has responded: “We did. They were substantially the same”.’ The Minister for Foreign Affairs has given his support to the claim that they were substantially the same.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs was wordpicking in his contribution to the debate. I will come to that in one moment. But the Minister for Foreign Affairs has remained silent and has not denied what the Prime Minister has said. By his silence he has supported the Prime Minister’s claim that the 2 cables were substantially the same. As a senior Minister, as the person in charge of such an important portfolio, it was his bounden duty if he had known- if it had become known to him- that the Prime Minister had misled the Parliament and that it was an untruth to say that they were the same, to rise in this Parliament and to tell the public what was the substance of the cables. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has said that he has read them and reread them. He has clearly remained silent about them. So he is utterly guilty- he is well deserving of the fullest censure on this basis alone- of supporting the Prime Minister in the Prime Minister’s total deception. Incidentally, the Minister for Foreign Affairs is culpable also of a lack of even-handedness in supporting a policy which now has been revealed as being pro-communist and far from even-handed.

Let us examine the substance of what Senator Willesee has said. He has said: ‘I did not tell an untruth about what Mr Peacock had said’. Mr Peacock came back and said that 2 cables were sent early in April and that the cables were substantially different. In response to that statement both Mr Whitlam and Senator Willesee said: That is not true. They were substantially the same’. Mr Peacock went on to say, as reported in Hansard:

I submit that on the third of this month a cable went to Saigon stressing that the Paris Accords be implemented and that in particular article 4, chapter 12, be implemented. This deals with the establishment of the National Council for National Reconciliation and Concord. I submit further that probably on that day or on 4 April a cable, initially couched in similar terms, went to Hanoi but that that cable which would have been received on either 3 April or 4 April in North Vietnam went on to refer to the activities in South Vietnam being inspired by the Provisional Revolutionary Government.

Let us examine that statement. Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) deny that the statement that Mr Peacock made then is absolutely true? In the cable to Saigon there was a precise requirement that the Paris Agreements, especially article 12 in relation to the National Council for National Reconciliation and Concord, should be observed. Incidentally, there is no such relationship in the other cable. Mr Peacock went on to say:

I submit that further on in this cable words to this effect are used: ‘We understand that for public relations purposes it has to be said that pressure is being applied to the Saigon Government to get it to implement the Paris Accords’.

Let us examine that, because Senator Willesee said that it is wholly untrue. Senator Willesee quoted Mr Peacock’s words that for public relations purposes something must be done, words which, in effect, Mr Peacock had said were contained in the cable. What must be done? Mr Peacock stated that the cable continued:

  1. . it has to be said that pressure is being applied to the Saigon Government to get it to implement the Pans Accords.

So Mr Peacock said 3 things: Firstly, that for public relations purposes something should be done, that that something should be the application of pressure, and that it should be pressure on the Saigon Government to get it to observe the accords.

On 9 and 10 April the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that that was totally untrue and today he has said that it is untrue. Let us see what that is. What the cable stated was:

In this connection, the Australian Government believes it would have a most favourable effect if the PRG were to make it clear that recent military operations had had the aim of applying pressure to secure the observance of the ignored political provisions of the Paris agreement. . . .

What does that state? It states that ‘it would have a most favourable effect’ if it were made clear- is that not public relations- that the PRG military operations were being carried out, which is substantially the same as what Mr Peacock said, to secure the observance of the ignored Paris Agreements. So there is an identity between what Mr Peacock said and what the Hanoi cable said. Quite clearly, therefore, Mr Peacock was right in what he said and the denial of it by the Minister was utterly wrong. The Minister’s position must therefore be put quite clearly. The Minister said:

I say that those words did not appear in those cables. I have read them before and I have read them again this morning. The statements that have been made are quite untrue.

The Minister said further:

I have seen the cables. There is not one atom of truth -

Is there not one atom of truth in the statement that there should be a public relations campaign, that it should be designed to explain away a military aggression by way of pressure, that it should be designed to bring pressure to observe the Paris Accords? Not one atom of truth? Mr Peacock’s statement was identical with the Hanoi cable as such. The Minister, knowing the substance of these cables, stood in his place and told an untruth, misled this Parliament.

In any other parliament of the Westminster system a Minister who had knowingly misled the parliament would have taken the appropriate action without the need for censure by the parliament. He would have resigned because, quite clearly, knowingly to mislead a parliament and a people is the gravest possible breach of the Westminster principle, and this Minister stands convicted of that. But since the public has become perhaps somewhat complacent about Ministers of this Government telling untruths, since that has become a popular sport, let me put it in an even wider fashion. The public of Australia will find utterly untenable and utterly unacceptable a conspiracy by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to hide the Government’s pro-communist partisanship by lying to the Parliament and to the people. That is precisely what the Prime Minister did, that is precisely what the Minister for Foreign Affairs did and that is precisely why he should be censured. I therefore strongly support the censure motion.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– We have been regaled for the umpteenth time by the Opposition Parties with comments about the policies that the Australian Government has pursued, since it came to power in 1972, to seek a peaceful end to the bloody war that has raged in Vietnam for 30 years. The Government is obliged to the honourable senators opposite who have sought to suggest that it is a travesty that the Australian Government should take an attitude of even-handedness in this conflict, of endeavouring to bring this conflict to a successful and peaceful end. It is unreal for honourable senators to suggest that it should be the Government, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) who should be on trial. In point of fact, this Government has consistently made known its policy and attitude in respect of the war in Vietnam since Australia was illegally, immorally and improperly involved in the war in 1965 by the Menzies Administration.

Having read the cables and the communications between the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Saigon Government and the Government of North Vietnam I can only come to the conclusion that the Opposition parties have no policy, have no explanation and have no defence for their long standing involvement in that war. In point of fact, if we examine the cables and the letters in the context of the Prime Minister’s communication to President Thieu of 13 March and to Hanoi on 2 April we see the point is made consistently in both of those communications, as indeed it is in all of the other communications between the Australian Government and the 2 governments of Vietnam. I will quote from the text of the telegram to Hanoi of 2 April. It reads:

We would like to see in Saigon a government which will genuinely negotiate for unification as provided for in the Paris Agreements.

I find it difficult to understand the interpretation and the connotation that Opposition speakers place upon that simple statement. That communication also says:

In this connection, the Australian Government believes that it would have a most favourable effect if the PRG were to make it clear that recent military operations had had the aim of applying pressure to secure the observance of the ignored political provisions of the Paris Agreements . . .

The facts are that the Paris Agreements were signed in January 1973. They had as their aim the withdrawal from Vietnam of foreign troops with an active role. They had as their aim the eventual establishment in South Vietnam- I emphasise the words ‘South Vietnam’- of a government of national reconciliation and that government of national reconciliation was to have representatives of the Saigon Administration, representatives of the PRG and representatives of the Third Force. The sad fact is that President Thieu had his arm twisted in respect of those agreements and never from the moment of signing did he endeavour to live up to the agreements. He never sought to carry out their objectives. He never sought to apply any principles that could have brought an end to the conflict. I find it hard to understand how in the Australian context of politics the members of the Liberal and Country Parties almost without exception can maintain the same political position in respect of South-East Asia and Indo-China as they held from the moment they became involved in this war in 1964. This is quite contrary to the general political developments in all other countries. For example, in the United States Administration there was a large number of people who were described as hawks who supported the war in the very early days and in the middle stages of the American involvement in Vietnam and who subsequently publicly condemned not only their own attitude to the war but also America’s involvement in the war. For some unknown reason the Opposition parties have maintained their attitude, have failed to understand the changing situation in Vietnam and now find themselves completely on the defensive in respect of the whole of that unholy period during which Australia was involved in that war.

There is plenty of evidence to show that it was President Thieu himself in South Vietnam who was the principal offender against the Paris Agreements. For example, he did not release any political prisoners, though this was provided for in the Paris Agreements. Are honourable senators going to deny that one of the first acts of General ‘Big’ Van Minh, the last President of South Vietnam, when he came to office by unanimous decision of the South Vietnamese Parliament was to release all of the political prisoners whom President Thieu had suggested did not exist? The North Vietnamese did carry out their part of the bargain because the other part of the agreement was that the South Vietnamese were to cany out their obligations in return for the release of prisoners of war held by the North Vietnamese including American prisoners of war and all the other foreign troops who were prisoners of war.

In respect of men and equipment in South Vietnam at the end of the period which culminated in the Paris Agreements, I quote from one of the most authorative journals in the United States known as ‘Foreign Affairs’. In an article of January of this year Maynard Parker had this to say:

Almost from the moment the agreement was signed, President Thieu took to the offensive in an attempt to eradicate the communist ink spots and to confine the communists to their sanctuaries.

The staff report of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee had this to say on Vietnam in May 1 974:

In the first year after the ceasefire, it was estimated by analysts in Saigon that the PRG had lost 15 per cent of the territory it controlled in January 1973 to Saigon’s offensive, while Saigon gained control of 6.2 per cent more of the population (about 1 million persons) by its police and military operations in formerly PRG and contested areas.

Yet we still hear honourable senators such as the previous speaker in this debate, Senator Carrick, speaking as though all of the blame in respect of this conflict lies on one side. It is correct that the Prime Minister should say in his letter to President Thieu on 13 March:

The responsibility for this situation -

That is the failure to honour the Paris Accords- cannot be placed on North Vietnam alone.

Time and time again Opposition senators and to some extent some irresponsible sections of Australian newspapers have endeavoured to cloud the issue in respect of North Vietnam and South Vietnam. I refer to the Geneva Agreement to which all of the nations involved put their signature, with the exception of the United States, although it did give an undertaking at the time that it would honour a particular agreement. Section 6 of the Geneva Agreement of 1 954 says:

The Conference recognises that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Viet Nam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary.

I refer honourable senators to Article 15 (a) of the 1 973 Peace Agreement which says:

The Military demarcation between the two zones at the 1 7th parallel is only a provisional and not a political or territorial boundary, as provided for in paragraph 6 of the Final Declaration of the 1 954 Geneva Conference.

Yet time and time again in the House of Representatives, in this place and in public debate generally throughout Australia we hear arguments, distortions and lies to the effect that there are in fact 2 distinct areas in Vietnam. In my view it is the Opposition parties which should be on public trial in Australia today, not the Australian Government, not the Prime Minister and not the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to documents which have become available and were published recently in the ‘National Times’. There has been authoritative denial by any of the persons named in the documents. Most of them are still alive, including retired members of the Liberal and Country Parties, and indeed some are holding other public offices and some of course are still senior offices in the Public Service. What do those documents show? They show that Australia in 1 962 illegally sent troops to Vietnam and that that information was withheld from the Australian Parliament and the Australian people. Yet we have the spectacle of members of the Opposition trying to put this Government on trial when they themselves were guilty of years of deceit, lies and misrepresentation to the Australian people.

Not once were the Australian people told that in 1962 we had sent certain troops to Vietnam to act as instructors and so on in guerrilla warfare. An examination of these documents which have now been published has revealed that on 10 June 1964 Australian troops had most likely exchanged shots with Vietcong guerrillas. Four days later, on 14 June, in Saigon Mr Hasluck, then

Minister for Foreign Affairs, was asked would Australia send troops if the military situation deteriorated. At that time we already had troops in South Vietnam. He said that that was a hypothetical question and he was not prepared to comment. He did not have the courage nor the integrity to admit even in those days that Australian troops were involved in that country. Messrs Menzies, Casey, Barwick, Hasluck, McEwen, the late Athol Townley, the late Harold Holt, the late Senator Sir Shane Paltridge, and the public servants Tange, Waller and Scherger were the people who deliberately withheld information from the Australian Parliament and the Australian people. They are the people who ought to have been indicted in respect of the tragedy that was Vietnam. We, the Australian people and the Australian Government, were associated with that tragedy as a result of the infamous attitude of the Menzies Administration.

It is no wonder that Mr Malcolm Fraser, the Leader of the Opposition, does not want publication of the official documents of that period. The record shows that a little cave, a little inner group within the Australian Cabinet, consisting of half a dozen of the senior Ministers, knew about Australia’s involvement some months before it was reported even to the Australian Parliament. Not even all members of the Government, not even members of that Government’s parties, not even all members of the Parliament and least of all the Australian people had any understanding or knowledge of Australia’s involvement in this war. Sir Robert Menzies lied to the Australian people, he lied to his own Party and he lied to the Australian Parliament. There was gross misrepresentation and gross deceit. Today members of the Opposition have the temerity and the gall to stand here and misread the documents which were made publicly available, the communications with governments with which we have proper representation, namely, the Governments of North Vietnam and South Vietnam.

We have heard about the great domino theory with which honourable senators opposite have regaled this chamber year in and year out. They said that if something were to happen in one or two countries in South-East Asia they would fall just as dominoes would fall. What have we seen in the last few days? The Prime Minister of Singapore, the Prime Minister of Malaysia and the Prime Minister of Laos have deprecated this simplistic approach to the civil war that has raged in that part of South-East Asia. We have heard a great deal about Mr Peacock who was strutting around South-East Asia some three or four weeks ago. What did Mr Peacock, this great new expert who has suddenly emerged on the scene and who knows all about foreign affairs, say on his return to Australia on 7 April this year after his long talk to President Thieu? Mr Peacock was reported in this way:

South Vietnam’s President Thieu has no intention of stepping down and appears to be a man in absolute control. This is the verdict of the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock, the Deputy Leader of the Country Party, Mr Ian Sinclair, and the Country Party MP for Riverina, Mr John Sullivan, after a one and a half hour meeting with the President in the palace library in Saigon yesterday.

Mr Peacock, the man who has now become the expert, has never held the portfolio of foreign affairs in any government. He went on a fact finding tour and on returning appeared on television and spoke in the House of Representatives. He is the man presented today in this debate and in the debate in the other House as the principal person who understands foreign affairs and the principle spokesman for the Opposition parties on foreign affairs. It is about time the conservatives of this country grew up. It is about time they faced reality on the world scene, as President Ford, the former President Nixon and the Conservative President of France have done. What would have happened if the Australian Government had dared to take the awful initiatives that the President of France took in a circular he sent to all members of Parliament on 14 April? It bears the heading:

Declaration by the President of the Republic of France 9 April 1975.

This circular was issued while President Thieu was still in command and 2 days after Mr Peacock had made his pious pronouncements. What did the President of the Republic of France say? He recognised the Provisional Revolutionary Government as the sole and legitimate government of South Vietnam. He said:

To end the suffering of the South Vietnamese people- to whom 1 express the deep friendship of the French people- to allow the South Vietnamese people to preserve the characteristics to which they are attached, no other solution exists except the urgent application of Article 12 of the Paris Agreement which calls for the setting up of a political solution in a spirit of conciliation and without any side trying to eliminate the other.

Those are precisely the words of the Australian Prime Minister in the communications to both Hanoi and Saigon seeking the establishment of a trinity of government by the 3 main political forces in South Vietnam. The stupidity of the Americans and of honourable senators opposite and their parties when in government has brought about the inevitable development of a probable Communist government in Vietnam. If the Paris Agreements had been carried out- this Labor Government was committed to themthere would have been a coalition government of those 3 main forces. Perhaps President Thieu may not have been a participant but the forces around which he worked and with which he associated would have been represented in the government- the Buddhist and the Catholic group which has acted as a moderating force between the left and the right, if honourable senators want to put it in that way- with the PRG. The PRG after all is not a Communist organisation or a Communist government. It represents the various strands of thought in South Vietnam. That would have been the sort of government which would have taken over in Saigon.

The Opposition parties find it impossible to live with world reality. They find it impossible to live with Asian reality. They have not one friend in Asia who supports their political line. Chiang Kai-shek died a few weeks ago and probably there will be new developments in that country. Where do the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Laos and all the other countries making up that part of South-East Asia stand? Did any of them get involved in the Vietnam war? Were Japanese or Filipino troops involved? They were not. The fact is that those Asian countries who knew the region were determined not to be involved in that civil war. So it is with great regret and great sadness that again I have to draw attention to the inability of the Opposition parties to come face to face with what is happening in the world and in the area of foreign affairs. The Australian Labor Government and the Prime Minister have achieved international eminence because of their understanding of current world events.

I find it hard to understand, unless it is for cheap party political purposes, why the Opposition parties should be endeavouring to censure the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this chamber. Simultaneously the House of Representatives is debating a motion of censure against the Prime Minister. Surely the conservatives would have been given sufficient opportunity to express their point of view in that debate. Knowing that they have got the numbers in this place, they want to repeat the travesty that they perpetrated over the Ermolenko question six or seven months ago. They want to use their numbers to roll through some sort of a censure motion that will seek to humiliate the Minister for Foreign Affairs. They may do that, but history will record that they are as wrong on this issue as they were in the 1 930s when the principal forces of conservatism in this country, including the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’- that remark was directed specifically at Senator Carrick- defended Hitler, appeasement and Munich but opposed the principle of collective security. They were wrong in those days. Honourable members opposite should read in the Hansard reports the statements made in this Parliament by Sir Robert Menzies defending Hitler and the rise of fascism in Germany. The conservatives were wrong then and they have been wrong ever since, including over Vietnam. It does not matter how many censure motions the Opposition moves. It does not matter how many times it censures members of the Governmentthe Opposition has the numbers in this place- it will not succeed in eradicating its own guilt in respect of the whole horrible, shameful involvement of Australia in the war in Vietnam in 1 964.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– We have just heard a very interesting speech by the second speaker in this debate from the Government side of the chamber. One would have supposed that he would have been supporting the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) who is under attack, but at no stage did he speak to the motion before the Senate. Instead he gave us a great travelogue on the events which have taken place in previous years in the Vietnam conflict. The whole time he defended, wherever it was to be defended, the communist cause. One might just wonder what is the Government’s view on the motion that we have before us. We are not discussing now what happened 10 years ago, or 30 years ago for that matter; we are discussing whether the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Foreign Minister of this country misled not only the Australian Parliament and the Australian people but also our friends and allies throughout the world. Such people are important when it comes to matters of foreign policy.

We heard Senator Gietzelt attack President Thieu for breaking the Paris agreements. Apparently in the view of Senator Gietzelt President Thieu is the only person to break the Paris agreements. He made no mention of the military build-up by the North Vietnamese and the Pro- visional Revolutionary Government in order to escalate the war. Nor did he make any attack on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the People’s Republic of China for supplying the North Vietnamese with arms, until today the North Vietnamese are regarded as the third biggest military power in the world. Of course, that is not breaking the Paris agreements! At least, according to Senator Gietzelt it is not.

We have to get down to tintacks. It is essential that the way in which we conduct our foreign policies should be clearly understood not only by the people at home but also by people in other parts of the world if our credibility and trust are to be maintained. Because a great number of matters of foreign policy and correspondence between heads of state and governments naturally have to be of a confidential nature, it is essential that the government of the day, in its communications with other nations, at least portrays the point of view that it has put to its own people. One could be excused for believing that this Government was sympathetic to the communist cause in Indo-China. In order to come to that conclusion one had only to listen to the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) and to other Ministers when referring to the Thieu Government and their support for the North Vietnamese. Had the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs supported those views and expressed them publicly in this country, possibly we would not be in the serious situation in which we find ourselves today. But that has not been the case. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have repeatedly made public statements in Parliament, both in general debate and in answers to questions, to the effect that they do not support the line taken by Dr Cairns, but that they support a neutralist stance as far as the Vietnamese conflict is concerned.

That is the situation that pertained up until a few weeks ago when Mr Peacock and other members of the Opposition made a fact finding tour of Vietnam and South East Asia. When they returned Mr Peacock made the statement that he believed that cables that were sent to Hanoi and to Saigon were substantially different. The Prime Minister in the other place, backed up by his Foreign Minister here, insisted that there was very little difference, if any, between the cables. He said that there was certainly no difference in substance between the cable sent to the North and the one sent to the South. Then a Melbourne newspaper printed the text of the cables. In order to clear up the whole matter repeated requests had been made not only in this chamber but also in the other House that the cables either be tabled or at least be given to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for his perusal. Of course, those requests were not granted. The Government probably would have got away with it except for the fact that a Melbourne newspaper happened to print the details of those cables.

Senator Georges:

– Got away with what? Why did you not also ask for the letters?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– We have got the letters, too. The honourable senator can read the letters. There is a substantial difference in the letters. But it was the cables that Mr Peacock queried; it was the cables that the Prime Minister said were substantially the same. It has nothing to do with the letters. The honourable senator can read the letters, but that is not the argument. The Prime Minister said that the cables, not the letters, were substantially the same. When these cables were released it became obvious not only that there was a bias towards North Vietnam but also that misleading statements were made in regard to the breaking of the Paris agreements. It was quite obvious that the Government was making an apology to the North Vietnamese. The cable sent to the Ambassador in North Vietnam quite obviously was one of apology for the aggression that had been made by the North Vietnamese and the Provisional Revolutionary Government over South Vietnam. I was amused by Senator Gietzelt ‘s attack on the Thieu Government for breaking the Paris agreements. He did not mention the North Vietnamese. Who was overrun? Was Hanoi overrun? Were the North Vietnamese overrun, or were the South Vietnamese overrun? Who were the aggressors? Who were the people who built up the military might? Who built up the capability to destroy the other? Did the South Vietnamese build up the capability to destroy the North Vietnamese? Sure, the South Vietnamese had to go along to some extent in building up their capability in order to look after themselves, otherwise they would have been overrun long before they were.

It is quite obvious from these cables that there is a definite bias by the Australian Government towards the North Vietnamese and the communist cause. It is quite obvious that the Government, through the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has misled the Parliament, the Australian people and our allies and friends throughout the world. We have to think now of the future. If there is further conflict in South-East Asia will the Australian people be able to trust this Government to look after Australia’s interest? What will be the attitude of this Government, on behalf of the Australian people, if there is further communist aggression in areas closer to our shores? If this episode concerning the revealing of the cables sent to Vietnam is to be taken into account, what will be the attitude of our friends and allies overseas towards this Government if there is aggression closer to our shores? I believe that this is a very grave situation. Foreign policy and the security of a nation are matters of the utmost importance. It is also of the utmost importance that those responsible for dealing with our security and our foreign policy should be consistent not only in portraying their policies and attitudes to the people but also in saying publicly what they are saying secretly to other nations. The publishing of the contents of these cables so that the people could see what was in them indicates there is no doubt that in relation to this whole episode there was a distinct misleading of this Parliament by both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. When this matter was being aired both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs said that there was no difference in the cables.

Senator Georges:

– They did not say that.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-They said that there was very little difference; there was no substantial difference. They said that the cables were substantially the same, if Senator Georges prefers it put that way.

Senator Georges:

– You are saying they said that there was no difference.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Once one reads the cables one sees that there is a great amount of difference. I believe that the Australian people cannot afford to be misled in this way in such a delicate area as foreign affairs and the security of the nation. For that reason I support fully the motion that is before the Senate.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have a distinct impression that our opponents have not really got their hearts in this debate. Having been whipped up into a state of mock indignation by a few hysterical editorials a couple of weeks ago and by their own failure to read the plain meaning of words, honourable senators opposite have been stuck with this motion today. Even such hardy old cold war warriors as Senator Greenwood and Senator Carrick have given me a distinct impression that they were merely going through the motions. That is about the kindest interpretation that one can put on their conduct. It is a much kinder one than to accuse them of moral obtuseness, thickness of hide or bluntness of conscience; but those who look back on their whole record in relation to the Vietnam matter might be excused for putting that interpretation on their conduct here today. It also shows a very poor political sense in the Opposition regurgitating a theme which has so greatly discredited it. If there is one thing that I think the conservative forces in this country would like to forget, would like to sweep into the ashcan of history, it is their record in relation to Vietnam. But no, they are trying to drag what they think is the last little bit of political credit out of the matter.

I think that anybody who has listened closely to this debate on the very cables and letters themselves must conclude that you have to go in for more hair-splitting and pettifogging that you usually expect from even lawyers like Senator Greenwood in order to find a meaning in the conduct of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) or of his representative in this place in relation to this matter in order to give the words the meaning which the Opposition seeks to attribute to them. I found the efforts of honourable senators opposite in this regard to be just plain dreary. Let us test the good faith of the Opposition in this matter. Senator Greenwood said that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) had shown a lack of the candour, honesty and respect for the Parliament which the Parliament is entitled to expect from Ministers. Surely we cannot have a more gruesome example of a double standard, of a lack of sincerity or of a total absence of credibility than words like that from a Party with this record on this very subject.

I have heard Senator Greenwood sometimes inveighing against what has always struck me as a rather fair newspaper in the city of Melbourne, the ‘Age’. I do not know whether Senator Greenwood likes to read only newspapers which give a favourable version of events according to his political standards, but I would recommend for this reading a series which has appeared in the ‘National Times’ over the last 3 weekends. It is a piece of painstaking, brilliant journalistic research into the history of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam war. If he or other Opposition speakers had read that series I doubt whether they would have had the nerve to stand up in this place today and utter words like ‘duplicity’ and ‘falsehood’ and phrases like ‘misleading the Parliament’ on this very subject where the entire record of the Opposition when it was in government was one of duplicity, deliberate deceit, half-truth and the concealment of facts- much more serious facts than those we are considering- which amounted to dragging this country into a war in which it had no legitimate part.

This is a particularly interesting newspaper to be publishing these facts. It cannot be discredited as some disreputable little communist rag or some little minority organ. In fact it is published by the same mighty organisation which publishes the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ from which Senator Carrick drew much comfort when he referred, in particular, to an article which appeared in it a couple of weeks ago and which I suspect is primarily the cause for the Opposition getting all steamed up about this matter. I think that this editorial is about as hysterical a piece of writing as I can remember seeing in a newspaper which is becoming increasingly hysterical as Labor holds on to office in this country. It is a newspaper which regards a Labor government as some quaint form of historical aberration and which inveighs against us from day to day. I do not remember the exact phrase that was used by Senator Carrick, but it was something on the lines that what Mr Whitlam and Senator Willesee were alleged to have done in relation to the cables and the letters which are the subject of this debate amounted to something like the most monstrous piece of deceit in the history of the Australian government since Federation.

The editorial went on to draw the conclusion that this conduct absolved the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) from any undertaking which he had given, to the effect that in general a government should be allowed to serve out its full term. The editorial suggested that the conduct of the Government in this matter was so heinous that all bets should be called off and that we should be tipped out of government. The Appropriation Bills have not yet been passed. Surely in the next day or two we will see whether what we have had from members of the Opposition today is merely an exercise in empty rhetoric, a sort of knee-jerk reaction whenever the matter of Vietnam arises, or whether they agree with the editorialist of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ and regard this conduct as so heinous as to warrant the Government being thrown out of office. It will be interesting to see what they do. I for one do not think they are nearly as serious as they sound because they know in their hearts that they do not have a leg to stand on.

Senator Maunsell upbraided Senator Gietzelt for having referred to some incidents in the past in relation to Vietnam because, he said, they were irrelevant to this debate. Surely they are highly relevant. We are concerned here in charges of misleading the Parliament and with a comparison of the conduct of members on this side with that of members of the Opposition in the matter of dealing honestly with the Parliament and with the Australian people. So 1 think it is peculiarly apposite for us to recall what must rank as an infinitely greater act of deception than anything that has been done by this Government.

Senator Missen:

– Even greater?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Much greater. The allegation that deception was practised by Sir Robert Menzies in 1965 has never been answered by the previous Government. In fact, one of his successors, the egregious Mr McMahon, even compounded the difficulties of the previous Government when in 1971 he attempted to give an explanation. He merely proved that everything we had said about that deception was abundantly true.

Senator Missen:

– An even greater deception, was it?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not acknowledge that there is any deception on the part of the present Prime Minister. I would think that if Senator Greenwood were in a court of law attempting to make out a case that it was more probable than not that the Prime Minister had even unconsciously, let alone deliberately, deceived the nation over these communications, he would fail singly to make out his case

The case against Sir Robert Menzies and the various other distinguished characters of the past referred to by Senator Gietzelt is an overwhelming one. I commend the evidence contained in the newspaper produced by the Fairfax organisation on which Senator Greenwood and Senator Carrick would rely. It is a careful examination of the events. I refer honourable senators opposite to the debate at the time of the announcement by Sir Robert Menzies on 29 April 1965 and to the letters which were produced in 1971 by Mr McMahon which show abundantly that Sir Robert Menzies set out not only to deceive the Parliament but to follow a pattern of deceit of his Cabinet over a period of months before making an announcement committing an Australian battalion to fight in Vietnam. The impression that he set out to make by an elaborate program of deceit was that the Australian battalion was being sent to Vietnam only at the request of a friend who needed us there to help him in his hour of extremity. The evidence proves overwhelmingly that the Australian representative went cap in hand, every day knocking on the door of the Vietnamese President, in effect saying: ‘Won’t you ask us to send you some troops?’ It was only on the morning of the day on which Sir Robert Menzies announced that the battalion was being sent to Vietnam that he extracted a letter which said not in effect ‘we ask you to send a battalion here ‘, but ‘we take up your offer to send us a battalion’.

The history of this period makes abundantly clear that the Australian conservative governments were not attempting to help the poor

South Vietnamese but were attempting to toady to their great and powerful friend, the United States, and were attempting to involve the United States more and more deeply in this part of the world. It was not only a deception of one day or one phrase; it was a long, drawn out, carefully calculated deception of the Parliament, of the government of the day and of the Australian people by the leaders of that Government. For anybody at this moment to attempt to turn the charge of deception, of falsehood, of lying to Parliament against this Government is, in my view, an act of obscenity.

Senator Missen:

– It gives you a free go, does it?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suppose that by implication Senator Missen is saying that the fact that they were so dreadful does not excuse us. That is if his interjection means anything. I maintain that what I have said about Sir Robert Menzies and the previous Government has not been refuted. I maintain that the Opposition today, here and in the other chamber, has failed singly to make out a case that anybody practised any deception on this Parliament in relation to the communications which passed between this Government and the Government in Hanoi or the Government in Saigon in the recent past.

I appeal to members of the Opposition to forget, in their own interests, this question of Vietnam. There is nothing left for them in it. There was never anything but discredit and shame for them in Vietnam. Forget about it. Stop talking about it. Or if they talk about it they should talk about it in the vein in which our Prime Minister talked to President Ford, and that is that the only thing that those who despoiled this poor unfortunate people can do now in any decency is not to grandstand about orphans, not to pretend that we can accommodate thousands of Vietnamese in this country, but to contribute generously to rebuild the land that we have despoiled. This is the only decent thing that an Australian government can do about South Vietnam or North Vietnam at present. Honourable senators opposite must stop trying to make politics out of it or to get some cheap advantage out of it because not only are they not entitled to such an advantage but they are falling on their faces in the process. If they went back to their electorates and asked how they were doing on this question of Vietnam, I am sure they would find that they were not doing at all well. If they rely on the judgment of people such as Senator Greenwood who has this knee-jerk reaction to anything involving communism they will not be helping their own cause, and they will be wasting the time of a parliament which should be devoting its time and energies to much more important things.

Let us have debates on inflation. Let us have debates on the state of the economy. Let us talk about things about which we can really do something and in which we should be making a real effort to solve problems. Yes, we acknowledge that there are problems. We do not suggest that anybody attempting to run a complex industrial society today can avoid making errors. We do not suggest that we do not need all the help we can get to solve these problems. One of the best contributions that members of the Opposition could make would be to stop talking about things in which their record is discredited and in which they have no positive suggestions. Let us discuss the matters which are the real gravamen of our country’s troubles.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating a motion that the Senate censures the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) for knowingly misleading the Senate in relation to the contents of cables sent by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) to the Australian ambassadors in Saigon and Hanoi. It is not a motion about Indo-China, it is not a motion about the facts or otherwise over 10 or 20 years. It concerns one senator, a Minister of State, the Foreign Minister, and whether or not he misled the Senate in order not to be found out in relation to some things which had happened. That is what the motion is about. That is what we on this side are attempting to debate. It is not a history of Vietnam, it is not a history of what went on 10 or 15 years ago. It is what happened in this country in the last month and whether or not the Minister for Foreign Affairs has told the truth to the Senate. If he has not, there is a proper basis for a censure motion and a proper basis for condemning him.

The motion concerns the authority of the Parliament. It concerns the right of the Senate to be properly informed on matters of state. It concerns the duty of honourable senators to tell the truth when they speak in this chamber. It concerns our right, when we ask questions of Ministers, to know that the reply which we receive, when it is unequivocal, will not be a deliberate or outright untruth.

I would remind the Senate of the custom of the British Parliament, the Parliament of Westminster. When a Minister tells a lie and is found out, that Minister resigns his portfolio. I was in England in 1963 when the then Minister for War, Mr Profumo, had to resign his portfolio not because he had performed badly as a Minister or because his Government had been defeated, but because he had misled the House of Commons and had been discovered; and the only appropriate thing for him to do was to resign. The issue facing us today is whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs has told the truth to the Senate or whether he has not told the truth and if the latter is the case whether he should resign and make way for another Minister who will show greater concern for the rights of Parliament and for its traditions. I believe that unless this kind of care is taken of the traditions and rights of Parliament we will lose a lot. Those of us who ask questions of Ministers will not know, when we get an answer, whether it is an untruth made up on the spur of the moment to cover the exigencies of the moment.

There are facts known about the present matter. The facts are that some cables were sent- one to Hanoi and one to Saigon- and that they were significantly different. I would remind honourable senators just how different they were. The cable which was sent to Saigon was brief, contained 4 paragraphs and set out very bluntly the Government’s desire that the South Vietnamese Government should make the Paris Peace Accords work and that it should observe all its obligations under those Accords. The cable which was sent to Hanoi was quite different. That cable not only was much longer but also was much more friendly and more fulsome and it contained at least 2 portions not found in the cable which was sent to South Vietnam. Firstly, there was the following statement: the Australian Government understands the sense of frustration which has given rise to renewed recourse to military pressure on Thieu although it cannot condone that recourse.

There is no equivalent to that quotation in the cable that went to South Vietnam. I invite Government senators when answering to show me the part in the cable to Saigon which is equivalent to that reference in the cable to Hanoi. The cable to Hanoi continues:

In this connection, the Australian Government believes it would have a most favorable effect if the PRG were to make it clear that recent military operations had had the aim of applying pressure to secure the observance of the ignored political provisions of the Paris agreement and that the operations would cease when satisfactory assurances were offered by Saigon that these political provisions would be implemented.

There is no equivalent part to that paragraph in the cable sent to Saigon.

Senator Button:

– There could not be. It would not be appropriate, would it?

Senator BAUME:

– There is no equivalent in the sense that the cables are different in intent and quite different in content. The cables exist; the cables are different. With that background of what the cables said we can look at what was stated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs when the matter was debated in the Senate.

I quote first from Hansard of 9 April at page 853 where Senator Willesee, in speaking to a motion of urgency at that time, referred to what Mr Peacock had said. He referred to several points which Mr Peacock had made. Mr Peacock had submitted that a cable had been sent to Saigon. That is correct. Mr Peacock had asserted that the cable had stressed that the Paris Accords needed to be implemented. That is correct. Mr Peacock had asserted that in particular article 4, chapter 12 of the Accords needed to be implemented. That is correct. Mr Peacock had submitted further that another cable was sent to Hanoi which referred to the activities of North Vietnam being inspired by the Provisional Revolutionary Government. That is correct. Mr Peacock had further stated that words to the following effect were used:

We understand that for public relations purposes it has to be said that pressure is being applied to the Saigon Government to get it to implement the Paris Accords.

That is correct if one reads the text of the cables. Those are the matters which Mr Peacock asserted. Those are the statements in reply to which Senator Willesee stated:

The purported quotation from the cable is just plain wrong. I have seen the cables. There is not one atom of truth -

He did not say they were not completely correct. He said that there was not one atom of truth. I had not seen the cables at that time but when I sit in the Senate I believe the Minister for Foreign Affairs. If he says: ‘There is not one atom of truth’, what am I to do? I am to assume that he is telling the truth to the Senate and that that was indeed the case. Yet when I read the cables I found that that was not the case and that there was more than at atom of truth in what Mr Peacock had said and that there was considerable untruth in the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Senator Willesee stated further:

I have seen those cables. I say that those words did not appear in those cables. I have read them before and I have read them again this morning. The statements that have been made are quite untrue.

The statements that have been made were not quite untrue. The statements were substantially correct. Mr Peacock’s statements were substantially correct and the Minister had no right to say that they were quite untrue. Senator Willesee said further

Opposition members allege the existence of a Government document- I stress ‘ allege ‘ -

Why should he stress the word ‘allege’? The document clearly existed. What was he trying to do? Was he trying to draw a veil across the facts? There was no reason for him to say that he stressed the word ‘allege’. Senator Willesee said further: . . then they let loose their imagination as to the contents of such a document.

Mr Peacock let loose his imagination in a remarkably accurate way for what he said about these documents has been proved subsequently to represent their contents, very nearly verbatim.

On the following day, 10 April 1975, Senator Willesee stated, as reported at page 93 1 of the Senate Hansard: ‘As we said last night, there are no major discrepancies’. One could not have a more unequivocal statement than that there are no major discrepancies. Yet, quite clearly, if we read the text of the cables, we see there are major discrepancies and major differences. Why has Senator Willesee not told the truth to this place? He continued to say: ‘I said last night that the Prime Minister had said that there is not one atom of truth in Mr Peacock’s statement. Honourable senators should stop basing their questions on a lie. ‘ I submit that Ministers should stop basing their answers on a lie. The facts are quite clear. Senator Willesee was willing to use untruths in the Senate. He did use untruths in the Senate. He did make statements that were not correct and were not true. He has shown no concern nor any remorse for having done so. He has shown no inclination to admit the real facts or to admit that he was in error in the things that he said in this place. He has issued no statements to make it clear to the Senate that he is in any way sorry for misleading the chamber as he did. The implications quite clearly are that in the future it will be difficult to place any reliance on what the honourable senator says when he speaks. It will be difficult to place any reliance on what he then says by way of explanation if he is challenged. It will be difficult to place any reliance on any denials which he issues if people accuse him of telling untruths. Aeschylus said: ‘It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath’. The sad thing here is that it is the Minister for Foreign Affairs who has suffered by having made the assertions he did, with the strength he did, in declaring that there was not one atom of truth in what was said by Mr Peacock when clearly that was not the case. The Minister has no credibility left after this deception, this dissembling and these untruths.

It is interesting that of the members of the Labor Party who have spoken in this debate none has sought to justify the words used by the Foreign Minister, and none has sought to deny that the Minister told untruths to the Senate or that he misled the Senate. No one has denied the charge contained in Senator Greenwood’s motion. It must hurt the Minister more than anything else that his supporters are unwilling to defend him and turn always to argue about the Vietnam war and past policies. Surely members of the Labor Party will assert clearly their belief that Parliament is entitled to the truth. Surely they will assert that Parliament is always entitled to the truth and that Ministers of State who are unwilling to tell the truth should resign. Surely they should say that they believe in Ministers not misleading this chamber, not deceiving, dissembling and misleading this Parliament. I want to hear members of the Labor Party make that assertion, make that statement and give us that assurance. We want to hear their belief in the principle that Parliament is entitled to the truth. This can come from individual senators, from Ministers or from leaders of the Party. So far I have heard nothing of the sort. I have seen a smokescreen raised about Vietnam, but the issue here is the truth or falsehood of what was stated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this place in the last month. We have on record some of the attitudes which the Labor Party has recorded about telling the truth. I refer to an interview which Mr Whitiam gave to David Frost in 1972 before the election which saw Mr Whitlam become Prime Minister. Mr Frost asked Mr Whitlam:

Tell me, is it possible for a politician and someone on the verge of great office or someone in great office, to always tell the truth?

Mr Whitlam replied:

Its . . . there are some things you obviously couldn’t . . . But ah there’s very few instances where you couldn’t tell the truth.

David Frost persisted:

What would be an instance for instance?

Mr Whitlam replied:

You couldn’t say, for instance, if the Americans told you they were going to step up their war against Hanoi in a particular way next week. You couldn’t tell Hanoi, or you couldn’t tell the world. You couldn’t tell the world.

He went on to talk about the problem of not revealing international confidences of that kind. He then said:

But those are the only instances where I can think that a person . . .

Mr Frost intervened:

If faced with a direct question in those cases you would have to tell a lie?

Mr Whitlam said:

You would have to and people holding top office have in those circumstances, lied.

He went on to say later:

But I don ‘t think, I can ‘t think of any other cases.

On the one hand Mr Whitlam was asserting that you could lie but that it occurs only in very limited situations. Further, if we go back to the record, we find that in times past when Mr Whitlam was Leader of the Opposition he was very ready to move censure motions against members of our Government parties if he thought they had in any way misled the Parliament. In debating one such censure motion he paid tribute to a Minister for Air from my Party who had offered to resign over what was known as the VIP aircraft affair because the facts that emerged in the Minister’s own view made it appear that he may not have told the truth. Mr Whitiam paid tribute to the Minister and it is recorded in Hansard. He took the view that the Minister had taken appropriate and proper action.

In anticipation of what might be said in this debate I looked further into the Westminster tradition about telling the truth to Parliament. I refer honourable senators to May’s Parliamentary Practice, Chapter X, page 138. The chapter is entitled: ‘Breaches of Privilege and Contempts’. There is a heading: ‘Misconduct of Members or Officers of Either House as such’. The next heading is entitled: ‘Misleading the House ‘. The document reads:

The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt.

In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

The same paragraph goes on to indicate that contempts may be dealt with by the House by expulsion from the House of Commons. There is no doubt that in the Westminster tradition misleading the House is a very serious offence and is regarded as such. That is what the present debate is about. It is about 2 cables that went to Vietnam; it is about what they contained; it is about what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said about them; it is about the fact that what he said about them does not tie in with the text of the cables. What was said to get out of trouble early in April could not be sustained when the text of the cables was released later.

This is not a substantive debate about Vietnam. It is not some kind of justification of second rate diplomacy which has been going on under the aegis of this Foreign Minister for some time. It is not an explanation of how Mr Whitlam played up, as he is always playing up, to his commie cobbers. It is only an issue of whether the Foreign Minister of this country misled the Parliament and whether in the light of the published text of the cables his statements in the Senate in support of Mr Whitlam were correct. The answer must be that the Foreign Minister did not tell the truth, that he did mislead the Senate, that he did mislead the Parliament, and that in supporting his leader and in asserting that there was not an atom of truth in what Mr Peacock had said he did his own personal reputation no good and did no good to the Parliament. I suggest that he should follow Mr Profumo. Let him bear the censure of this chamber and hopefully resign.

Senator EVERETT:
Tasmania

-The motion before the Senate is not really in truth, although it is in form, directed against the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). It is directed against the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) because it was the Prime Minister of this country who, when his back was turned and he was on official state business, became the butt of virtually every editorial in this country on the first day after the revelation of these cables. After the Prime Minister had shown from afar that it was false and wrong to treat the cables separately from the letters- I suggest at that stage the only information which the Opposition had came from a statement which the Prime Minister had made- the editorials adopted a very different tone. They had jumped in where angels feared to tread. The motion before the Senate, I suggest, is miserably weak in its presentation and in itself is deceitful because it depends initially on what the Prime Minister said in the House of Representatives on 8 April and 9 April. Despite repeated interjections which were intended to alert the Opposition- whether that is believed is another matter- the Prime Minister never referred to the cables as such. He always referred to the communications.

Sentor Sim- Not the Foreign Minister though.

Senator EVERETT:

-The honourable senator will have a chance to speak later. I propose to read what the Prime Minister said. Both Senator Carrick and Senator Maunsell repeatedly misrepresented this afternoon what the Prime Minister said on 8 April and 9 April and they did so in the context of a debate in which such high sounding phrases as ‘parliamentary honesty’ and ministerial responsibility for any misleading of

Parliament’ have been made the real parliamentary basis of this allegation against the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who I would suggest, if the Opposition were honest, it would recognise as being one of the most purposeful and internationally respected Ministers for Foreign Affairs that Australia has known since World War II.

Senator Sim:

– Rubbish.

Senator EVERETT:

-The laughter that has come from the next speaker in the debate ill becomes a member of a government which had got down to a stage at which it was the tool and the vassal of imperialist America.

Senator Wright:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I call attention to the state of the House so that some of Senator Everett’s colleagues might hear the type of debate that is taking place.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Georges)- Ring the bells. (The bells being rung)-

Senator Wright:

– When you get on to that level you get into the gutter.

Senator EVERETT:

– Honourable senators opposite stayed in the gutter for over a decade concerning Vietnam. (Quorum formed) In view of the remark that was passed by Senator Wright, although I did not intend to dwell upon the infamy of the involvement of the United States of America and Australia through political pressure, I propose to read from ‘The Pentagon Papers’ a document dated 7 February 1965 which indicates the attitude in the Pentagon at that stage to what it was going to do to Vietnam and in Vietnam. The document, which is brief, reads:

We believe that the best available way of increasing our chance of success in Vietnam is the development and execution of a policy of sustained reprisal against North Vietnam- a policy in which air and naval action against the North is justified by and related to the whole Vietcong campaign of violence and terror in the South.

While we believe that the risks of such a policy are acceptable, we emphasise that its costs are real. It implies significant US air losses even if no full air war is joined, and it seems likely that it would eventually require an extensive and costly effort against the whole air defence system of North Vietnam. US casualties would be higher- and more visible to American feelings- than those sustained in the struggle in South Vietnam.

Yet measured against the costs of defeat in Vietnam, this program seems cheap. And even if it fails to turn the tide- as it may- the value of the effort seems to us to exceed its cost.

That document is dated 7 February 1965. In April 1965 a formal American document was prepared setting out the President’s decisions with respect to Vietnam. I refer to only one of them- there are 1 1 paragraphs in all- that is, the one that refers to Australia. It reads:

The President approved the urgent exploration, with the Korean, Australian, and New Zealand Governments, of the possibility of rapid deployment of significant combat elements from their armed forces in parallel with the additional Marine deployment approved in paragraph 6.

That was the immediate political precursor to the involvement by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government of Australian forces to which reference was made earlier this afternoon. In the light of that piece of history, which can never be erased, is it any wonder that, as thousands of persons quit Vietnam in various ways for various parts of the world and will remain so long as they live a permanent indictment of the political systems which permitted that situation to arise, the Opposition seeks to divert attention from its part in that infamous piece of history by pettifogging debates such as are involved in the motion before the Senate this afternoon?

There are 2 things that the Opposition seems to forget completely. One is that by this motion it is sending a signal to the world- in particular to South Vietnam- that the even-handedness which the Australian Government has professed and, I submit, has practised does not in fact and in truth exist. Is that serving the interests of Australia? Of course it is not. One would have thought that with the significant domestic issues awaiting consideration the time of the Parliament would have been occupied better this afternoon by inquiring, if the Opposition is genuine about security and Australia’s position internationally, into how the cablegrams were leaked to a certain section of the media. How were they leaked?

Senator Greenwood:

– How were the letters leaked?

Senator EVERETT:

-Senator Greenwood, who initiated the motion before the Senate, seems to know something about them. If he thinks that Australia’s security is imperilled by the leakages that have occurred in relation to this matter I would suggest that it is his bounden duty to bring that to the notice of this Parliament. That would be a far better way of occupying the attention of the Parliament than this pettifogging motion which, as I have said, has been miserably presented, such that a first year law student would not feel very proud of its presentation.

I refer to something that Senator Carrick and Senator Maunsell persistently misrepresented this afternoon; that is, the claim that the Prime Minister, who is the real butt of this matter, had referred to the fact that the cablegrams were substantially similar. The Prime Minister never used such an expression. He dealt with this matter on 3 separate occasions on 8 April and 9 April. The first occasion was on the morning of 8 April when he was asked a question by Mr Peacock, the essence of which was as follows:

Were, in fact, the same representations made to each side?

The Prime Minister, after saying that it was not the practice to reveal the contents of such documents, said:

There have been communications certainly in the last 3 or 4 weeks but there were also communications 2 years ago in the middle of 1 973 and they -

The communications - have been to both sides though not in the same terms because while it is true that there have been gross breaches of the Paris Agreements by both North and South Vietnam and by the Provisional Revolutionary Government and perhaps by the United States of America, nevertheless the breaches have not been all of the same kind. It is surely idle to suggest that one should complain about military breaches and be mute about political breaches. The trouble in Vietnam now is the same as arose in the early 1960s because there was not an equal respect shown to the political as to the military engagements of the Genera Agreements of 19S4 and the Paris Agreements of 1973.

There the matter rested at that stage. Later the same day the Prime Minister delivered a prepared ministerial statement on Indo-China. In that statement he emphasised the evenhandedness of the approach of the Australian Government and he referred to the two letters of 13 March. It is worth quoting what the Prime Minister said because the whole gravamen of this debate- a debate that began and ended rather unceremoniously for the Opposition in the House of Representatives this afternoon- and the whole gravamen of the editorials is that Australia has not been evenhanded in its attitude towards North and South Vietnam. In the course of that ministerial statement the Prime Minister said:

The second contribution open to Australia was to use diplomatic influence to end the fighting. In particular the Australian Government has tried to promote adherence to the Paris Agreements. We have lost no opportunity to encourage the Vietnamese parties to implement the Agreements to the full -

I emphasise these words: and to deplore the breaches of the Agreements by both sides.

Yet it has been said in this debate this afternoon that the Australian Government is adopting an indulgent attitude towards North Vietnam. The Prime Minister continued:

And, of course, we have been able to do this only because we are diplomatically represented in both Saigon and Hanoi.

These attitudes have consistently been expressed over the past IS months by me and by the Foreign Minister at the highest level, and by personal contact between Vietnamese ministers and officials and some of my colleagues, including -

And he named 3 Ministers.

As recently as 13 March I wrote to both President Thieu and the North Vietnamese Foreign Minister stressing Australia’s support for the implementation of the Agreements, our concern at the continued lack, of progress, the continued fighting and the continuing breaches of the Agreements by both sides.

Does anyone in the Opposition in this chamber this afternoon dispute that that is a fair, accurate and correct statement of Australian Government policy over the past 15 to 18 months? Does anyone in the Opposition disagree with it as a policy? There is no answer, at least by way of interjection, Mr President. Yet in the face of that, in the face of the acceptance, I suggest, by the Opposition of the propriety of the Government’s actions over the past 15 to 18 months we have this pettifogging motion this afternoon that would do credit to the Dickens character Serjeant Buzfuz, the pettifogging lawyer of a century and a half ago.

Senator Missen:

– It did not do credit to the Foreign Minister, though.

Senator EVERETT:

-The honourable senator does not really get any second dividends from an interjection like that. The simple fact is that the Prime Minister at that stage had not singled out the cablegrams for the expression of any compendious opinion about what they represented. Then in the same debate on Indo-China on the same afternoon Mr Peacock made a speech, and the whole gravamen of his speech, which appears at page 1269 of Hansard of that day, is in these words:

I nail the argument not only about even-handedness but also about the tacit support that is being engendered elsewhere.

The complaint by Mr Peacock was one of lack of even-handedness, but until the Prime Minister revealed the existence of the letters of 13 March Mr Peacock did not know about them. He had been away, of course, and he had seen something or someone had shown him something about some cablegrams. That was the second occasion on which the Prime Minister was involved in the matter. On the following day, that is Wednesday, 9 April, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr Malcolm Fraser) took over the attack and asked a question, which appears at page 1357. In answer, the Prime Minister said this:

Of course I have noticed suggestions that there was some difference in the tone of the communications I sent to Hanoi and Saigon. The honourable gentleman and the honourable member for Kooyong, his spokesman on foreign affairs, invited me to table the cables.

The Prime Minister declined to do so. At page 1 3 5 8 he went on to say:

The communications I sent to Hanoi and Saigon were substantially the same. There was one matter obviously which I mentioned to Saigon which I did not mention to Hanoi. That concerned the National Council for Reconciliation and Concord. It concerned Saigon alone. There was a matter which I mentioned to Hanoi but not to Saigon, namely, links with the Provisional Revolutionary Government. That concerned Hanoi and not Saigon. If challenges are to be made, let the honourable member for Kooyong release the telegram which he saw in Saigon, or part of which he saw, and then I will release the other. It would be a breach of proper practice in each case. It is very easy as people know to challenge a Minister to release a document which should be confidential by making some allegation.

Senator Missen:

– He was obviously talking about the cable or telegrams.

Senator EVERETT:

-Serjeant Buzfuz would not have been proud of that interjection. The Prime Minister never separated the letters from the cablegrams. There were 4 communications that are relevant to this matter- 2 letters and 2 telegrams- and on every occasion on which the Prime Minister referred to the matter, which was an allegation of lack of even-handedness, he used the words ‘the communications’, and no interjection from any honourable senator is going to separate the Prime Minister’s tongue in that respect. The Prime Minister treated them as part of one chain of correspondence, if I may use that expression, between the Australian Government and the Governments of South and North Vietnam and, so far as the cablegrams were concerned, involving the Ambassadors. At every stage he said ‘the communications’. Yet this afternoon we had Senator Carrick saying that Mr Whitlam had said that the cables of 2 April were substantially the same. Senator Carrick said that in the context of a debate in which someone is accused of having misled the Parliament. The Prime Minister at no stage used the expression the cables’, except in the dry context which appears in Hansard of answering suggestions that documents ought to be produced, and then he referred to cables, notes and other documents. So far as these documents are concerned, at every time that he mentioned the matter the Prime Minister was very careful to use the overall expression ‘the communications’. Senator Carrick either did not read Hansard or deliberately distorted what the Prime Minister said. Senator Maunsell either did not read Hansard or also deliberately distorted what the Prime Minister had said.

It is in that context and against that background that the matter came for debate in the Senate on 9 April. In replying to the motion that was moved in extravagant terms by the Opposition in that it referred to the duplicity of” the Australian Government’s actions in its dealings with the Government of South Vietnam and with the Government of North Vietnam, Senator Willesee reviewed, paraphrasing at times of course, what had been said by Mr Peacock the previous afternoon in the House of Representatives. Of course he adopted the same attitude as the Prime Minister had adopted, that is, that Australia ‘s attitude throughout was one of evenhandedness. If one indicts the Minister for Foreign Affairs, as this motion seeks to do, one also indicts the Prime Minister because the complaint of the Opposition is not as to what precise words were used but that in its dealings with warring foreign powers Australia has favoured one side against the other, at least diplomatically, and that is where this motion falls down. If this were an indictment for a criminal offence, no court would let this case go to the jury. It would be thrown out and it would be thrown out to the discredit of the prosecution, in this case the Opposition Parties. They are seeking to mask their own guilty conscience in relation to Vietnam with a round-about motion involving the consideration of the use of words by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and by the Prime Minister. As such this motion will be seen by the public as a clumsy and even schoolboyish attempt to occupy the time of this Senate in discrediting a person who will never be discredited by this Opposition in the corridors of international power because his head is held very high. I oppose the motion.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I feel a little bit sorry for Senator Everett because even for a lawyer it is difficult to defend the indefensible. I remind Senator Everett that this motion is not a censure of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). The Prime Minister is not mentioned in the motion. The censure motion specifically mentions the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee). I draw Senator Everett’s attention to the reply on page 853 of Hansard of 9 April by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to a question in which he said:

I have seen the cables.

He said ‘the cables’, not ‘the communications’. This motion refers to cables, not what the Prime Minister may or may not have said in another place. Therefore this debate is related purely to the allegation that in relation to the cables the Foreign Minister misled and deceived the Senate. There is only one issue involved in this debate. Anything else is a side issue. The one issue is: Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs deceived the Parliament? Anything else is irrelevant to this debate. I refer to the disclosure of the cables. One must say that one deplores the disclosure to the Press of secret Government communications, but the fact is that the cables were disclosed. They make it quite clear that the statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs that he has read and reread the cables and they are substantially similar, or words to that effect, is quite untrue. That is all we are debating. No one with any understanding of the English language or with any logic could after reading these cables disbelieve the allegation that they are entirely different and not, as is claimed by the Government, substantially the same. The Government has always proclaimed its even-handedness in its relations with Vietnam. This reminds me of the story of the producer of tinned rabbit who was asked by a friend whether he put anything else in the tins apart from rabbit. He said: ‘Oh, a little horse meat’. His friend asked: ‘How much?’ The producer said: ‘Fifty-fifty- one horse, one rabbit’. The Government’s even-handedness in relation to Indo-China has indeed been a matter of one horse, one rabbit. The horse was the communists and the rabbit was the South Vietnamese.

Nothing illustrates a greater lack of evenhandedness than the disclosure of these cables. They clearly disclose a deceitful bias towards Hanoi. It is necessary in this debate again to remind the Senate of the cable to Hanoi, which incidentally consists of some 450 words whereas the cable to Saigon consists of some 100 words. How anybody could successfully argue that an additional 350 words in one cable means the cables were substantially the same is certainly beyond my imagination.

Senator Devitt:

– We understand that.

Senator SIM:

– I think it is beyond your standing too, Senator Devitt. Let me refer to paragraph 2.A of the cable to Hanoi. The Prime Minister in his capacity as Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs said:

We would genuinely like to see in Saigon a Government -

This is the cable to North Vietnam and bear in mind the ‘even-handed policy’- which will genuinely negotiate for reunification as provided for in the Paris agreements.

In the cable to Saigon there is no similar statement that Australia would like to see in Hanoi a government which will genuinely negotiate in accordance with the Paris Agreements. I remind Government supporters of a document prepared by the Minister’s own Department, dated 30 January, setting out the breaches of the Paris Peace Agreements and of which the Minister and the Prime Minister must have been aware. According to my reading of the document 90 per cent of the breaches were laid by the Department of Foreign Affairs at the door of North Vietnam. It might be 85 per cent but certainly the overwhelming percentage of the breaches was laid at the door of North Vietnam. Yet with full knowledge of this the Prime Minister said that he wished to see in Saigon a government which this Government recognised as the lawful government of Saigon. In the cable to Hanoi the Prime Minister went on in 2.B to say:

We appreciate that Thieu (South Vietnam’s President . . .) has given no indications that he is willing to do that, and the Australian Government understands the sense of frustration which has given rise to renewed recourse to military pressure on Thieu although it cannot condone that recourse.

In the cable to Saigon there is no criticism of the simple fact that at the signing of the Peace Agreements the North Vietnamese had some 1 45 000 Regular troops in South Vietnam. At the time this cable was sent the North Vietnamese had some 400 000 Regular troops in South Vietnam. In addition there was a massive buildup of the most sophisticated war equipment supplied mainly by the Soviet Union. The Prime Minister ignores that, completely. He says he understands the frustration. But what about the frustration of the South Vietnamese who had full knowledge that North Vietnam in complete breach of the agreements was being armed in a massive way by the Soviet Union and the People ‘s Republic of China? There is no recognition of that fact in the cable which was sent to South Vietnam. In other words, the Prime Minister is trying to whitewash the continued acts of aggression by North Vietnam in clear breach of the Paris Peace Agreements.

I turn now to paragraph 4 of the cable to Hanoi. I was interested to hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs state in his apology today that whereas the Opposition had always sought a military solution the Government had always sought a solution by negotiation. That sounds strange in view of paragraph 4 of the cable sent to Hanoi because the Prime Minister said:

We appreciate that the foregoing approach may be interpreted by the DRV and PRG as simply an attempt to cut across an inevitable military victory.

Here the Prime Minister was surely propounding a military victory- not negotiations, not peace; an inevitable military victory- and apologising for having to send a cable couched in these mild terms. That cable went on to say:

The acting Minister nevertheless considers that the approach should be made at this point of the war and notes the continuing statements to you and publicly about the PRG desire for a negotiated settlement in conforming with the political provisions of the Paris agreements.

That is extraordinary, is it not? Although there was a massive build-up in arms and there were continued attacks day and night against the South Vietnamese the Provisional Revolutionary Government wanted a negotiated settlement conforming with the political provisions of the Paris Agreements.

Senator Missen:

– That was sent to Hanoi?

Senator SIM:

– That was sent to Hanoi, yes. We were told the cables were substantially the same but we find that the 100-word cable to South Vietnam was from start to finish a denunciation of the South Vietnamese Government. When we read paragraph 3 of the cable to Saigon we see a most extraordinary statement. These words were addressed to the Ambassador:

We should like you if and as circumstances permit to make this Australian position known to South Vietnamese who are not members of the Government but who might yet play an influential political role.

Those are the words of the Prime Minister and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs inviting an Australian Ambassador accredited to a lawful government to go behind that government’s back and to make contact with those who might bring about the overthrow of that government. There is no recognition there that there may have been people who disagreed with the massive breaches by North Vietnam. There was no attempt to suggest to the Ambassador that he go behind the back of the North Vietnamese Government to find people who might honour the peace agreements. I believe that this has never happened before in international relations. I believe that never before has a Prime Minister suggested to an Ambassador accredited to a lawful and established government that he should make contact with people likely to bring about the collapse of that government. How anybody can argue in the face of these quotations that these cables are substantially the same is beyond comprehension. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said in reply to a question: ‘There is not one atom of truth in these allegations.’ I must quote him correctly. He said:

I have seen the cables. There is not one atom of truth -

Apparently there was an interjection and he did not finish what he was going to say but obviously he was going to say ‘in these allegations’ or words to that effect. Later he said:

I have read them before and I have read them again this morning. The statements that have been made -

The statements that the cables were different- are quite untrue.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has condemned himself out of his own mouth. Anybody who reads these cables cannot ignore the unfortunate fact that the cables in truth are significantly different. It must be pointed out, as I have mentioned before, that in the cable to North Vietnam there was no recognition of the blatant abuses of the Paris Peace Agreements by North Vietnam. There was no reference to the massive support from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China. The Prime Minister made some vague reference to the United States of America in one of his statements but completely ignored the Soviet Union. That again, I suppose, is the one horse, one rabbit syndrome.

If the Government had been honest and had come out and said that it supported the North Vietnamese in their campaign against South Vietnam at least it would have had the honesty and courage to make its position clear. While we would have disagreed with it, we would have recognised that it had the courage to state where it stood. Instead the Government, by deceit and dishonesty, has tried to mislead the people into believing that it was adopting an even-handed policy. An open statement of support at least could be recognised, and it could be appreciated that the Government was honest. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) has been more honest in his quite open support for North Vietnam. However the plain fact is that the Government lacked the courage to take the Parliament and the people into its confidence as to its true policies in relation to Indo-China. Obviously it was afraid of public reaction and it sought by deceit to mislead the Parliament and the people. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was a party to this deceit and he deserves the censure of the Senate.

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I recall some lines that I think were written by T. S. Eliot. I hope I do not misquote them but if I do I am sure that Senator Jessop, with his experience as a life underwriter, will be able to correct me. The words are to the following effect: and that is the way the world will end, not with a bang but with a whimper. That is the way in which the war in Vietnam has ended and it is the way in which the policy of the Liberal Party and the Country Party in relation to that war has ended. Instead of honourable senators opposite standing in the Parliament and telling us why they are so proud of their record in that war, why they believe it was justified to have some 500 young Australians and countless numbers of Vietnamese killed in that war, they would rather, as Senator Everett has told us, convert this Senate into a provincial court of petty sessions haggling about a few words in a couple of cables. I do not intend to waste the time of the Senate rehashing what was in those cables other than to say that what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) said was completely correct- that the statements which were in those communications were substantially the same. The statements were to the effect that breaches of the Paris Accords were being committed by both sides involved in the conflict and that the Australian representatives in Hanoi and Saigon should use whatever good offices they were able to use to reduce those breaches.

I am surprised- I must say that I am hard to surprise but even I am surprised- that the Liberal Party would want to raise the matter of deceit with regard to the war in Vietnam, particularly in view of the recent issues of the ‘National Times’ in which there have been documented matters which I think were known to many of us, although not all of those matters were known to all of us for many years. I refer to the record of deceit and dishonesty by the Liberal Party and the Country Party- or the National Country Party or whatever its current alias happens to be- and their now defunct appendage, the Australian Democratic Labor Party, in order to involve Australia in that war in Vietnam.

When I say that the war in Vietnam has ended not with a bang but with a whimper so far as this Parliament is concerned, precisely the same thing has happened in Vietnam. If anything has occurred to prove that those of us who said that the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam represented the people of Vietnam were right, it is the events which have taken place over the last month or so inside the unfortunate country of South Vietnam where, upon the departure of the American forces and the forces of America’s satellites, we have seen a total collapse of that so-called Government in Saigon.

Senator Jessop:

– Supported by Russia and China.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I would advise Senator Jessop to stick to life underwriting and marching around with his fellow insurance company employees rather than to get involved in these complex matters otherwise he is going to find it very serious if he flogs a policy around here. What did we see in the dying hours of the so-called Saigon Government? What did we see of those heroic defenders of democracy? We saw both of them doing the scoot as fast as their legs could carry them, unlike Ho Chi Minh, unlike Pham Van Dong, unlike General Giap, who never ran away but who stayed and fought, whether one agrees or disagrees with their policies. How did they go? We were told that General Thieu, the President of that bogus government in Saigon, tried to get rid of all the gold reserves of his so-called government and that the international airline would not carry the money out of the country. He is one hero. Then there is Air Vice-Marshal Ky who was once the President and who was wined and dined and hosted and toasted as a national leader of liberation when he came to Australia. Apparently now he is in Los Angeles looking for a job as a taxi-driver. As he left Saigon he said, as part of the whimper which has surrounded the total defunct state in which the so-called Saigon Government found itself, that his own President, Thieu, was a crook who was stealing money. Those are not our words, those are the words of Air ViceMarshal Ky when talking about so-called President Thieu.

We are very proud of our record on the Vietnam war all of the way through. We are proud of our opposition to the conscripting of young Australians to go and be killed. We are proud of the fact that we stood up in this Parliament against Liberal and Country Party senators and members of the House of Representatives who declined to serve when they were of military age but who showed their patriotism by conscripting their fellow countrymen to go off and be killed and injured. We have heard those people speaking heroically here. We have a former AttorneyGeneral who sent out the Commonwealth Police to arrest those men who with courage refused to go and fight in that filthy war in which we should never have been involved. We are proud of that record and we are proud of our record since we became a government. We are proud of our Foreign Minister. We are proud of our Prime Minister. We are proud of the fact that we have diplomatic relations with China and that we are taking some steps to see that there is no longer warfare in that area but that there will be peace by way of negotiation.

Senator Greenwood:

– I suppose you are proud of your treatment of -

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am completely proud of my record, but if I were the honourable senator I would not be too proud of my record. If I were the honourable senator I would have volunteered. I have never been in the position of conscripting other people to go and fight my battles for me while I sat safely at home in Australia. Neither has any other member of the

Labor Party sitting in this Parliament done that. I do not want any lectures from Senator Greenwood or anybody else in the Liberal Party or the Country Party about honesty and decency. If they had had honesty and decency they would have been the first ones to put on their uniforms and go up there and fight instead of sending out police to arrest those young Australians who refused to go and fight. We are proud of our record with regard to China. We are proud of the fact that we established diplomatic relations with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam- the Government which represents the mass of the people of that country.

I have not been in South Vietnam, so I can rely only on the reports that I have received to the effect that there was a constant state of tension in Saigon and that it was recognised that great masses of people in Saigon and in the surrounding areas never gave one atom of allegiance to the Saigon Government. They regarded it as a bogus regime imposed upon them by a foreign power. I have been in Hanoi, however. I was in Hanoi in 1973 just after the genocidal bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong by the B52s of the United States Air Force, and I do know that one could walk around anywhere through the streets of Hanoi and Haiphong at any time of the day or night in complete safety, that one did not need to have armed police on every corner, that one would not have known there was a war on, apart from the fact that there were air raid shelters and that every now and then a convoy of troops would move through that beleaguered and smashed city.

One would not need to be pyschic to know as one walked around the streets of Hanoi that the people of Hanoi completely supported their Government, and they supported it because it was led by people who had led the resistance of the Vietnamese people against those who tried to impose alien regimes on them- the French, the Japanese and the Americans. Those leaders are the people who defeated the corrupt clique in Saigon- the Thieus and the Kys- and not the Russian arms or the Chinese arms of which the amount, compared with what was provided by the United States of America, was microscopic. One of the first papers that was issued by the United States Administration concerning its intervention in Vietnam referred to the weapons that had been captured from the forces fighting for the so-called Vietcong, the National Liberation Front, and only 2V4 per cent of those weapons were manufactured in a country with a communist government, such as the Soviet Union, China or Czechoslovakia. The remainder of the arms either were primitive, home-made weapons, weapons which had been captured from the corrupt junta in Saigon, or weapons which had been handed over by the hundreds and thousands of troops in the Saigon army who refused to go on fighting for their corrupt bosses but who went over to the side of the people, the side of the National Liberation Front.

The Opposition has now raised this question about the sending of cables. I do not want to become emotional or subjective about my colleagues, but I would say that no more honest man has ever been a member of this Parliament than Senator Willesee. He is a highly respected person. I believe that if honourable senators opposite were not sitting en masse on the other side of the chamber with the support of the antiLabor mass media they would not have the courage to attack him in this way because they know very well that he is an honest man, a truthful man, a man who has tried to play and in fact has played a constructive role as Foreign Minister of this country. Whether or not honourable senators opposite like it, the present Prime Minister of this country is probably the best known and most favourably known of any Prime Minister since Federation in 1 90 1 . He is a man who has made a decisive impression on the course of world history. He is respected in every continent. He is respected not only in Asia but also through Africa, Latin America, South America and indeed in the United States of America itself.

He is a man who is held in the very highest respect. In fact, just recently we had a visit to this country by a leading American novelist and possibly the world’s most eminent economist, Professor J. K. Galbraith. The only reason that Professor Galbraith came to this country was the high regard in which our Prime Minister is held. If Mr Whitlam had not been the Prime Minister of this country such persons would not have bothered to come here. They certainly did not bother to come here during all the years we had the endless succession of people who landed us in this position in Vietnam. They would not have wasted their time coming here.

If the Opposition is so concerned about truth and falsehood in advertising with regard to Vietnam, let us have a royal commission into the whole question of Australia’s role in Vietnam. Let us not just inquire into a couple of cables which were sent after the war was over. Let us have a royal commission into the statements which were made in this Parliament to the effect that we were requested by the Saigon Government to send troops to South Vietnam. Let us have a royal commission inquiring into the manoeuvres which were undertaken by the now defunct Liberal-Country Party Government. Let us have an inquiry into the request to the Saigon Government to make a request to us to send troops to Vietnam. Let us have a look at that matter. Let us have a look at all of the other allegations which have been reported only so recently in the Australian Press, particularly in the National Times’, about the dishonest way in which young Australians were sent off to be slaughtered and maimed in Vietnam.

Seeing that we are dealing with a subject which might concern my own portfolio, let us have a look at the difference in repatriation benefits made available by this Government for those people who were conscripted to go to Vietnam and those benefits made available by the previous Government which conscripted them to go off and be maimed. If honourable senators opposite are going to talk about honesty, let us have a look at honesty and fair dealing in the treatment of those veterans who came back from that war. Our view has been that even though we were opposed to people being sent there we were not opposed to those men who were sent there. The difference between what we have done for those men compared with what was done by the people who sent them off and who were responsible for their deaths and maiming is fantastic. I can refer anybody to the Repatriation Acts and the Repatriation Bills if he should want to debate that subject.

The Australian Labor Party is proud of its record on all of these issues. We do not run away from any one of these questions. We know that we were not the only people who were opposed to the war. We know that one of the reasons that we became the Government of this country is that the people of Australia became thoroughly sick, disgusted, nauseated and ashamed of the role that the previous Government was playing in Vietnam. We know that there are honest people who would not support us on other matters but who supported us in this matter.

Seeing that this may well be the last debate on the question of Vietnam I would like posthumously to pay some tribute to the late Senator Hannaford, a man who in many respects was a very conservative person indeed but who was honest and courageous. He saw the evil of this filthy war and, despite the fact that he was in very serious ill health, he resigned from the Liberal Party and sat in this chamber as an independent senator. In fact, he campaigned throughout Australia against that war. He was a conservative person who saw through the dishonesty of the Liberal and Country Party Government. I do not think that it is in any way beyond doubt that at the very least his activities in opposing that war hastened his death. I would like to know what the reactions of Senator Hannaford would be if he were to see his erstwhile colleagues in here today trying to raise some contemptible, little, pettifogging motion about a couple of cables.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator BUNTON:
New South Wales

- Mr President, no doubt the matter before the Senate will be dealt with on Party lines. In view of the fact that I will oppose the motion, I think that it is incumbent upon me to express my opinion on this matter and to give the reasons why I take this stand. Today we have had a discussion extending over Vh hours. I have listened intently to what has been said by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. As I have no Party affiliation I believe that I should give the reasons why I will oppose this motion. The motion reads:

That the Senate censures the Minister for Foreign Affairs for knowingly misleading the Senate in relation to the contents of cables sent by the Prime Minister to the Australian Ambassadors in Saigon and Hanoi.

It is a matter of interpretation as to whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) misled the Senate. In my opinion the motion is a harsh one. It challenges the honesty of purpose of a Minister of the Crown and is being judged, I trust, by people of deep conscience as a result of their unfettered thinking. As I see it, these matters should not be dealt with on Party lines. The debate has centred around 2 cables connected with a 30-year war. During the term of that war many references and adverse comments have been made by members of all Parties in this Parliament about the government in power at a particular time. To me it is strange that near the end of hostilities we find that 2 cables should be the basis for the discussion which has ensued today.

A motion of censure concerned with exactly the same matter was moved in the House of Representatives today. As is known, the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was the architect of the cables which were sent. In his defence today the Prime Minister said that the cables and letters could not be looked at in isolation. He said that he had not departed from the truth and had not wittingly misled the Parliament. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said precisely the same thing in other words in his reply to the motion which was moved this afternoon. A motion against the Prime Minister was moved in the House of Representatives today and was defeated. Therefore, it is ludicrous to think that a motion of censure concerned with the same matter should be moved in the Senate against the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he was not the architect of the cables. I believe that it would be a ludicrous state of affairs if this motion were carried. It would not do this Parliament any credit.

It is natural that the Minister for Foreign Affairs should support his Prime Minister because, perhaps unfortunately, that is a legacy of the Party system. When a Party system is in vogue, as it is here, in matters such as this when the integrity of a Minister is at stake- it should be the policy of the Party concerned that is at stake- I think it is necessary that we should throw overboard our own desire to stick to Party principles. For those reasons I will oppose the motion. I do not think that it would do the Australian public any good if this motion were to be carried. It creates an instability in the people’s thinking when the Parliament meets to deal with matters of national importance and members on one side of the Parliament vote one way and members on the other side vote another way. It is a shocking state of affairs. It is a good state of affairs to think that there is an independent member or two in this Parliament. I sincerely trust that this motion will be defeated because I do not think that it will serve any good purpose.

We have not heard a great deal about the motion in the discussion which has taken place. Honourable senators have abused one another for what has happened during the years of the Vietnam war. This debate has proceeded so far for 3% hours and we have many other important matters to consider. I close on this point: I sincerely trust that some benefit will come from this discussion and that there will be an awareness by members of Parliament generally and particularly by honourable senators of the necessity for people who have control of the affairs of their country to get together on important matters to ensure that the subversive element which is threatening Australia is cast aside and to create a vigilance whereby our democratic system will be protected to the full. Those are the reasons why I will oppose the motion.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I speak to this motion because of some of the sentiments which have been expressed by Senator Bunton. I have listened to this debate. Some honourable senators have gone over ground that has nothing to do with the motion that is before the Senate. There has been a lot of talk about the war in Vietnam, the history of the war, the rights and the wrongs of the war, and so on. That is not the point at issue at all. Tonight we are discussing a motion which states that the Senate has been misled by untruthful statements concerning communications with the governments of South Vietnam and North Vietnam. Anyone who reads English in a simple way must agree that there is a difference between the 2 communications under discussion. One really amounted to an admonition of South Vietnam for taking actions to defend itself. The other quite plainly indicated to North Vietnam that the Prime Minister of this country realised that there was some occasion for the North Vietnamese to be attacking South Vietnam and he made excuses for the North Vietnamese. There is no doubt that the North Vietnamese had frustrations. One of the frustrations was that they, the North Vietnamese, the Communist group were breaking the Paris Agreements.

The position is that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) have misled this Parliament. I believe that the misleading of Parliament is a very serious matter. It is not a Party matter; it is a parliamentary matter. During the time that I have been a member of this chamber- I challenge Senator Bunton or anyone else to deny it- I have always stood for the rights of the Parliament first. So far as the independence of individuals is concerned, we on this side of the chamber have the freedom of our own conscience in voting. During the period that my Party was the Government of this country I voted against my Party whenever I felt that its legislation was not correct. There is no misstatement about that; it is a fact. To me Parliament is the focal point of democracy. The Parliament should be conducted on the highest possible basis as the focal point of this democratic country. It is a misleading of this Parliament for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to say that the 2 communications were identical, or words to that effect. So far as I am concerned, whether it is the present Government or my own Party that misleads this Parliament I will always vote on these matters according to my conscience.

Senator McLaren:

– What did you do when Menzies misled the Parliament in the early days of Vietnam? You were pretty silent then.

Senator WOOD:

– I am not talking about the issue of Vietnam. Senator McLaren was not a member of this chamber at the time. If he had taken note of the mood of the people of this country he would have realised that they were behind the Government of the day because of the fear in their minds of the march of communism.

Senator McLaren:

– Generated by the Liberal Party.

Senator WOOD:

– It was not generated by the Liberal Party. It was the feeling at the time. It could happen again. There is a feeling growing in the community today. There was a demonstration in Melbourne which showed that the people are concerned about this issue. That is beside the point. In my committee work and in my work in this Parliament I have always stood for Parliament being above Party. I will always stand for that principle. I will not have anybody in this Parliament say that my vote on this issue is a vote on Party lines. I will vote for the motion because I believe that this House of Parliament was misled. I remember when the Minister for Foreign Affairs was quite upstaged about the issue. In those circumstances, I shall vote for the motion.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I suppose one should ask: What is the purpose of this motion? I guess it is to embarrass the Government, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), and to divide the Australian people into 2 camps on the issue more definitely than they were divided before this debate. If that was the intention, I believe it has failed. From a reasonably impartial listener’s viewpoint today, I would say the Government has won the debate hands down in both Houses. It has been a waste of time. I heartily agree with Senator Bunton ‘s remarks. For some weeks there has been discussion about these cables. The Australian public is thoroughly confused and will divide on this issue only according to Party lines. I can say to Senator Greenwood that the number of his supporters on the issue of Vietnam has diminished from the number that it was a few weeks ago because many Liberals now agree with the statements which have been made in recent weeks by United States leaders in their country. There has been a great regret by so many people about the events of Vietnam. There has been a desire to forget. It has been shown by the lack of public interest in a number of issues on Vietnam. Whether the desire to forget is good or not, there is that desire.

I am disappointed that the Opposition should have taken so much time in both Houses of Parliament today to waste ammunition on something that the public wants to forget when there are so many great issues upon which it should be attacking the Government. The economic issues which are foremost in this country today and which are concerning the majority of Australians have hardly been mentioned in the first sitting day after a fortnight’s recess. It is on this issue that the Government is so vulnerable, especially since it has shown political cowardice in regard to the application before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for increased wages under the metal trades award. By moving this motion the Opposition has failed to attack. It has failed to put its own house in order. There is no united voice or clear cut statement from the Opposition as to what it will do about the proposed Australian Government Insurance Office. It has done nothing in the face of one of the greatest moves to nationalisation that Australia has seen. Where does the Opposition stand? People march in the street and wonder where it stands. It wastes the time of Parliament today on this ridiculous issue. The Government is vulnerable on the issue which took some time previously in this chamber concerning the sending of one of its members to the High Court and his qualifications as a senator while it covers up for members in the other House. It will not give information which the public should have about other members so that their qualifications could be assessed also. There are so many issues on which the Government is deserving of attack and criticism, particularly the cowardice and the division on the economic front.

The Opposition talks about a 30-year war. As ‘ Senator Bunton so rightly said, thankfully it is ended now, whatever may be the circumstances about its ending. Australians do not want to go on seeing division among their own ranks about it. The motion is quite absurd. It does no credit to the Opposition. It has highlighted the debating ability of the Government in this House and in the other House. I am quite sure that the reports of the Opposition’s effort will show that the Government has gained and not lost on this argument. Therefore, I am pleased to add the voting strength of the Liberal Movement to the independence of Senator Bunton in this vote.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– In reply- I think it wise that the Senate should be reminded of the text of the motion. It is:

That the Senate censures the Minister for Foreign Affairs for knowingly misleading the Senate in relation to the contents of cables sent by the Prime Minister to the Australian ambassadors in Saigon and Hanoi.

That is the issue for debate. Those of us who can recall so vividly what Senator Steele Hall, the previous speaker, said will recall that he did not address himself at all to that motion. We do not know whether he believes that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) knowingly misled the Parliament or whether he believes the opposite because he chose not to express any view. He engaged in those activities which to him appeared to be the appropriate means of attracting some publicity and ignoring the issues. I challenge his statement about the Opposition’s motives. This motion was not moved, as he rather glibly suggested, to divide the Australian nation. It may be headline catching phraseology, but we moved this motion because we believe in the integrity of the Parliament, as was indicated at the outset of the debate, and in the necessity for Ministers to tell the truth when they are asked questions. If that is regarded by Senator Steele Hall as a matter of little consequence, I regret that the people of South Australia have regarded him as a worthy representative in this place.

I must say that the Government’s attitude in this debate has been quite remarkable. It has run away from the central issue. In the initial response Senator Willesee went to the ministerial table and read a speech. He had his head down throughout. After he had finished his speech he departed from the chamber as soon as the civilities of the Senate would permit. I doubt whether he has reappeared since. It was obvious to anyone observing him that he was embarrassed. His sole defence was that the words attributed to him had been taken out of context. He struggled to maintain that point of view. I believe that to anyone who is interested in the merits of this issue a reading of the debate will indicate whether his defence can be fairly substantiated. We gave the facts. When those cables were ultimately revealed we were horrified at the duplicity in which Government Ministers had engaged. Then a series of Government speakers followed Senator Willesee. Senator Gietzelt, who should be assured of that militant left wing and communist support which has been offered to him occasionally, delivered his usual diatribe about his Party’s view on Vietnam. We heard from Senator James McClelland. He was not concerned to defend Senator Willesee. He was concerned only to talk in generalities. He alleged misdemeanours, deceit and duplicity by previous governments. Not once did he give chapter and verse to illustrate what he meant by the lies and the deceits which he so freely alleged.

Then Senator Everett spoke. He said that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) had never talked about cables; he had talked only about communications. I wonder whether Senator Everett was trying to deceive the Australian people because there was no question that the Prime Minister was asked about the cables. If he chooses to reply by talking about communications, is it Senator Everrett’s view that that was a clever way of avoiding the issue? He ought to recall that the Prime Munster today, when he debated this issue in the House of Representatives, acknowledged that in one respect the 2 sets of documents- the letters and the cables- were different; not in their purport or purpose, as he said, but in their very nature. One might examine at some length what the Prime Minister meant by that concession. When a man says that cables are different in their nature but not in their purport or purpose, I wonder what he is seeking to conceal by that adroit use of language. It is so obvious that in their length, in their tone and in their contents those cables were different. Even a Prime Minister glib of tongue cannot deny that fact. I do not know that he would thank Senator Everett for the assistance which I am sure Senator Everett sought to give him.

I suppose that the one man whose consistency is to be respected is Senator Wheeldon because all he was concerned about today was not to defend Senator Willesee- I think he mentioned the word ‘cables’ once and it was mentioned only in passing- but to assert that he was exultant and triumphant that North Vietnam had ultimately triumphed. I must respect his consistency because we know that years ago in this chamber Senator Wheeldon had said that he was on the side of North Vietnam, and he had said in Hanoi in January 1973 when he broadcast over Hanoi radio, according to the reports I have, that the people of North Vietnam ought to recognise that there were 3 Ministers in the Australian Government who had indicated that they were on the side of North Vietnam. Of course, that referred to those Ministers who had so strikingly castigated the United States shortly after the Labor Government had come to power. As I understand it, that is the summary of the case which the Government presented against this motion. It was not a defence of Senator Willesee and it was not an explanation of the case which every member of the Opposition who spoke had pointed to, which is that Senator Willesee had told the Senate that what Mr Peacock had alleged was in those cables was untrue.

When those cables were produced, when the Age’ newspaper published them, it was found that what Mr Peacock had alleged was in effect true and that what the Minister for Foreign Affairs had said was not true. That point was hammered home and it was quite clear. This is not just the Opposition asserting a point of view. It is not a course in which I have ever engaged previously in this chamber, but simply because I think the record requires it I wish to refer to other authority as to what has been said with regard to these cables, what had been said by Mr Peacock about them and the contradictions given by Mr Whitlam. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is sought to be censured in this place because, not only did he accept what Mr Whitlam said but also he went further and said that what Mr Peacock had said was based on a lie. I refer to newspaper editorials because newspaper editorials have not been notorious in recent years for their support of viewpoints which this Opposition has raised. On this issue there was a remarkable uniformity. I refer to the ‘Canberra Times’ of 30 April 1975 which stated:

With the best will in the world it is impossible to accept the repeated assurances of the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, that the Opposition had ‘fabricated’ allegations ‘that there was some difference in the tone of the communications (he had) sent to Hanoi and Saigon’. The sad truth is that there are very substantial differences between the 2 cables, whose texts are now published and which the Government has confirmed. The unavoidable inference is that Mr Whitlam, to put it charitably, has misled the Parliament and the people of Australia.

For better or for worse, any government is entitled to its biases, in this case its sympathy is with the communist aims of North Vietnam, but it has the obligation of fully justifying this to the people whom it represents in its dealings with foreign powers. More important still, it should not resort to concealment or denials to hide its bias. The worst offence a government can be guilty of is not that of making mistakes. It is that of being dishonest to the people who elected it.

That is the view of the ‘Canberra Times’. One might look at what the Melbourne ‘Age’, which had originally published the cables, said. The Melbourne ‘Age’ notoriously is not a friend of either the Liberal Party or the Country Party. The ‘Age’ of 29 April said:

The texts of these messages substantially confirm the allegations which the Prime Minister emphatically denied in Parliament, that the Government was clearly biased in favour of the North. . . . These cables . . . seem to confirm the Opposition’s accusations of duplicity and hypocrisy in the Government’s attitude to the 2 Vietnams. More than that, they provide striking evidence that the Prune Minister deceived- and we would put it no higher than that at this stage- Parliament and the public in declaring that there was ‘no truth whatever’ in the allegations first made by the Opposition’s foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Peacock. . . . We will await a full explanation, but for the time being the miserable evidence suggests that our Government has betrayed refugees and dealt in a two-faced way with foreign Governments- and with the Parliament and people of Australia.

That is the view of the Melbourne ‘Age’. Mr Creighton Burns, who I think is the deputy editor, said:

Now that the cables have been published, and the accuracy of the published version officially confirmed, does the Prime Minister still claim, as he did in Parliament, they are substantially the same in content and tone? . . . Until the Prime Minister has answered these and other questions, the suspicion remains that he pretended to be following one policy in Vietnam while he was actually following another. that he misrepresented his true position to the Parliament. . . .

Mr Michael Richardson, the Melbourne ‘Age’ correspondent in Singapore, said:

The text of 2 cables sent to Hanoi and Saigon- published exclusively in ‘The Age’ yesterday- are irrefutable evidence of the Prime Minister’s duplicity.

I refer to the Sydney newspaper, the ‘Daily Mirror’. It said:

But there is no doubt his cables were abrupt and curt to Saigon and understanding and helpful to Hanoi. His denial of this in Parliament is now shown to be far from the truth. And it shows that while Mr Whitlam might base his statesmanship abroad on political realities, he once again forgets the realities of home: That no Prime Minister can lie to the people and get away with it.

The Sydney ‘Sun ‘ contained the same language:

  1. . for the Prime Minister to have told Parliament the two were substantially the same was nothing less than false by any examination of their meaning.

Even the ‘Australian’ newspaper made the matter quite clear when it said:

Edward Gough Whitlam has been caught out- exposed as a man who misled Parliament and the people with what can most charitably be described as half-truths. … Mr Malcolm Fraser and his Opposition colleagues have in large part been vindicated. It was the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock, who first revealed the existence of (and differences between) the cables and who accused Mr Whitlam, quite correctly as it turns out, of directing his sympathies to the North. The Opposition has a powerful weapon to use against the Government and if Mr Whitlam is concerned about the criticism he is receiving, he has no one to blame but himself.

The Melbourne ‘Herald’ in 2 editorials on 29 and 30 April made much the same point. I simply read one extract, which reads:

Those who study the texts of the cables now disclosed and compare them with the clear aim of the Prime Minister’s answer in Parliament, will ask whether propriety- or hypocrisy- is at issue.

The next day the ‘Herald ‘ stated:

Indeed, there is clear and public proof that he had misled Parliament and abused his authority.

Having read those extracts I simply ask: Is it said that this is something contrived by the Opposition? Are we trying to make something which does not exist? Of course we are not. Objective writers have seen that there was a duplicity, a deceit and a misleading of the Parliament. I know, from what has been said by Senator Bunton and by Senator Hall, that this motion of censure of the Foreign Minister will be lost. I respect Senator Bunton ‘s view. I regret that he holds it. I believe that in the Parliament one precept must prevail. If it does not prevail its exposure must be attended by condemnation. If Ministers do not tell the truth the Parliament ought to censure them. I think it reflects upon the Senate on this occasion that when a Minister has been caught out with regard to the text of cables which he declined to disclose to the Parliament and which come to light in surreptitious means thereafter he is shown to have deliberately misled the Parliament. It is a regrettable day that this motion be not carried. We will divide on the issue because we in the Opposition believe that it is an important issue which must be asserted.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Greenwood’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 28

NOES: 28

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1338

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1338

QUESTION

APPLE AND PEAR INDUSTRY

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Agriculture. It is my understanding that the stabilisation scheme for the apple and pear industry expires at the end of this season. Has the Government given any consideration to a renewal of that or any other such scheme to support the apple and pear industry?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The stabilisation scheme for the fruit industry has been operating since 1971. This year the Government doubled the stabilisation payments on last year after providing in 1974, in conjunction with the Tasmanian Labor Government, a total of $4m to guarantee basic returns to the Tasmanian fruit industry. Similar offers were made on a $ 1 for $ 1 basis to all other States, including Victoria and Western Australia, which wished to take up that option. This year, as I assume the honourable senator knows, the question of the assistance under stabilisation is a reference to the Industries Assistance Commission. We will await a report from the Commission before any further decisions can be taken. The Government is not unmindful of the problems confronting the industry in Tasmania. In fact the new Apple and Pear Corporation probably has taken more initiatives to support that industry and to put fresh marketing initiatives back into the industry than have ever been taken before for the whole of the industry throughout its history. I think I should also say that on a per capita basis in respect of any industry in Australia, probably including secondary industry, no industry receives as much government support as does the apple and pear industry.

page 1339

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator BAUME:

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Was an approach made recently by Mr Michael Darby for Australian Government assistance in obtaining travel to Guam for a medical team? Had Mr Darby assembled, for the purpose of assisting with the care of the refugees, several tons of pharmaceutical goods, dried milk and other foodstuffs, together with teams of doctors and nurses? Was the plan to establish an Australian presence to serve humanitarian objectives for the large number of Vietnamese refugees in Guam and, as such, was the proposed mission one of which all Australians would approve? Had cables been received from the senior American officer on Guam welcoming the proposed help? Did the Department of Foreign Affairs decide not to assist the expedition to obtain the transport which it required to get its members and assembled goods to Guam?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

- Senator Baume has asked a series of questions the answers to some of which I will have to find out for him. Mr Darby did assemble some nurses.

Senator Baume:

– Doctors and nurses.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes. I am not quite sure about the goods. That is one aspect I will have to check on for the honourable senator. I understand that three of them have gone to Guam and that the Americans have said that they do not require any more. I think they are there at the moment. As to the rest of the questions concerning the goods and what happened to them, I will find out and let the honourable senator know.

page 1339

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the haste of the Australian Government in announcing its recognition of the new Cambodian Government, I ask: Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs exercised the same speed and sense of urgency in checking the widely reported allegations about the unprecedented and immediate expulsion of millions of people, including hospital inpatients, from Phnom Penh and other cities? If not, why not? Is it not evident that such an act against humanity is now being perpetrated and that the Australian people and the Government should at least protest in an endeavour to save lives?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-There have been reports of the situation in Phnom Penh being chaotic. It is very hard to check on that. We have been getting our reports mainly from Bangkok and thereabouts. The reports have been confused, but it does seem that the situation there is in a very confused state and is not a good one.

page 1339

QUESTION

LETTERS AND CABLES TO HANOI AND SAIGON

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Is it a fact that on or about 1 May or 2 May copies of letters dated 13 March addressed to Hanoi and Saigon- I think to the Ambassadors or the Foreign Ministers of those countries- were released to the public and to the Press? Was that releasing done with the authority of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister? If so, why was it done, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister had earlier told the Parliament that it was not proper to release cables?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I am not aware of whether that was done. As honourable senators know the cables that followed the letters were leaked and given to the Press by somebody. As far as I know the others followed the same course. I will certainly find out whether they were given officially and let the honourable senator know.

page 1340

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and is in relation to the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees. I ask: Is the Minister aware that the voluntary agency known as World Christian Action has indicated to the Government that it is prepared to render the maximum co-operation and assistance to the Government in resettlement of the Vietnamese refugees? Is the Minister aware that this agency has expertise, personnel and international connections as well as long years of experience in refugee resettlement in many parts of the world? Will he respond to its offers of assistance by conferring with it and widening the criteria for the admission of Vietnamese refugees?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-What has happened regarding the whole question of refugees is that we have made an approach through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He has cabled us in connection with this matter and it is under study at this very moment. We have, of course, sent people to Guam to pick up those people who have escaped from Vietnam and who come within our categories so that they can be processed and brought here. As to the special organisation mentioned by the honourable senator, I will do a check on that matter and give him some more information on it.

page 1340

QUESTION

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION

Senator WRIGHT:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the report that a visa has been issued for the entry to Australia of a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organisation correct? Will the Minister comment upon the extension to Australia of a campaign spearheaded by that organisation? In the Minister’s view is it in our interests that the terrorist propaganda which is represented by that organisation be imported here and allowed to take part in an Israeli-Arab conflict?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-A visa has been granted to a Mr El Surani, who is making a visit to this area. I am just trying to pick up his title from my file. He is the head of the Arab League in Cairo. He is doing a series of visits, including a visit to this country. He is going through most of the South-East Asian countries. He wil be visiting here. As I remember it he will be quite willing to appear before the media and -

Senator Wright:

– That is his obvious purpose, of course.

Senator WILLESEE:

-Not necessarily. I do not know what is his obvious purpose. I just state as a fact that I remember reading that he wants to come here and put the case of the Arab League on this question. As to whether or not the visit is to enable the setting up of some permanent organisation here, we have had no applications on that score.

page 1340

QUESTION

OVERSEAS BORROWINGS

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Australian Government, through the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, is seeking to negotiate an overseas loan of $2,000m? If that is the case, is not such a loan in breach of the financial agreement between the Commonwealth and the States as it appears to be something to finance a deficit?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is a well known fact that there has been an enormous shift of capital in the world in the last 12 or 18 months. Those countries which have been the traditional suppliers of capital have had a great deal of their capital reserves drained as a result of the transfer of about $70 billion to what are known as the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries countries. It is logical for any nation which normally goes onto the world market seeking capital to investigate the possibility of obtaining loan moneys or capital from those countries. I am quite sure that the Australian Government would be remiss if it were not at least to explore the possibility of obtaining such capital from those sources.

The methods by which or the purposes for which such capital may or may not be obtained from the OPEC countries is purely a matter of Government policy. The Government itself would direct the priorities and the areas in which such capital was to be utilised. But, insofar as the arrangements under the Loan Council are concerned, the Government would observe the procedures which are laid down by the Loan Council and would not abrogate any of its responsibilities towards the States.

page 1340

QUESTION

SENATOR J. J. WEBSTER

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! For the information of honourable senators, I lay upon the table the following papers relating to the resolution of the Senate of 22 April 1975 referring questions as to the qualifications of Senator James Joseph Webster to the Court of Disputed Returns:

A copy of the letter from the President of the Senate dated 24 April 1 975 to the Principal Registrar of the High Court of Australia and a copy of the accompanying documents.

The letter from the Principal Registrar of the High Court of Australia dated 6 May 1 975 to the President of the Senate, accompanied by a copy of the notice of the sittings of the Court of Disputed Returns.

Copies of my letter and the reply from the Principal Registrar have been distributed to honourable senators. Copies of the accompanying documents may be inspected in the Senate Records Office.

page 1341

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a report by the Minister for Education on the meeting of the Australian Education Council held in Perth during 1 7 and 1 8 April 1 975.

page 1341

RESERVE FORCES PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Committee of Reference for Defence Forces Pay entitled ‘Reserve Forces Pay and Allowances’.

page 1341

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-1972, I present the twenty-ninth annual report of the Australian National Airlines Commission for the year ended 30 June 1974, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I move:

I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date on this report and the long and unconscionable delay in the presentation of it.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1341

ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) Pursuant to clause 11 of the 1972 Airlines Agreement, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd has submitted to the Minister for Transport financial information in respect of that part of the company and its subsidiaries relating to the operation of air services during the year ended 29 June 1974. 1 now present this financial information which has been compiled from the audited accounts of the company and has been certified as to correctness by two directors.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

-I move:

I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1341

COMMUNIQUES

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a joint communique by the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of Peru, Major-General Francisco Morales Bermudez

I also present the text of the communique issued on 6 May 1975 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kingston, Jamaica.

page 1341

FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACT 1969

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969, I present the fifth annual report on the operation of the Act during the year ended 30 June 1 974.

page 1341

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the resolutions of the ninetyfirst meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Sydney on 14 February 1975.

page 1341

EXPORT HARDWOOD CHIP INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of a working group established to review the economic and environmental aspects of the Export Hardwood Woodchip Industry, dated April 1975, together with attachments constituting volume 2 of the report.

page 1342

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

-In the absence of the Chairman of the Publications Committee, Senator Milliner, I bring up the seventh report from that Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 1342

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:
Victoria

– I wish to ask your instructions, Mr President. I have a motion to move on behalf of one of the joint committees of this Parliament but I am subject to your direction as to when I may speak.

The PRESIDENT:

– I intended to call you on the placing of business, but I shall give you the right to proceed now.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr President. I ask leave of the Senate to move a motion to permit the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System to sit during the sittings of the Senate on Thursday, 15 May 1975.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I move:

In addressing myself to this motion, I point out to honourable senators that the Committee sits under the Standing Orders of the Senate. The Standing Orders of the Senate preclude a committee sitting while the Senate is sitting. I suggest that it is a very proper standing order.

Senator Georges:

– I would not agree.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I think it is a proper standing order for the one simple reason that honourable senators are remunerated by a grateful public to sit in this place and do their business, and not to sit on other business.

Senator Georges:

– What difference does it make?

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-If the honourable senator were to go to another place occasionally he would find that there were very few people sitting in it. I go on further to say that I approach the Senate to ask for this leave with some trepidation, because I well recollect how the Senate disapproves of committees sitting during the plenary sittings of the Senate. I remember that I asked 3 times on behalf of one committee, the indulgence of the Senate, to sit while the Senate was sitting. When I looked at the faces of my Senate colleagues, I realised that for the first time in my parliamentary career, I was facing a hanging jury. I swore that I would never ask leave of the Senate for this purpose again. However, there are some exigencies in this matter that you, Mr President, will well understand. We are coming towards the end of the parliamentary sessional period. Dr Jenkins, the Chairman of this Committee is anxious, as indeed are all the members of the Committee, to try to press on and get the Committee wound up to enable the report to be tabled in Parliament. Therefore, I should be grateful if honourable senators and the Senate will agree to this Committee sitting on that day.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1342

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland)- by leave- agreed to:

That Senator Milliner be granted leave of absence for 2 months on account of ill health.

page 1342

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF AUSTRALIAN RESOURCES

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland)- by leave- agreed to:

That Senators Chaney, Coleman, Sir Magnus Cormack, Everett, Mcintosh and Maunsell be appointed members of the Standing Committee on National Development and Ownership and Control of Australian Resources.

page 1342

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Common Informers (Parliamentary Disqualifications) Bill 1975.

Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Bill 1 975.

Road Safety and Standards Authority Bill 1975.

page 1342

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following message from the House of Representatives:

Mr President, the House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution, which was agreed to by the House of Representatives this day, and requests the concurrence of the Senate therein: That paragraph 12 of the resolution of appointment of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament be omitted and that the following paragraph be substituted: ‘(12) That the Committee report within the shortest reasonable period, not later than 30 September 1975, and that any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report. ‘

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 1343

ROAD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY BILL 1975

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it has agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 1343

DRIED FRUITS EXPORT CHARGES BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania Minister for Agriculture · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Cotton:

- Mr President, I note that an honourable senator on the Government side called ‘aye’ and not an Opposition senator. I had not had a chance previously to see the second reading speech to determine whether it is one that ought to be read. Having had a brief look at it now, it seems to me that it is not an exceptional matter and therefore the Opposition agrees to its being incorporated.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of the Parliament for conversion to metric measure of the maximum permissible rate of charge on exports of dried fruits, as provided in the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act 1924-1970. Shortly after it came to office this Government accepted the principle, adopted by the previous Government in January 1970, that Australia should convert to use of the metric system as the system of measurement of physical quantities. The Metric Conversion Board, which was established to guide and facilitate the changeover, has reported that by June 1974, metric conversion in Australia was more than 50 per cent complete. Numerous Australian industries have already converted to metric measurement, and many others are well advanced in their conversion programs. The dried vine fruits industry converted to metric measurement with the commencement of the present season on 1 March 1975. The Australian Dried Fruits Control Board therefore recommended the changes which the Government is now putting before the Senate in this Bill.

One variation proposed in the Bill is to substitute the metric unit, the kilogram, for the imperial unit, the pound, on which the charge on exports of dried fruits is based. A second proposed variation provides that the maximum rate of charge which may be applied will be altered from ‘threetenths of a cent for each pound’ to ‘seventenths of a cent for each kilogram’. This is simply a substitution of the nearest rational metric equivalent of the previous rate, although it incidentally results in an increase of 5.8 per cent in the maximum rate of charge. I may add that the actual rate of charge is prescribed by a regulation made under the Act. At present it is half the maximum permissible rate.

Funds raised under the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act provide the major part of the income of the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board, which is responsible for controlling the export, and the sale and distribution after export, of Australian dried currants, sultanas and raisins. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 1343

DRIED FRUITS LEVY BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator Wriedt (Tasmania Minister for

Agriculture) (9.7)- I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

The purpose of this Bill is to seek the approval of the Parliament for conversion to metric measure of the maximum permissible rates of levy on dried fruits received at packing houses, as provided in the Dried Fruits Levy Act 1971.

This Government has maintained the principle adopted by its predecessor that Australia should convert to use of the metric system as the system of measurement of physical quantities. I understand that metric conversion in Australia is more than half completed, and that numerous industries have already converted fully. With the conversion of the dried vine fruits industry from the commencement of the present season on 1 March 1975, the Dried Fruits Research Committee recommended, and the Government favours, the changes which are now being put before the Senate in this Bill.

One amendment proposed in the Bill is to substitute the metric unit, the tonne, for the imperial unit, the ton, on which the levies are based. A second proposed amendment provides that the maximum rates of levy which may be applied will be altered from ‘one dollar per ton’ to ‘one dollar per tonne’ in the case of dried vine fruits, and from ‘five dollars per ton’ to ‘five dollars per tonne’ in the case of dried tree fruits. This is simply a substitution of the nearest rational metric equivalents of the previous rates, although it incidentally results in increases of 1.6 per cent in the maximum rates of levy. I may add that the actual rates of levy are prescribed by regulations made under the Act. At present they are half the maximum rates. Funds raised under the Dried Fruits Levy Act provide the main basis for the financing of the Dried Fruits Research Committee, which is responsible to the Government for sponsoring scientific, technical or economic research in connection with the production, processing or packaging of dried fruits. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 1344

LOANS (AUSTRALIAN SHIPPING COMMISSION) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Cotton:

– No, Mr President; I regret that I cannot give leave. I think that this is a Bill of such consequence, involving $50m, that my colleagues ought to hear it.

Senator WRIEDT:

-This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to borrowings by Australia not exceeding the equivalent of US$68m ($A50m) to assist the Australian Shipping Commission (ANL) in financing the purchase of 2 bulk ore carriers from Gotaverken shipyards in Sweden at an estimated cost of approximately 286 million Swedish kroners ($A54m). The vessels are due for delivery in July 1 976 and May 1977. Because the ANL requires overseas finance outside the normal deferred payment arrangements with shipbuilders, which it has negotiated in the past, and in view of long-standing arrangements in which longer term overseas borrowings are undertaken by the Australian Government on behalf of its transport authorities, Parliament is being asked to approve borrowings on behalf of the ANL. However, Parliament has on a number of previous occasions approved borrowings for the other government owned transport authorities, Qantas and TransAustralia Airways. Legislation for the last series of such borrowings was passed by Parliament in the Budget sittings of last year. The borrowing arrangements for the purchase of these ships have not been finalised at this stage and the Government will proceed only if funds are available on reasonable terms and conditions. It is expected that the loans will have a maturity of between 7 and 10 years. Offers will be sought for these funds from overseas sources with established connections with the Australian Government.

Other arrangements for the loans will be similar to those approved by Parliament for previous loans for Qantas and TAA in recent years. In particular, the Australian Government will be the borrower in the first place, and the proceeds will be made available to the ANL on terms and conditions to be determined pursuant to clause 7 of the Bill. These terms and conditions will be identical with those under which Australia itself borrows the money. The ANL will be required to meet all charges under the loan agreements. Consequently, the Australian Government will, as usual, assume the function of an intermediary in these arrangements.

The detailed terms and conditions of each of the loans to be arranged will be subject to approval by the Australian Loan Council. The amount to be borrowed is included in the Australian Government’s loan program for 1974-75 approved by the Loan Council. Should any borrowings under this legislation not be finalised until 1975-76, the amount of these borrowings will be included in the Government’s loan program for that year. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned.

page 1345

CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The President:

– Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

This Bill and a complementary Bill, the Customs Bill, which will be introduced shortly, are designed to give effect to the Government’s decision to adopt the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Anti-dumping Code. The opportunity will also be taken to strengthen the Government’s powers to protect Australian industry against the practices of dumping and subsidisation of imported goods, in the light of experience gained with the existing Act, the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Act. That Act will be repealed with the coming into operation of this Bill. Australia, as a member of the GATT, is bound by the Agreement’s anti-dumping and countervailing duty provisions, contained in Article VI of the GATT.

In 1967 the GATT issued the text of an agreement, known in short as the Anti-dumping Code, which interpreted the provisions of Article VI of the GATT on anti-dumping duties and laid down rules for their application so as to ensure the greatest possible uniformity in the practices of acceding governments. A comparison of the Code with the present Australian legislation and practices in relation to anti-dumping showed that there were no substantial differences between them. The report of the InterDepartmental Committee on the feasibility of Australia acceding to the GATT Anti-dumping Code was tabled in the Senate on 4 December 1973, and concluded that accession to the Code would not inhibit Australia in taking effective measures to counter what it considers to be actionable dumping.

The Code is the accepted international system to counter dumping practices. Most of Australia’s major trading partners are Code signatories, and our adoption of the Code would minimise resistance by those countries to our conducting dumping inquiries within their territories. By acceding to the Code we will become a member of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices. This Committee meets annually for the purpose of affording parties to the Code the opportunity of consulting on matters relating to the administration of their anti-dumping systems in the light of the provisions of the Code and the furtherance of its objectives. One significant point of difference between the provisions of the present Act and the Bill arises out of considerations other than those determined by the decision to adopt the Anti-dumping Code. In 1965 the Chairman of the Tariff Board referred to the unwarranted costs, delays and inconvenience out of the requirement for a prior inquiry and report by the Board before the Minister could impose dumping duties.

In 1973 the Government sought a report from Sir John Crawford and Mr Rattigan on this issue. The report which was released on 9 January 1974 confirmed the view that the Minister should be empowered to impose a dumping duty without prior inquiry and report by the Industries Assistance Commission. The report did recommend, however, the decisions of the Minister should be appealable to the Commission. The provisions of the Bill reflect these recommendations. I commend this Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.

page 1345

CUSTOMS BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)-

This Bill is complementary to the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Bill which I have just introduced into the House. Its purpose is to provide a restriction on the time during which the Customs may hold cash securities taken for antidumping protection. It is administrative practice to take such securities in situations after there is prima facie evidence of dumping, but before a final decision is made, if the Australian industry is likely to suffer considerable injury in the meantime, in the absence of protection. The authority for this practice is contained in the Customs Act. The Customs Act provides that securities must be disposed of within 3 years, but the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Anti-dumping Code requires securities taken in anti-dumping cases to be determined within 3 months. This amendment of the Customs Act will give effect to this requirement. I commend this Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) adjourned.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 5) 1974-75 In Committee

Consideration resumed from 23 April.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:
QUEENSLAND

– The Committee is considering the Bill in the same groupings and order as applied in the Estimates Committees. The Committee has already passed the groups of departments covered by Estimates Committees A to E. The votes for the group of departments covered by Estimates Committee F are now before the Committee.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I desire to make some remarks in respect of an item which was being considered when this debate was adjourned on 23 April. At that time Senator Greenwood raised for consideration the item in regard to legal aid. An amount of $250,000 is sought under this item for additional legal aid to existing legal aid authorities. In that debate Senator Greenwood referred to a dispute which was then current, and it is illustrative of the very unsatisfactory position in which legal aid stands in this country. Senator Greenwood referred in his speech to a sum of $307,682 which will probably be familiar to members of this chamber because it has been a matter of current dispute between the Commonwealth Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) and the Attorney-General of the State of Victoria for some considerable time. In the earlier debate Senator Greenwood pointed out that in February there had been a promise of a cheque for this amount to go to the Legal Aid Committee of Victoria through the State Government, and subsequently the Commonwealth Attorney-General had decided that he would place some conditions on the payment of this money. At the time there was in my opinion no valid reason for the conditions which he sought to impose. As we all know, since that time a payment has been made. There had been disputations between the 2 Attorneys-General. Ultimately, by a petty act, the Commonwealth Attorney-General chose to pay that money to the Legal Aid Committee and not to the State of Victoria despite the fact that money paid to all the other States had been paid to the State authority. As I understand it, the Legal Aid Committee has properly paid the money to the State of Victoria.

I bring this matter to the attention of the Committee because it illustrates the fact that in this Bill we are once more finding a situation in which there has been no satisfactory resolution of the problems which arise in legal aid in this country. This continues to be a sore which ought to be cured. I suppose that some of the responsibility in this present dispute might lie in the hands of the State Attorney-General of Victoria. There are problems in the legal aid field because claims have been made on the funds allocated to the local legal aid service, and because there is that difficulty one would think that perhaps there might be more co-operation but the fundamental absence of co-operation lies with the Commonwealth and this nation which not only has control over money but also ought to be giving a lead in resolving this problem.

Since the last sitting honourable senators and no doubt members of the House of Representatives have received letters from Mr Enderby asking us where we think a legal aid office should be set up in our own States and electorates. There is obviously no intention on his part, as there was not on the part of the previous Attorney-General, to regularise the situation and to place in this community a commission which would regulate legal aid in a proper way, which would distribute money through State commissions and which would thereby ensure that all proper services for legal aid were covered and there was no duplication. I replied to Mr Enderby and said that so far as I was concerned what he should do first was get his legal aid affairs in order. I said:

  1. the first thing you should do is to regularise, through legislation, the position and activity of your Legal Atd Offices, and thereby remove much of the suspicion and alarm which is to be found in the legal profession at the present time as to the unending nature of the expansion of their work. I believe there is a strong need for co-ordinating the areas of Legal Aid and that a Commission to this effect and the regularising of the activities of the Legal Aid Office should be achieved without delay.

That is the very thing that has not happened and that is the very thing that causes many suspicious people in the States, and perhaps the conservative members of my own profession, to have a great fear about the unending development of legal aid offices throughout the country. This fear is not without justification and it makes it very difficult for bodies such as the Australian Law Council, the Law Institute of Victoria and similar bodies in other States to come to a rational arrangement with the Commonwealth authorities over this matter. When one considers the spate of publicity and the money being spent on legal aid publications of dubious accuracy I think one can do no better than take into account the very sensible words of Mr K. F. O’Leary, President of the Law Council of Australia, who in a letter of 8 May to the ‘Age’, dealing with the substantial campaign on legal aid through the Press and television, had these things to say:

The tenor of the current advertisements and particularly their omission of any reference to other existing schemes does point to the emerging development of a spirit of com.petition and rivalry between the existing schemes on the one and and the Australian Legal Aid Office on the other. That this is to be deplored is surely evident. Competition and rivalry in providing legal aid can only, at the best, be wasteful of resources and lead to unnecessary duplication of services.

In speaking of the need to rationalise and coordinate the provision of legal aid, which I think ought to be uppermost in our minds, Mr O ‘Leary said:

It was partly with this in mind that the Law Council of Australia as far back as October of last year urged the then Attorney-General to set up an independent statutory legal aid commission whose functions would include, among other things, not only the provision of legal aid through the Australian Legal Aid Office, but also the definition of the scope of the services to be provided by that office and the coordination with those services of the aid to be provided by other existing schemes.

I believe that the great bulk of legal aid in this country can be properly engaged and sustained through existing legal aid services. I believe that the voluntary use of the professions, so that people receive aid not as a matter of charity but as a matter of normal legal dealings, can and should provide the great bulk of it. But this should be regularised through a commission and through State commissions so that it is distributed according to different needs. There are different needs and different set-ups in the different States. In my own State of Victoria, where this is so, there is a private profession in the law which does certain legal aid work for certain people. There is a legal aid committee which is created by the barristers and solicitors and operates with a lot of voluntary help. It results in people being sent to firms of solicitors and those firms being paid by the legal aid committee. In the past that money has come from the interest on trust accounts of solicitors.

There are other voluntary services that tend to be overlooked. I acknowledge that among the moneys paid this year is a sum of $23,000 to the Fitzroy Legal Service in Victoria. It and a number of others are mostly run by voluntary workers, people who provide one of the necessary things in legal aid. I refer to offices that are open at night where people can obtain service without losing time from work. This obviously is an area which is in need of greater assistance and greater recognition, and it will come only through the establishment of a proper commission, not just a commission such as the Government has in mind, of an advisory nature, but one which has substantial powers to determine where the real needs are.

The last two in this category of legal aid services are the public solicitors who do necessary work in the States and the Australian Legal Aid Office, a body which has no statutory foundation, which has never been brought before this Parliament but which, as the previous AttorneyGeneral made clear to me when I once spoke to him about this, proposes to proceed to open office after office and to see how they work. It was proposed that some legislation be brought in later. We know that promises of legislation have been made at Estimates Committee hearings but that legislation has never come forward. It is obvious that the Government is acting on the situation that it will have a fait accompli; it will have established very widespread offices and then perhaps some legislation will come along to give them validity. There is very dubious validity in the existing offices and there is the possibility of actions being taken outside this chamber in the law to establish the legality or otherwise of the existing offices. That is an entirely unsatisfactory position and it is high time the Commonwealth Attorney-General took a lead. I know that he has had discussions with various groups but at the same time there is no evidence here after all this time that he is proposing to introduce legislation that is worth while. It is necessary that there be responsible behaviour on the part of this Government but this is not evident in the proposals that have been put either in the estimates now before us or those of last year. There is a need for profession based aid and for a regulated system that operates in all areas.

There is a need for cover for people who do not even know that they have a legal problem. Therefore one must get into those areas and establish for people the opportunity of knowing their rights. There is a need for duty solicitors in the courts. There is a need to cover the field of legal aid and not duplicate areas by wastage of money. There is a need to comply with section 96 of the Constitution so that moneys go through the States to State commissions and thereby there is regularity of behaviour in accordance with our Constitution. I take this opportunity of reminding the Senate again that under the provisions made we still have a government which refuses to face up to the responsibility it has to co-ordinate and establish properly a legal aid system in this country.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to refer to the last point raised by Senator Missen. It is true that the Government has had in contemplation for some time the establishment of the Australian Legal Aid Office on a statutory basis. A Bill to achieve that end is well advanced and we hope to introduce it into the Parliament in the near future. I would not like anything very contentious or sharply political to be injected into this debate on the Australian Legal Aid Office because I esteem and value the contributions that Senator Missen always makes in these matters. I do not question the fact that his contribution to this debate is based on a desire to see the Australian Legal Aid Office find its proper place in the total scheme of legal aid in this country. I have no doubt that he laments, as I do, the unfortunate complications and delays that have arisen in the implementation of the aspirations of the Australian Government in this respect, especially with regard to legal aid in Victoria.

This matter was raised not only by Senator Missen tonight in the mild and temperate way which is his custom but also in a sharp and acerbic way by Senator Greenwood, which is his custom, when Appropriation Bill (No. 5 ) was being discussed on 23 April. I would like to correct a certain misapprehension which Senator Greenwood had about the nature of the grant of legal aid to Victoria. In the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 5) on 23 April he made certain comments. I will not quote his remarks in full, but he was suggesting that there was some derogation from the authority of the Australian Government in the matter of a grant of legal aid when the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) was imposing certain conditions and insisting -

Senator Greenwood:

– I said it was a derogation from the authority of the Australian Parliament, not the Australian Government. The Government jolly well does what it likes, as you know.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Senator Greenwood would be wise to listen because he is on very bad constitutional ground. As I said in my opening remarks, I would like to have kept this debate on the reasonable and temperate level which is customary among lawyers and which is always adhered to by Senator Missen. But if Senator Greenwood wants to conduct the debate on a sharply acerbic and political ground, why does he not make sure that he gets his facts right? For instance, he attacked the conditions which the Attorney-General was imposing in handing over the money which had been appropriated to assist the Victorian legal aid scheme on the basis that he was taking too much upon himself because, as Senator Greenwood misapprehended, this was a grant under section 96 of the Constitution. I trust that in the time that has been available to him since this matter was last debated Senator Greenwood has taken a little bit of legal advice- something which lawyers often need- and has discovered that a legal aid grant is not a section 96 grant. I detect no interjection from Senator Greenwood, so I assume that he accepts that correction of the misapprehension which he brought to- this debate last time this matter was before the Senate. Nor is it a grant involving a new policy. It was an item in the Appropriation Bill and it contemplates that grants may be made direct to legal aid bodies. The constitutional basis of this grant is section 8 1 of the Constitution.

In any event, Senator Greenwood totally misapprehended the basis of this power and he suggested that the Attorney-General had taken too much upon himself in insisting that before the grant was paid over to the State of Victoria the Australian Attorney-General was entitled to ask for certain guarantees of co-operation. Far from having any guarantees of co-operation, what he was met with by the Attorney-General of Victoria was a challenge to the legal basis of the legal aid which he was insisting on getting.

Senator Greenwood finds himself in the extraordinary position of complaining that the State of Victoria missed out on a grant of $307,000 in legal aid while supporting the proposition that this grant is not legally based. He is seeking, in the language of the lawyers with which I take it he is familiar, both to approbate and to reprobate. But the Attorney-General of Australia took the reasonable view that he was entitled to some assurances of co-operation from the Victorian Attorney-General before he should hand over this munificence from the Australian Government amounting to $307,000.

Senator Greenwood, under the misapprehension that this was a section 96 grant, accused the Australian Attorney-General of exceeding his power. I assume that Senator Greenwood, with his intimate acquaintance with the lawyers of Victoria, would know that Mr Wilcox, the Victorian Attorney-General, is a fanatical, troglodytic advocate of States right and is way out of tune with the lawyers of Victoria. Senator Greenwood would know that, no matter what resolution was carried by whatever stage management was involved within the Law Institute of Victoria, the Council of the Law Institute of Victoria, representing the more enlightened members of that Institute, was in favour by 20 to one of rejecting the motion that was carried by the Law Institute of Victoria to challenge the validity of the legal aid scheme.

He would also know that the legal aid committee and prominent members of the Council of the Law Institute of Victoria would prefer, and have made it quite clear they would prefer, to deal directly with the Attorney-General of Australia than to have the moneys that have been allocated to them channelled through the Attorney-General of Victoria who is totally out of tune with the more intelligent people in the legal business in Victoria. I have no doubt that Senator Greenwood, representing as he does the Neanderthal wing of the Victorian legal community, would find himself in tune with Mr Wilcox, but his fellow lawyers in Victoria do not share that view.

The Attorney-General of Australia, in attempting to cut the Gordian knot and get legal aid off the ground in Victoria, took it upon himself to send the money direct to the legal aid committee, and it was gladly accepted with outstretched arms. Is Senator Greenwood now suggesting that the money should be withheld from the purposes for which it was intended in Victoria merely in order that the amour-propre of a

Neanderthal member of the Victorian legal community should be satisfied? I think he is completely out of tune with the lawyers of Victoria, and if he wants to follow this mad crusade that he is following by suggesting that everything that is done by the Australian Government is bad and everything that is done by the State governments is good, he will be denying legal aid to the people of Victoria who need it so badly, especially in view of the imminent collapse of the legal aid schemes in Victoria because of a massive defalcation which is in prospect. So Senator Greenwood may take his ground wherever he likes. He may stand up and proclaim the evil of all things done by the Australian Government, this hostile foreign power, and in doing so he can deny legal aid to all sorts of necessitous litigants in the State of Victoria

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

- Mr Temporary Chairman -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– I trust that we are not entering into a tribal fight.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I must say that I approach -

Senator Wright:

– You will be asked to leave the chair if you make those remarks.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I have been perhaps irritated into making them. I apologise to the honourable senator.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I note that I have not yet spoken in this debate tonight. I rise only because of the approach adopted by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) who represents in this chamber the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby). I raised this matter on 23 April because at that point of time a sum of money which had been assured to the State of Victoria for legal aid schemes in the State of Victoria had not been paid. The Minister, notwithstanding the way in which this is being dressed up tonight, had indicated in early February that the sum would be forwarded to the State Treasury very shortly. At that stage, as I have always understood the position, the justification for this curious manner of disbursing Commonwealth money was that it in some way was justified under section 96 of the Constitution because after all the Parliament had appropriated the money. It seemed in those circumstances curious, when the money was said to be paid to Victoria, that the Minister was withholding it. It seemed equally curious that the Minister was imposing his own conditions, because section 96 of the Constitution states quite specifically that the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit. It does not say ‘as the Minister thinks fit’.

It was this tactic which Mr Enderby was following which was causing the problems and denying to Victoria the money which was needed for the legal aid schemes. It was so apparent that the Attorney-General was withholding the money and the purpose for which he was withholding the money. It has become so apparent that what he was wanting from the AttorneyGeneral in Victoria was a promise from that Attorney-General that he would not give his fiat or approval to a challenge to the legal aid scheme in the High Court of Australia. One raises the question: Why is the Government, and the Attorney-General in particular, so apprehensive of a challenge in the High Court to the Australian Legal Aid Office? Is it because the Attorney-General apprehends that if the High Court was able to pass judgment upon the way in which the scheme has been developing it would say that the scheme has been developed by the Commonwealth without constitutional power? Is there some risk in the Attorney-General’s eyes that the High Court, on grounds which appear appropriate to it, might declare the Office incapable of operating, in the way in which the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory declared that the Australian Legal Aid Office was incapable of operating?

Senator Button:

– Not in the same way.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– It may not be in the same way, but when a Government, of which Senator Button is a supporter, institutes great schemes like the Australian Legal Aid Office without coming to Parliament for one iota of authority for the office which is being established, it must be expected that courts which are concerned with legalities and the Constitution will be concerned to assert what is the Constitution and what is the constitutional propriety. No matter how the Minister seeks to explain it, there is no doubt that a majority of solicitors in Victoria, in a postal ballot in which every solicitor was entitled to take part, voted to ask the State Attorney-General to challenge the validity, the legality, of the Legal Aid Office. The solicitors made that decision after a welter of literature and material had been supplied to all solicitors by the Australian Government. Even the Australian Government’s grandiose promises were insufficient to persuade a majority of solicitors in Victoria that they should go along with something which on its face was completely unconstitutional. So in those circumstances we have the Commonwealth Attorney-General adopting the tactic of virtual blackmail by withholding money which was due to the State of Victoria until he got a promise from the AttorneyGeneral in Victoria that he would not facilitate the High Court challenge. To his credit, the Attorney-General in Victoria was not prepared to succumb to that blackmail.

I noticed that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry who has left the chamber described the Victorian Attorney-General in terms which cannot be conducive to reasonable relationships in the future. But may be it is that sort of confrontation which Senator James McClelland is happy to develop. Certainly it is the sort of confrontation which the Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral has developed. Let these things be made known. The Commonwealth Government is not interested in co-operating with Victoria in the provision of legal aid, though it says that it wants co-operation from Victoria. If it wants cooperation from Victoria I should imagine that you will not have the sort of language which was used by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry in this place and you will not have the sort of tactics which have been used by the Commonwealth Attorney-General in trying to stand over the Victorian Attorney-General.

The ultimate situation in which the money was paid to the Legal Aid Committee has all the elements of a farce. I think the Commonwealth Attorney-General realised that he had to save his skin. So what did he do? He paid the money directly to the Legal Aid Committee. In my judgment he had no warrant or authority whatsoever to do that. It was simply a means of by-passing the State. He did it because he could not get his way in the negotiations which he had imposed upon the State Attorney-General. But the farce arises because as soon as the money was paid to the Legal Aid Committee, according to the Victorian Attorney-General, that Legal Aid Committee immediately paid the money into the State Treasury. It makes hogwash of what the Minister for Manufacturing Industry has said tonight.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I have listened to the debate as far as it concerns past expenditure and the dispute between Victoria and the Commonwealth Attorney-General. I am bound to say that there is not one word of Senator Greenwood’s submission with which I could disagree. There are 2 items on page 1 1 of the Bill which is before us with which I should like to deal. One item relates to grants of $250,000 to supplement existing legal aid schemes, and the other relates to legal aid in the Australian Capital

Territory under section 1 9 of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1972. I think that the Committee is entitled to know, in relation to the first item, what is the total proposed expenditure for legal aid during the period of this Bill. I suspect that that amount of $250,000 is only a midget proportion of the actual proposal and that the remainder of the unauthorised legal aid scheme that is being advertised so widely throughout the country is intended to be financed under an Advance to the Treasurer, without disclosing it to the Senate. An item relating to that will come up under the Supply Bill. I should like to know the total amount that the Attorney-General proposes to expend on legal aid schemes in the present financial year.

As regards legal aid in the Australian Capital Territory, honourable senators will recall that in the Estimates Committee hearings attention was drawn to the fact that the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory had stated that the basis upon which the Federal scheme for this Territory had been established was invalid. We were given somewhat confusing information with regard to the basis upon which this sum of $142,000 was to be expended. I think that the Committee is entitled to know the actual basis upon which that expenditure will be incurred and what alteration has been made in the legal situation since the Supreme Court judgment was given. These requests are made on the assumption that this Committee will comply with the Constitution and the law in some respects- even in respect of legal aid.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I do not have a great problem but it is rather compounded by the fact that the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) is not present in the chamber. Because I could not be in 2 places at the one time I was not able to be present when Estimates Committee F was sitting; I was present at Estimates Committee A. I will ask the question and it can go into the record. It is a simple question and in order to overcome the problem I can be supplied with an answer by letter. I ask the Minister: What is the total estimated cost of the Jackson Committee which is inquiring into the manufacturing industry, and when does the Minister anticipate that the Committee’s report will be available for the Parliament?

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I rise to reply to the specific request made by Senator Wright. I understand that that reply will be available in a moment. I should like briefly to put on the record a restatement and perhaps an elaboration of the points which Senator James McClelland made in respect of payments allegedly made under section 96 of the Constitution. There was debate on this matter in the Senate Estimates Committee hearing, and I certainly do not propose to involve myself in the debate concerning what has happened within the legal profession in Victoria. The provision in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1974-75 was made not for special assistance to the States but for grants to supplement existing legal aid services, with the intention that there should be no requirement to pay the grants to the States. The provision in Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 1974-75 is in the same terms as the provision in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1974-75 for the same reason.

It will be seen that the item now in question does not, either in its terms or in its intention, refer to or invoke section 96 of the Constitution, and no grants have been made to the States under section 96 within the meaning of the resolutions referred to. The authority contained in the item is defined by reference to the purpose for which the payments are to be made. The channelling of the payments is left as a matter of administration, to be properly accounted for according to the applicable procedures. Accordingly these payments may be made to the local legal aid scheme, such as the scheme in Victoria which, I think from memory, was the Fitzroy Legal Service, either by direct payment to the bodies involved or by using the channel of State governments if they are willing to co-operate. I cannot give machinery details of what happened in respect of some breakdown of payments, but I believe it is important in the context of this debate that it be made known that the payments were not intended to be payments under section 96, as was pointed out by Senator James McClelland. I understand that the specific amounts which Senator Wright seeks are: Appropriation $10,721,300; revised estimate $7,073,700.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I wish to mention 2 matters in that respect. I cannot reconcile the figures which the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) has been good enough to give me. My question relates to the additional appropriation of $250,000 to supplement existing legal aid schemes. According to Appropriation Bill (No. 5), the expenditure for the year 1973-74 was $2m. The appropriation for 1974-75 was $1.3m. The additional amount asked for in this Bill is $250,000. 1 suspected that the Minister was over-expending by millions that which is stated in the specific item, and I suspected that he would rely for that surplus expenditure upon the Advance to the Treasurer in the Supply Bill. I believe that my suspicion will be confirmed. I do not see any other source in the supplementary Budget for any amount such as $10m, revised to an amount of $7.07m. I ask the Minister to clarify that.

I raise the second matter. There seems to be a very marked failure on the part of the Committee, particularly Government senators, to understand the importance of channelling expenditure of this sort to the States under section 96 of the Constitution. Section 81 of the Constitution provides for us to appropriate money for the purposes of the Commonwealth. Section 96 enables us to make grants of financial assistance to the States on conditions that we think fit, obviously for the purposes of the States as distinct from the Federal purposes of the Commonwealth. Nobody has suggested that legal aid generally comes within any power of the Commonwealth. Under section 5 1 and other sections of the Constitution there is a claim that for migrants, for defence Services and for a few other things incidental to the various powers of the Commonwealth we can supply legal aid, but legal aid generally to the ordinary citizenry for State purposes must be channelled, under the Constitution, by section 96.

I take the point that there is a clear dereliction of duty on the part of the Auditor-General, if he sanctions such expenditure, by subverting and ignoring section 96. 1 draw his specific attention to the requirement that any officer who makes payment of such unauthorised expenditure, unauthorised by the Constitution, should be surcharged and accountable in the same way as recent disqualifications of members of this place involve its sanctions, because we cannot rely upon proper safeguard of the expenditure which we authorise line by line unless the time has come for the Auditor-General to be asked to come here and to explain why he has vouched that expenditure if it is not reasonably in accordance with a provision of the Constitution. Furthermore, he must translate the responsibility from his chair to the officer who actually makes the payment and require a proper surcharge and refund to the Commonwealth Treasury.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I am sorry that Senator Wright appears to be upset about the validity of the figures and the procedures which have been adopted. I can assure him that every precaution has been taken to ensure that proper procedures have been followed. I am advised that there will not be any necessity to seek further moneys from the Advance to the Treasurer in respect of these legal aid payments. I understand also that during the inquiry of the Senate estimates committee considerable information was given after it was sought by Senator Wright. The revised amount I quoted earlier represents the savings on the original appropriation. I am not able to give any more detailed information at this stage. If that information is not sufficient for Senator Wright, naturally he is at liberty to seek more detailed information which can be given to him by letter.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I appreciate Senator Wriedt ‘s difficulties because he is not the Minister who is normally in charge of these departments. I ask him, if he would, to arrange for the information I am seeking to be supplied. The actual situation will disclose whether it is affirmative or negative. It is of tremendous importance to ascertain the basis on which the Commonwealth is expending these sums. In 1973-74 a sum of $2m was provided by way of grants to the existing State legal aid schemes. The amount sought in this year’s appropriation is $1.3m. The additional appropriation is $250,000. Tonight with a degree of selfsatisfaction Senator James McClelland stated that this grant was being made under section 8 1 of the Constitution, not section 96. 1 do not know whether the emphasis on that point had regard to prospective court proceedings or has regard to existing court proceedings. It is well known that currently the High Court is determining the scope of section 81 and whether, for example, the Australian Assistance Plan can be financed under section 81. I ask: What is the position in respect of these moneys if the Commonwealth has not the power validly to fund expenditure under section 81? Is that money irrecoverable? I would suspect that it is. This is not the only area of Commonwealth expenditure which is subject to constitutional doubt. Many other areas have been adverted to in the course of debates in this chamber.

This Government, in my judgment, is proceeding on the basis that the Constitution does not matter; that if there is a desirable objective upon which money should be spent, then let the money be spent and let someone else worry about the niceties of the Constitution and the law at some later stage. Senator Wright has adverted to one aspect of those procedures, but other procedures ought to concern the Committee. I invite the Minister for Agriculture through Senator James McClelland or from the Attorney-General (Mr Enderby) to find out whether any legal advice was obtained from the Crown Law authorities, the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General to these moneys being made available. If so, I invite him to find out whether it was advised that these were payments under section 96 or payments under section 8 1 and to indicate what the substance of those opinions was.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s remarks to the AttorneyGeneral (Mr Enderby).

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a third time.

page 1353

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 6) 1974-75

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 April on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I would like to deal with some matters which relate to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Minerals and Energy. Those who had the good fortune to read the report to the Senate by Senate Estimates Committee A will notice the reference to the inquiry of the Treasurer (Dr J. F. Cairns) made by that Committee with regard to a grant to the University of Sydney to investigate multi-national corporations. It is a grant of $50,000 made by the Treasurer with a matching grant made by Mr Sykes of XL Petroleum Pty Ltd, which makes a total of $100,000, to provide a centre for research into the general area of foreign ownership and control. The terms of reference and the details of that research have been obtained from the Treasurer and are incorporated in the Estimates Committee’s report. The thing that interests me is that it is a grant to Professor Wheelwright of the Economics Department of the University, and I am wondering whether it is possible for the Treasurer to advise us of a work program I have the terms of reference under which Professor Wheelwright might give us interim reports or some estimates of time, through the Treasurer, of when this information might become available. We are all well aware of the fact that a massive amount of research has been done in this country into foreign ownership and control. Not the least effective of those bodies conducting such research has been a Senate committee. Most of us are becoming concerned that lots of inquiries are taking place but we see very little concluded results from these inquiries. Therefore, I am anxious to learn from the Treasurer whether it is possible for him to tell us whether there are to be interim reports, whether there are to be published reports and whether we are to be advised of a concluding date.

I mention this matter specifically because of my own experience of having a lot to do with the setting up of the centre for federal financial relations at the Australian National University, under the general direction of Professor Russell Matthews with various visiting Fellows, which is an operation funded by the Australian Government. That centre has done a remarkably good job. The money has been extremely well spent and the centre regularly publishes its reports and findings in its monographs for all to see and inspect. I am a supporter in general of governments assisting university research of this character as long as the reports are finally produced, printed and made freely available to scholars and those who might be able to make some effective use of the work. Accordingly I want to know, if not this evening then later, the estimated time when Professor Wheelwright’s group will give us some of its findings in a published report.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I want to raise 2 matters. The first concerns the Department of Housing and Construction. It was reported in this morning’s ‘Canberra Times’ that the cost of a government home in this Territory has increased by, I think, $3,850 in 12 months at a considerable rate each week. I think the figure given was $75 each week. I want to know whether the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) disputes or confirms those figures. Obviously under the Department of Housing and Construction our money is just being wasted away with the winds of inflation if the cost of a house worth approximately $20,000 is increasing at the rate of $3,800 every 12 months.

The other item concerns the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Services and Property. I think that when we went out of office the rent that was being paid for privately owned premises occupied by the Government under the control of the Department of Services and Property was about $32m annually. I regarded that figure as quite excessive. I regarded it as quite a challenge and endeavoured for some years to get a sustained program of government building of its own office space so that it would occupy it and continue to occupy it for the life of the building. I believe that the annual rental paid for private offices which are occupied by the Government is approximately $42 m at present. I ask the Minister whether he will confirm or correct that figure.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– The only information I can give Senator Cotton concerns the conditions under which the grant is made. Paragraph 12 says that information contained in a progress report, including results of research, may be used in such manner as the Treasurer thinks fit after consultation with the grantee. I am not able to find any reference to the final report, but I assume that the Minister responsible would make the information available certainly to the Parliament, and to the public. For myself I think that is the proper thing to do. I can only refer the matter to the Minister. It is entirely a matter for him whether he sees fit to make a judgment at this stage as to what he intends to do with the report. I am not able to give any further information.

Senator Wright’s question regarding the cost of a house based on a report in this morning’s Press hardly seems to be a matter that pertains to the Estimates or to the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) in this chamber. I do not doubt that it is a legitimate question at question time, but I would not think it is a legitimate question to ask now. Certainly I am not in a position to indicate whether or not there has been an increase of $3,800 in the cost of a government home in Canberra. However, if I can find that out I will supply that information also. I think Senator Wright sought certain information for 1974-1975. Figures which I now have up to that year indicate 2 classifications. Civil expenditure is shown at $38.03m and defence expenditure at $ 17.68m, a total of $55.7 lm. Service dwellings, which are included in those figures, total $ 14. 1 54m.

Senator Wright:

– Is that for rental paid for private property?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I have further matters to deal with. I refer in particular to the Department of Minerals and Energy. Senate Estimates Committee A reported to the Senate about a month ago. The report stated, at page 2, that the Committee was awaiting an answer relating to uranium exploration and development by the Atomic Energy Commission. This related to division 890, subdivision 6, of the Estimates for the Department of Minerals and Energy. There has been no letter that I can identify that has come to members of the Committee from the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) in response to queries made by the Senate Committee. Are we to take it that the Minister does not care a damn about the Senate Estimates Committee, that he is not going to bother to reply to it and is going to ignore it? If that is the case we will have to consider our position quite seriously.

We have been, I think, extremely helpful and tolerant in this matter. I ask the Temporary Chairman for his indulgence for me to record once again the exchange that took place in regard to this matter between myself and the responsible officer. It is recorded at page 29 of the Hansard report of Estimates Committee A of 15 April 1 975. The relevant part reads:

Senator COTTON … to what does this paragraph relating to Mary Kathleen Uranium Pty Ltd and the sum of $160,000 relate?

Mr Thomas; That is interest on moneys borrowed by the Atomic Energy Commission on overdraft in order to pay for the first instalment on the shares which the Commission has purchased in Mary Kathleen Uranium pursuant to an underwriting agreement between the Commission and the Mary Kathleen company.

Senator COTTON:

– So that represents the interest obligation which has to be paid to pick up the overdraft to buy the shares?

Mr Thomas; That is correct.

Senator COTTON:

– When do you propose to pay for the shares?

Mr Thomas; We would hope to be able to pay for them during the next 1 8 months- a year to 1 8 months.

Senator COTTON:

– So we might therefore expect in the next Estimates that we examine for the Atomic Energy Commission a bid for the money to pay for the shares?

Mr Thomas; I am inclined to think not.

Senator COTTON:

– Therefore the overdraft will continue and we will expect to see in the next Estimates a continuation of the amount of money to pay for the overdraft?

Mr Thomas; No, I do not think so.

Senator COTTON:

– The money has to come from somewhere, Mr Thomas. If you are not going to pay for the shares and you still have an overdraft you have to pay for it.

ACTING CHAIRMAN- Senator Cotton, would you be willing to accept a written explanation?

Senator COTTON:

– I would want one. I would like more detail on that.

I shall read no further. Senator Wriedt, as always, courteously agreed to get the information and to supply it to the Committee. That was a month ago. The information has not become available. This highlights the concern that I am increasingly gathering unto myself about the way in which this Government is handling the people’s money. There was a quite logical exchange of questions with an extremely courteous officer. There was a request for information. There is a long possibility of a continuing obligation flowing through time when an exercise of this character begins in a Government. This is a case in which a government is beginning to buy an enterprise and it is not coming clean before the Senate as to its final intention. I regard this matter as being of some concern to myself and to the Senate.

What are we to do? A month ago the Senate Committee asked a question of the responsible Minister about these expenditures which are expenditures out of the public purse, to be paid for by the Australian people either now in taxation or later in the process of having to pay for loans. It is the people’s money. We are not getting a proper reply. We are not getting an answer. We are being ignored. We cannot go on like this if we are to behave properly in this chamber inspecting fairly and, I believe, sensibly the expenditure of public moneys. I am hoping that the Minister will be able to give me some assurance that the reply is either on the way or has come and has not been given to the responsible Committee members. I have not been able to find it. Perhaps the Minister for Agriculture can tell us what is the intention of this Minister with regard to his responsibilities in the expenditure of public money that finally has to be approved by the Parliament.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I cannot be of much assistance to Senator Cotton. I recall his questioning when the Committee was examining the Estimates of the Department of Minerals and Energy. Certainly I undertake to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) tomorrow. I think it should be said in defence of the Minister that the hearing was on 15 April, which is almost a month ago but, as we know, much of the information which is sought both in the Estimates Committees and in questions which are placed on the notice paper requires a large amount of consideration both by the Minister himself where policy matters are involved and by departmental officers where factual material needs to be gathered. It may be that the Minister is not, as has been suggested, trying to bypass the Senate or in any way to run from the responsibilities or the obligations which he has as a result of the Senate Committee hearings. I assure Senator Cotton that tomorrow I will draw the matter to Mr

Connor’s attention in the hope that he can provide an answer within a matter of days at least.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I should like to add a few words. I have found, when dealing with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) in Estimates Committee hearings, an extreme courtesy and a great willingness to help. I want him to understand that in no way would I or any of my colleagues be reflecting on his willingness to help. We made these queries in the Estimates Committee on 1 5 April. There were other queries besides this one. A question asked of the Joint House Department on 15 April was replied to on 1 7 April. The Prime Minister’s Department, having had queries drawn to its attention on 15 April, replied to those queries on 16 April. The Department of the Treasury, having had queries drawn to its attention on 15 April, replied to those queries on 1 7 April. So some departments have been able to come up quite quickly with information on some detailed queries.

I refer now to items 04 and 05 of division 883, Other Services, of Appropriation Bill (No. 6) which deals with the Department of Manufacturing Industry. It is here that one encounters the sum of money that is being made available to the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd in Tasmania. The explanation for this proposed expenditure in the explanatory memoranda states that an amount of money has been granted to provide assistance in the form of reimbursement of certain of the Company’s employment costs for a period not exceeding 6 months. It continues:

A substantial number of persons employed at the Company’s works at Risdon, Tasmania, have been rendered surplus to the Company’s requirements because of a major decline in requirements for electrolytic zinc, particularly in overseas markets. The assistance is intended to avert a substantial deterioration in the employment situation in Hobart whilst alternative employment is found for such of the Company’s employees as are surplus to requirements. The Australian Government and the Company are co-operating in, and have already achieved considerable success in, the placement of these employees in alternative employment.

I believe that it is an interesting new departure for a department of state to provide funds for the purpose of helping to relieve a company that is suffering from financial problems in its marketing and production areas and as a result has to put off people. The Government is helping the company to keep those people in employment or give them the opportunity of obtaining alternative employment. I am not quarrelling with the fact that the Government is helping a company that is suffering some distress. That will help the people involved in the company to make the necessary changes and adjustments. What interests me very greatly in this case and in the reported case of similar assistance being provided to the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd of Burnie, but not of course in this account of expenditure that is before us for approval, is why such a thing should be occurring in the Department of Manufacturing Industry and not in the Department of Labor and Immigration or in some of the other areas in which structural adjustment and assistance of the unemployed would more properly be expected to occur.

Can any supporter or member of the Government give any information to me as to why such an item should appear in these estimates under the Department of Manufacturing Industry and whether this sort of thing is to be expected to be the general line of Government policy from now on as areas of manufacturing industry increasingly come under pressure and difficulty? We all know that this is happening now. Unfortunately the situation may well get worse. Are we looking at a situation in which assistance will be given like this on a fairly ad hoc basis by the Department of Manufacturing Industry? Who in the Department examines this matter? What is the justification in the final analysis in the Parliament for the giving of this money to that company rather than to the industry in general? We have here the prospect of differentiation and of special treatment which is full of the gravest possibilities of danger in relation to the handling of public moneys. I could appreciate such a situation arising if an urgent problem occurred and a Minister moved quickly to try to overcome that problem, but I am concerned about the extension of this line of policy through the Department of Manufacturing Industry. Is every section of industry in which a company may be in difficulty but not another one to turn to the Department of Manufacturing Industry in order to get some financial help for itself while other people engaged in that industry may well be successful and not need that help? How will the Government handle such a thing on the basis of proper inspectorship and proper control of the money being provided to make quite sure that it is going to the right people?

Some industries in a group may be successful and others may not be successful. The reasons why they are not successful may be their location, their particular difficulties and their particular problems. Some may be unsuccessful because fundamentally they are making a mess of the situation. When that happens how does the Government, in determining the need to help, differentiate between a genuine, good operation in which the people involved have sustained prospects of employment and of getting back on their feet and people who may well be going down the drain because they do not know how to run their businesses? I need some answers to the questions I have raised on this matter. It involves a possible extension of a line of Government policy and the funding of situations of difficulty that seem to me to open up all kinds of areas that need to be considered.

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Senator Cotton is certainly entitled to answers to the questions that he has postulated. I suggest that a part of the answers was provided by the Leader of his Party in the other place when Mr Wentworth lamented the making of handouts to Tasmania. It is curious, of course, that whenever the matter of Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd or Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd is being discussed objections to what the Government has done are never voiced by Senator Wright, Senator Rae or Senator Marriott.

Senator Wright:

– We cited them in the Committee meeting.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes, but in a very mild way. It is left to the economic rationalist- I say that with respect- of the Opposition Parties, Senator Cotton, to raise objections to these matters. We have been accused of- I think the expression is- pork barrelling. Senator Wright is doing a lot of grumbling, which is customary of him at this hour of the night. I would like to remind him of a statement made by his leader, Mr Malcolm Fraser, on the matter of the provision of help to Tasmania. I would like to read it to him. Perhaps he has not read it. It appeared in a handout by Mr Fraser on 1 8 April 1975, after the EZ grants, which of course are a matter of these appropriations and which the Opposition, if it wishes to make a great matter of principle about them, can reject, just as it can reject the grant under section 96 of the Constitution which is proposed in the matter of APPM. We will see whether the Opposition is prepared just to make a great matter of windy rhetoric about this or whether it is prepared to stand up and be counted. In any event Mr Fraser has made it quite clear that he is not prepared to stand up and be counted in opposition to the granting of assistance to the State of Tasmania. After all it is notorious that the Opposition has made a big play over the last year of its attempts to woo the voters of Tasmania. Undoubtedly on grounds of high principle the Opposition would not go in for any pork barrelling. It has never gone in for any pork barrelling in the past.

Senator McLaren:

– Not much!

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It did not do so in relation to the apple juice subsidies or anything like that! Undoubtedly Senator Wright, Senator Rae, Senator Marriott and the other Opposition Senators from Tasmania will stand up in the Senate and reject the appropriations which embody these pork barrelling propositions in relation to the State of Tasmania. Mr Fraser is not quite so forthright A handout issued by him on 18 April reads:

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Malcolm Fraser, last night dissociated the Opposition from the published remarks of Mr Wentworth MHR claiming that NSW and Victoria should not have to provide financial help to Tasmania and that NSW was becoming a bit tired of it.

Mr Fraser said that he understood Mr Wentworth ‘s remarks were intended to be a criticism of the general ineptitude of the Tasmanian Labor Government.

He said that the Opposition was totally committed to the federal principle of making additional grants to the smaller States and it had already committed itself to policies which will enable Tasmania to enjoy a standard of living equal to any other Australian State. He said: ‘We recognise particular difficulties have faced the Tasmanian people which call for specific assistance by government. ‘

Some of our proposals for that assistance have recently been outlined in the Opposition policy package which I have recently reaffirmed ‘.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question:

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I thank the Senate for its obvious indication of a desire to hear me further on this matter. I suggest that this exposes the gross insincerity of the Opposition. I do not include Senator Cotton in that remark. But I refer to Opposition senators from Tasmania in relation to their attitude to special assistance to the Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd and the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. Might I say this of these specific grants? They are politically debatable. Let me confess here and now that they were not matters on which I found it easy to agree with the action that was taken by the Government. I am not resiling from the decision of the Government. I defend what we did on humanitarian grounds even though I find it difficult to defend it on grounds of economic rationality. If there were a suggestion that, because of what we did for the Electrolytic Zinc Company and APPM any company in

Australia can line up in a queue and expect to be put on a company dole I would say that that conclusion is not to be drawn from what we have done. The justification for what we have done was that in the localities where these companies found themselves in special difficulties there were no alternatives of employment.

We have had applications for assistance under the various structural adjustment schemes which the Government has espoused in other areas. These have been rejected because they do not meet the special criteria that we have set for special assistance to companies in difficulty. Might I add for the benefit of those who accuse us of having embarked upon this program merely to keep our members in office and to indulge in the old respectable National Country Party practice of pork-barrelling that 69.2 per cent of all grants under what is known as the SANMA’ scheme- Special Assistance to NonMetropolitan Areas- have been made to companies in electorates which are not held by members of the Government. The balance of 3 1 per cent has been granted to companies in electorates which are held by members of the Government. So much for the proposition that the rationale of this scheme is to keep Labor Party members in office.

We have not pleased the economic rationalists. We have offended some of the gurus. We certainly have not delighted the ‘Australian Financial Review’. But on balance, looking at the question of what we should do in a situation such as this, we decided to make this sort of special grant. Let us consider this in terms of what it costs the community. I know that this begs the question of who is responsible for what sort of state the economy is in. I know that honourable senators opposite think that if it does not rain in the areas which need rain, it is the fault of the Government. If there is a flood or a cyclone, the Government is responsible for it. But looking at it rationally what should we do when economic misfortune hits a certain community?

It has been computed that if we had not done what we did for the APPM which primarily affected the town of Burnie, if instead of going in for the form of income maintenance that we adopted, we had allowed the people concerned to be thrown out of work, we would have expended more in social security payments than we have expended in helping to keep this company in being. We do not apologise. We know that it is a rare and rather extraordinary way of providing a special social program, but we believe it can be justified on economic grounds and especially that it can be justified on humanitarian grounds.

I respect every comment made by Senator Cotton in these matters. I know that his criticism is made in an honest spirit of economic criticism, but I find quite curious the silence of all the Tasmania senators on the matter of assistance to special Tasmania industries. I would like to hear Senator Wright stand up as a matter of principle and denounce this matter, knowing it would be reported in the Hobart ‘Mercury ‘. I would like to hear the same comments from principled people like Senator Rae, Senator Marriott and other representatives of Tasmania. Let us hear from them before this Government is attacked on the grounds of economic irrationality.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-We have heard a farrago of nonsense delivered unfortunately by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Senator James McClelland) rather late in the evening when his rationalisation processes seem to be somewhat impaired and his sarcasm fluid comes to the surface. He therefore presents an attitude to the Senate that is a complete disgrace even to the Government of which he is a member. The Minister implied that those Tasmanian senators on the committee which examined these estimates did not analyse these 2 items. The record will show to the contrary. The record will show the real reason why the Government was compelled, politically speaking, to make this assistance available to two of our large Tasmanian industries. The first was that we had a period of strikeridden industry in Tasmania last year unparalleled in years.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Put up or shut up.

Senator WRIGHT:

-I ask that that remark be withdrawn, Mr Temporary Chairman.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I said: ‘Put up or shut up’. That is oratorical. By way of explanation, Mr Chairman, might I say that it is an oratorical expression meaning: ‘Show your sincerity by telling us what you will do about the proposition’.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Georges:

- Senator Wright, do you object to the words used?

Senator WRIGHT:

-I suggest that it is below the level to which the Senate should be accustomed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I take it that the Minister, by rephrasing what he first said, has withdrawn the words.

Senator WRIGHT:

-Mr Temporary Chairman, if you are content with that contortion I -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Is the honourable senator content with it?

Senator WRIGHT:

-Certainly not. It is offensive to me to have it even from the Minister or from you.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

- Senator James McClelland, Senator Wright has taken offence at your words. Would you kindly withdraw them?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not propose to withdraw the words because I do not acknowledge that they are offensive. The term ‘put up or shut up’ is not a term of abuse. It is an invitation to somebody who makes an assertion to establish the truth of his assertion or to resume his seat. It is in that sense that I used the words, and I adhere to those words.

Senator Greenwood:

– I rise on a point of order. Is the Minister refusing to obey your direction, Mr Temporary Chairman?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-Senator McClelland, I did indicate that Senator Wright had taken objection to those terms and there was in effect a direction from me that, because Senator Wright had so objected, you should withdraw the words.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In deference to you, Mr Temporary Chairman, I withdraw the words.

Senator Poyser:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman, because I want withdrawn the remarks by Senator Wright on your ruling earlier. I think they were most offensive. If you read the Hansard report tomorrow, you will see that they were despicable. Senator Wright should not have used the words he used.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I do not quite recall what was said.

Senator Poyser:

– In that case I will not persist with my point of order. Let the poor old fellow go, by all means.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I was putting the point of view that this Government had encouraged and created a strikeridden situation in the Tasmanian industry unparalleled for years, and that that had added to the exceptional difficulties that Tasmanian industry always suffers by reason of its isolation and the poor transport facilities that are provided. In the committee in which this item was discussed it was pointed out that with rare stupidity I would have thought unprecedented on the part of any modern government this

Government brought in a decision to terminate the superphosphate bounty at a time when world prices were rising and the combination of the two priced one of the products of the Electrolytic Zinc company completely out of the market. In February this year the superphosphate branch of the company which employed 100 men closed.

Having said that in refutation of the miserable innuendo that people who come from Tasmania will not accept their public duties, I want to say that the advocacy we heard from Senator James McClelland was ill designed to divide honourable senators on this side of the chamber on this matter. If I heard him correctly, Senator Cotton said that he would take no part in denying employment to men, but he asked whether any member of the Government could explain why assistance of this sort should not find its place in an appropriation for the Department of Labor or the Department of Social Security. That is an important matter which will serve to create a decision by the Government to put this on a proper plane. The other thing that I add is that an item of this sort should require purposeful consideration, especially in view of the decision by the Government that assistance to industry can only be given after consideration by the Australian Industries Assistance Commission and a report from it. Those are the considerations that I think are appropriate to be put on the record with regard to these items.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

- Senator Wright did not respond to the challenge which Senator James McClelland issued, and I should like to take up the question of the superphosphate bounty that Senator Wright has mentioned. Very briefly, for Senator Wright’s further study in depth of this subject, I should like to point out to him that 60 per cent of the superphosphate used in Australia is used on pastures, most of which produce beef which is virtually unsalable at the moment, or wool which is being purchased this year mainly by the Australian Government through the Australian Wool Corporation and has been a major cause of the deficit about which Senator Wright has expressed concern in the past. With respect to his. comment that because the price of phosphate rock was rising the Government should step in and subsidise away this price increase, I commend to Senator Wright a study of chapter 5, paragraph 46 of the Green Paper ‘Rural Policy in Australia’ in order that he may attain a better understanding of the market free enterprise economy which I presume, as a Liberal Party senator, he espouses.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I appreciate the desire of the Minister, and I am sure of the Committee, to conclude this debate, but I wish to ask one question of the Minister, having regard to the way in which he broached this question in his general explanation. He will recall that in the estimates committees I asked whether it was proposed that there would be any legislation under which these grants would be made. The Minister told me that there was no legislation contemplated. I ask him, particularly in view of the legal advice he tendered to the Committee at an earlier stage this evening: Are these grants in some way said to be justified as section 96 grants? Are they, as he calls them, section 8 1 grants? On what constitutional basis are these grants made? Has the Department and the Minister taken legal advice as to whether the Commonwealth is entitled to make these grants, or may it be said that they lack all constitutional basis?

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– These grants are put on different bases. The particular one we are considering, the Electrolytic Zinc grant, is included in this Appropriation Bill. The Opposition, if it disapproves of this grant, can reject or amend the Bill. I believe that grants of this nature, which I regard as exceptional, in general should be the subject of a section 96 grant. That is the basis on which the Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd grant is made. A Bill will be introduced in the other House within the next week or so, it will come here and Senator Greenwood and the Opposition will have an opportunity to throw it out. I assume that opposition to the grant will be led by Senator Wright. It will not be a matter which will be, as it has been described, something secret and clandestine and under the lap. The Senate will have an opportunity to debate the matter and an opportunity to throw the matter out if it does not like it. I trust that is an answer which satisfies Senator Greenwood.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Senate adjourned at 10.49 p.m.

page 1361

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Iron Ore Deposits: Development (Question No. 270)

Senator Durack:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government expressly or impliedly indicated to the joint venturers of the West Australian Iron Ore (Wittenoom) Agreement Act 1972, that the Marandoo deposit will be the next deposit mined in the Pilbara region, and that Japanese steel mills have been so informed.
  2. If there has been such an assurance, will the Minister advise the date and details thereof.
  3. ls it a fact that under the West Australian Iron Ore (Wittenoom) Agreement Act 1972, the joint ventures are not under any obligation to enter secondary iron ore processing.
  4. If it is a fact that the Government has adopted the policy that Marandoo should be the next deposit mined, what are the criteria on which such a decision was made.
  5. Is it not a fact that the Marandoo deposit is basically a Marra Mamba type ore most suitable for producing fines for the manufacture of iron ore pellets.
  6. In view of the fact that the West Australian Iron Ore (Wittenoom) Agreement Act 1972 does not provide any obligation for the joint venturers to produce pellets in Australia, will this mean that fines from Marandoo can be exported to any country with lower costs and so undermine other Australian exporters of the pellets.
  7. Who are the present joint venturers in the Marandoo project, and what are the percentages held by each, and is there any restriction on the original or subsequent members of the joint venture to transfer part or whole of their proportion to overseas interests, thereby reducing Australian ownership to less than 50 per cent.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– The Minister for Minerals and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) (2) and (4) On 6 September 1973, following representations by the then Premier of Western Australia concerning the early establishment of an additional source of iron ore production at Marandoo the Japanese steel mills were advised that in accordance with the Australian Government’s minerals policy it expected this new project to participate in the future expanded iron ore trade between Australia and Japan. Information on this matter was given by the then Premier in response to questions in the Western Australian Parliament, firstly on 16 October 1973 (Hansard, pages 3982 and 3983) and further elaborated on 7 November 1973 (Hansard, pages 4747 and 4748).
  2. Yes. Provision exists, however, in the Western Australian Iron Ore (Wittenoom) Agreement Act 1972 for the joint venturers to submit proposals, if they desire, on secondary processing and steel production.
  3. The qualities of the Marandoo deposit and some other deposits in the Marra Mamba formation are currently being evaluated by the Japanese steel mills.
  4. No.
  5. Marandoo Mining Company Limited, Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd and Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd.

Under the agreement between the parties Marandoo will acquire a 50% interest in the venture. Should the Australian partners elect not to proceed at the construction stage, after feasibility of the project has been established, they could reduce their combined interest and Marandoo could correspondingly increase their interest in the project.

The Government has been assured by Texasgulf Inc., the parent company of Marandoo Mining Company Limited, that any interest in the project in excess of 50% to which Marandoo becomes entitled will be offered to an Australian owned corporation on reasonable terms and conditions. Any variations of existing arrangements would be subject to Government policy on ownership and control of Australian mineral resources.

The Term ‘Commonwealth’ (Question No. 375)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What is the justification for the substitution of the word ‘Australia’ for the words ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ in descriptions of the Commonwealth of Australia.
  2. What are the legislative enactments by which the change was authorised.
  3. What is the reason for the change on the description on Australian bank notes.
  4. On whose direction, suggestion, or recommendation, was the change made.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. ‘Australia’ is preferred because it is simpler; the governments of Canada and New Zealand no longer use their corresponding title ‘Dominion’. ‘Commonwealth’ confuses English-speaking people connected with Britain or the United States, since the former now relate the word to the Commonwealth of Nations and the latter to the Commonwealth status formerly enjoyed by the Philippines, at present by Puerto Rico and prospectively by the Marianas.

The main considerations leading to the Government’s decision to use ‘Australia’ were stated by the Prime Minister on 20 October 1966 (House of Representatives Hansard, page 2048 ) when he spoke as Leader of the Opposition on the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Bill, the first bill in whose title the word ‘Commonwealth’ was used in the sense of ‘Commonwealth of Nations’:

My proposition is that we should use none of the words “Australian”, “Commonwealth”, “Federal”, or “National” unless they serve to identify or distinguish and that we should prefer the geographic term to the others, particularly to the term “Commonwealth”. If it is desired to distinguish an Australian organisation from a foreign one or to identify it overseas as Australian, the best word is “Australian”. “Federal” applies to many countries- for example, West Germany, India, the United States, Canada and Mexico. “National” applies to every country and “Commonwealth” promotes confusion with many international institutions- for instance, Commonwealth preference, Commonwealth War Graves Commission, Commonwealth Games, Commonwealth Law Conference and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. If it is desired to distinguish a body responsible to the Australian Federal

Government or Parliament from a body responsible to an Australian State Government or Parliament, the word “Australian” would again appear appropriate in all circumstances. “National” or “Federal are apt counterparts for the word “State” but do not encourage the States to distinguish between their own similarly titled instrumentalities by using their geographic description. ‘

A year earlier (House of Representatives Hansard, page 1976) Prime Minister Menzies had declared: ‘I myself have been in the habit of referring to the “Australian Government” wherever 1 go. This is something I commend to all honourable members.’

Lest the honourable senator is solicitous for the States in this matter of terminology I should reassure him that none of them use the word ‘State’ in their parliamentary notice papers, journals and Hansards. There are only two instances where any of them uses the. word ‘State’ in its official documents. First, there is the ‘Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales’. There are, however, the ‘Victoria Government Gazette’, ‘Queensland Government Gazette’, The South Australian Government Gazette’, ‘Government Gazette of Western Australia’ and ‘Tasmanian Government Gazette’. (The ‘Australian Government Gazette’ succeeded in July 1973 the ‘Commonwealth of Australia Gazette’). Secondly. South Australian statutes are enacted by ‘the Governor of the State of South Australia, with the advice and consent of the Parliament thereof. The enactment clauses in the statutes of the other State Parliaments (and, since 1973, of the Australian Parliament) use the geographical name by itself.

  1. (a) In the case of Acts of the Parliament, and regulations and other instruments issued under the authority of those Acts, the necessary legislative provision is made by the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1973 (see sections 17 (a) and 46(a)).

    1. Other changes have not required statutory authority.
  2. Under the Reserve Bank Act, the Reserve Bank of Australia is responsible for the Australian note issue, including the printing and issuing of the notes. In line with the Australian Government’s preference that the term ‘Australia’ be used wherever practicable, the Reserve Bank adopted the revised wording.
  3. If the question is intended to refer only to the change on Australian bank notes, see the answer to question (3) above. If the question is intended to refer to other uses of the word ‘Australia’, the changes have been made by the various appropriate authorities to give effect to the general policy of the Australian Government that the word ‘Commonwealth’ should be avoided as far as possible in referring to Australian bodies.

Community Development Officers (Question No. 412)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the training of Community Development Officers vital to the effective operation of the Australian Assistance Plan.
  2. Has the Department of Social Security before it proposals for training courses for such officers.
  3. 3 ) When were these proposals received.
  4. Have the proposals been agreed to or rejected.
  5. What is the anticipated need for Community Development Officers in Sydney during the next 12 months.
  6. Will the number of appropriate officers be available and will they receive their training either (a) formally, or (b) by on the job training, or (c) by a combination of both of these.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The training of the Community Development Officers will improve the operation of the Australian Assistance Plan.
  2. Paragraph 35, section (f) of the Social Welfare Commission Act 1973, gives the Commission an important responsibility for co-ordinating C.D.O. courses. Both the Department of Social Security and the Social Welfare Commission currently have C.D.O. training proposals before them.
  3. The first proposal to train Community Development Officers was received in January 1 975.
  4. Several training programmes have been approved and others are being developed by the Social Welfare Commission in consultation with the Department of Social Security.
  5. In the regions in the Sydney Metropolitan area where the Australian Assistance Plan has been introduced, approval has been given for 1 7 C.D.O.s to be appointed. Seven have been appointed so far. The number of C.D.O.s in the area in the next 12 months cannot be reliably predicted as it depends upon many factors including the development of the Regional Council structures, size of population, and extent of welfare needs.
  6. It is anticipated that sufficient numbers of Community Development Officers will be available. They will receive their training by a combination of formal and on the job training.

Ludwig Jubomir Dragoja (Question No. 433)

Senator Mulvihill:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Was an Australian passport issued to Ludwig Jubomir Dragoja, whom the Frankfurt Police Chief recently reported to be suffering severe injuries from a bomb he was making in West Germany.
  2. Was any report sought from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation on Mr Dragoja before a passport was issued to him.
  3. Does the Government intend withdrawing Mr Dragoja’s passport by taking a similar action to that taken in the case of Srecko Rover, by a former Liberal Government Minister for Immigration.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

– The question of the honourable senator is one which now falls within my jurisdiction. The answer is as follows:

  1. No.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.

Road Hauliers (Question No. 457)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Treasurer aware of the grave financial difficulties being faced by private road hauliers, due to losses incurred as a result of Cyclone Tracy, as well as flooding in the Northern Territory in 1 974.
  2. Will the Treasurer give favourable consideration to (a) exempting from sales tax vehicle maintenance and tyres, (b) exempting from sales tax fuel for these hauliers, and (c) doubling the depreciation allowances on vehicles.
  3. Will the Treasurer provide loans to hauliers at low interest rates so as to enable them to remain viable during the Darwin reconstruction period.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I have not received any specific information on this matter.

  1. The benefits which those kinds of concession confer operate without regard to the financial circumstances and comparative needs of potential beneficiaries and, where the concession takes the form of an exemption, avenues for abuse can be opened up. If there were a case for assistance established, the assistance should be provided, in more direct and controllable ways, to those in need rather than generally. I also point out that hauliers’ fuels are subject to customs and excise duties, not to sales tax.
  2. The Darwin Business Relief Scheme has been established by the Government. Medium term, low interest loans may be made to small businesses to enable them to reestablish their operations on a viable basis. Applications should be made to the Darwin Business Relief Loan Fund Committee, CI- Department of the Northern Territory, Administration Building, (Block 7), Smith Street, Darwin.

Transportation of Materials to Darwin After Cyclone Tracy (Question No. 458)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Departmental supply vehicles were used to transport freight to Darwin after Cyclone Tracy.
  2. Will the Minister provide details concerning the freight carried, where the journeys commenced and the time taken for each journey.
  3. Will the Minister open the Woomera Rocket Range road for the use of private hauliers who provide services to the north.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Nineteen.
  2. Details of freight transported by Departmental vehicles to Darwin after Cyclone Tracy are as follows: 193 tonnes of galvanised iron ex Adelaide 300 tonnes of steel ex Alice Springs 15 tonnes of corrugated iron ex Rockhampton 25 tonnes of generators ex Adelaide 2 cranes ex Brisbane 2 trucks and1 cherry picker ex Sydney 1 5 tonnes of chlorine ex Sydney 250 mattresses ex Adelaide 1 vehicle load of ABC equipment ex Adelaide

Due to the urgency of these operations and the prevailing disaster situation and its consequent effects, it would be most difficult to attempt to ascertain the time taken for each journey.

  1. The Minister for Defence has supplied the following information.

It is not practicable to open the Woomera Range road for use by private hauliers. In the first place, the road, for much of its length, is an unsealed light access road for the instrumentation posts along the centre line of the range. It is vulnerable to rain damage, was not designed for heavy traffic and would quickly break up if used by heavy transport. Secondly, it is necessary to close the road even to departmental traffic at frequent intervals when trials are being conducted on the range. Closure is required for safety reasons and to prevent electromagnetic, dust or vibration interference to sensitive electronic and optical equipment in the instrumentation posts which the road services. It is expected that such interruptions would affect civilian traffic to the extent that the hauliers would not be in any better position than using the present public highway which is 40 miles longer. Thirdly there are considerations of defence security in respect of the classified trials and equipment on the range, and physical security of equipment at the posts beside the road which are unfenced and frequently unattended when not is use for particular trials.

Special consideration has always been given to cases of genuine emergency.

Singapore Student: Trial and Sentence (Question No. 462)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was a strong protest directed to the Minister and to other persons by Mr Frank Galbally, an experienced Melbourne lawyer, in respect of the recent trial and gaol sentence, in Singapore, of Mr Tan Wah-Piow, the 23 year old President of the University of Singapore Student ‘s Union.
  2. Did the Minister institute inquiries; if so, do they indicate whether the reported criticism of the trial as ‘political persecution’ and ‘a political frame-up’ are justified and that among other complaints the student leader was browbeaten by the trial judge and denied free access to his witnesses, who had been deported before the trial.
  3. Does the Australian Government propose to make any representations to the Singapore Government on these serious allegations, and in respect to questions of civil liberties raised by Australian observers.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. . The office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs received on 24 February a letter from Mr Galbally addressed to the Minister and dated 20 February. The letter included a request that the Government communicate to the Singapore Government its concern over the trial and subsequent sentencing of Mr Tan Wah Piow. A reply has been sent to Mr Galbally.
  2. The Government has received a number of reports from the Australian High Commission in Singapore on the proceedings of the trial. It would be improper for the Government to comment publicly on the conduct of the trial.
  3. The Australian Government has no standing to intervene in the matter, which the Singapore Government would regard as falling entirely within its own jurisdiction. The Australian Government’s concern with issues of human rights and civil liberties is well known to the Singapore authorities.

Ambulance Charges

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 26 February 1975 Senator Brown asked me a question without notice concerning tax deductibility of ambulance fees. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I shall arrange for the matter raised by the honourable senator to be examined further when the 1975-76 Budget is being prepared. I should, however, point out that the Hospitals and Health Services Commission is expected to report in the near future on the provision and operation of health transport services, including ambulance services and on the need for Government financial assistance. The Commission’s recommendations will need to be taken into account at Budget time along with the other factors that are customarily taken into account when consideration is being given to proposals for new or extended taxation concessions.

Income Tax Rate Scales

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 8 April 1975, Senator Sheil asked me a question without notice concerning income tax rate scales. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In 1974-75, there have been two substantial restructurings of the personal income tax rates scale, involving a full-year cost to revenue of around $ 1,000m. At this stage, it is neither proper nor practicable to comment further on that topic. When it comes to consider the matter, the Government will have available to it the Final Report of the Asprey Committee which is now with the printer and will be ready for distribution and consideration shortly, and also the report of the Mathews Committee which is due in May.

Vegetable Processing in Tasmania

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 10 April 1975, Senator Bessell asked me the following questions, without notice, in relation to a proposal by the northwestern vegetable co-operative in Tasmania and to the submission of this proposal to the Australian Industry Development Corporation for financing assistance:

  1. 1 ) Has this project request yet been processed by the AIDC?
  2. If so, what is the current position?
  3. If not, when is the decision expected?

In my reply, I said that I would have to ascertain from the Treasurer precisely the current position, and undertook to give the honourable senator the up to date information. The Acting Treasurer has provided me with the following information:

Two organisations interested in the development of vegetable processing in the north of Tasmania have discussed with AIDC the possibility of obtaining development finance.

In February, the principals concerned in one of these prospective developments approached the Treasurer with a detailed proposal for a co-operative to process vegetables in the north-west of Tasmania. The Treasurer has asked AIDC for a financial and economic appraisal of the proposal and the Corporation has undertaken to do this.

I am advised that, after a preliminary examination, the Corporation has had discussions with the consultants to the venture and a revised and updated feasibility study will be available to AIDC for further examination by 30 April.

The Treasurer has asked the Corporation to report to him on the matter as soon as it has completed its appraisal of the project.

United States -Philippines Relations

Senator Willesee:
ALP

– On 17 April, Senator Davidson asked me the following question without notice:

My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I ask whether the Minister has received a copy of the statement by President Marcos of the Philippines which received some radio coverage this morning and which in part conveys a change of attitude towards the U.S. and a possible vacation by the U.S. of bases and interests in the Philippines and further makes reference to possible Japanese involvement? Has the Minister received a copy of this statement? Has he had an opportunity of studying it, and can he tell me what would be the implications of such a move for Australia? Is the Department proposing any conversations relating to this situation

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

President Marcos has been reported on several occasions as having made statements foreshadowing a reassessment of U.S.-Philippine relations. He has also been reported as suggesting that the Philippines Government might have to take over the United States bases in the Philippines if this were in the national interest. In other recent statements, however, President Marcos has referred to the United States as the Philippines most valuable ally, although he has also indicated that the Philippines will be seeking new security arrangements which should encompass a firm and clear commitment by the United States to assist the Philippines in case of external aggression. On 16 April President Marcos was reported as stating publicly that some Americans appeared to think that security might be better left in the hands of other countries; it was in this context that he referred to Japan.

The question of Philippines-U.S. relations is a matter for those two governments. The suggestion that the present relationship should be reviewed is not a new one. Exploratory discussions on both the military and economic relationship have been held over a period of years. Australia has been able to keep in touch with the progress of these discussions through normal diplomatic channels.

Chile

Senator Willesee:
ALP

-On 2 1 April 1975, Senator Gietzelt asked the following question, without notice:

Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted the statement made by the Christian Democratic Party, which is the largest political party in Chile, that the present regime in Chile is fascist, tyrannical and brutal and that the people have, the urgent task of restoring democracy in that uphappy land? Will the Minister give some consideration to conveying moral support to the parties, legal and illegal, in Chile as they endeavour to re-establish democratic procedures in that country and defeat the military dictatorship?

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

The Australian Government has made very clear its disapproval of the military overthrow of the democratically elected Chilean Government of President Allende in 1973, as well as its disapproval of the treatment of opponents of the present Chilean Government. Every opportunity has been taken and will continue to be taken by our Embassy in

Santiago to make known the concern felt in Australia at the plight of opponents of the present Government.

Aboriginals: Lands Held in Trust (Question No. 508)

Senator Bessell:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

What lands are currently being held in trust by the Australian Government on behalf of the Aboriginal people?

Senator Cavanagh:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

Two cattle stations-Pantijan (formerly Panter Downs) in Western Australia and Mimili (formerly Everard Park) in South Australia are currently held in trust by the Australian Government as an interim measure before title is vested in the Aboriginal community or an Aboriginal Lands Trust.

Aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory are Crown lands and may be regarded as being held in trust by the Australian Government on behalf of the Aboriginal people. Under legislation to be introduced shortly, pursuant to the Woodward report, these lands will be vested in Aboriginal Land Trusts whose members will be Aboriginals.

North Sea Oil and Gas Areas (Question No. 386)

Senator Carrick:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the known potential capacities of existing oil and gas areas in the North Sea.
  2. Which countries hold those areas and what are the potential yields for each of those countries.
  3. What is the estimated timetable for drillings in those areas to come on-stream.
  4. How will they compare in yield with Middle East production in a comparable period.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

– The Minister for Minerals and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Readily available official information is inadequate but the following non-official estimates may be of interest

  1. Total of existing reserves and forecast additions. The estimates refer to undepleted reserves.
  2. Including Netherlands, Denmark and West Germany. Source: From ‘Oil and Gas in Offshore Areas of N.w.

Europe’ prepared by Euro Economics, extracts from which were published in ‘The Petroleum Economist’ of February 1975.

  1. The estimated Middle East oil production in 1974 as published in ‘Oil and Gas Journal’ on December 30 1974 was 22.67 million barrels per day.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 May 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750513_senate_29_s64/>.