House of Representatives
7 April 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 729

DEATH OF MR JAMES REAY FRASER, M.P

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

Mr Speaker, it is with deep regret that I have to advise the House of the death in April 1970 of Mr Jim Fraser, member for the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Fraser was bom in Derby, Tasmania, on 8 th February 1908. From 1927 to 1935 he was a teacher with the Victorian Education Department and in 1935 he took up journalism in New South Wales. In 1941 he enlisted in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force, served in New Guinea from 1942 to 1943, and with the Public Relations Field Unit from 1944 to 1945. He was discharged with the rank of sergeant in March 1946. Mr Fraser then joined the Department of the Interior and worked there until he became public relations officer for the Minister for Health in 1948. In 1949 he was appointed private secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and he was also during that time a member of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council.

In 1951 he was elected to the House of Representatives as the member for the Australian Capital Territory and he remained the member for this Territory for 19 years up to the time of his death. In the House he served on a number of committees and was vice-chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. During the time Mr Fraser was a member he won a well deserved reputation as a dedicated helper of the citizens of Canberra. He filled the role not only of a member of Parliament but also, as it were, of an ombudsman. He took up the cause of all who he felt had not been treated justly by officialdom and indeed he devoted himself to helping the citizens of Canberra as his major task as a parliamentarian. He, I believe, prevented injustice. He helped people to meet with those officials who could best deal with any problems which they had. The regard in which he was held

13667/70-R-[30]

by the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory was demonstrated when his funeral took place.

Sir, I feel that I have personally lost a friend. We lived not far from each other in Narrabundah and on many occasions stood on the same platform, when I was the Minister for Education and Science, at functions throughout the Australian Capital Territory. I knew him reasonably well and I know that there was no meanness or pettiness or spite anywhere about him. Though he was prepared to fight for what he thought was right he was not prepared to bear malice. He will be sadly missed by members of this House. Our sympathy goes to his wife, his son and his family, including his brother, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro. I move:

That this House expresses its deep regret at me death on 1st April 1970 of James Reay Fraser, a member of the House for the Australian Capital Territory, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his widow and family in their bereavement.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I support the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and on behalf of my Party express appreciation of what he said about our colleague. Jim Fraser was above all a representative. Probably no member of this House of Representatives took his title so literally, was so single-mindedly the representative of the people who elected him, which certainly does not mean merely the people who voted for him. Partly this was due to the nature of his position. He was not only member of the House of Representatives for the Australian Capital Territory but also he had to act as Canberra’s mayor, senator and ombudsman. Even more, it was in his character, and part of his nature, to believe that the problems of the people - his people - were his own. He accepted that role enthusiastically, with all the burdens and all the frustrations it involved. The task involved was enormous.

In a city of officials he was the only elected one. In population it had become the largest electorate in Australia. It had the highest proportion of children. There can be no doubt about the response of the people of this city and his rapport with them. My own parents, like thousands of citizens of this Territory, had utter faith in .lim Fraser as a fellow citizen and a representative, lt would be proof enough to refer to the remarkable vote he achieved in the last election, but more humanly and more movingly there was the remarkable display at his funeral last Friday by the people of this city by all sections of this community - sometimes thought to be the most reserved and restrained in Australia.

This is a city accustomed to great events and great personages, but it kept its warmest, most affectionate and most spontaneous expression of respect for me of its own - Jim Fraser. This was a refutation of the cynical assessment often made of the role which can be filled by elected persons and of the attitude which can be shown by the people to them. It was sometimes asserted that Jim Fraser was exclusively a local man. It should not be forgotten, however, that he had the most international, cosmopolitan constituency of any of us. Those of us who have travelled abroad officially will remember that in embassies around the world, wherever Australian diplomats and attaches are posted, affectionate regard would be sent through us to their local member. In the most official, affluent, sophisticated community in Australia there is the greatest need for an unaffected and accessible spokesman, mediator and advocate. Jim Fraser filled all those roles splendidly. I believe we in this House would know how much he owed to the precedent set, not least in Canberra, by his brother, the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser) and his devotion to all matters affecting the rights of the citizens.

Jim Fraser understood, as the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory must above all, the workings of government. He deeply respected the people who administer the business of government. Witnesses who appeared before him on the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory all testify to his fairness, his courtesy and his comprehension. I can say for myself - I believe I can say for each member here, and above all for thousands and thousands of people in this great city - he was my friend, faithful and just to me.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade and Industry · Murray · CP

– I desire to associate the parliamentary members of the Australian Country Party with the motion which has been moved by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and seconded and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). I join with the members of my Party in the tributes that have been paid by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition to the late Jim Fraser. He was indeed a most honourable and a most respected man. I suppose if any of us sought a tribute nothing could be higher than to have it said that one is honourable and respected in the judgment of one’s fellows. This was the judgment of Jim Fraser by all parliamentarians and certainly by the community that he represented and served.

His most outstanding characterstic as a parliamentarian was his complete and single minded devotion to the interests of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. As I saw Jim Fraser over the years, his thoughts, first, second and last, were for the people whom he represented in this great city and he represented them during a period of quite dramatic development. I have ascertained that when he was elected in 1951 the population of the Australian Capital Territory was some 25,000 people and now it is more than 120,000 people. He gave the most complete satisfaction as a representative to the people of Canberra during that period. The community demonstrated on two quite recent occasions the great respect and affection in which Jim Fraser was held. His immense majority in the recent general election was itself evidence of this and the tremendous tribute that was paid to him by people of this city on the occasion of his funeral was the second great manifestation of this respect and affection.

As has been said he was a kindly man. He was a completely trustworthy man. There was nothing petty about him at all. I am sure that Jim Fraser will be missed by the Parliament. He was a strong and good man. I join the members of the Australian Country Party in this tribute to him and extend the sympathies of my colleagues to Mrs Fraser, her son and Jim Fraser’s brother, our colleague Allan Fraser.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

Mr Speaker, I had a deep admiration for the late Jim Fraser as a friend, as a colleague in Caucus, as a husband and as a father. Jim Fraser surpassed in each of these aspects of life the rigorous standards that should be imposed on all men. lt was in Caucus for 17 years that I knew him best. We were together in some turbulent times but in all those times Jim Fraser exhibited the same excellent qualities of character that he exhibited everywhere else that he moved. He was a man of independent and determined thoughts. His decisions were made after thorough consideration and having made them he was never swayed by any type of pressure. He stood straight against any odds. He was beholden to no man; yet was a man of extreme good will. He expressed ail his opinions openly and forthrightly and granted the same privilege to those of different thoughts. He was a true Labor man as his parliamentary life has shown.

To Mrs Fraser, his son Andrew, his brother Allan and other members of the family I express my deepest and sincerest sympathy. I will miss him as a friend and colleague in Caucus. I earnestly pray:

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord. May perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– I would like to add my tribute to that of other honourable members who have spoken. As Minister for the Interior I came into constant contact with Jim Fraser over the many problems affecting the people of the Australian Capital Territory. He exhibited a humaneness, an interest, a patience, a real understanding and genuine concern for people and for their worries. He achieved a great deal for individuals and for families in Canberra. When it was not possible to obtain satisfaction for a constituent he did not just blame the department or the Government but would patiently explain the reasons to his constituent until that person had a proper understanding. This honesty won the respect of the officers of my Department and the public of Canberra.

Jim Fraser had a real understanding of the difficulties of administration but at the same time fought with zeal to uphold the rights of individuals and was tireless in his endeavours. He brought to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory an invaluable local knowledge. He served the people of Canberra and their Parliament with distinction. It was for all these reasons, and for many others, that a mass of people turned up at the funeral service and lined the roadway to pay a last tribute to Jim Fraser.

For my part, I enjoyed a rare understanding and friendship with him. I join with other honourable members in extending sympathy to Mrs Fraser and Andrew, to Allan and to the rest of the family in their great loss.

Mr FOX:
Henty

– I would like to join with other honourable members who have paid a tribute to the late Jim Fraser. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I knew him well and 1 greatly admired not only his capacity for work but also the diligence with which he applied himself to representing his constituents, both inside this House and outside it. I believe that it can be said of most members of this House that they are clearly identified in the minds of the public with either a particular subject or subjects or with the political parties to which they belong, or both. But it can truly be said of Jim Fraser that he was identified with his electorate. He was Mr Canberra.

I am quite sure that a great many people who reside in the Australian Capital Territory were not aware of his political affiliations but knew that if they had a problem Jim Fraser was the man to see. The thousands of people who attended either the service at St Andrews or at the cemetery, or who lined the road to the cemetery, were there to pay their respects not to an office but to a person - the late Jim Fraser. I think if it can ever be said of any member of Parliament that he resided in the hearts of his electors it can be said of Jim Fraser.

He will be missed by a great many people in all walks of life and in all sections of the community. I would like to extend to his widow, his son, his brother and the other members of his family my very deep sympathy.

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Speaker, the extent of the respect and affection shown for my brother and the honour accorded to him in death is deeply appreciated by all his family. It is a source of much comfort to his wife, Helen, and it will be a source of much pride to his son, Andrew, as he grows to manhood to realise the high regard in which his father was held. No-one close to Jim could be unmoved by the tributes paid to him here this afternoon and I know that Helen is grateful for them and grateful for every act of courtesy and consideration shown both during his illness and since.

I carried to Jim in hospital many messages from colleagues on both sides of this chamber and I would like honourable members to know that he was glad to get each of these messages - he quite valued them. He knew that his illness was mortal and he had known that since the morning after the exploratory operation. He continued to take a keen and cheerful interest in parliamentary doings. He laughed and joked with those around him and it is simple fact to say that no-one heard from him one word of grumbling or self-pity at his fate.

As has been said, Jim will be missed for many reasons in this chamber. An incidental thing which 1 recall now is his gift of repartee and bis well-timed and often humorous interjections. In this respect - and it may be that I am coloured by brotherly pride - I think he ranked with Frank Anstey and Frank Brennan who were remarkable figures in this Parliament in the days of my youth. I cannot add anything further to what has been so generously and adequately said this afternoon. I thank the House for the references in which I have been included. We have been the only brothers ever to sit together in this House and we have been very close to each other. J remember Jim as an able parliamentarian, as a man whose life was to help others and, if the House will permit me to say so, as a wonderful brother

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

Mr Gorton:

– I suggest that as a mark of respect to the late Mr Jim Fraser the sitting be suspended until 8 p.m.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I feel sure that the suggestion made by the Prime Minister meets with the concurrence of the House.

Sitting suspended from 2.52 to 8 p.m.

page 732

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Mr CALWELL presented from certain residents of the State of Victoria a petition showing that the red kangaroo and many other marsupials have been depleted by the effects of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes; their numbers have dropped to a numerical level which leaves their survival in doubt; no laws are adequate to protect these animals, in such a vast country. Only a uniform law, and a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes, can assure the survival of the kangaroo.

The petitioners pray that the export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government makes a serious appraisal of its responsibility in this urgent matter.

Petition received and read.

War Service Homes

Mr LUCHETTI presented from electors in the State of New South Wales a petition showing that ex-servicewomen who enlisted during World War II have been discriminated against in the interpretation and administration of the War Services Homes Act 1918-1962. Whilst cm enlistment they were prepared to serve in any area, exservicewomen who did not actually serve outside Australia are at present debarred from war service homes rights.

The petitioners pray that immediate action be taken to grant war service homes rights to all wartime ex-servicewomen.

Petition received and read.

page 732

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– I wish to inform the House that the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) left Australia on 30th March to visit Vietnam and the United States. In Saigon he has had discussions with senior leaders of the South Vietnamese Government and with Vietnamese, United States and Australian officials and Service commanders. On 4th April Mr Fraser arrived in Washington to have discussions with the Secretary of Defence, Mr Laird, on aspects of the Fill projects and contracts. Mr Fraser is expected to return to Australia on 14th April and during his absence the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) is acting as Minister for Defence and will represent the Minister for Supply in this House.

I also wish to inform the House that the Treasurer (Mr Bury) left Australia on 5th April for Korea and Japan. He will be attending the third annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank in Seoul and will also have discussions in Tokyo with the Japanese Minister of Finance. The Treasurer is expected to return to Australia on 18th April and during Mr Bury’s absence 1 shall be acting as Treasurer.

page 733

QUESTION

ROYAL VISIT

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he know that the Australian Broadcasting Commission and other news sources are referring to the visit of the Royal family as ‘the Royal tour of Australia’? Would he agree that as the tour does not include one-third of the continent, namely Western Australia, it is hardly a tour of Australia? As the Royal family is spending about 5 weeks in Australia, mainly in New South Wales and Victoria, would he even at this late stage try to get the Royal family to go to Western Australia even for a short visit?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I think it is not inappropriate to describe the tour as a tour of Australia though it could not be described as a tour of the whole of Australia. I would agree with that part of what the honourable member says. I think the honourable member and the House generally will understand the calls that are made upon the Royal family on a tour of this kind and that, though they may well like to attend every part of Australia, it is in the time they are able to make available impossible for them to do so, and their wishes and the requirements of the Royal tour director must be taken into account in this respect. I think I should point out that the Royal family is visiting, not only New South Wales and Victoria, but also Queensland and Tasmania. I am sure that they would regret, as we would regret, that they are unable to visit Western Australia on this occasion, but I trust that the honourable member will understand the reasons for this and will not seek to level any criticism as a result of it.

page 733

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the allocation of funds for loans to ex-servicemen for the purchase of homes for the current year has been exhausted? Is he also aware that there are several hundred applications for loans which have been approved and that contracts for the purchase of homes have been entered into but that no money is available? The Prime Minister will realise that if these are facts a great number of exservicemen will be placed in the position that they will have to borrow bridging finance at excessively high rates of interest to complete their transactions while they are awaiting the availability of their loan from the War Service Homes Division. Will the Prime Minister consider making available an immediate special grant to the War Service Homes Division to enable it to complete the transactions referred to?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– In reply to the first part of the question, yes, I am aware that the funds available for war service homes during this financial* year have now been spent. I might point out to the House that during this financial year the Government made available for war service homes a sum of $55m, which is $5m more than the year before. As the honourable member said, this increased amount has already been spent.

Mr Whitlam:

– It was over $70m 10 years ago.

Mr GORTON:

– I hear some petulant interjections.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting at the table.

Mr GORTON:

– In reply to the second part of the question, I am aware that there are some hundreds of applicants who have applications for loans for the purchase of existing buildings - existing houses - and these are distinct from applicants for loans for the building of houses. There are some hundreds of these, and as a result of the money voted having been exhausted these applicants who normally would have received the loans for which they have applied in May or June will have to wait until July in order to receive their loans.

Mr Stewart:

– Vietnam veterans are being knocked back.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! There are too many interjections. The House will come to order. Question time is a time for members to ask questions of Ministers, and when the Ministers are replying to those questions I would expect the House to come to order so that the member who asked a question and others interested in the matter might be able to hear the Minister’s reply.

Mr GORTON:

– As 1 was pointing out, the result of this is that those who have applications to buy existing buildings and who would normally have received their loans in May or June will now have to wait until July. T would suggest that it is unlikely to lead to any significant requirement for bridging finance - this delay of some 6 or 8 weeks. I would like to add to that that those who are applicants for loans for building their own nouses, as distinct from buying existing buildings, will not in any way be affected by the matter which the honourable member has raised.

page 734

POSTAL SERVICES

Mr SHERRY:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– -Will the PostmasterGeneral state the Government’s attitude to the transmission by the Australian Post Office of the journal ‘Rhodesian Commentary’ which is circulated to all honourable members including, presumably, the honourable member for Boothby who graces the front page of the current edition.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

Order! The honourable member is not allowed to make a speech or comment on the question. I ask him to direct his question to the Minister.

Mr SHERRY:

– I intend to do precisely that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask the Postmaster-General: Is this document prepared and distributed by a disloyal, hostile regime in open rebellion against Her Majesty the Queen whom we are soon to welcome in this national capital?

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am nol aware of the document to which the honourable member refers. The Post Office does not have a view in relation to articles which are placed in the mail, provided they are in conformity with the regulations of the Post and Telegraph Act. The only discrimination which the Post Office is allowed in this connection is in relation to articles which are blasphemous, indecent, etc. I do not know the precise wording of the legislation. Honourable members should appreciate that the Post Office, unless it is suspicious that this type of material is going through the mail, has no right whatever to open the mail.

page 734

QUESTION

FRENCH NUCLEAR TESTS

Dr MACKAY:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for External Affairs. No doubt the Minister has seen reports that the French Government plans to resume the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere at its test site near Tahiti in the near future. I ask: What is the potential danger of this action to Australia and other countries? Wilt the Minister ensure that the Australian Government’s concern at this regrettable step is conveyed to the appropriate French authorities in suitable terms?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for External Affairs · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Recently the Australian Government was advised that the French Government had decided to continue nuclear tests in the Pacific area close to Tahiti. We have since advised the French Government officially that we object to the tests being carried out. We did so for two reasons. Firstly we think it is unfortunate that when considerable thought is still being given to a comprehensive nuclear test ban the partial nuclear test ban treaty should be defied. We regard it as a fundamental step towards outlawing the use of nuclear weapons completely and as a basic step towards total disarmament, if they can ever be achieved practically.

There is a second reason. We believe that the people in the Pacific area are entitled to lead their lives free from the fear of atomic fallout or some sort of harm to their way of living. We are not able to say exactly what kind of test it will be, but we have expressed our very deep regret to the

French Government that it should find it necessary to carry out any kind of atmospheric test in this area. We do hope that the French Government will take some notice of our protests and those of other governments.

page 735

QUESTION

INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The Minister for Trade and Industry will recall that he issued a statement dated 12th February 1970 defending the proposed Industry Development Corporation and that he repeated the information in a second reading speech on the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill 1970. The right honourable gentleman drew an analogy between EPIC and the proposed Corporation, pointing out that EPIC had also been attacked as a Socialistic measure but claiming that it was a sound business venture’. I ask: Now that the Minister is a convert to Democratic Socialism, is he planning to promote some other government or semi-government institutions? May I draw his attention particularly to the needs relating to other forms of insurance? (Question not answered)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)I point out to the honourable member for Adelaide that a question must relate to the department under the control of the Minister to whom the question is addressed. A Minister is not to be asked for an expression of opinion or to comment on a hypothetical question.

Mr McEwen:

– I found the question offensive, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am not obliged to answer offensive questions.

page 735

QUESTION

UNITED KINGDOM RURAL POLICY

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry a question. I understand that the United Kingdom Government has recently made an annual review of its policy in respect of domestic agricultural support prices. Has the Minister particulars of these new decisions? What significance does he attach to them in relation to Australia’s trading opportunities in the United Kingdom for its agricultural products?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– Like all other advanced Western countries the United Kingdom has a policy of support for its agricultural industries. It is customary for it to make an annual review of the amount of that support. This review was conducted recently and the results have been announced. I do not carry in my mind the figures for the individual items but there have been substantial increases for nearly every item - for wheat, barley, beef and milk to mention some. I think the price support for beef is more than £stg11 per cwt live weight. Those who are concerned with livestock industries will realise what an extremely high price support this is. Similar provisions have been made for other agricultural and livestock items. I think it would bc better if I treated the question as being on notice. I will supply the honourable member and thereby other honourable members with a full and detailed reply to the question.

page 735

QUESTION

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Mr WHITLAM:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral secured approval to introduce a Bill to abolish capital punishment under federal laws? The Minister will recall that-although the Senate passed such a Bill in June 1968 his predecessor had debate on it in this place adjourned indefinitely and he himself fruitlessly wrote to the Prime Minister in November 1968 to have the debate revived.

Mr HUGHES:
Attorney-General · BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am afraid that the answer I propose to give to the honourable and learned gentleman will not satisfy his thirst for information because I am not in the habit and do not propose to fall into the habit of commenting on rumours circulated in the Press.

page 735

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. During the recent conference of the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders League statements in the Press quoted the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Senator J. Keeffe, as saying that some Federal parliamentarians had been discreetly instructed to divide the Aboriginals. Will the Prime Minister order a thorough investigation into the allegations made by the senator? In the interests of the Australian people will the right honourable gentleman endeavour to persuade Senator Keeffe to announce publicly the names of the Federal parliamentarians whom he claims to be involved, as I feel that his statement casts a distinct slur on the integrity of every member of this Federal Parliament?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I do not know quite how I can order an investigation into an unsupported allegation from the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party - an allegation which has no supporting evidence whatever. Indeed, I would somewhat doubt whether an allegation of that kind from that source ought to be dignified by an inquiry of this kind; but I would, in view of the question which the honourable member has asked, take this opportunity to suggest to Senator Keeffe that he might, in support of this offensive allegation, put forward publicly any evidence he has and name any members of the Federal Parliament to whom he is referring. If he does not do that, the Australian public will be able to judge the force and veracity of what he has to say. If he does make these things public, and I am sure he will not, then I would certainly seek to investigate them.

A remark from the other side of the chamber suggested that he might be referring to Mr Wentworth, the Minister for Social Services. 1 think most honourable members of this House would agree that he has done more to assist the Aboriginal cause than has any other single member of this Parliament since he has been Minister.

page 736

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Acting Treasurer. Is it not a fact that the Treasury, with Government backing, requires the Postmaster-General’s Department to pay interest to it on every dollar that is made available to it by the Government for capital works thus forcing the people to pay twice for postal services? Is this farce to continue? Is it a fact that the Postmaster-General proposes to increase again postal and telephone charges in order to meet what is an unnecessary and Government created deficit?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– The Post Office is a public utility and it is true, and has been true for many years, that interest is required to be paid on capital invested in this public utility just as it is required to be paid on capital invested in electricity commissions or other public utilities of that kind. I do not propose to comment on the second part of the honourable member’s question because, there again, he is relying exclusively on what he has read in the newspapers.

page 736

QUESTION

POST OFFICE

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– I direct to the PostmasterGeneral a question which is supplementary to one asked earlier by the honourable member for Franklin. I feel that his question was aimed at preventing the publication known as the ‘Rhodesian Commentary’ being carried through the mail. 1 ask the Minister whether similar facilities of the Postmaster-General’s Department are made available to the proCommunist Vietnam Moratorium Committee of -which I understand the honourable member for Lalor is the chairman.

Mr HULME:
LP

– I would believe that the answer is yes.

page 736

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for External Affairs aware that the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations, instructed by the General Assembly, has addressed letters to all member states requesting them to participate in activities for 1971 which the United Nations has designated International Year for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination? Will the Minister tell the House what answer has been given by the Government to this request and whether it proposes to undertake a programme of activities for the International Year?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is true that in the recent General Assembly there was a resolution by the United Nations on co-operation to avoid racial discrimination. We are giving the resolution the closest consideration. The honourable member may be assured that it meets our full wishes and we wilt do all we can to implement it.

page 737

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I address my question to the Minister for Social Services. I preface my question by saying that there is a disparity in the purchasing power of pensions in the Northern Territory compared with their purchasing power in the south, because the recognised cost of living is about onethird higher in the far north than it is in the southern cities and settled areas. I ask: Will the Minister give consideration to my continued representations for a district allowance to offset the northern pensioners’ disadvantage?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This is a matter of policy which will be considered at its appropriate time in the Budget context. May I say, however, that it has been the settled policy not only of this Government but also of its predecessors that social service rates shall be uniform throughout Australia. It is perfectly true that, in remote areas, particularly the Northern Territory, some costs of living are higher than elsewhere. On the other hand, in a warm climate, as it is up there, certain costs of living are lower. In point of fact, an inquiry was made into this situation and the disparity is not as great as it would be thought to be at first glance, although a disparity does exist. That is all that I can say on this matter which concerns policy and where there is a long established procedure and principle which have been followed by this Government and set by its predecessors.

page 737

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which I address to the Prime Minister, is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Bennelong in regard to war service homes.In reply to the honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister said that $50m had been spent on war service homes this year. Is the Prime Minister aware that the report this financial year of the War Service Homes Division discloses that the income the Government receives from war service homes is in excess of $70m? Is the Prime Minister aware also many Vietnam veterans who have made application for homes have been informed that they must get the finance to bridge the gap between their money and the cost of the home and that they are paying from 14% to 20% in interest rates? I ask the Prime Minister: Will he make money available immediately from war service homes revenue or instruct the Commonwealth Bank to make bridging gap loans available to these young men so that they may get a home without suffering the infringement of these exorbitant usurers rates to build a home?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– Commenting on the first part of the honourable member’s question, I think, if he casts his mind back, he will recall that I said not that $50m was spent this financial year but that $55m had been made available this financial year as compared with$50m last financial year, an increase of $5m, and that this had been spent.I also pointed out to the House that the exhaustion of this sum during this financial year will. I am informed, have no effect whatsoever on any applicant For a loan who is seeking to build a house-

Mr Uren:

– I know.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Uren:

-I know that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Reid has asked his question.

Mr Uren:

– He is paying 14% to 20% in interest.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr GORTON:

– But it will have some effect on those seeking to buy an existing building-

Mr Stewart:

– Brand new homes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!I ask the Prime Minister to resume his seat. I would suggest again that the House. when a Minister is replying to a question should allow him to speak without interruption. The honourable member for Reid has asked his question. The honourable member, with all his expression of innocence, interjected three times before the honourable member for Lang was so inspired to interject. I would suggest that honourable members do not interject when a Minister is answering a question. I call the Prime Minister.

Mr Stewart:

Mr Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Lang will resume his seat.

Mr GORTON:

– Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was pointing out to the House, the exhaustion of this money at this time will have no effect whatsoever on any applicant for a loan who is seeking a loan in order to build himself a brand new house.

Mr Uren:

– That is not true.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call the honourable member for Reid to order.

Mr GORTON:

– That is what 1 am informed. 1 am informed that it will have some effect on those who are seeking to buy existing buildings whether they are brand new or not. It will have some effect on those seeking to buy existing buildings and the effect, as I have pointed out to the House, will be this: On the information provided to me these applicants - and there are some hundreds of them - would normally have received their loans in May or June. They will now be required to wait until July. It is difficult to believe that this period of delay of some 6 or 8 weeks would require, in most cases, bridging finance to be negotiated or that it would make any significant difference in that period of time if this were to happen.

page 738

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM CAMPAIGN

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question is addressed to the Minister for External Affairs. I ask: Is a balanced presentation of Australia’s commitment in Vietnam and South East Asia important to this country’s association with its allies? If so, does the Minister view with concern the distorted impression which the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign, heavily organised and influenced by Communists, will project concerning Australia’s position? Is this particularly so in view of the individual identification of so many members of the Australian Labour Party with the proposed Campaign? Finally, is not this concern even more urgent as personal support was assured to the Campaign by the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition at a meeting of unions affiliated with the Queensland Trades and Labour Council held in late February at the Brisbane Trades Hall?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is critically important to us that there should be a balanced presentation of the Australian point of view in relation to the retention of troops and our ultimate objectives in Vietnam. Our purposes are clear. We are there - as we originally went there - in order to attempt to maintain the freedom and the independence of the people of South Vietnam.

Opposition members - Oh, no.

Mr McMAHON:

– I am glad that by its reaction the Opposition identifies itself here. Its obvious reaction illustrates the wide difference that exists between the Opposition and the Government. We are there to protect freedom and decency and the right of those people to look after themselves free from intimidation and from aggression from outside. As to the objectives of the Moratorium Campaign, what is of significance is that it urges the immediate withdrawal not only of Australian troops but of foreign troops and it does not specify that the foreign troops include the invading forces of North Vietnam. So anyone who participates in this kind of moratorium march, or whatever else it might be, is therefore, unless, some correction can be made, supporting the forces of aggression and supporting those who want South Vietnam to be dominated by other countries rather than by the people of the country itself.

As to a balanced presentation, 1 believe that other countries will take little or no notice of the moratorium marchers. By way of illustration I can point to the failure of the moratorium marchers in the United States of America towards the end of last year. The final march was abandoned because the marchers found that the silent majority were strongly expressing their resentment to what the left wing minority in that country were doing. Consequently, Sir, you are entitled to think they will do the same in this country if they get the opportunity to do so. As to the meeting attended by the Leader of the Opposition, I have been informed that he did attend a meeting of the Queensland Trades and Labour Council.

It is well known that that Council as distinct from the New South Wales Trades and Labour Council, which the Leader of the Opposition nominally supports, is under strong left wing control.

Opposition Members - Oh!

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Again I am glad to see the divisions opening up between the Government and the Opposition because it it some time since we have seen these sharp divisions between the Government and the new found Opposition benchers, who as ye: have not been able to control themselves.

Mr Morrison:

– I rise to order. 1 move that the Minister be given leave to make a statement.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)There is no point of order. I point out to the honourable member for St George that he should not abuse the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr McMAHON:

– We will learn more about the honourable member for St George as the days go by.

Mr Charles Jones:

– He might take you apart, too.

Mr McMAHON:

– We will see. 1 finish on this note. There is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition was present at the meeting of the Queensland Trades and Labour Council and there is no doubt that the matter of the moratorium marches was raised. I am informed and I believe it to be true - but if it is not true either as to his presence or as to his comments he can deny it. This in itself will be significant - then when the discussion was over-

Motion (by Mr Uren) negatived:

That the Minister be not further heard.

Mr McMAHON:

– I have only this to say: The Leader of the Opposition can, if he wishes, deny it but he is also asked to deny whether he said when this question of the moratorium march was completed: ‘I am with you. I go along with you and I support you.’

page 739

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question about war service homes.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 would suggest that the House come to order on my right as well as on my left. If the House does not want question time to continue we might proceed to general business.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he has been advised that this year the War Service Homes Division will receive the record amount in principal repayments and interest payments of over $75m, which is at least $20m more than the amount allocated for expenditure by the Division this year. Does he concede that no more than 7 years ago the amount of expenditure by the Division itself was $75m? If these figures are correct will he make available sufficient of this year’s $20m profit from war service homes to ensure that those who want to buy existing houses, whether brand new or old, are able to do so this financial year?

Mr GORTON:
LP

Mr Deputy Speaker, you know, for a while there I thought that the Leader of the Opposition was going to say something else reverting to what the Minister for External Affairs had asked him to comment on.

Mr Reynolds:

– You were mistaken.

Mr GORTON:

– Yes, I was mistaken. 1 concede that. The answer to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is: No, I have not been advised of what the Leader of the Opposition claims to be the fact. Nor do I think it has great relevance to the real fact that during this financial year the amount of money made available for war service homes has been increased by 10% over the amount available for the last financial year and that as a result of this and as a result of the great use that has been made of it there will merely be the inconvenience of some 6 or 8 weeks wait for those seeking to buy new homes, which will not prevent them from buying these new homes as is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.

page 739

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SUPERIOR COURT

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General without very much notice. He will no doubt recall the persuasive reasons advanced by his predecessor when he introduced the Commonwealth Superior Court Bill 1968 on 21st November of that year, which Bill provided for the establishment of a Commonwealth Superior Court. I ask the Attorney-General whether the arguments advanced on that occasion are still valid, whether there is still a need for a Commonwealth Superior Court and, if so, what course he proposes to follow to have such a Court established.

Mr HUGHES:
LP

– I think I should begin my answer by commending the honourable member for his engaging frankness. But to put the matter briefly, this whole question is under my consideration. It is a very large question and I shall make up my mind about this proposal, or about what I may recommend concerning it, in the light of existing circumstances, which are not altogether the same as they were in 1968 when the Bill to which the honourable member refers was introduced. This question does touch a matter of policy and beyond saying it is under my consideration I do not propose to say anything else.

page 740

QUESTION

LAOS

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for External Affairs. Is he aware that his Department recently issued a backgrounder research paper on Laos in which was included amongst a list of reference books, one entitled ‘Mekong Upstream’ by W. G. Burchett? Did the Department act with his approval? Is the author of ‘Mekong Upstream’ the same W. G. Burchett who was recently permitted to enter Australia by his Government? If so, did the Minister or his Department have any discussions with Mr Burchett when he was here on the situation in Laos? Did Mr Burchett give the Government permission for his book to be used as a reference in policy pronouncements such as this research paper?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I had no contact with Mr Burchett, nor would I ever wish to have any contact with him. So far as my Department is concerned. I read in the newspapers that he was anxious to establish a rapport with the Department and I think if he had established any my Department would have let me know. If he had asked to contact me, I probably would have unwillingly said yes without any kind of enthusiasm whatsoever.

As to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I have not heard anything about the matter he raises. Nonetheless I will make inquiries for him and let him know whether the Department knows any more than he appears to know at present.

page 740

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– 1 ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question with respect to the Vietnam Moratorium. In view of the fact that it is publicised that a large number of Federal Labor Party members of Parliament have signed support for the moratorium, as have also a large number of members of the Communist Party of Australia, could he give the reasons why the Trades Hall Council in Victoria, and I believe also those in Tasmania and New South Wales, have repudiated this call? Is it because of the association with the Communist Party? If not, what are the reasons?

Dr Everingham:

– 1 rise on a point of order. The question refers to a matter not within the competence of the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I would suggest that portions of the question come within the ambit of the Minister’s Department. The Minister might answer those parts which relate to his Department.

Mr Reynolds:

– I rise on a further point of order. I just seek consistency in the application of the standing orders. How could the Minister possibly purport to know what was in the minds of these people? What right has he to ascribe any motives to them in this respect? This is not a matter within the competence of the Minister and I ask you to rule the question out of order.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I have already given a ruling on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Capricornia. The Minister may proceed.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– In answer to the honourable gentleman’s question: It is a fact that an organisation has been established to endeavour to persuade the public of Australia that there is some sort of movement here to protest against Vietnam involvement which is separate and distinct and indigenous to Australia. The truth is, of course, that that movement stems directly from overseas. It has been stimulated without any doubt by

Communist manoeuvring. There is no doubt that there are people in Australia seeking to use this force that originates overseas. The great misfortune about it is that there are a number of people in Australia who are thought to be the victims of a propaganda move which will bring them into association with the movement in an attempt to make it appear widespread and to make it appear respectable.

Unfortunately, there are members of the Australian Labor Party, in the Parliamentary Party as well as in the organisational Party, who are not mere dupes but who have willingly given their support to it. 1 regret to say that organised Labor in Australia has endorsed the Vietnam moratorium, [n order for that primary action to become the policy it is necessary for more than 50% of the Trades and Labour Councils to endorse it. Three have failed to endorse it. One of the members on the other side, in taking a point of order, asked how could I know what is in the minds of those people who refuse to endorse it. T think I do know what is in their minds. They are decent Australians who will have no part of it and that is the reason why they refused to endorse this action.

But this has become a matter going beyond the mere political polemics. This has become an issue in which one of the members of the front bench of the Opposition has issued a call - a clarion call he would like to think it - to the Australian people and particularly to those in Victoria and in Melbourne, to cease work, to occupy the streets and to occupy public buildings. It is an invitation to anarchy as properly described, lt is a matter of such importance that I expect that a statement will be made by a Minister in this House so that the matter can be properly debated so that the views which are held by honourable members in this House can be exposed; for I am quite sure that whatever certain members of the Parliamentary Labor Party believe their views are not the views of the great bulk of those people who vote Labor and who support the Labor Party. Those people who will be called upon in the future to vote ought to know the character of the people they are called upon to vote for. For that reason there will be debate on this matter in the House.

page 741

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I refer the Minister for the Navy to reports that the Naval Board has accepted the retirement of Captain J. P. Stevenson. Did the honourable gentleman in January this year recommend that Captain Stevenson should not be allowed to retire? Did he say that it was his judgment that to meet the needs of the Service Captain Stevenson should remain in the Navy? Did the honourable gentleman say, as reported in the ‘Canberra Times’ on 6th January, that he would not turn around and put his name to a form of words which smacked of perjury and which was against his plain belief and complete conviction? Did he say further: ‘Any criticism should be directed to me. I have some old-fashioned ideas about ministerial responsibility?’ If these statements are correct, does the Minister now support the Naval Board’s acceptance of Captain Stevenson’s retirement?

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for the Navy · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– f think this is a splendid illustration of erring in the reading of a statute. When I first read the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act and references made in section 39 (2.) (b) of that Act to the Board’s making a decision regarding the acceptance of an application to meet the needs of the Service, T took the view - and 1 am sure that my honourable friend would agree with me that it was a reasonable one to take - that the ‘Board’ in that sense was the Naval Board, but the ‘Board’ in that sense T found on further examination was the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board. This is a Board that occupies by force of statute of this Parliament a statutory independence. The Board exercises a role which is akin to that of a board of trustees. I was invited by dint of circumstances to place before that Board all the relevant facts concerning Captain Stevenson, lt is not a case of my changing my mind or of the Naval Board changing its mind although I pause to make the observation that if a person who has placed before him further relevant and persuasive argument refused to change his mind I would be left to conclude that that individual is not affected by elements of obstinacy but is consumed by stupidity. I want to point out to my honourable friend and to the House that the ultimate decision rests wilh the Defence Forces Retirement

Benefits Board. It is the Board’s decision. It makes a decision whether to accept the retirement. It would have been within the Board’s province and thoroughly competent for it to have turned around and said: ‘No, we do not accept it.’ Then it would have been open to the Government to consider the matter on that basis. But that Board accepted it and there the matter rests. What the honourable gentleman has before him and what I have before me is the decision of a board which has statutory independence - an independence that has been enjoyed by that board for many, many years.

page 742

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Postmaster-General aware of the agony and distress given to many Australians because of the presentation by the Australian Broadcasting Commission of ‘Son of Man’? Is he aware that Sir Robert Madgwick has publicly stated that it is not the function of the ABC to set standards of culture, morals and ethics? Was the Australian Broadcasting Commission not set up for this purpose and this purpose alone? Will the Government consider setting up a corporation to take over the whole of the structure of the ABC? Is it a fact that the general manager, Mr Duckmanton, is to receive an appointment overseas?

Mr HULME:
LP

– I am sure that honourable members appreciate the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is set up under the Broadcasting and Television Act, which was passed by this Parliament. This Parliament gave to the Australian Broadcasting Commission almost complete autonomy in relation to programming. The film ‘Son of Man’, which has been referred to, was passed by the Commonwealth film censor in the same way that films which are seen in any cinema in Australia are approved. A week or so ago I gave a clear indication of the processes adopted by the ABC before the film was shown on television and the reasons why it was to he repeated. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat those comments at this stage The ABC is entitled to make its own judgment on this matter.

page 742

LEGISLATION

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)I present the following paper:

Bills not passed into law and Bills which originally lapsed but subsequently passed for tha sessions 1901-02 to 1968-69.

Ordered to be printed.

page 742

TARIFF BOARD

Report on Items

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP

– I present the report by the Tariff Board on the following subject:

Man-made Fibres and Yarn, Tyre Cord and Tyre Cord Fabric.

I shall formally introduce the Tariff Proposals tomorrow and will give details of the changes at that time.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 742

CROWN OF THORNS STARFISH

Ministerial Statement

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– by leave - Honourable members will be aware that the Commonwealth and Queensland have agreed to establish a joint committee to investigate the problems of the crown of thorns starfish. The committee will be supported on a $1 for $1 basis by each government. It will report to each government.

On behalf of the Premier of Queensland and myself I am pleased to be able to announce to the House that the committee will comprise the following experts:

Commonwealth nominees -

Professor R. J. Walsh, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of New South Wales (Chairman);

Professor W. G. H. Maxwell, Associate Professor of Geology at the University of Sydney;

Mr D. J. Tranter, M.Sc, Senior Research Scientist, Division of Fisheries and Oceanography, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Queensland nominees -

Dr J. M. Harvey. DirectorGeneral of Primary Industries;

Professor J. M. Thompson, Professor of Zoology at the University of Queensland;

Mr C. L. Harris of the Department of Primary Industries.

I have asked that the joint committee meet as soon as is practicable in view of the urgency of the situation.

page 743

CIVIL ASSISTANCE TO INDONESIA

Ministerial Statement

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for External Affairs · Lowe · LP

– by leave - I am sure the House will be pleased to learn that the Commonwealth Government has decided to make a grant of $53.8m - $US60m - in economic assistance to Indonesia for the 3 year period 1970-71 to 1972-73. In the current financial year 1969-70 the level of our assistance will be about $15m. The increase clearly shows the Government’s desire to assist Indonesia’s enormous developmental needs. Following the remarkable recovery of the Indonesian economy during the past 3 years it also shows the Government’s confidence that assistance is being used effectively to promote economic development.

In 1966 the Suharto Government inherited an economy that was in great difficulties externally, with strong internal inflation and a declining productive sector. By 1969 inflation had been brought under control, exports were increasing and the productive sector was moving forward again. Credit for this dramatic improvement in the economy must be given to the sound policies of the Indonesian Government. These efforts have been backed by a flow of international assistance from Western donors. Indonesia is now in a position to move from the stabilisation stage into the development stage, which began with the five year development plan in 1969.

The problems faced by Indonesia are still immense. The heavy legacy of economic neglect of earlier years will take time, resources and determination to overcome. Reflecting these needs and the greater opportunities for an effective attack on these problems, Western donors of the

Inter-governmental Group on Indonesia have endorsed the assessment by international agencies that Indonesia requires $US600m in assistance for the period up to 31st March 1971. This compares with a request for$US500m for 1969. Australia’s commitment of $53. 8m forms a part of this international effort. Of course, it relates to a longer period than the $600m Indonesia requires up to 31st March 1971. In the past our aid commitments have been made, in accordance with our budgetary practices, on a year by year basis. However, this year we are making a commitment for 3 years, so that theIndonesian Government, with this forward knowledge, can integrate our aid commitment into its own planning.

We envisage that our aid will be disbursed on a rising scale, so that expenditure will be greater in the last year of the 3 year period than in the first. As in the past this assistance will take the form of balance of payments support through what is called the B.E. or export bonus system, supply of commodities, including wheat flour, economic development projects, technical assistance and student training. As Indonesia turns from the immediate problems of stabilisation towards the longer term goal of economic growth, we think there will be a shift in our own programme with greater emphasis on project aid.

We are continuing the current railway rehabilitation and telecommunications projects and in the coming year plan to start on projects for the renewal of town water supply systems in Bogor and Den Pasar. We are investigating in a preliminary way a projectto rehabilitate the port of Tjilatjap on the south coast of Java, where a number of Australian firms plan investment.

I would like to mention the AustraliaAsia university aid and co-operation scheme. Whilst it is not financed from the Indonesian aid vote which I announced it is being directed principally to Indonesia. This programme is designed to set up a framework of co-operation between Australian universities and universities in Indonesia and also in Malaysia and Singapore. It will provide fellowships for research and staff training in Australia, travel awards for Australian university staff to work in the recipient universities and supply of library books and laboratory equipment.

Initially the scheme will concentrate on research and training associated with food production. This bilateral aid by Australia and other donors is being supplemented by assistance from the multilateral aid institutions to which Australia contributes, such as the International Development Association and the Asian Development Bank.

I should add that none of Australia’s aid is debt relief. This is simply because all our aid has been on a grant, not loan, basis. Thus, Australia is not one of Indonesia’s creditors. But Australia shares Indonesia’s concern that a satisfactory long term solution must be found to the huge international indebtedness inherited from the previous regime. If Indonesia is to succeed in the task of raising living standards, her creditors must reach a realistic settlement of these debts. This settlement must be within Indonesia’s capacity to pay. Australia cannot stand back from the problems which Indonesia faces. Indonesia has been, and continues to be, the largest recipient of our bilateral aid outside Papua and New Guinea. I believe that the decision to give Indonesia $53. 8m over 3 years reflects the wish of all Australians to play their part in the international effort to assist our nearest neighbour in the task of raising the living standards of its 118 million people. I commend this to the House.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– by leave - I will be referring to Indonesia in the resumed debate on international affairs but in the defence context and therefore I speak immediately on the economic aspects to which the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon) has just referred. I thank the Minister for letting me have a copy of his statement some hours ago. 1 found this to be a courteous and helpful departure from the procedure followed on the last occasion a statement was made about economic aid to Indonesia.

The decision to assist Indonesia by announcing a 3 year target for economic assistance is commendable. I noticed that yesterday afternoon newspapers referred to a major breakthrough in the offing. I think a scrutiny of the statement now shows that the projected target means a slackening in the rate of increase in aid to Indonesia at a time when Australia above all countries should be increasing economic assistance to its nearest neighbour. The quota set by the Minister for the 3 years is $53. 8m, which is an average of about $ 17.9m in each of the 3 years. In reply to a question that I asked last August the right honourable gentleman’s predecessor disclosed that our aid for the calendar year 1969 was running at S 16.8m - an increase of S2.5m over the calendar year 1968. From the Minister’s reference tonight to the current financial year’s level of assistance being about $15m it would appear that there is a short fall in the taking up of aid. The starting point for purposes of comparison should be the calendar year figures. Setting these against the next 3 years target period we can see that the rate of increase in aid has sharply declined. In the calendar year 1969 aid increased by $2.5m, but the increase for the 3 years target figure averaged out at only $1.3m.

Mr McMahon:

– The honourable gentleman is confusing United States dollars and Australian dollars. If he converts to United States dollars he will find that there is a steady progression.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I will check the answer again in the light of the Minister’s intervention. The Government cannot rely on the defence that Australian aid goes to Indonesia in grant form. The Netherlands - hardly a richer country than Australia - in 1969 gave approximately $22m in grants to Indonesia. It should also be remembered that the bonus export component of Australian aid - some $ 10.1m in 1969 - is directly tied to Australian purchases and thus provides benefits to Australian industry and exporters. Similarly, food aid totalling some $3.4m in 1969 also provided direct benefits to the Australian primary producer. Aid is, of course, a two way process but by stressing the grant aspect of the aid programme the Government does little to educate Australian public opinion to understand that aid helps the donor country as well. I believe that we need an imaginative review of our policy of aid to Indonesia. The establishment of a 3-year target should have provided the opportunity for such a review. It did not. It is a mixture as before. We were slow, too slow, to increase our aid programme to the new Indonesian regime.

Nevertheless we should now applaud the fact that whatever the amount may be - it will not make a great difference to Indonesia’s economy - at least it will be known 3 years ahead and in good time.

page 745

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Navigation Bill 1970.

Social Services Bill 1970.

Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill 1970.

Repatriation Bill 1970.

page 745

QUESTION

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Motion (by Mr Peacock) - by leave - proposed:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960-1967, this House elects the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia and to continue as a member for a period of 3 years from this day.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– Being a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia is one of the most satisfying jobs that I have had in the15 years that I have been in this Parliament. I would suggest to the Government and to all honourable members that members could well be used in a larger measure than is the case in enterprises of this kind. At the moment we have representation on the Australian National University and the Institute of Aboriginal Studies, but that is about all. The National Library is becoming one of the world’s great library institutions. The membership of the Council includes a number of distinguished Australians and I regard it as an honour to be appointed by the House to this position. I commend the institution to honourable members. If they wish to make any inquiries at any time they may do so privately or even use the resources of Standing Orders at question time to do so.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 745

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE, PEARCE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Report of Public Works Committee

Mr KELLY:
Wakefield

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Royal Australian Air Force Base at Pearce, Western Australia.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 745

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 19 March (vide page 685), on motion by Mr McMahon:

That the House take note of the following paper:

International Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 19 March 1970

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Mr Snedden) - by leave - agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposiion speaking without limitation of time.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I congratulate the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon) on the occasion of his first speech in that portfolio. I cannot congratulate him on its contents. The last time the Minister spoke in this House on international affairs was in October 1967. On that occasion, he denounced proposals for stopping the bombing of North Vietnam and negotiating with the National Liberation Front as ‘treason’. The Minister was then the most outspoken of those members of the Cabinet who used Australia’s influence to sabotage American peace initiatives and prolong the war. We are not likely to have again such an opportunity for obtaining a settlement on anything like such satisfactory terms, not only for the Vietnams but for the Indo-China region, as we had in 1967. At that time Australia had considerable ability to influence events, by influencing the United States of America. We squandered that influence by abusing it. The Minister was among the foremost of the spendthrifts.

One would have expected to see from the Minister some contrition - that necessary confession of failure which must precede amendment. We have nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the Minister clings to the old attitudes and theories which culminated in the present disaster in Indo-China. The Minister uttered some fine sentiments about the need for telling the people the truth - a pretty plain admission that they have not been told the truth in the past. The Minister is spokesman for the only democratic government in the world which would now dare depict the war in Vietnam and its origins exclusively in terms of external aggression. The Australian Government is the last to cling to this disastrous obsession.

Does it expect the Australian people to be the last in the world to believe it? The President of the United States knows that his people no longer believe it. In his Report to Congress on 18th February he studiously avoided the exploded claim that this war can or would ever be interpreted solely in terms of external aggression. Indeed, in that speech he paid tributes to both North Vietnam and NLF which, if uttered by an Australian, would be described by the Minister as treason.

I say this interpretation of the war and its causes has been a disastrous obsession. Under its baleful influence, the conflict in Vietnam escalated into the longest and third largest war this century; it has been at the root of the massive blunders and massive bloodshed of this conflict; it has built up a tawdry totalitarian regime, running a fifthrate power, as the arbiter of Indo-China, while a hardly less totalitarian regime drags in its wake the prestige of the mightiest democracy the world has known or will ever know. Yet the Minister claims this policy - this policy allegedly designed to teach North Vietnam that aggression does not pay - is succeeding. The Minister is caught up in the toils of a terrible self contradiction. To justify 5 years of disaster in Vietnam, he says the policy pursued over those 5 years is a success; yet to explain events in Laos and Cambodia, he invokes the domino theory. Thus runs the Liberal syllogism: North Vietnam is being taught that aggression cannot succeed, but North Vietnam is extending her aggression to the whole of Indo-China. This is the Liberal logic: The domino theory will operate unless we succeed in Vietnam; we are succeeding in Vietnam; the domino theory is operating.

The bankruptcy of Liberal policy, Liberal theories, Liberal attitudes is revealed in the most significant sentence in the Minister’s speech. ‘Cambodia’, he says, ‘does not fit readily into the themes I have developed in my statement’. How impertinent of Cambodia! Events have an unfortunate habit of refusing to fit into Liberal themes. We do not hear much these days of the grand old rationale of our involvement in Vietnam - the need, according to Sir Robert Menzies, to prevent the downward thrust of China between the Indian and Pacific oceans’. The Minister himself 2 years ago drew a new McMahon line: ‘Australia would fight aggression wherever . it occurred’. Now, while explaining the situation in Laos and Cambodia wholly in terms of North Vietnamese aggression, he hurls his defiant thunderbolts about ‘our sympathetic interest’.

The truth is that events in Cambodia fit perfectly into the most significant theme of Indo-China’s history since World War II - the theme which explains the disasters which have befallen our aims, our arms and our efforts in that area. That theme is our continuing failure to recognise and identify with the national aspirations and expectations of the people of the area. At the bottom of the alienation of so many and so much representing the best in our communities is the failure to answer this crucial question of our time: Why is our cause, the cause of democracy - embracing mankind’s hope for decency and dignity, backed as it is by unparalleled power - so vulnerable, and in this region so apparently impotent, in the face of the challenge of so obsolete, crude and brutal a creed as Communism? We began with all the advantages and still hold most of them.

Look at our area in global perspective. Of the 12 significant countries of the Pacific Basin, 9 are democracies. The most developed, the strongest, of those - the United States, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia - are flourishing democracies. Ten of these 12 countries reject Communism. Two of these - the United States and Japan - are the world’s first and third industrial powers. Three of them - the U.S., Indonesia and Japan - are the world’s fourth, fifth and sixth most populous nations. The two great Communist powers touching on the Pacific reserve for each other a greater hostility than they do for us. For 23 years Indian democracy has grappled successfully with the problems of the world’s second most populous nation. In those same post-war years the overt military strength of the Soviet has been turned exclusively against other Communist nations. Yet, with all these strengths, we still find ourselves awaiting the next disaster. Surely then, only an Olympian capacity for error could have brought us to our present situation in this area. Cambodia illustrates and encapsules the fatal flaw of Western policy.

The flaw is this: In this area especially, though not only in this area, we have allowed the Communists to identify with national leadership and national aspirations; in the name of anti-Communism, we have all too frequntly identified ourselves with all that is opposed to that leadership and those aspirations. We have preferred anti-national regimes who will profess opposition to Communism against nationalists who refused to do so. We have preferred nominal antiCommunism to neutralism. The whole Vietnam adventure was based on the gamble that a militant anti-Communist regime could be established there and on the fallacy that such a regime would be more to our advantage than a neutral government associating with none of the great adversaries.

For 17 years in Cambodia, Prince Sihanouk dexterously kept his country neutral. He was an excellent diplomatist and a most excellent Prince. For all his faults, as in our superior detachment we may view them, he achieved the one thing worth achieving in his situation and for his nation: He maintained, he embodied, the national identity. I make no comment or judgment on the causes of his overthrow. I echo for Australia the statement made for the United States by the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mansfield, that ‘those among us who applaud his fall are mistaken’. As to the consequences, so much is plain: A real national leader who refused to identify with either East or West now divides his exile between Peking and Moscow; a neutralist who, barely a month ago, warned against precipitate American withdrawal from the region is now the client of Peking; a head of state who was confident that the Red Khmers could be locally contained is now championed by the Red Khmers; and, above all, worst of all, the people of Cambodia are now to know war in a way that they have never known it for 17 years. Indeed, one would hardly expect the tragedy of this dimension to ‘fit readily into the themes developed’ by the Minister.

The Minister is content to justify and explain all events in this area - in Vietnam, in Laos, in Cambodia, in Thailand - by postulating North Vietnamese aggression. This, he says, in each case, is ‘the fundamental cause’. If we were to accept the Minister’s explanation, plainly nothing could or should be done except stop North Vietnamese aggression - just as we are supposed to have stopped it in South Vietnam. The Minister puts forward the same fundamental cause’ in South Vietnam, in Laos, in Cambodia. Does he, then, put forward the same solution - the solution which he claims has been successful in Vietnam? Is this Canberra’s message to Washington, to Vientiane, to Phnom Penh - that we should follow up our ‘success’God save the mark! - in Vietnam by similar successes’ in Laos and Cambodia? Even to justify himself, even to satisfy Senator Gair, the Minister dares not go so far; but Laos and Cambodia may know - the Liberals declare it fearlessly to the world - that they have our ‘sympathetic interest’. The Liberal tradition continues - talk big; encourage the elements in any American administration which urge escalation; make it as difficult as possible for the United States to negotiate.

Is it yet possible to propose a rational, attainable policy for this area? We on this side believe it is. We have put it again and again for 5 years. Its object is to neutralise Indo-China - that is, the countries of this area should not be subject to intervention, much less confrontation, on the part of the competing great powers. This is a much broader objective than the present declared policy of the United Slates - ‘Vietnamisation’ of the war in Vietnam. ‘Vietnamisation’ of the war is the method of American withdrawal from the war. But the important aim must be to ‘Vietnamise’ the peace. The current events in Laos and Cambodia present the last opportunity we shall have for an international conference on IndoChina. This is an opportunity - not golden, not bright, but the last - which cannot be lost. Australia should be now proposing it. It is to international conferences, in 1954 and in 1962, that we owe whatever respite we were given in this area. It is true that we squandered the respite and abused the opportunity; it is equally true that the International Control Commission set up by those conferences has been rendered ineffective. But the precedent and the machinery exist for Indo-China in a way that they do nowhere else in the world. We should be urging it; we should be supporting France in her call for a global conference. Whatever may be thought of

France’s actions and motives, one thing must be said: She has learnt the lessons of her grievous losses in Indo-China.

There is nothing so depressing in the Minister’s speech as his continuation of the fine old Liberal tradition of downgrading negotiations and rubbishing proposals from the other side. Sir Robert Menzies laid down the line that he would be the last Prime Minister to denounce negotiations. As it turned out, the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) was. The Minister for External! Affairs mentions the ‘proposals for a peaceful settlement’ - his words - in Laos put forward by the Pathet Lao on 6th March - and then proceeds to discount them. He discounts them on the ground that they are one-sided’. If negotiations are never to proceed except on the basis that one side must put forward two-sided proposals, negotiations will never start - on this or any other matter. The Minister was Minister for Labour and National Service long enough to know that. One of the main reasons why President Johnson is no longer President of the United States is that he persistently refused to acknowledge that proposals for negotiations are not necessarily proposals for final settlement. It is argued that negotiations go on interminably, that the intransigence of the other side makes a mockery of them, that they are futile and sterile. But what can be said of negotiations that cannot be said about the war itself - with this difference, that negotiations do not destroy whole nations.

The simple, blunt truth is that the Minister and his Government, and particularly its leaders, rubbish negotiations - whether they are ‘one-sided’ proposals from the Pathet Lao or, to quote the Prime Minister, these things called peace talks in Paris’ - because of an attitude of mind which represents a hankering for vanished supremacies, a nostalgia of a distinctly racist cast. If, conceivably, a European area were involved in the kind of protracted and selfdestructive conflict that we now see in our area, that we have seen for a quarter century now, in Indo-China, this Government would urge and encourage every move in the United Nations to stop it, on any terms at all. If, conceivably, a European belligerent were to put forward proposals such as Hanoi’s 4 points of 1966, or the Pathet Lao’s proposals of 6th March, we would be touting every capital in the world to secure a peace conference on the basis of those proposals. We would not be looking too deeply into motives or consequences; we would be intent only on stopping the war or preventing its spread. 1 know that this attitude is not confined to supporters of the war; I know there are opponents of the war, and particularly of Australia’s commitment to it, whose real objection is that we should be concerned in killing men or being killed by men of a different colour - because they are a different colour. But it is only in the present government that such people are part of, or have access to, the decision-making processes of this country. It is all very well for the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to give us 7 columns in Hansard under the heading ‘Strategic Assessment’, which was more geography than strategy. It is not just for geographical reasons that we have to play our part in Asia. Nor is it the reason which ran through the speech of the Minister for External Affairs like a dirge - to provide ‘stability’. This is not a role which this or any other democracy should set for itself - or believe itself capable of achieving.

Australia’s path to Asia is through doing the right and good thing. Our purpose and justification as a part of European civilisation in this Asian region is to show what it is to do the right and good thing according to the great Western ideas of reason, tolerance and progress and belief in human dignity and decency. Yet all to often Australia shows the obverse ugly side of European civilisation - its intolerance, its racialism, its desire to overawe and overwhelm those it chooses to regard as inferior. In short, all too often this nation does the wrong thing or, more frequently, we lose the credit for doing the right thing by doing it grudgingly and gracelessly - most notably in Vietnam, but in all those other matters which the Minister mentioned but chose not to discuss, namely, the problems of southern Africa, the South Pacific, such developments in disarmament as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and the proposal for better control of chemical and bacteriological warfare.

Our attitude, more than our geography, will determine the role we are to play in this region. The Gorton Government’s sympathetic attitude to southern Africa - or the regimes there - is doing Australia great damage in the world and in particular in our region. A fortnight after the Prime Minister was sworn in as a member of this place I drew his attention to a letter in the ‘London Times’ in which the Agent-General for Victoria, a former Liberal Minister in that State, declared that South Africa and Rhodesia are in a similar position to Australia in that ‘they are resisting the march of Communism in the Southern Hemisphere’. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would repudiate this inept and offensive statement. He replied:

I believe it perfectly true to state that Australia, in fact, is resisting the encroachment of Communism in this part of the world and I have no apology to make for that part of the letter.

During the remainder of that year the honourable members for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) and Moreton (Mr Killen) and the former member for Bowman had a free hand to synchronise questions and speeches in favour of Rhodesia.

A year ago I drew the Prime Minister’s attention to the visit to Australia on an Australian passport by Air Vice-Marshal Hawkins, who was formerly Commander of the Rhodesian Air Force and was to become Rhodesia’s diplomatic representative to South Africa. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would make it plain that the Australian Government did not approve of an Australian citizen taking a position described as Rhodesia’s diplomatic representative. In reply the Prime Minister contented himself with referring to the Air ViceMarshal’s ‘most distinguished career fighting for the free world against Fascism as a pilot with great distinction and finishing up as the head of the air force of a country which was then joined in opposing Hitler, Fascism and Fascist rule’. Spurred by an interjection by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen), he went on to praise Rhodesia as a country in which many of our pilots trained to fight against this aggressive Fascism. He concluded by asserting the rights of a man with ‘a career which was distinguished and which had greatly helped the freedom of the world and the relief of Europe from conquest from abroad’. Our Prime Minister’s nostalgic affinity with Mr Smith, this yearning for the halcyon days of the junior officers’ mess, has infected the whole range of his Government’s actions and our country’s standing.

It is little wonder that, after watching Mr Ian Smith’s recent interview on ‘Four Corners’, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), the Liberal member with the longest parliamentary experience after the honourable member for Chisholm, pointed to the inescapable inference that in the opinion of Mr Smith the Australian Government sympathises with his regime and with its policies. Nor is it surprising that this same honourable member, fresh from his experiences in New York, has publicly and privately warned his colleagues that Australia will exert no beneficent influence in the United Nations until we clear up and clean up our attitudes on Rhodesia and New Guinea. The Australian Government is conspiring with the Rhodesian regime to facilitate the movements of its officials around the world. These officials can no longer receive British passports. Their Rhodesian passports are not recognised by any loyal member of the United Nations. The Australian Government has therefore obliged by giving alternative Australian passports to such of the Rhodesian officials as were born in Australia. The regime’s Secretary of External Affairs - so named - was granted an Australian passport by the Australian Embassy in Pretoria in June 1967. The regime’s diplomatic representative in Portugal received his Australian passport in December 1967. In August 1968, on instructions from Canberra, our Embassy in Pretoria gave Air ViceMarshal Hawkins his Australian passport. Last August I placed the following question on the notice paper for the Prime Minister:

Is it in accordance with the Government’s policy for persons described as Rhodesia’s diplomatic representatives in South Africa and Portugal to hold Australian passports.

I received no reply before the last Parliament was dissolved. I placed this question on the notice paper again 5 weeks ago. I have still received no reply.

The Committee established in pursuance of the Security Council resolution of May 1968 has reported that, despite sanctions, Australia’s exports to Southern Rhodesia have risen in each of the last 3 years and Australia has risen from ninth to second place among exporters to Southern Rhodesia. In the first year after the resolution, 88 persons were approved for entry from Rhodesia for visits and 107 for residence; in the following 9 months the figures rose to 105 and 127 respectively. It seems about half the entrants have travelled on Rhodesian passports.

Thus in both trade and passports Australia is known to be defying United Nations resolutions of May 1968 and earlier and reaffirmed and reinforced as recently as 18th March by the Security Council. In answer to the honourable member for Chisholm, the former Minister for Immigration in effect apologised for having to follow United Nations resolutions on Rhodesian passports and said that there was certainly regret on his part in having to do so.

In these circumstances should any of us be surprised that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) feels free to defame Australia, its people, its churches, its unions, on Rhodesian television? We may know how insignificant is his position as chairman of the Liberal Party’s immigration committee. Other nations may place some emphasis on that position, not least the United States, where the Negro population is notably critical of the Australian Government. Our relations with the United States have always been to take account of the fact that it includes the world’s most powerful black, community. The decision by the Secretary of State, Mr Rogers, to close down the American consulate in Salisbury reflects the strength of feeling among America’s 25 million negroes on this issue and on any issue involving the racist policies of South Africa and Rhodesia.

Other nations, too, noting the preoccupation by the honourable member for Moreton with African governments and his evidence before the Rhodesian regime’s Constitution Commission, will draw their own conclusions from the fact that he has now been appointed to the Australian Ministry, and a defence portfolio at that. In his first speech as Minister, the honourable gentleman could not forbear to obtrude a reference to the new member for Robertson (Mr Cohen), who has dared to expose racist policies and attitudes by certain Australians in Australia towards Africa. Knowing how anxious the Prime Minister now is to ingratiate himself with the Democratic Labour Party, other nations place sig nificance on the statement by Senator Gair to the National Press Club last October that the Government should examine the possibility of a naval arrangement with South Africa for defence in the Indian Ocean.

The attitude of our Government towards the Territory of Papua and New Guinea will be judged in the world, and in our region, by the fact - among others - that a score of the Territory’s police officers have previously served in African countries - more than half of them in Rhodesia - and that 49 other members of the Administration staff have previously been employed in African countries. The new Minister for External Affairs did not take long to disclose his own attitude towards southern Africa. He was reported as saying on 15th November at Kurri Kurri:

Mr McMahon:

– I was not there on 15th November.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I will remind you. You said:

I am a former Treasury expert . . .

Mr McMahon:

– I am sorry. I thought you were speaking of foreign affairs.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I accept the Minister’s apology. I will read the full report uninterrupted. 1 do not think the listening public or the Minister’s own colleagues should miss any of his sentiments on this first occasion when he spoke on foreign affairs after having been shifted to that portfolio. The Minister said:

I am a former Treasury expert and now a foreign relations expert. Between 20 minutes lo 5 yesterday and 10 minutes to 9 this morning 1 had to make 3 decisions. One was about foreign aid and one was about apartheid and I can’t remember what the other one was.

He said he had made his decision according to the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other countries.

Throughout the 1950s the Menzies Government opposed any United Nations resolutions condemning apartheid on the ground that this was a domestic issue which concerned South Africa alone. During the 1960s the Government came first to abstain from voting on such resolutions and finally to vote in favour of them. The issue came to a vote in the Special Political Committee of the General Assembly on 14th November. Eighty-three members voted in favour of it and 20 abstained. Australia reverted to a vote against. The decision the Minister could not remember related to the Portuguese territories in Africa. It arose on the same day in the Fourth Committee. Eightyeight members voted in favour of it. This time Australia had the grace to abstain.

The General Assembly carried 12 resolutions last November and December relating to trusteeship and non self-governing territories - Fourth Committee matters - on recorded votes or roll-calls. On all these controversial questions of colour and colonies Australia never voted against South Africa or Portugal. She consistently voted against all her neighbours in South East Asia and the Asian Commonwealth and the Indian Ocean. Australia voted in favour of 1 of the 12 resolutions - on New Guinea; she voted against 2- on Rhodesia and Oman; and abstained on the rest. New Zealand voted in favour of 4; Canada 5; Japan 8 and India 10. Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Singapore and Thailand supported all the resolutions except that on Oman. Cambodia, Laos, Madagascar, Pakistan and the Philippines supported the whole 12 resolutions.

The Minister for External Affairs avoided discussion of Australia’s attitude to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the control of chemical and bacteriological warfare. He explicitly recognised that these matters are crucial in achieving a detente between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Government has never recognised its responsibilities in this regard. The Treaty is fundamental to the detente. Adhesion to it is the most important request on disarmament the United States had made to her friends and allies. The second point of the Guam Doctrine - America’s nuclear guarantee to friends and allies - makes sense only in the context of the Treaty. The guarantee is feasible only if the Treaty works; Congress will endorse such a guarantee only to the extent that it is covered by the Treaty. Australia was the 97th of 98 nations which signed the Treaty before it entered into force. Indonesia was the 98th. New Zealand had signed it on the first day; she ratified it 7 months ago. Yet. in his 11th hour announcement that Australia would sign, the Prime Minister did his best to cast doubts on the validity of the guarantee. Is it any wonder that, with America’s ANZUS partner baulking. other nations less closely associated were doubtful? To emphasise Australia’s reluctance and scepticism, the Prime Minister gratuitously coupled his announcement that we would sign wilh an announcement that we would not yet ratify. So we are to go through the whole sorry process again - if it is left to him. Inevitably, we will ratify; but as far as this Government is concerned, it will be done in the same begrudging way as we came inevitably to sign - the day designed to ensure that Australia has the least influence and ihe least credit. The Gorton Government has an unerring ability to make a vice out of necessity.

If Rhodesia and the Non-proliferation Treaty are examples of Australia’s failure to co-operate with the United States in her best endeavours, our conduct at the United Nations on control of chemical and bacteriological warfare betrays equally shortsighted efforts to support the United States when most isolated and idiosyncratic. In the General Assembly, Australia, Portugal and the United States alone voted against the declaration that the Geneva Convention outlawed chemical and biological agents of warfare which poisoned or killed men, animals or plants.

Our record on these 3 matters - Rhodesia, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and chemical and bacteriological warfare - has a common denominator. It has not been a question of consistent support for the United States, or concerted action with fellow members of the Commonwealth of Nations. The one common factor is that we have been out of step with our neighbours; we have either lagged behind or been at outright loggerheads. At the United Nations at least, the Government consistently votes in favour of isolationism in our region. The Minister named the South Pacific as one of those matters on which debate is to be deferred. Fiji will become independent this year. Then the only British territory in the South Seas will be the Solomon Islands Protectorate. It is all the more urgent, therefore, that Australia make arrangements with the retiring British to facilitate postindependence arrangements between the Solomons and New Guinea. Such arrangements will mitigate the pressure for secession in Bougainville, which after all is the northernmost of the Solomons.

The great significance of these matters is that Australia is directly and fully responsible for the specific decisions it makes upon them. They are all directly, some of them entirely, in our province. On none of them can we escape the consequences of the decisions we make, and the decisions we make are the things upon which we are judged by other nations. The Minister chose not to deal with these specific matters. He preferred the larger canvas. He preferred to base his statement not on those matters where Australia can or must make responsible decisions, but on Australian opinions on matters where the decision is not ours. Thus his statement dealt largely with Australian opinions rather than Australian decisions. He expressed his Government’s opinion in 3 great matters of policy of 3 great nations; he expressed his Government’s opinion as to action taken, policies enunciated, or likely developments in Britain, Japan and the United States. Yet even now, when we have had the benefit of the foreign affairs statement by the Minister for Defence, and the Minister for External Affairs’ postscript, it is not quite clear what the Government’s attitude really is to each of these 3 matters. Still less is it certain that the Government has any realistic understanding of the policies of there 3 governments, or that its own policies are realistically related to the policies of these governments. We can only assume that the contradictions revealed by comparing the statements by the Ministers for Defence and External Affairs show that the Government as a whole is confused and uncertain. Of course, I reject with deserved contempt the Press speculation that these contradictions reflect personal rivalry between the immediate Ministers for Defence and External Affairs. Who could believe such a thing? Nevertheless, the contradictions remain.

The Minister for Defence made it quite clear that in his belief the British policy of withdrawal from our region was irreversible. The tenor of his speech was so strong along this line that half the papers in Australia attributed the word ‘irreversible’ to him in direct quotes, although the word itself is not contained in the actual speech. Perhaps that was the word the Minister used when giving his pre-speech briefing to the Press, when he was using the new Liberal technique of giving a ministerial statement a spurious significance by locking the Press up with it several hours before it is made in the Parliament. Ministers like the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who went to sleep during the statement by the Minister for Defence might reflect on the sufferings of the pressmen who were physically imprisoned with it for 5 hours beforehand. Until the current Prime Minister got this bright idea, locking-up the Press used to be reserved for Budgets only, to prevent corrupt transactions. Perhaps the Minister for Defence felt he had to protect the shares of General Dynamics. However, the Minister for Defence plainly accepts the irreversibility of British disengagement.

The Government’s defence policy is presently based on such a position. Yet the Minister for External Affairs makes a last minute plea for a reversal of established British policy. In any meaningful sense, the thing is chimerical. Even should there be a change of government in Britain between now and 1976 - the election after next - there will be no significant British presence in this area after 1971. More particularly, there will be no troops - no land-based forces - in significant numbers after 1971. This is not merely a decision by a government of a particular party, nor, as the Minister for Defence seemed to imply, is it purely a decision of economic exigency. It is part of the inevitable trend, the policy that any European power - and Britain today is exclusively a European power - must follow. There is no more reason for Britain to have land forces in this area in the 1970s than for France, Germany, Italy or any other significant European power. In this regard, it is quite irrelevant which party is in power in Britain. So, in the first of the three significant factors which the Minister for External Affairs mentions, one thing stands out - Britain will not station, Britain will not maintain, garrisons of troops in this area in this decade.

The second factor the Minister for External Affairs mentioned was Japan. Here again we find divergence between the Ministers for Defence and External Affairs. The Minister for Defence seems to be proposing some sort of interventionist military role for Japan. The Minister for External Affairs, to the credit of his Department, specifically rejects such a role, for his Department knows it is impossible. Of course, to speak, as the Minister did, of Okinawa redenta as an assumption of regional responsibilities by Japan is doubletalk. The very political elements in Japan most vocal on the return of Okinawa are those most opposed to any return to militarism in Japan. The blunt truth of the matter is this: There is not a country in Asia which would invite Japanese military intervention in its defence, and there is not a country in Asia to which Japan would be prepared to send troops. It is just not on. The Minister makes no recognition of the fact that, as trading nations, Australia and Japan have a common national interest - the preservation of the freedom of the high seas. Recently Australia had an opportunity to show the Japanese Government that this common interest can be important for our future relations. Nothing was done. Recently the Soviet announced major naval exercises around Japan which would severely disrupt Japan’s trade and commerce. Such disruption would have affected Australia, not least because of the infringement of the principles outlined in the Convention on the High Seas. Australia failed to join Japan in its successful protests to the Soviet.

Both Ministers correctly emphasise the importance of the role Japan can play in economic development in our region. They overlook what is perhaps her most significant role of all - in helping bridge relations between the United States and China. No country stands more to gain from rational relationships from China; no country is so well placed to make the beginning towards securing such relationships. It is regrettable that the Minister for External Affairs, while paying lip-service to the concept of restoring China to the international community, returned to the old doctrine that China must first give proofs of her fitness to be a member of that community. In this case again, one can draw a contrast between the doctrinaire approach of the Australian Government and the cautious pragmatism of the Nixon Doctrine as outlined in the President’s address to Congress on 18th February. President Nixon makes no such prior conditions. If the standards of international conduct laid down by the Minister were the conditions of membership of the United Nations they would form as good an argument for expelling Russia as for excluding China.

The problems of building a rational relationship with China are complex enough; it would resolve one difficulty if we were to drop at once the habit of directing sermons rather than proposals to China. The initial steps towards improved relations are about such matters as trade, travel and communications. As one of China’s significant trading partners, Australia has certain opportunities. The pity of it is that up to 2 years ago we could have joined with Canada and Japan in helping the United States off the hook. But now, a comparison of the President’s speech of 18th February and the speech of the Minister for External Affairs shows that in fact the United States has moved ahead of us; the official American position is now well in advance of ours.

The third great factor which, according to the Minister, hasmajor implications for our region’ is Nixon Doctrine itself. The new and crucial part of this Doctrine is Statesclause 3, which states: the United States will look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defence.

Fundamentally, this is the President’s response to the demand of the people and the Congress of the United States that there shall be no more Vietnams. It is perhaps not so much a new doctrine as a return to orthodoxy after the Vietnam aberration - namely, the orthodoxy that American arms should not be involved on the mainland of Asia.

I agree with the Minister that the 3 factors he mentions - British withdrawal, the role of Japan and the Nixon doctrine - are 3 of the most significant factors in determining Australian foreign and defence policies. But he seems to avoid the cumulative impact of the 3 factors. For there is one thing that each of these 3 - the 3 policies of very diverse nations - have in common: They each drive at the same point. They all define for themselves a role in Asia; but each of them excludes the provision of ground troops as part of her role. None of them will in future provide manpower. Not only do these 3 powers reach a common conclusion; they work on a common assumption. It is not just because of economic difficulties that Britain is no longer prepared to provide troops for Asia; it is not just for historical reasons that Japan cannot; it is not just for domestic political reasons that the United States will not. Beyond these reasons, each powerful enough in itself, is the greater reason - the futility of foreign troops in national Wars. These 3 great powers - 3 of the 4 nations, with Indonesia, with which Australia is most concerned - each abdicate voluntarily from the role of providing troops for the defence of foreign countries. Australia alone still proposes such a role for herself, in the face of experience, in the face of the future. Yet of all these countries, we are the weakest in manpower. We have not a fifth of the manpower of the smallest of these powers. We are a small, exceedingly wealthy nation neighboured by the most populous and some of the poorest nations in the world. And yet, in such a situation, the linch-pin of our defence policy is a battalion - 1,000 men - in Singapore. We are asked to believe that this is a meaningful ind modern contribution to the needs of this region, at the very time that the greatest of the democracies are turning their backs irreversibly on such methods.

The garrisoning of a single battalion in Singapore is an irrelevancy to genuine regional co-operation. Indeed, it may be a barrier to that objective. Regional cooperation which ignores ‘Indonesia is. a contradiction in terms. It would be idle to pretend that our relations with Malaysia have improved as a result of the decision to withdraw our forces from Terendak and instal them in Singapore. On the terms which our own Government lays down as the role of our troops, logic would have required that, if they were to be stationed anywhere, they should be in Malaysia. Under these terms, there could be only one conceivable role - helping to prevent border incursions in northern Malaysia. If there is any other role envisaged, the House would like to hear it. Such an involvement would require closer collaboration with Malaysian forces and a considerable degree of command integration. Plainly the decision to withdraw from Malaysia precludes such collaboration and integration. I believe it was deliberately intended to achieve that result; but once that crucial decision was made, the facesaving compromise was made between the Prime Minister and the former Minister for Defence that they should go only as far as Singapore. The logistic problems involved in such an operation have never been re vealed to this House; the Minister for Defence avoided mentioning them. As a result of this compromise - a political compromise and nothing else - we have a decision which is militarily wrong, logistically wrong and historically wrong. We have a battalion in search of a role; indeed it seems we have a battalion in search of a roof.

It cannot be said too often that the basts of regional co-operation in our neighbourhood is Indonesia; it cannot be said too often that defence arrangements which exclude or bypass Indonesia are completely unbalanced. I can think of no significant country in the world which plans its foreign and defence policies with so little reference to its nearest and greatest neighbour as Australia does in relation to Indonesia.

Both the Ministers for External Affairs and Defence express their abhorrence of what they call isolationism. I can only assume their anonymous auditor was intended to be the Prime Minister - this House’s leading isolationist. Isolationism is as much a matter of attitude of mind as of the disposition of forces. We do not automatically become regionally minded by isolating one of our battalions in Singapore. The true antithesis of isolationism is not regional co-operation and regional involvement but interventionism. Australia should stand for regional co-operation and involvement; it should reject both isolationism and interventionism. Regional involvement requires not only military co-operation but, most importantly, social and economic cooperation. It requires above all an attitude which recognises and sympathises with national aspirations and national expectations. The real objection to isolationism is not military but moral; not just what might happen in other countries, not what other countries may do to us, but what we may do to ourselves. The archetype of isolationism in our hemisphere is South Africa. The true isolationists in this country are those who would create a similar image for Australia, those who contemplate an association of Ishmaelites in the name of anti-Communism. That is the path toward real isolation in our region, from the peoples of our region. The Government’s voting record in the United Nations shows just how far this truly isolationist spirit infects our present rulers.

Equally, interventionism is a morally and socially destructive doctrine. The recognition of this is at the root of the present reappraisal, and what will prove to be a reversal, of American policies. The war in Vietnam spells the end of interventionism not merely because it has been militarily disastrous but because it has been socially disastrous, lt has been the most divisive and disruptive war in America’s history: lt has been the most divisive and disruptive war in Australia’s history. President Nixon’s problem is not to ‘save’ Vietnam, or ‘save’ Laos, but to save the fabric of American society. No democratic society can long survive half-alienated, and in the United States alienation is deepest among the very groups upon whose co-operation and dedication democratic society most depends - the young, the educated and the idealistic. No enemy has inflicted a greater defeat upon the United States Army than it received from within at My Lai. No conscription can make up the loss of 60,000 young Americans who cross into Canada each year to avoid Vietnam. Yet these Australian Liberals - these little frightened men who proclaim their proprietorial interest in the American alliance - are prepared to see this war go on and on, have twice sabotaged American initiatives to end it, have resented or resisted any moves to stop it, whatever the cost to America’s real strength and purpose in the world.

And for what reasons is this blood-bath in Vietnam, and this disintegration in the United States, to continue? In February the Minister for Defence, speaking in Perth to an assemblage of Young Liberals - estimable enough young people who get far more frankness from Ministers than this Parliament ever does - said that the trouble was that the people of Australia did not understand the Government’s attitude. It is 5 years next month since the first battalion was sent to Vietnam. Three Prime Ministers have presided over the subsequent escalation. Three national elections - two general elections and a Senate election - have been fought with Vietnam as a central issue. Nearly 400 Australian troops have been killed. Every significant Australian newspaper, at one time or another, has supported the war, and most still do in one way or another. Yet the Minister for Defence believes that majority opposition to continued commitment is simply a ques tion of better public relations. The same Minister, speaking in Saigon last week, stated that the reduction of the Australian commitment was solely dependent on decisions by the United States: that is, on behalf of the Government of Australia, a Minister states publicly that it is of no importance whatever Australians think, that it is not for them to propose, dispose or oppose. In the same week, the Prime Minister described demonstrations against the war as ‘anarchy’, as ‘storm-trooper tactics’. The truth is that these demonstrations are designed to assert Australia’s moral responsibility for actions committed in the name of Australia, when her government has abdicated its own responsibilities.

It was left to the Prime Minister of Australia to be the first to describe dissenters against Vietnam as Communist-inspired. In 5 years of dissent this charge has never been made, and particularly not in the United States, where the list would include half the Congress, including the Senate Majority Leader, two brothers of a former President and a candidate for the vicepresidency of the United States. But this charge, flung out so irresponsibly by the Prime Minister, has its own intrinsic significance in relation to the foreign affairs debate that goes on in this Parliament a;id this nation. It betrays a central fact of Liberal foreign policy-making. The foreign affairs decisions, even the commitment of troops, have depended on internal political considerations of the most cynical kind Fundamentally, the Liberal appeal is to fear, and one of its ingredients is racial fear. We will have to root this out, out of our government, out of our national character. This nation’s proper part in Dur region, as a good neighbour, a good helper and as an example of the good and open society, cannot be built on the basis of fear or hate. To try to do so is to inflict on ourselves, on our system, on our civilisation, a far deeper wound than any foreign enemy is ever likely to do.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Farrer

– I had always hoped that we might have a bipartisan foreign policy in Australia as has applied to such a great extent in both the United States and Britain. But after hearing tonight’s speech by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) I realise that this is further from fruition than ever before.

And why would it not be? How could we ever expect to get a bipartisan policy with a party that undoubtedly is controlled enormously by the left wing? I have seldom heard the Leader of the Opposition so caustic as he was against our great ally the United States of America. All of us know that the Americans have their faults but do we not have faults ourselves? At least, when it comes to our corner of the world it is the United States which is carrying the free world on its back; but the United States is getting mighty little thanks from people like the Leader of the Opposition for doing so. Perhaps he is getting ready for the Vietnam Moratorium. I understand that one of the 13 members who had not signed the document giving support to the Vietnam moratorium was written to and asked why he had not signed it. At least he had the courage of his convictions to say that he believed it would be disastrous for Australian troops to be immediately withdrawn from Vietnam.

Mr Jess:

– He will not last long.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– No, he will not last long. What will happen to him? Why would the Opposition not support this Vietnam moratorium? Its policy on Vietnam is identical with the pol’icy of those who are organising the moratorium. They believe that all Australian troops and in fact all foreign troops should be withdrawn from Vietnam. When they refer to foreign troops they do not for a moment mean the North Vietnamese; they mean those who are fighting the North Vietnamese. They believe that Australian troops and American troops should be withdrawn. The Labor Party believes in this and so do the Vietnam moratorium organisers. Everyone in Australia realises that the moratorium is being supported financially by the Communist Party through its front movement, the Congress for International Co-operation and Disarmament.

We were told by the Leader of the Opposition that the intervention by the United States in Vietnam had been a Vietnam aberration. But what would happen if the Americans were to withdraw. It is terribly easy to make these cutting and caustic remarks when you have no responsiblity. What would happen if the United States and Australia immediately withdrew, as has been advocated both by the previous Leader of the Opposition in his policy speech of 1966 and by the present Leader of the Opposition in 1969? There would be chaos. I am sure that no-one would think for a moment that all troops supporting Vietnam - I was going to say all the foreign troops - could be withdrawn without chaos. A recent visitor to this country was a very great Englishman, Sir Robert Thompson, who is a great expert of counterinsurgency, having assisted enormously the British in Malaysia-Singapore and now assisting the Americans in Vietnam. In a book he wrote recently he said:

The consequences of a defeat need to be carefully weighed. In South Vietnam itself a people would go under. Judging from past experience in China and North Vietnam perhaps several hundred thousands, who have supported the war and fought valiantly and who would certainly oppose the conqueror’s subsequent collectivisation programme, might be slaughtered. This will not be shown on television and so may not worry subverted liberals and fellow travellers, but others may have it on their conscience. There is after all no Formosa to which the victims can escape, nor has any area been set aside for them in the C’alifornian desert. In a year or two they will be conveniently forgotten and the consequent stagflation of the economy is advanced as a specious argument for international aid.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are advocating this and will do this if they have their way but, thank goodness, we know they will not have their way. Even though the Americans are de-escalating the war at the present moment we know that they realise and we realise that it is necessary and will be necessary for support to be given to the South Vietnamese for some time to come.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about the 3 elections that had been held since the Vietnam war commenced, but he did not make the point that one of those 3 elections in which the Vietnamese policy was the vital issue, the 1966 election, saw this Government returned with the greatest strength that any Government has had during the 70 years history of federation in this country. Surely that shows - and thank goodness it does - that the ideas of the Leader of the Opposition and the ideas of the Australian people are poles apart.

The Leader of the Opposition believes that we should have rushed in and signed the Treaty for the Non-Pro! iteration of

Nuclear Weapons. He can always find someone to quote, and in this instance he quoted New Zealand as an example. I suppose he says that Australia should automatically have done what New Zealand did. We have signed the Treaty, but with certain reservations. It is only right that we should not blindly charge in and sign something just because the Leader of the Opposition thinks that by doing so we might encourage someone else to sign it. We would all welcome a really watertight treaty, but we want to find out whether it will prevent proliferation. Personally 1 have great reservations in my own mind as to whether it will prevent proliferation. I have heard a very eminent scientist recommend that if a country wanted eventually to become a nuclear power the first thing it should do is to sign and to ratify the Treaty. It will then have access to all the information it requires. It will be able, under inspection, to build up supplies of plutonium, and if and when it desires to become a nuclear power all it has to do is pull out of the Treaty and within a matter of months it can become a nuclear power.

Before we go ahead and ratify the Treaty we want to be sure that it is watertight and that it will reduce proliferation. I would like to give to the House some of the conditions the Commonwealth Government would like to see fulfilled before it will ratify the Treaty. The Australian Government hopes that the Treaty will be effective in its operation and will lead to improved relations and enhanced co-operation between the nations of the world. It believes that a condition of an effective treaty is that it should attract a necessary degree of support. Some progress in this direction has been made but the Government will nevertheless want to be assured that there is a sufficient degree of support for the Treaty.

It is of interest to note that the support which has brought the Treaty into operation has come from those countries which have no possibility or feasibility in the near future, or even in the fairly distant future, of becoming a nuclear power. We want to know what is to happen to the greater powers. For example, we know quite well that neither France nor China will sign. They are both nuclear powers but they will not sign or ratify the Treaty. We know that India will not ratify it. West Germany and Japan have recently signed but like Australia have very strong reservations about ratifying it. They want to see that something is done to satisfy the reservations they have about the Treaty. South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan and Thailand have not ratified it. Thailand has not even signed. Indonesia has not ratified, neither has Israel, Italy, any of the Euratom countries, or Spain or even for that matter Byelorussia or the Ukraine. Surely before we press ahead with committing ourselves - and we could commit ourselves irrevocably on this matter - we ought to determine what support the Treaty will get, and whether it will reduce proliferation or whether it will be like the nuclear test ban, during the operation of which we discovered that 2 new countries had become nuclear powers. The Australian Government went on to say in paragraph 7 of a paper issued by the Department of External Affairs:

Notes that Article 10 of the Treaty provides that any party has the right to withdraw in circumstances that jeopardised its supreme interest.

What does this ‘jeopardy of supreme interest’ mean? If a country can say its supreme interest is jeopardised and so easily get out of the Treaty, what on earth is the use of the Treaty? If it is hard to get out you bind yourself for all time. No one can foresee what the future holds for us. So these are reasons - and there are others - why 1 believe the Commonwealth Government was very wise indeed to take its time before it decided to sign and, when it did decide to sign, to put in these reservations.

Unlike the Leader of the Opposition I believe that the Government deserves to be congratulated on the recent statements that it has made on foreign affairs. They go a long way towards meeting the criticisms that have been made of the inadequacy of the Government’s recent approach to foreign policy. They signify a very necessary adaptation to the changing circumstances of Australia’s international environment. I mentioned the Government’s recent statement on foreign affairs. While tonight we are debating the statement of the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon) we need also to take into account the recent statement of the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser). In outlining his strategic thinking behind the new approach to the defence of Australia he covered much of the ground also covered by the Minister for External Affairs. Here I would like to issue a word of warning to the Government. As I see it, the strategic assessment of the international situation is primarily a matter for the Minister for External Affairs and his Department. After the strategic assessment has been made and accepted, perhaps with some variations by the Government, it is then for the Minister for Defence to determine, in the light of that appreciation, what should then be our defence forces and equipment. On this occasion, apart from some minor variations, the two Ministers have been singing the same tune. But I can foresee problems and misunderstandings ahead for the Government if both these Ministers feel themselves free to put forward their separate views on external’ affairs, unless there is the closest collaboration between them.

To return to the statement of the Minister for External Affairs, this is a new policy; let there be no mistake about that. The main difference from the old foreign policy is that the main emphasis is no longer on supporting the traditional great and powerful allies and upholding military alliances. The main emphasis is on Australia looking after its own interests and protecting itself as a significant power in the South East Asia region. An active and more independent role for Australia is seen as the best way in which Australia can advance its security in the changed circumstances of the 1970s. None of this is to say that Australia should lightly do anything which might in any way weaken its relations with our traditional great allies in the United States and Britain. On the contrary, every effort should be made to preserve and even strengthen relations with these countries. But, as realists, we must recognise that our traditional allies will not loom as large as they did in our part of the world. It is therefore sheer prudence to base our foreign policy on a greater measure of self reliance than in the past. The new foreign policy of the United States - as outlined by President Nixon in his report to Congress on 18th February - must have had a great impact on the formulation of the Government’s new foreign policy. President Nixon’s report has obvious significance for Australia. The first point is that, in this 40,000-word review of the whole range of American foreign policy and defence commitments, Australia and the ANZUS Treaty do not get any mention at all. It would be wrong to conclude that the Nixon Administration has written Australia off and that Australia ranks as quite insignificant in American calculations. But, at the same time, it may be an indication that Australia does not loom as large in the thinking of the American administration as Australians may have been led to believe by the emotional attachment of President Johnson.

President Nixon, in his statement of the new American foreign policy, states in one place that the United States will not be involved in the world because of its commitments. ‘Our interests must shape our commitments, rather than the other way around’, he said. He went on to say: ‘The fostering of self reliance is the new purpose and direction of American involvement in Asia’. In other words, America, which in Asia has been carrying the free world on its back, is getting a little tired of doing so, and is looking round to see what contributions the other democracies are making or are prepared to make in this area.

The other three largest democracies who have or have had interests in South East Asia are Japan, Great Britain and France. I was very pleased to see therefore that the Minister for External Affairs devoted a major part of his speech to the growth of Japan and the even greater growth which is likely in its influence in the region and beyond. Japan is almost completely lacking in fuel and natural resources for its vast industries. We know this to our profit as a major supplier of many raw material’s to Japan. Any interruption to the flow of these supplies, which consist of oil from the Middle East and Indonesia, rubber from Malaysia, and metal ores, wool, coal and wood chips from Australia, would be quite crippling to the Japanese economy and intolerable to the Japanese Government. That fact alone is likely to impel! the Japanese Government to increase radically its self defence forces. The extreme pacifism of the Japanese people following the disasters they were led into by the militarists in World War II is quickly waning, and the Japanese people are increasingly sensing the need for military forces for defence, like other peaceable countries. They are raising the proportion of their gross national production spent on defence above the present low level of 1%. They plan to treble the amount of money spent on defence in the next 5-year programme compared to the 5 year defence programme they have just completed. I welcome this move, even bearing in mind the history of Japanese aggression in the Second World War.

I mentioned that the other two major democracies who have or have had interests in South East Asia are Great Britain and France. The Minister, quite rightly, said that it would be a major misfortune if, at this time, the benign British influence east of Suez was diminished, when the region is faced with such new and complex problems. He said that we therefore strongly hope that the British withdrawal may be delayed. He has been called naive and unreal in expressing the desire that Britain retain an influence east of Suez. It is true that, at the present moment, the only hope of reversing the current trend of British withdrawal from Malaysia appears to be a Conservative win in the approaching elections. Some British even ask: Why should we waste money stationing troops thousands of miles from Britain when our vital interests are not immediately in jeopardy?’ One could have said the same thing during two world wars when Australia’s vital interests were not immediately threatened but when hundreds of thousands of Australians flocked to the aid of Britain and France and a great many of them now lie buried far from their native shore. For our size, we probably made a greater contribution than any other nation to the success of the allies. Yet, only in the latter part of the Second World War were our own vital interests at stake. Again, in both the Malaysian emergency and the confrontation in Borneo - countries from which Britain has in the past drawn great wealth - Australian aid was readily forthcoming. One would have expected therefore some sympathy and understanding from the two great industrial nations of Britain and France for us in our dilemma in Vietnam. What have we received?

The French are making a small contribution towards the civilian expenditure of the Vietnamese Government on schools and hospitals, but otherwise one gets the impres sion that they would hate to see anyone succeed in Vietnam where they failed. British ships continue to carry goods into North Vietnam, though they expect our help in their so far unsuccessful confrontation with Rhodesia. It may be said that the reason for the failure of France and Great Britain to make any contribution in Vietnam is their opposition to the war. But have they or any of the many others throughout the world who are opposed to the Vietnam war ever thought out to the end the possible alternatives? There appear to me to be only two alternatives - either North Vietnam is going to get South Vietnam, or it is not. lt is the second alternative that we and the United States are backing. We believe that the future of South Vietnam must be determined by the people themselves, and that North Vietnam should be prevented from determining that future by force.

Thus, the alternatives in South Vietnam would appear to be a free nation, gaining in strength and prosperity, governing itself via the ballot box but still needing for some time some assistance against external aggression, or else a sort of Communist Yugoslavia preceded, of course, by a bloodbath. I do not think many people would desire to see the latter, although having read the book on Vietnam by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns), 1 am not so sure that he does not want to see this solution.

In his book ‘No exit from Vietnam’, from which I have already quoted, Sir Robert Thompson goes on to say that if America does not stand firm in Vietnam ‘every other American commitment will be exposed to doubt and anxiety on the part of those in whose favour it was made’. Sir Robert concluded:

There will be a tendency on the part of the United States either to retreat towards isolationism or to reconfirm such commitments wilh added protestations of support (compare the guarantees given to Poland after Munich in 1938). The former would stimulate the domino theory while the latter could pave the way for more Vietnams.

What is this domino theory? Continental South East Asia is a region containing small States whose politically educated classes, themselves believe in the domino theory.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (MrDrary)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired. Before I call the honourable member for St George I would remind the House that this is the honourable member’s maiden speech. I ask honourable members to extend to him the usual courtesy.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– Tonight I want to examine what the Government has described as its new and comprehensive commitment to regional security. When we unwrap this pretentious parcel of platitudes what do we find? Firstly, the Government is not talking about the whole Asian region; it is not talking about stationing our forces in Indonesia, India, Burma or Ceylon, because those countries do not want our forces; it is not talking about joining an Asian regional defence organisation, because there is not one, and if there was Australia would not be invited to join. In essence, the Government is talking not about Asia, not even about South East Asia, but 2 countries - Malaysia and Singapore. Secondly, the Government is talking about only 1,200 troops stationed in only one of these countries - Singapore. Thirdly, the Government, in a grand but empty gesture, is leaving 2 squadrons of Mirages in Malaysia because it has no alternative. It has failed to provide a base in Australia capable of taking half of our own fighter forces - that half at present in Malaysia. Fourthly, the Government is contributing only one naval vessel to the Malaysia-Singapore arrangements, which represents a halving of our previous commitment. This is what the Government represents as Australia’s role in regional security. It is a fraud. What passes as the Government’s policy is insignificant in relation to the only 2 countries affected and of no consequence or even interest to all the other countries in the region.

The Government’s handling of even these limited commitments has been unbelievably incompetent. Firstly, we have abandoned an Army base in Malaysia which has cost the Australian taxpayer millions of dollars and the Government has not thought fit to tell the Australian taxpayer what is to happen to our multi-million dollar investment in that base. Secondly, because of the absence of any agreement or even intelligent negotiation, our troops have been dumped into 2 run-down barracks in Singapore whichare 12 miles apart. Our troops are already in Singapore, yet the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has told us that discussions with Singapore about the final location of the troops are continuing. Thirdly, although Australia ran the base at Butterworth the lease was held by the British, who have relinquished the base to the Malaysians. The investment of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers’ money was not protected. The Government has again goofed badly. Fourthly, if we are to believe this Government’s repeated statements that we are so welcome why can we not get the Army base we want in Singapore and why are the Malaysians demanding a stiff rental or indeed a rental at all for the air base at Butterworth? The simple answer is that the Governments in Malaysia and Singapore have shown demonstrably by their actions that they could not care less whether we stayed or left.

Let us examine what this Government claims are the terms of our continuing presence in Malaysia and Singapore. In February 1969 the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) said:

Our forces will be stationed in the area under existing arrangements, the terms of which are governed by our association with the AngloMalaysia Defence Agreement.

Let us be very clear that Australia is not a signatory to that Agreement. Through an exchange of letters our association was expressly in terms of our participation in the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve. The Commonwealth Strategic Reserve in Malaysia no longer exists. In short, there are no existing arrangements covering the presence of the Royal Australian Air Force at Butterworth. Let it also be clearly understood that Singapore is not a signatory to the AngloMalaysia Defence Agreement. There are no existing arrangements covering the Australian Army presence in Singapore. The Australian people are being monstrously deceived. It is a mark of the superficiality of this Government’s approach to foreign affairs that it equates isolationism with the withdrawal of a handful of forces from 2 countries.

The Labor Party is opposed to the 19th century garrison mentality that typifies the present Government’s approach to foreign affairs and defence. President Nixon, commenting on his own policy of not committing land forces abroad, said:

The only issue before us is how we can be most effective in meeting our responsibilties, protecting our interests and thereby building peace.

The Labor Party does not accept, as President Nixon no longer accepts, that the garrisoning of forces in foreign countries is an effective way of meeting our responsibilities. It is this -clinging to the remnants of colonial attitudes that has isolated the Liberal Party from the mainstream of Asia.

The Australian Government is now mourning the demise of another myth that it has wilfully and deceitfully supported - the myth of SEATO. Whilst several pages of President Nixon’s February statement on foreign policy are devoted to NATO there is not a single line about or a single reference to SEATO. This was pointed out by the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn). SEATO has been submerged by its own irrelevance. And this is the organisation that successive Liberal Party leaders have described as a cornerstone of our foreign and defence policies. Fourteen years ago I was associated with SEATO in Bangkok and was chairman of one of its subcommittees. Even then the staff of SEATO referred to the organisation by its initials as the ‘Sitting Eating And Talking Organisation’. From its artificial inception SEATO failed miserably to attract the major countries of Asia, whose interests SEATO was supposed to protect. Our nearest neighbours - Indonesia. Malaysia and Singapore - have never thought that SEATO was worth while joining. The largest nonCommunist country in the world - India - declined entreaties to join, as did Burma and Ceylon. Pakistan joined because it believed that the organisation could be an effective lever not against Communist China but against its neighbour India. France, Britain and Pakistan have long since ceased to participate in the charade and even the Thai Foreign Minister has described the military capability of SEATO as a fiction. It is even more so now that President Nixon has excluded ground forces from its commitments.

The United States and Australian Governments have sought to make public relations mileage out of associating SEATO with the intervention in Vietnam. Three foundation members of SEATO - Britain, France and Pakistan - are noteworthy by their absence from Vietnam. The only reason why the two remaining Asian members - Thailand and the Philippines - intervened was that the United States blatantly bribed them to send units. As the Chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee said recently:

This seems to me to be the ultimate in corruption for us to make deals like this in pursuit of an illusory policy all designed to prove to the world that we have great support in Vietnam which we do not have at all . . .

In common with Thailand and the Philippines, Australia is not in Vietnam because of a SEATO decision. Nor are we there - let us be very clear about this - because of a request from the South Vietnamese Government. In each case the much publicised but significantly unpublished request from the South Vietnamese Government came, if it came at all, as a contrived and diplomatically convenient afterthought to the pressure exerted by the United States administration. Such are the myths and deceptions on which the Liberal Party has thrived.

We have heard in this session the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon) parrot another myth - the domino theory. The honourable member for Farrer was to continue this myth. The domino theory requires for its validity the assumption that any dissent from the established order, no matter how corrupt, no matter how incompetent, no matter how dictatorial that establishment may be, is defined as Communist. Even in Australia the Liberal Party readily equates dissent with treason. It boasts of its membership of the free world, which comprehends a multitude of totalitarian and oppressive regimes, all assumed to be respectable as long as they are not Communist. But how different the theory appears if we accept, as President Nixon is now coming to accept and the Labor Party has always accepted, the rightful place of nationalism and demands for social and economic justice. President Nixon now recognises the explosion of another myth - international Communist unity. To use his own words:

Once a unified bloc, its solidarity has been broken by the powerful forces of nationalism . . The Marxist dream of international Communist unity has disintegrated.

The domino theory may be applicable to the game of dominoes, but we are not playing with dominoes. We are dealing with people and countries with long traditions and intense national pride. lt is now coming to be recognised in the United States that the United States policies, which this Government has slavishly and mindlesssly followed, have strengthened the Communists’ position. In supporting corrupt, incompetent and unrepresentative regimes we have played into the hands of the Communists. We have given responsible opposition groups only one outlet - to join forces with and, on many occasions, be exploited by the Communists. And we have forced nationally minded Communists into dependence on foreign Communist powers. No Vietnamese Communist, no matter how indoctrinated with Communist ideology, would have sought material support from China, a country which for centuries the Vietnamese have regarded as hostile. I would remind honourable members that to this day there are still no Communist Chinese combat forces in Vietnam. Yet our involvement in Vietnam forced the Vietnamese nationalists and Communists into a far closer relationship with Communist China than would have been their preference. Through our lamentable ignorance of Asia we succeeded in achieving what our policy should have been designed to avoid.

The Minister for External Affairs has parroted the words of Sir Robert Thompson that the domino theory is valid because he has talked to the dominoes. Let us listen to the talk of one of the so-called dominoes, Indonesia, given by that country’s Ambassador to the United States, Soedjatmoko. In an address in Hawaii he said:

It is not the political colour of a regime that counts in the end, but its capacity for nationbuilding and development. In the present world situation no outside power can for long force any South East Asian country to do its bidding. The South East Asian nations do not constitute lifeless entities that automatically fall one way or the other. The domino theory, therefore, is to us rather a gross over-simplification of the nature of the historical processes that go on in the area. It obscures and distorts rather than illuminates our understanding and offers no guidelines for realistic policy. ] had the privilege of representing Australia, or of being a representative of Australia, for extended periods in 2 of the so called dominos - Malaysia and Thailand. My experience coincides with that of Soedjatmoko.

Just before 1 left Malaysia 1 paid a farewell call to Sarawak and went to a place called Engkilili. A longhouse in Engkilili had been burned down some 2 months prior to my visit. 1 had gone down with the resident for the particular division and on the way down he said that he was carrying a cheque for M20.000- about SA6.000- -to go to the longhouse dwellers. I said: ‘They will be glad to see you.’ He said: T am not so sure about that.’ When wc got there the longhouse dwellers sent him packing with his SM 20,000 cheque. On carrying out investigations 1 found out that the day after the longhouse burned down the Sarawak Communist organisation had turned up with 5 bags of rice, some galvanised iron and a small work force to help put up new accommodation.

When I got back to Kuching I spoke with a leading member of the Sarawak Government - I will be happy to give his name to the Minister for External Affairs - and said: ‘You seem to have trouble in Engkilili. What is it?’ He said: The trouble is that the Sarawak Communist organisation is too close to the people.’ I said: ‘What are you going to do about it?’ He said: ‘We need more guns.’ This attitude is regrettably all too prevalent. It assumes that the only good Communist is a dead one. But I am sure that the reverend gentleman among the honourable members opposite will be well aware of the great strength that Christianity derived from its martyrs. I would suggest that the only good Communist is one who is politically helpless - who has, by enlightened policies, been deprived of any popular cause to exploit. That is the direction in which our foreign policy should lie, and we do not get there by bolstering incompetent, corrupt and unrepresentative regimes.

It has always disturbed me that we have been ever ready to credit the Communist Chinese with masterminding everything from minor riots to major coups. We have been Mao Tse-tung’s best public relations agent. We have built for the Communist Chinese a reputation which their own ineptitude in diplomatic affairs and their nonexistent conventional strike capacity could never hope to do. This Government goes into the 1970s as it emerged from the 1960s without a foreign policy and without a defence policy. For too long we have marched to the beat of another drum. Our political interests in South East Asia and our economic interests at home have been electioneered on the one hand and auctioneered on the other. In the eyes of the world the lucky country is fast becoming the lackey country. For too long the Liberal Party has adhered like glue to old myths, echoed tired slogans and adamantly avoided facing up to new realities. What this country needs, and needs urgently, is a thoroughgoing reappraisal of inherited assumptions. We need an Australian foreign policy and on past performance and present indications we need, above all, a new government.

Debate (on motion by Mr Howson) adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.48 p.m.

page 764

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Papua and New Guinea: Hong Kong’ Influenza Vaccine (Question No. 4)

Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. There wasa major outbreak of influenza in Papua and New Guinea during October. 1969. Shortly after the outbreak Commonwealth Serum Laboratories identified the virus strain involved and advised the Territory health authorities that a single injection of vaccine should be ofvalue in minimising the effects of the outbreak.

This advice modified earlier information about the efficacy of the vaccine for the particular strain of influenza. Mass immunisation in areas surrounding the outbreak was immediately undertaken on receipt of the new information. More than 335,000 doses of vaccine were used.

  1. Vaccine was made available to the Australian population prior to the 1969 winter on a voluntary basis. In March 1969 consideration was given to the question of mass vaccination of the Territory population. As in Australia, it was decided not to conduct a mass vaccination campaign. This decision, taken by the Territory health authorities and the Administrator’s Executive Council, was based on the information then available as to the efficacy of the vaccine and the mildness of the Australian and overseas outbreaks.

Papua and New Guinea House of Assembly: Members’ Visit to Police Action Areas (Question No. 160)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Ex ternal Territories upon notice:

Which Members of the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea have been given facilities to visit the localities near Kieta and Rabaul where police actions were taken in 1969.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

In addition to Messrs Mola, Lapun and Lue from Bougainville electorates and Messrs Toliman, Tammur, Titimur. Maneke. Urekil and Ashion from New Britain electorates, Messrs Guise, Awol, Somare,Langro, Lus, Lokoloko, Oala-Rarua

Abal, Koraea, Neville and Poe have been given facilities to visit the areas referred to by the honourable member.

Papua and New Guinea: Commonwealth Department’s Expenditure (Question No. 164)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Ex ternal Territories, upon notice:

What is the estimated cost of holding a plebiscite in the Gazelle Local Government Council area.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The Administration estimates that the cost of holding a referendum in the Gazelle Local Government Council area would be approximately $6,400.

Papua and New Guinea: Commonwealth Expenditure (Question No. 185)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

What expenditure was incurred by Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in the last financial year.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Expenditure incurred in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in the last financial year by Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities which receive financial support from the Commonwealth Budget is shown below:

Papua and New Guinea: Legal Aid (Question No. 187)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. On what condition is legal aid available in (a) civil and (b) criminal cases for (i) indigenes and (ii) expatriates before the various courts of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. In how many instances in each category were applications for legal aid (a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused in 1969.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Legal aid in (he Territory of Papua and New Guinea is supplied mainly by the Public Solicitor. The Public Solicitor provides legal aid before all courts of the Territory, both in civil and criminal cases, to ‘impecunious’ persons, whether indigenous or expatriate. ‘Impecunious’ is considered subjectively and in relation to the circumstances of each individual case, having regard to the probable cost of alternative means of representation and the means, if any, of the applicant. Where the applicant has sufficient means to make more than a trivial contribution towards the cost involved, it is the duty of the Public Solicitor to assess a reasonable charge for his services having regard to the capacity of his client to pay, the necessity for representation and the hardship the client might suffer if he were compelled to obtain representation other than by the Public Solicitor. Applications to the Public Solicitor for legal aid to defend criminal charges before the Supreme Court are subject only to this means test. However, where an application is made for representation in the lower courts the Public Solicitor also has regard to:

    1. whether the instructions disclose a defence to the charge;
    2. whether the defence is such that counsel is required to present it adequately;
    3. the nature of the charge and the consequences attendant on a conviction including the likely penalty and other consequences such as loss of employment;
    4. any special circumstances of the particular case which render the provision of counsel desirable;
    5. the availability of counsel, having regard to the priorities of other applications.

In considering applications for legal aid to appeal from conviction in lower courts to the Supreme Court, and from the Supreme Court to the Full Court, the Public Solicitor has regard also to the probability of an appeal being successful.

Applications to the Public Solicitor for legal aid in civil cases are subject both to the means test and to the requirement that there appears to be a good cause of action. In addition, due to the volume of applications for such aid and the limited number of lawyers available, the Public Solicitor gives priority among such applications according to the nature of the action and the circumstances of individual cases. Broadly, all applications by impecunious persons in matters relating to the restoration of land titles, workers’ compensation, or to claims by relatives arising from death are granted. Other applications requiring action in the Supreme Court are granted if there appears to be a good cause of action and counsel are available. Legal aid by the Public Solicitor in summary cases is limited to the preparation of complaints or defences unless special circumstances make the provision of counsel desirable.

In addition to his assistance in actual court proceedings, the Public Solicitor advises indigenous persons generally as to their legal rights and obligations and as to ways and means of enforcing their legal rights.

When the Public Solicitor is unable to act for a person otherwise entitled to legal aid from the Public Solicitor due to possible conflicts of interests legal aid is made available on the same principles as apply to legal aid from the Public Solicitor either through the Department of Law or through the briefing of private practitioners through that Department.

Under the Poor Persons’ Legal Assistance Ordinance 1951 a person committed for trial on an indictable offence may apply to a Supreme Court Judge for legal assistance for his defence, and if the Judge considers it desirable that assistance should be provided the Administrator may arrange legal aid. Due to the availability of the services of the Public Solicitor in trials for indictable offences this Ordinance is rarely invoked.

  1. Applications to the Public Solicitor for Legal Aid. 1969

It should be noted that these figures do not include verbal advice given to Departments of the Administration representing indigenous persons, e.g. the Department of Labour in compensation cases, or advice given to individuals where no court action was taken.

In addition, legal aid was sought from the Department of Law or private practitioners in cases where the Public Solicitor could not act as follows:

No applications were made for assistance under the Poor Persons’ Assistance Ordinance 1951 during 1969.

Papua and New Guinea: Cost of Police Action (Question No. 188)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What was the cost of the police action near (a) Kieta and (b) Rabaul last year.

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

The emergency police actions in these areas in 1969 were carried out by members of the Police Force who would otherwise have been engagedin routine duties and drawing their salaries and allowances accordingly. The additional costs incurred by the Administration in transferring police toRabaul and Kieta, providing transport and equipment and paying extra duty payments were -

  1. $45,000 in respect of the emergency force at Kieta for the period 20th August, 1969 to 15th October, 1969;
  2. $109,000 in respect of the emergency force at Rabaul for the period 1st September, 1969 to 31st December, 1969.

Papua and New Guinea: Pay of Native Employees (Question No. 246)

Mr Scholes:
CORIO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What is the minimum rate of pay applying to native employees in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. Are there any minimum rate provisions or employment conditions applying to the employment of plantation workers’ wives in domestic jobs.
  3. What is the minimum wage in the Territory for non-native employees.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. The Native Employment Ordinance prescribes minimum payments and conditions for indigenous workers. The minimum cash wage is $52 a year in the first year of employment, $58.50 in the second year and $65 thereafter, for continuous employment with the same employer. In addition to the minimum cash wage the worker and, in prescribed circumstances, his dependants are provided by the employer with food or money in lieu, clothing and other articles, medical treatment and housing, all at specified standards. The value of food, clothing, other issues and housing is currently estimated at $181 per annum making an all-up minimum wage payment valued at $233 per annum in the first year of employment.
  2. The same minimum wage provisions and employment conditions as stated in answer (1) above apply to all workers regardless of sex and irrespective whether the employee is the wife of an already employed worker.
  3. There is no prescribed minimum wage for non-indigenous employees.

Papua and New Guinea: Dependants’ Compensation (Question No. 296)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What is the compensation paid to the widow and each dependent child of a New Guineas plantation worker who is killed during or in the course of his employment, and who at the time of his death was being paid the minimum wage fixed by the relevant Labour Ordinance or Regulation.
  2. What is the weekly compensation paid to such an employee who is permanently and totally incapacitated.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Under the Papua and New Guinea Workers’ Compensation Ordinance 1958-1969 in the circumstances described, a lump sum payment of $2,700 would be made to a fully dependent widow and weekly amounts of 67 cents would be made for each dependent child under the age of 16 years.
  2. Workers’ compensation payable to an employee who is permanently and totally incapacitated from injuries arising out of or in the course of employment would be $7.60 per week for the worker, $1.84 per week for the wife and 67 cents per week for each dependent child.

Papua and New Guinea: Salaries (Question No. 348)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What is the combined weekly salary and allowance paid in Papua and New Guinea to (a) New Guineans and (b) expatriates employed in the following occupations or callings: Primary Teachers (C Certificate) Secondary Teachers, Assistant Forestry Officers, Agricultural Officers, Professional Nurses, Primary Teachers (A and B Certificate), Enrolled Nurses, Patrol Officers, Assistant Agricultural Officers, Co-operative Officers, Artisans, Stenographers, Police Constables, Warders, Forestry Assistants and Members of the House of Assembly.

Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is shown in the table below:

The following explanatory comments on the second table are required -

  1. In some cases, the general occupations or callings referred to cover several different designations and/or grades of Public Service positions. In these cases the various designations and grades are shown. Where appropriate, the minimum and maximum rates are also shown.
  2. Where expatriates are not employed in certain designations or grades this has been indicated.
  3. Local officers may qualify for a family needs allowance depending upon salary, location and family size, e.g. a local officer employed in Port Moresby who maintains a family of four and whose salary is less than $930 per annum would receive an allowance to raise his salary to that amount ($17.83 per week).
  4. Various additional allowances apply to local or overseas officers or both (e.g. incharge, uniform and instrument allowances). These have not been included as the rate of allowance varies with particular circumstances of employment.
  5. Since the introduction of the single salary structure in August 1968, all positions in the Public Service of Papua and New Guinea carry the local salary classification. An allowance is paid to overseas officers to provide a rate of remuneration equivalent to that paid at comparable levels in Australia plus an element to attract expatriate staff to the Territory and to compensate them for working and living there. The figures quoted in the table include the single rate of overseas allowance. Married overseas officers are paid an additional $6.90 per week.

    1. MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

The following basic remuneration is paid to local and expatriate Members of the House of Assembly -

  1. Fee

Member- $3,000

Assistant Ministerial Member - $3,750

Ministerial Member- $5,000

  1. Electorate Allowance (rate depends on location of electorate)

Member of Open Electorate- $400 to $1,200

Member of Regional Electorate - $750 to $3,000

Papua and New Guinea: Expatriates Sentenced to Imprisonment (Question No. 400)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Is it still the practice to repatriate any expatriate who is sentenced to imprisonment by a court in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

No. Fifteen expatriate detainees are currently serving sentences in corrective institutions in Papua and New Guinea, including one detainee serving a 4 year prison term.

In appropriate cases, however, an expatriate prisoner may be removed to Australia pursuant to an order under section 3 of the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923-1968 or, if he has been convicted of a serious offence, he may be deported from Papua and New Guinea pur suant to an order under the Migration Ordinance 1963-1969.

Papua and New Guinea: Crops (Question No. 442)

Mr Kirwan:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What quantities of (a) rice, (b) cocoa, (e) coffee, (d) copra and (c) other crops were grown in New Guinea and Papua in each of the 5 years prior to the relinquishment of office by his predecessor.
  2. What are the annual figures for these products since he assumed bis present portfolio.
  3. What quantities of rice were imported into Papua and New Guinea in each of the periods referred to in (1) and (2).
  4. How much of the produce of Papua and New Guinea comes from land owned and worked by indigenes.
Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

  1. Quantities of crops grown in Papua and New Guinea inthe 5 years from 1959-60 to 1963-64 -
  1. Quantities of crops grown in Papua and New Guinea in the 4 years from 1964-65 to 1968-69 -
  1. Quantity of Rice imported into Papua and New Guinea in the periods from 1959-60 to 1963-64 and 1964-65 to 1968-69-
  1. The proportions of produce of Papua and New Guinea coming from land owned and worked by indigenes in 1968-69 (preliminary estimates) were -

Inaddition the indigenous people grow for their own subsistence other crops, e.g. bananas, yams, coconuts, taro, etc. Quantitative data of these crops arc not recorded.

Moore v. Doyle: Cost of Transcript (Question No. 451)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Attorney-

General, upon notice:

What was the total amount paid for transcript by the parties in the case of Moore v. Doyle which was concluded in the Commonwealth Industrial Court early last year.

Mr Hughes:
LP

– The answerto the honourable members question is as follows:

$1,461.31.

Commonwealth Employees: Union Subscriptions (Question No. 452)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Commonwealth depart ments will soon facilitate the deduction of union subscriptions direct, from the salaries of those members of the Public Service who sign the necessary authority so to do.
  2. Will this arrangement apply to all organisations whose members are employed by Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities.
Mr Bury:
Treasurer · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Deductions of union subscriptions will be made subject to compliance with the conditions of the scheme which have been discussed with union representatives.
  2. Commonwealth departments will make deductions on behalf of all registered unions and associations. The deduction of union subscriptions by Commonwealth instrumentalities is a matter for consideration by the instrumentalities concerned.

Cyclone Damage: Compensation (Question No. 254)

Dr Patterson:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Is it the intention of the Government to compensate Mackay and district boat owners some of whom expended large sums of money in using their boats for urgent rescue and search operations during Cyclone Ada and in providing an effective substitute for non-existent Australian naval boats.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The provision of financial assistance and relief for those affected by natural disasters such as Cyclone Ada is primarily the responsibility of State Governments. However, the Commonwealth normally contributes; on a dollar for dollar basis, towards the costs incurred by State Governments in providing relief of personal hardship and distress resulting frsm such disasters. In a telegram dated 19 January 1970, the Prime Minister offered Commonwealth assistance to the Queensland Government, on a dollar for dollar basis, for the relief of personal hardship and distress in the areas affected by Cyclone Ada.

In circumstances similar to this disaster, it has been the practice for State authorities to recompense private citizens for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in relief and rescue operations. I understand that small boat owners who took part in search and rescue operations during Cyclone Ada have already been recompensed by State authorities for fuel used in these operations. The costs so incurred by the State will be included as part of the total cost of providing relief of personal hardship and distress which, as I have indicated, will be shared equally by the State Government and the Commonwealth.

Papua and New Guinea: DDT Spraying (Question No. 457)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. In how many cases in the last year have employees of the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea entered the dwellings of (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates to spray with DDT.
  2. For what medical reasons and by what right do the Administration employees enter the dwellings.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. An estimated 700,000 dwellings were entered twice in 1969 by malaria service personnel in the course of their duties. There is no breakdown of figures into dwellings occupied by Papuans and New Guineans and those occupied by expatriates.
  2. The control of the disease malaria is the medical reason for Administration employees entering dwellings.

The Papua and New Guinea Malaria Control Ordinance 19S7 authorises Administration health workers, after at least 24 hours notice in writing specifying the intended date and time of entry, to enter any building and to take such steps as may be necessary for the eradication of mosquitoes and the prevention of their breeding.

Papua and New Guinea: Industrial Tribunals (Question No. 165)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What (a) industrial councils, (b) boards of inquiry and (c) arbitration tribunals have functioned in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in the last 5 years.
  2. When were they established and who were appointed as members of them.
  3. What awards have been made in the last 5 years.
  4. Which awards have been (a) disallowed or (b) declared to be a common rule by the Administrator-in-Council.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

UV-

Ca) No industrial councils have functioned in the last 5 years.

  1. A Board of Inquiry into rural wages and related matters was appointed in 1964.
  2. Four Arbitration Tribunals have been appointed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1962-1966. A Public Service Conciliation and Arbitration Tribunal has been established and replaces the Public Service Arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration (Public Service) Ordinance 1932-1968.

    1. The following table gives information on the date of establishment and membership of the boards of inquiry and arbitration tribunals:
    2. The following awards have been registered in the period 1st January, 1965 lo 28th February 1970:

1965

  1. Kavieng Urban Cash Wage Award 1965 (superseded by No. 6 of 1969).
  2. Port Moresby Urban Cash Wage Award 1965.
  3. Lae Urban Cash Wage Award 1965 (superseded by No. 11 of 1967).
  4. Wau-Bulolo Timber Industry (Annual Leave) Award 1965.
  5. Port Moresby Qualified Tradesmen Award 1965 (superseded by No. 6 of 1966).
  6. Clementsons (N.G.) Pty Ltd, No. 1 1965.
  7. Clementsons (N.G.) Pty Ltd, No. 2 1965.
  8. South Pacific Post Pty Ltd (Printing Industry) Award 1965 (superseded by No. 11 of 1968).
  9. Rabaul Qualified Tradesmen Award 1965 (superseded by No. 7 of 1966).
  10. Lae Stevedoring Award 1965 (superseded by No. 2 of 1968).
  11. Port Moresby Annual and Sick Leave Award 1965.
  12. Rabaul Annual and Sick Leave Award 1965 (superseded by No. 8 of 1967).

1966

  1. Samarai Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award 1966 (superseded by No. 6 of 1968).
  2. Port Moresby Stevedoring Award 1966.
  3. Popondetta Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award 1966 (superseded by No. 7 of 1968).
  4. New Britain District Certificated Tradesmen Award 1966.
  5. Rabaul Stevedoring Award 1966.
  6. Port Moresby Qualified Tradesmen Award 1966.
  7. Rabaul Qualified Tradesmen Award 1966 (superseded by No. 2 of 1969).
  8. Lae Qualified Tradesmen Award 1966 (superseded by No. 2 of 1970).
  9. Lae Annual and Sick Leave Award 1966 (superseded by No. 11 of 1967).
  10. Goroka Annual and Sick Leave Award 1966 (superseded by No. 8 of 1969).
  11. Wau-Bulolo Timber Industry Award 1966.
  12. Milne Bay District Shipping Award 1966 (superseded by No. 3 of 1970).
  13. Kavieng Stevedoring Award 1966 (superseded by No. 3 of 1969).

1967

  1. Port Moresby Shipping Award.
  2. Madang Qualified Tradesmen Award 1967 (superseded by No. 5 of 1969).
  3. Madang Annual and Sick Leave Award 1967 (superseded by No. 13 of 1967).
  4. Mount Hagen Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award 1967 (superseded by No. 4 of 1969)
  5. Northern District Sawmilling and Timber Industry Award 1967.
  6. Wewak Stevedoring Award (superseded by No. 7 of 1969).
  7. Wewak Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award (superseded by No. 9 of 1969).
  8. Rabaul Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award (superseded by No. 2 of 1969).
  9. Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary Award 1967.
  10. Hoskins Sawmilling and Timber Industry Award 1967.
  11. Lae Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award 1967 (superseded by No. 2 of 1970).
  12. Wakunai -Sawmilling and Timber Industry Award 1967.
  13. Madaag Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award 1967 (superseded by No. 5 of 1969).
  14. Samarai Stevedoring Award (superseded by No. 10 of 1969).
  15. Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary Award (No. 2) of 1967.
  16. Madang Stevedoring Award 1967 (superseded by No. 11 of 1970).

1968

  1. Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary (Allowances) Award of 1968.
  2. Lae Stevedoring Award 1968 (superseded by No. 9 of 1970).
  3. Royal Papua and New Guinea Constabulary (Allowances No. 2) Award 1968
  4. Lorengau Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award.
  5. Rabaul Shipping Award 1968
  6. Samarai-Alotau Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award 1968 (superseded by No. 4 of 1970).
  7. Popondetta Urban Cash Wage and Leave Award 1968 (susperseded by No. 6 of 1970).
  8. Cape Rodney Sawmilling and Timber Industry Award 1968 (superseded by No. 7 of 1970).
  9. Vanimo Sawmilling and Timber Industry Award 1968.
  10. Naval Civilian Workers (Lombrum) Award 1968.
  11. South Pacific Post Pty Ltd Award 1968.
  12. Papua and New Guinea Printing Company Pty Ltd Award 1968.

1969

  1. Kieta Stevedoring Award 1969.
  2. Rabaul General Employment Award 1969.
  3. Kavieng Stevedoring Award 1969.
  4. Mount Hagen General Employment Award 1969.
  5. Madang General Employment Award 1969.
  6. Kavieng General Employment Award 1969.
  7. Wewak Stevedoring Award 1969.
  8. Goroka General Employment Award 1969.
  9. Wewak General Employment Award 1969.
  10. Samarai Stevedoring Award 1969.

1970

  1. Port Moresby Waterside Workers Award 1970.
  2. Lae General Employment Award 1970.
  3. Milne Bay District Shipping Award 1970.
  4. Samarai-Alotau General Employment Award 1970.
  5. Daru General Employment Award 1970.
  6. Popondetta General Employment Award 1970.
  7. Cape Rodney Sawmilling and Timber Industry Award 1970.
  8. Daru Stevedoring Award 1970.
  9. Lae Stevedoring Award 1970.
  10. Airline Pilots (Papuan Airlines Pty Ltd) Award 1970.
  11. Madang Stevedoring Award 1970.

(4)-

  1. Nil.
  2. Four awards have been declared to be Common Rules by the AdministratorinCouncil. These are:

Kavieng Urban Cash Wage Award 1965. Port Moresby Urban Cash Wage Award 1965.

Lae Urban Cash Wage Award 1965.

Rabaul General Employment Award 1969.

Papua and New Guinea: Ownership of Secondary Industries (Question No. 278)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have statistics on the ownership of secondary industries in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea been prepared and published since his predecessor’s answer to me on 9th May 1962 (Hansard, page 2144).
  2. Is it still true to say, as his predecessor then told me, that nearly all secondary industries in the Territory are Australian-owned.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. No statistics on the ownership of secondary industries in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea have been prepared.
  2. The Government’s policy is to encourage increasing participation by Papuans and New Guineans in the ownership and managementof enterprises. Nevertheless, it is recognised that overseas capital is necessary to establish secondary industry in a developing country and it is to be expected that the bulk of such investment in the Territory should come from Australians with consequent Australian ownership. As mentioned in the Governor-General’s Speech it is proposed to ask the Territory House of Assembly for legislation to establish a statutory corporation to acquire equity in major investment projects in the Territory. One of the principal functions of this new institution will be to take up shares in appropriate enterprises and hold them for future disposal to the people of the Territory.

Income Tax:

Overseas Projects (Question No. 59)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What consideration has been given to exempting from income tax Australian residents who are engaged on overseas projects undertaken by Australian departments and instrumentalities.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

Consideration was recently given to the question of exempting from income tax the earnings of individuals employed by a State instrumentality on an overseas project of a United Nations agency.

It is a general principle of our income tax law to tax Australian residents on their world income, except where relief is granted from double taxation, on the ground that they receive governmentprovided benefits and that it is equitable for Australians with comparable incomes to pay comparable tax.T his general principle is modified, where, to give effect to International Agreements to which Australia is a signatory, the salaries of Australian residents who are officials of prescribed organisations (e.g. the United Nations and its specialised agencies) are exempt from Australian tax. These International Agreements do not, however, provide for this exemption to be extended to employees of contractors who do business with the prescribed organisations. In the light of the general principle 1 have mentioned, I would not favour the creation of exemptions not required by the International Agreements.

Electoral (Question No. 440)

Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

In what way is it determined which electoral divisions should be (a) city and (b) country for the purpose of the payment of electorate allowances under the Parliamentary Allowances Act.

Mr Gorton:
LP

– The answer to the honour able member’s question is as follows:

Two classifications of electorate allowances - city and country - were adopted by Parliament following recommendations of the Committee of Enquiry into Salaries and Allowances of Members of the Commonwealth Parliament in 1955. In its Report, the Committee said, inter alia,

We realise that there is a difference between the expenses of a city Member who travels his electorate and returns home every evening and a country Member or Senator who has hotel bills and extra travelling expenses to meet. (paragraph 37) . . . Travelling expenses withinthe electorate vary widely according to the size of the electorate and the concept of duty of the Member. It is obvious that in a compact city electorate, and even in the average outer suburban electorate, the expenses are not as high as those incurred in a country electorate. We have allowed something for both car and other travelling expenses in our recommendation for an electorate allowance’. (Paragraphs 42 and 43).

The Committee of Enquiry into Salaries and Allowances in 1959 also recommended two classifications for electorate allowances and this was adopted by Parliament. The Second Schedule to the Parliamentary Allowances Act 1952-1968, listing electorates for which the city rate of electorate allowance is paid, is as recommended by the Committee of Enquiry in 1959.

The proposed new Second Schedule, which is included in the Bill now before Parliament to amend the Parliamentary Allowances . Act. follows the pattern established in 1955 and continued in 1959.

Australian Army (Question No. 438)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for the

Army, upon notice:

  1. WhenI asked his predecessor whether the position of Major-General the Honourable S.L. M. Eskell, M.L.C., had been reconsidered in the tight of (a) the evidence given to Mr Justice Street about his conduct and (b) the resolution passed by the New South Wales Legislative Council for his demotion, did he tell me that the General had not been charged with or convicted of any military or civil offence which would form the basis of disciplinary action (Hansard,15th May 1969, page 1936).
  2. Has the General’s position been considered yet again since the New South Wales Registrar of Companies issued four summonses against him last December after an investigation into Australian Factors Limited of which he was a director.
Mr Peacock:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. At his own request, Major-General S. L. VI. Eskell. E.D. was granted leave of absence from 18th December 1969 to a date to be determined. His position will be further considered in the light of the outcome of the present civil proceedings.

Railways: Fare Concessions (Question No. 337)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What provision does each of the States make for railway fare concessions for (a) various types of social service and repatriation pensioners and (b) railway employees and retired employees.
  2. Does the Commonwealth grant concessions in respect of its railways for each of these groups; if not, why not.
  3. Will he seek agreement between the various States and the Commonwealth to provide interstate railway fare concessions for each of these groups.
Mr Sinclair:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. The following railway fare concessions are made by each of the States:
  1. In general, the Commonwealth grants similar concessions to those provided in the States.
  2. The question of pensioners being allowed to travel on interstate journeys at concession fares has been discussed from time to time by the various Railways Commissioners in conference, but so far agreement has not beep reached.

I have made a statement in which I indicated that shortly concessions will be allowed to pensioners travelling on Commonwealth Railways on interstate journeys.

Road Safety (Question No. 65)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What was the (a) date and (b) subject of each recommendation on road safety research received by him from the Road Safety Council in each of the last 5 years.
  2. To which recommendations did he agree, and in which instances was action taken on successful recommendations by (a) his own Department and (b) other authorities, and which were those other authorities.
  3. How many officers of his Department were engaged in road safety research in each of the last 5 years, and what was the amount allocated for road safety research in each of those years.
  4. On what dates in each of the last 5 years has he asked State Governments to report on the safety factor of roads designed and constructed under State auspices but financed under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Act.
  5. How many officers of his Department arc engaged in appraising the safety factor of roads constructed by the States wilh Commonwealth finance.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian Road Safety Council is a Committee of the Australian Transport Ad visory Council and does not report to me as Minister for Shipping and Transport. It does report to the Advisory Council, the recommendations of which are of a confidential nature. However, press announcements are made at the end of Council sessions, covering some of the decisions of Council.

Two press releases have been made on road safety research in the last 5 years.

In July 1966 the 24th Meeting of ATAC proposed that the Australian Road Safety Council should initiate or recommend research on road safety, including the evaluation in economic or other terms of possible steps to reduce road accidents.

The Commonwealth took this into account in its instructions to the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads, which recommended, in its report on road needs throughout Australia, that the sum of $18m be granted to the States for road planning and research over the next 5 years. It is expected that this research will lead to a lessening of the number of accidents on Australian roads.

In July 1967, the 26th Meeting of ATAC proposed that research and statistical information on road accidents in Australia should be co-ordinated and circulated through the State Road Safety Councils, lo help in accident prevention.

General statistical information on road safety is assembled in my Department and in the Bureau of Census and Statistics, for dissemination to interested bodies. There arc difficulties in producing sophisticated statistics because of differences in accident reporting in the States. This problem is at present being examined by officers of my Department.

On the matter of research, there is a regular exchange of information at meetings of ATAC and its committees.

  1. There is in my Department a position of Senior Research Officer, the duties of which are to collect and evaluate road accident statistics.

No specific allocation is made for road safety research within my Department but $350,000 per annum is provided for the promotion of road safety practices.

  1. The Stale Governments have not been requested to report on the safety factor of roads financed through the Commonwealth Aid Roads Acts during the past 5 years.
  2. No officers of my Department appraise the safety factor of roads constructed by the States with Commonwealth finance. This is essentially a responsibility of the States. All constructing authorities build to recognised safety standards developed through their own research.

Transport Advisory Council (Question No. 62)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What requests or suggestions were made at the meeting of the Transport Advisory Council in February for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth (b) the Territories and (c) the States.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

As I have advised on previous occasions, the Australian Transport Advisory Council is a forum at which Commonwealth and State Ministers concerned with transport discuss matters of common interest. Consideration is given to many detailed recommendations of specialist committees of the Council which, if endorsed, may result in legislative and/or administrative action.

The following is a list of the more important items considered at the last meeting of Council on which administrative or legislative action was proposed:

Australian Motor Vehicle Design Advisory Panel - design rules for motor vehicle safety.

Australian Motor Vehicle Standards Committee - amendments to draft regulations.

Australian Road Traffic Code Committee - amendments to national road traffic codes.

Air pollution.

Pollution of the sea by oil.

Extension of provisions of civil aviation (carrier’s liability), legislation to cover joy rides and charter flights.

Air cushion vehicles.

Interstate railway operations.

Proceedings are of a private nature. However, press announcements are made at the end of Council sessions concerning the decisions of Council. The items which may involve legislative and/or administrative action, and on which Press releases were made as follows:

Australian Design Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety - implementation.

Modification of existing design rules.

Amendments to motor vehicle draft regulations.

Air pollution from transportation in Australia.

Interstate railway operations.

Wool (Question No. 408)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What quantity of wool has been transported from

Adelaide to Melbourne; and

Brisbane to Sydney since the introduction of containerisation.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

My Department does not compile statistics of this nature. However, so far as can be ascertained from various sources there has been, up to January 1970,

some 80,000 bales transported from Adelaide to Melbourne, and

approximately 42,000 bales transported from Brisbane to Sydney.

Shipping: Financial Assistance (Question No. 405)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Will he make available to the Port of Bunbury, Western Australia, assistance on the same scale as that given to the Port of Newcastle, New South Wales, in 1962.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

Under the constitutional division of responsibilities the development of ports is a matter for decision by the State concerned in accordance with its own scale of priorities. So far as I am aware, no approach has been made to the Commonwealth by the Western Australian Government for financial assistance for the Bunbury project.

Railways (Question No. 63)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

What requests or suggestions were made at the meeting of Railway Ministers in Sydney in December for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

I know of no meeting of Railway Ministers in Sydney in December.

Shipping (Question No. 406)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Is he able to say why the Port of Albany is not being included as a victualling and bunkering port for the Japanese fishing fleet.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The Port of Fremantle was chosen as the victualling and bunkering port for the Japanese fishing fleet because the Japanese were anxious to have that port available for this purpose.

Had the Japanese suggested the Port of Albany, I believe consideration would have been given to such a proposal.

Royal Visit (Question No. 454)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Does he propose to follow the example of at least one State government by declaring a public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory on a date that will coincide with the visit to the Territory of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, to commemorate the two hundredth anniversary of Captain Cook’s discovery of Botany Bay.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

No. I can see no justification for declaring a public holiday in the Australian Capital Territory to commemorate the two hundredth anniversary of Captain Cook’s discovery of Botany Bay.

Wheat (Question No. 290)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. What are the respective categories of wheat quota allocations made in each State, and what is the number of growers in each category in each State.
  2. What was the total bushellage represented in each of the respective categories of quotas in (a) each State and (b) the Commonwealth.
  3. What percentage of the total wheat produced in (a) each State and (b) the Commonwealth falls within the respective categories of quotas up to and including the 12,000 bushel quota.
Mr Anthony:
Minister for Primary Industry · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

The allocation of wheat quotas to farms or individuals is a matter for each State under the provisions of the respective State laws. The Commonwealth is not in possession of the statistical data referred to in the question.

Peas (Question No. 301)

Mr Duthie:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice: (1)Is it a fact that there is grave concern among the growers of green peas for canning and freezing in northern and north-western Tasmania because of the intended breaking of the 4 year contract signed last year between the processors, Gordon Edgell Pty Ltd, and the executive of the Canning Pea Growers’ Association.

  1. If so, what action can he take to preserve the growers’ legal contractural rights.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. I understand that Tasmanian growers are concerned at the reduction in price said to be offered by a processor for peas for freezing in the 1970-71 season. The Secretary of the Canning Pea Growers’ Association of Tasmania has written to me to express this concern. In my reply to him I have detailed the steps which have been taken by the Government to protect this industry. These include the establishment of an Australian industry panel with grower, processor and Departmental representation in which general industry discussions have proved of great value, and the establishment of an Australia/New Zealand panel in which are discussed questions of production and trade in the area, with the operations of the New Zealand/ Australia Free Trade Agreement in mind.
  2. In the matter of the contract between grower and processor, it would not seem appropriate for the Government to intervene in an industry agreement of this character. I understand that following a meeting of the Australian Industry Panel on 17th March processors and growers plan further meetings in the immediate future designed to find solutions to their common problems.

East Berlin (Question No. 27)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister of

External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does Australia recognise East Berlin as a territory of the German Democratic Republic?
  2. If not, what is the position of East Berlin as far as Australia is concerned.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian Government does not recognise the so-called German Democratic Republic, nor, therefore, any territorial claims it might make. In the view of the Australian Government, the Four Powers still retain those rights and responsibilities for Berlin which they assumed after World War II.

Vietnam: Chemical Warfare (Question No. 317)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does the Geneva Protocol on chemical and biological warfare have international force even in non-signatory states since 60 nations have ratified it, including Australia.
  2. What policy statements have been exchanged between Australia and theUnited Stales regarding the use of chemicals in warfare in Vietnam.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. In law a treaty has no force in nonparticipating states.
  2. Australian Ministers have made numerous statements in recent years in answer to questions in Parliament on the subject of chemical and biological warfare generally and, more specifically, on the use of non-lethal chemicals in Vietnam. These are available in the Parliamentary library. The United States Government has also made numerous public statements on both matters. The latest of these, which dealt with United Slates’ policy on chemical and biological warfare, were made by President Nixon in Washington on 25th November 1969 and by the office of the White House Press Secretary at Key Biscayne, Florida, on 14th February 1970. In addition, the United States and the Australian Governments maintain close contact, at all appropriate levels, on the use of non-lethal chemicals in Vietnam. None of these activities, however, could be described as an exchange, or exchanges, of policy statements between Australia and the United States.

Totalisator Agency Board (Question No. 439)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. What was the date on which theTotalisator Agency Board was introduced in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. How many branches have been opened and where are they located.
  3. What has been the (a) turnover and (b) net profit to date.
  4. What allocations of profits have been made.
  5. What are (he names of the organisations which have benefited, and what amounts have been allocated to each.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. 1st September 1964.
  2. Thirteen, located as follows: 26 Antill Street, Dickson 28 Antill Street, Dickson (telephone betting) 6 Furneaux Street, Manuka 30 Jardine Street, Kingston 44 Northborne Avenue, Canberra City

Boolimba Crescent, Narrabundah

Duff Place, Deakin

Shop 5, Edgar Street, Ainslie

Curtin Place, Cur tin 34 David Street, O’Connor

Canberra Racecourse, Flemington Road, Lyneham (on course)

Launceston and Irvine Streets, Phillip Jamison Centre, Macquarie.

  1. Up to the close of the financial year 1968-69:

    1. $13,297,812.
    2. $108,369.
  2. and (5) Profits have been allocated as follows:

In addition, the following statutory payments have been made by the Totalisator Agency Board:

  1. Pursuant to Section 28 of the Betting (Totalisator Agency) Ordinance 1964- 1969-
  1. Pursuant to Section 29(1 )(a) of the Betting Totalisator Agency) Ordinance 1964-68 -

Gladstone Airport (Question No. 25)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the total loss by fire on 30th October 1969 of a helicopter which crashed at Gladstone Airport while on a normal flight schedule to Heron Island with J 4 people on board, one of whom was treated for burns.
  2. How long was it before foam extinguishers reached the Airport.
  3. What was the estimated insurable financial loss, suffering and inconvenience resulting from this accident, including the value of photographic material lost by the Editor-in-Chief of National Geographic Magazine and damage to the tourist industry as estimated by the Public Relations Officer and officials of the Australian Tourist Commission and British Overseas Airways Corporation, who were among the passengers.
  4. Did the helicopter crash without igniting in a similar accident in June 1968 causing damage worth $80,000.
  5. What steps has the Minister’s Department taken to make fire fighting equipment more promptly available at Gladstone, and what is the estimated yearly cost to (a) the Department of Civil Aviation, (b) airlines and their insurers and (c) local authorities.
Mr Swartz:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Approximately 8 minutes after the accident.
  3. The investigation of aircraft accidents is directed to the determination of causes in the interest of the safety of future operations. The investigation does not include an assessment of personal losses, suffering or inconvenience as claims and insurance aspects are matters for direct negotiations between passengers, the operator and insurers. Also, it is believed that it would be extremely difficult to arrive at any reliable estimate of damage to tourism which might have been caused by this accident, particularly as this event must be considered in the context of Australia’s well recognised high overall aviation safety level,
  4. This helicopter was involved in another take-off accident in June 1 968’, but repair cost was advised as being $49,514 rather than the $80,000 quoted.
  5. The Department of Civil Aviation provides fire and rescue facilities at the busier domestic airports in descending order of importance, based upon the density of traffic, down to a cut-off point known as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Category IV. Suited in simple terms, this Category requires eight daily movements of regular public transport aircraft of F27 size or larger. -Aircraft traffic trends are constantly monitored and, on the current criteria, Gladstone would probably warrant serious consideration for the provision of fire fighting and rescue facilities during 1971. The actual establishment of this unit may be governed by availability of necessary equipment which, together with suitable premises, would have a capital cost of the order of $180,000. The requested details of annual costs are:

    1. approximately $45,000;
    2. Nil;
    3. Nil.

Taxation (Question No. 81)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What is the cost of taxation deductions allowed for the fees of students at (a) universities, (b) colleges of advanced education, (c) teachers’ colleges and (d) technical colleges.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

Separate statistics are not available of income tax deductions for education expenses in respect of students attending institutions of each one of the . classes specified by the honourable member. Accordingly, no reliable estimates can be made of the cost to income tax revenue of allowing deductions for fees paid to each class of institution. However, it is estimated that the cost involved in respect of deductions for fees paid to all of the types of institutions mentioned would amount to a total of about $lm per annum.

Commonwealth Employees: Leave Entitlement (Question No. 384)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the annual leave entitlement of’ Commonwealth employees has not “ been increased since Federation.
  2. Can he say what was the annual leave entitlement for’ employees of the New South Wales Government at the time of Federation and what it is now..
  3. Can be say what was the annual leave entitlement for daily paid employees of the South Australian Government at the time of Federation and what it is now.
Mr Gorton:
LP

– I have been advised by the Public Service Board as follows:

  1. Three weeks’ annual leave has been the basic entitlement for permanent officers in the Commonwealth Service since the first Public Service Act 1902 and for temporary employees since 1920. Four weeks’ annual leave for 7 day shift-workers was granted in 1964.
  2. (a) At the time of Federation the annual leave entitlement for employees of the New South Wales Government was:

    1. For Permanent Officers - 3 weeks
    1. For Temporary Employees - One week after I year’s service, 2 weeks after 2 years’ service, 3 weeks after 3 years’ service
    2. For Ministerial Employees (those employed directly by Ministers) - 1 week.

    3. At the present time the entitlement is four weeks.
  3. (a) At the time of Federation the annual leave entitlement of daily paid employees of the South Australian Government was:

    1. For those employed on a permanent basis - 8 days for skilled workers, e.g. foreman, tradesmen 4 days for unskilled or semi-skilled workers, e.g. labourers
    2. For those employed on a temporary basis - Nil.
    1. At the present time the entitlement for daily paid employees of the South Australian Government is 4 weeks’ annual leave.

Commonwealth Employees: Education Assistance (Question No. 80)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What annual amount does the Commonwealth spend on fees for its employees who attend:

universities,

colleges of advanced education,

teachers’ colleges,

technical colleges, and

other educational institutions.

Mr Gorton:
LP

– I have been advised by the Public Service Board that expenditure in respect of studies by staff employed under the Public Service Act 1922-1968 in 1968 was:

The Public Service Board has advised that full details of expenditure for 1969 will not be available until later in the year.

F1ll Aircraft

Mr Bury:
LP

– In replying on 12th March to a question about the F1ll which was asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) I undertook to let him know the facts concerning the further regular payments coming due on the F1ll Project. Payments on the F111 project are made to the United States Government for the principal contract and I am informed that the most recent payment to the United States Government was$US345,962 paid on 27th March 1970. There are three other payments totalling an estimated $US4,900,000 which are due for payment to the United States Government before 30th June 1970.

Taxation (Question No. 1)

Mr Webb:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Has any further consideration been given to giving effect to the recommendations of the Loder Committee in regard to taxation concessions designed to encourage the development of Northern Australia.

Mr Bury:
LP

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

The honourable member addressed similar questions to my predecessor in office on 1st May 1968 and 17th April 1969. The position has not changed since then, and I would refer him to the answers to those questions which were supplied on 15 th May 1968 (Hansard page 1501) and 13th May 1969 (Hansard page 1734).

Trans-Australia Airlines (Question No. 8)

Mr Webb:

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

  1. Is it a fact that Trans-Australia Airlines applied as far back as 3rd July 1963 for a licence to operate a Perth-Darwin service.
  2. How many times has a licence to operate this service been applied for since 3rd July ‘1963.
  3. What was the date of the most recent application.
  4. Why was the application refused.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. T.A.A. did first apply for a Perth-Darwin licence on 3 July 1963.
  2. Three times.
  3. 18th December 1968.
  4. After a comprehensive review of the situation, the Government took the attitude that it was not an appropriate time to reach a definitive attitude on the question of competition on the north-west routes but indicated to T.A.A. that the matter would be reviewed again in mid 1970.

Melanesian Nationalism (Question No. 20)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the Current Affairs Bulletin’ of 20th October 1969, which outlines increasing Melanesian nationalism in the island of New Guinea, west and east.
  2. What initiatives has Australia used towards self-determination and co-operation of Melanesians and Malays in the Maphilindo and Melanesian area.
  3. Does Australia support any established government which suppresses popular independence movements.
  4. What part have communist parties played in aligning published Australian policies towards independence movements in this area.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Australia subscribes to the principles of the United Nations Charter in respect of selfdetermination. In the Territory of Papua-New Guinea, where Australia has primary responsibility, Australian policy has long been based on those principles. In respect of other dependent Territories in the area, the responsibility under the United Nations Charter rests on the administering powers. The objective of co-operation between the countries of the area is one which I strongly commended in my parliamentary statement on 19th March 1970, andthe Australian Government has from time totime taken any available opportunities to promote it.
  3. It has been repeatedly made clear in the United Nations that Australia fully accepts the principle of self-determination and that we do not support policies or actions of governments which might deprive peoples of their exercise of this principle.
  4. Communist parties do not play any part in determining the Government’s policies.

Private International Law (Question No. 47)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Affairs, upon notice:

Has Australia decided to:

  1. accept the Statute of the Hague Conference on Private International Law; and
  2. accede to the Statute of the (Rome) International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (Hansard 29th May 1969, pages 2567 and 2569).
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (b). The Government has not yet made a decision on either of these matters.

Aircraft: Anti-pollution Devices (Question No. 67)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister noted that on 20 January, 31 United States Airlines gave undertakings to United States Federal Departments that they would fit anti-pollution devices to all their Boeing 727 and DC9 aircraft by the end of 1972.
  2. Have such aircraft subsequently imported or already on order for Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia been fitted with the devices.
  3. What undertakings have been received from Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines to fit their present aircraft with the devices.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.I understand the undertakings were made following representations to the U.S. airlines by officials of the Departments of Transportation and Health, Education and Welfare.
  2. I am informed that the Boeing 727 and DC9 aircraft so far imported by Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines were not fitted with reduced smoke combustion chambers. Both airlines have been assured by the aircraft manufacturers that future importations of these types of aircraft will have the new commission chambers.
  3. My Department has been advised by both these operators of their plans for introducing the modified combustion chambers. The airlines have voluntarily decided to fit reduced smoke combustion chambers in their Pratt and Whitney JT8D engines on a progressive basis during overhauls. It is estimated that this will be completed by the end of 1972 which is the same as the time scale agreed by airline operators in the U.S.A.

Papua and New Guinea: Labour Statistics (Question No. 166)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Can he give the latest information on indigenous workers in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in the form of the tables which were last presented for the year ended 31st March 1967.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The latest statistical tables on indigenous workers in Papua and New Guinea, comparable with the tables for the year ended 31st March 1967 published in the Annual Reports for Papua and New Guinea, cover the year ended 30th June 1968. These statistics comprise twenty-two pages. A copy has been placed in the Parliamentary Library.

As from 1967-68 labour statistics are being collected for the year ended 30th June in lieu of 31st March. The 1967-68 Annual Reports for Papua and New Guinea closed before the 1967-68 labour statistics had been compiled. These will, however, appear in the Annual Reports for Papua and New Guinea for 1968-69.

Gross National Product (Question No. 266)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What was the rise in gross national product at constant prices per head of population in Australia in each of the last 10 financial years.
  2. Is he able to provide the corresponding figures for the United States of America, Japan, the United Kingdom and the countries of Western Europe.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

The following table shows the percentage changes in gross national product at constant prices per head of population in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and a number of the countries of Western Europe.

The inclusion in the one table of the data requested does not imply that the statistics in respect of the various countries are comparable without detailed investigation of their statistical bases or knowledge of the various factors underlying growth trends in the economies listed. In Australia, for example, the rate of increase in gross national product at constant prices appears to have fluctuated markedly in the past five years; we know, in fact, that this largely reflects the downturn induced by severe drought in 1965- 66 and 1967-68 and the recovery therefrom in 1966-67 and 1968-69.

Tullamarine Airport (Question No. 283)

Mr Lionel Bowen:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. When was the Tullamarine Airport site acquired and what was the cost of acquisition.
  2. What is the cost of all improvement carried out on the Tullamarine site subsequent to the date of acquisition.
  3. What are the estimated flight movement from and to Tullamarine in the year 1975.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Approval for the acquisition for the Tullamarine site was given in 1959 and the actual acquisitions took place over the years 1960 to 1963 inclusive. The cost was$4,680,382.
  2. The cost to the Commonwealth of developing the airport excluding acquisitions, up to 30th June 1969, was $34,754,221.
  3. Melbourne Airport may have 100,000 movements by 1975 but this is partly dependent upon the expected employment of the Airbus on certain of the main domestic air routes and on the very difficult to forecast build up in international flights calling at Melbourne. It will be appreciated that additional to this there will be considerable general aviation traffic at nearby Essendon Airport.

Employment (Question No. 350)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the preliminary estimates of employment for June to August 1969 were not released for publication until February 1970.
  2. If so, will he state the reasons for such inordinate delay in gathering and releasing these vital economic and social indicators.
  3. Does he see any need to update preliminary estimates of employment; if so, what action does he propose to bring this about.
Mr Bury:
LP

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

  1. Preliminary estimates of wage and salary earners in civilian employment for June to August 1969 were issued on 12 February 1970, and estimates for September 1969 on 24th February 1970.
  2. The delay in issuing these figures has been caused by the need to calculate a new series of estimates based on the results of the 1966 Population Census. New estimates for the period from June 1966 to June 1969 were issued on 16th January 1970.
  3. The Commonwealth Statistician is making every effort to overcome the delay as quickly as possible. Estimates for October and November 1969 were issued on 17th March 1970, and it is expected that the normal publication timetable will be restored in the near future.

Potatoes (Question No. 403)

Mr Kirwan:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Will he explore the possibilities of providing cool-store facilities in Ceylon to enable potato seed to be preserved from time of arrival until planting.
  2. Will he encourage the trade in seed potatoes from Western Australia to Ceylon as a positive step towards increasing Ceylon’s self-sufficiency in food production.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Australia has not received any request from the Ceylon Government for the provision of cool- . store facilities to enable potato seed to be preserved. If such a request is received, it would be considered along with any other requests for aid. Australia’s approach is to respond to requests from aid-receiving countries based on their assessment of their needs.
  2. If the Ceylon Government should make a request for the provision of seed potatoes under the Australian aid programmes, this would, of course, be considered. Seed potatoes from Australia were supplied as aid in 1966-67, but more recently Ceylon has given priority to assistance in the development of its sugar industry and, in response to requests, Australia has supplied equipment and advisers for this purpose.

Coolangatta Airport (Question No. 433)

Mr Kirwan:

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

  1. ls it a fact that the Government is to transfer airport land to the Gold Coast City Council.
  2. If so, what is the value of the land concerned.
  3. Does the Government intend to pay half iiic cost of a terminal planned for Coolangatta.
  4. If so, what is the expected cost.
  5. Is the Government to guarantee the main runway at Coolangatta for 7 years and other movement areas for 10 years.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes, subject to formal agreement being reached for the aerodrome to be transferred in accordance with the Local Ownership Plan.
  2. $650,000.
  3. Yes, subject to the earlier mentioned plan and the finalisation of the local ownership negotiations.
  4. $500,000 of which the Commonwealth would pay half.
  5. The Government is confident that the main runway will not require major work for 7 years and accepts responsibility in the very unlikely event of any such major works being required. The Government also considers that other movement areas will prove adequate for at least 10 years. If, in our opinion, additional movement areas are required during those 10 years, they will be provided by the Commonwealth.

Bunbury Airport (Question No. 434)

Mr Kirwan:

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

  1. Will the Government assist the Bunbury Town Council to provide an airport of the standard required for passenger services.
  2. As the airport has been brought up to what were Department of Civil Aviation standards at the lime of construction by (he Council, would the D.C.A. bear the total cost involved.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. I have arranged for the Department to discuss the matter with the Bunbury Town Council in order to ascertain what additional work is required to improve their aerodrome to licensing standards. I understand that widening of the strip is the main work required and that this widening was not undertaken at the time of the original aerodrome works.
  2. The appropriate Commonwealth grant for local ownership works is 50% provided there is an airline or well-established commuter service. In the event that either of these services is attracted to Bunbury consideration will be given lo the payment of a Commonwealth grant.

International Labour Organisation: Maritime Conventions (Question No. 49)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. How did the Australian Government delegates vote on the instruments adopted at the Fifty-fourth (1969) Maritime Session of the International Labour Organisation.
  2. What earlier I.L.O. maritime conventions have (a) entered into force and when, and (b) been ratified by Australia and when.
  3. In what respects do Australian laws or practices fall short of the standards set by I.L.O. maritime conventions which Australia has not yet ratified.
  4. What Commonwealth, State and Territory laws must be amended before Australia can ratify the remaining I.L.O. maritime conventions.

Mr McMahon: The answer to the Honourable Member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 assume that the Honourable Member is referring to the Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference which was held in Genoa from 15th- 26th September 1969. The 54th Session of the International Labour Conference will be held from 14th to 31st October 1970. The 55th (Maritime) Session of the International Labour Conference will be held from 14th to 31st October 1970. The Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference gave preliminary consideration to six items which will be discussed at the Conference in October. The Australian Government Representatives voted for the adoption of the reports on each of these items.
  2. (a) The following I.L.O. Maritime Conventions have entered into force in the dates shown:

No. 7 Minimum Age (Sea), 1920 (27th September 1921)

No. 8 Unemployment Indemnity (Shipwreck), 1920 (16th March 1923)

No. 15 Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers) 1921 (20th November 1922)

No. 16 Medical Examination of Young Persons (Sea), 1921(20th November 1922)

No. 22 Seamen’s Articles of Agreement 1926 (4th April 1928)

No. 23 Repatriation of Seamen.1926 (16th April 1928)

No. 53 Officers’ Competency Certificates 1936 (29th March 1939)

No. 55 Shipowners’ Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen), 1936 (29th October 1939)

No. 56 Sickness Insurance (Sea), 1936 (9th December 1949)

No. 58 Minimum Age (Sea) (Revised), 1936 (1 1th April 1939)

No. 68 Food and Catering (Ships’ Crews), 1946 (24th March 1957)

No. 69 Certification of Ships’ Cooks 1946 (22nd April 1953)

No. 71 Seafarers’ Pensions 1946 (10th October 1962)

No. 73 Medical Examination (Seafarers) 1946 (17th August 1955)

No. 74 Certification of Able Seamen 1946 (14th

July 1951)

No. 91 Paid Vacations (Seafarers) (Revised) 1949 (14th September 1967)

No. 92 Accommodation of Crews (Revised) 1949 (29th January 1953)

  1. (b) Of the above Conventions, the following have been ratified by Australia:

No. 7 Ratified on 28th June 1935

No. 8 Ratified on 28th June 1935

No. 15 Ratified on 28th June 1935

No. 16 Ratified on 28th June 1935

No. 22 Ratified on 1st April 1935

In addition, Australia has ratified the following Conventions which have not yet entered into force:

No. 57 Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1936 (Ratified on 24th September 1938)

No. 76 Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1946 (Ratified on 25th January 1949)

No. 93 Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), (Revised), 1949 (Ratified on 3rd March 1954).

  1. and (4) The information requested by the Honourable Member is contained in the ‘Review of Australian Law and Practice Relating to Conventions adopted by the International Labour Conference’, which was published by the Department of Labour and National Service in October 1969. I understand that the Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the Honourable Member with a copy of this publication.

Health Organisations: Australian Electronic Therapy Services (Question No. 121)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of registered health benefit organisations in Victoria which direct contributors who need physiotherapy to Australian Electronic Services.
  2. What is the relationship between these organisations and Australian Electronic Services.
  3. Do the organisations pay benefits for physiotherapy rendered by other firms and individuals.
  4. How many employees of Australian Electronic Services provide physiotherapy and how manyare qualified physiotherapists.
Dr Forbes:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. The following registered health benefit organisations have an arrangement with Australian Electronic Therapy Services to provide physiotherapy services to members:

The Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society, Melbourne.

Australian Natives’ Association, Melbourne. Grand United Order of Free Gardeners of Australasia, Melbourne.

Independent Order of Oddfellows of Victoria, Melbourne.

The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows in Victoria Friendly Society, Melbourne.

United Ancient Order of Druid’s, Grand Lodge of Australia, Melbourne.

  1. Australian Electronic Therapy Services is a private organisation which has entered into an arrangement with the abovenamed health benefit organisations under which, in consideration of the payment by each health benefit organisation of a specified amount per medical fund membership unit, free physiotherapy treatment is provided by Australian Electronic Therapy Services to the members of the organisations.
  2. The Grand United Order of Free Gardeners of Australasia, Melbourne and the Independent Order of Oddfellows of Victoria, Melbourne do not provide rebates in respect of physiotherapy services rendered by other firms and individuals.

The Ancient Order of Foresters in Victoria Friendly Society, Melbourne and the Australian Natives’ Association, Melbourne provides rebates for physiotherapy services rendered by registered physiotherapists on the recommendation of a medical practitioner. Similarly the Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows in Victoria Friendly Society, Melbourne and the United Ancient Order of Druids, Grand Lodge of Australia, Melbourne provide rebate for such services if the member resides outside a radius of 20 miles from the Melbourne G.P.O.

The Manchester Unity Independent Order of Oddfellows also provides a rebate to members who reside within 20 miles of the G.P.O. if the treatment is rendered in the member’s home.

  1. This information is not available. However it is understood that each person seeking physiotherapy treatment at Australian Electronic Therapy Services must first consult the medical practitioner employed by this organisation who then prescribes the necessary treatment.

Papua and New Guinea: Broadcasts by Members of House of Assembly (Question No. 162)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Territories upon notice:

  1. Which Members of the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea have made broadcasts from Administration broadcasting stations.
  2. On what dates and subjects did they make the broadcasts.
  3. Which candidates made broadcasts from the stations during the month before the House elections.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. and (2) Records in respect of the first House of Assembly are incomplete. Records for the second House are fairly comprehensive. The available information is set out in the attached tables.
  2. There is a standing instruction to all Administration radio stations that no candidate for House of Assembly elections may use Administration radio for political campaign purposes. No such use was made of Administration radio by candidates prior to either the 1964 or the1968 House of Assembly elections. One Ministerial Member was broadcast over Administration radio within a month of the 1968 elections. Mr S. Giregire gave a talk about passionfruit in January 1968. The talk had been recorded before January.

Papua and New Guinea: Rent and Allowances for Public Servants (Question No. 176)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

What are the differences in rent and allowances for (i) indigenous and (ii) expatriate public servants in respect of similar dwellings in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Rents payable by an officer or employee (either expatriate or indigenous) of the Public Service of Papua and New Guinea were published in a Schedule in Gazette No. 19 of 1st April 1965. That Schedule, with the rents converted to decimal currency, is as follows -

B. Wholly or Partly Native Material Building,

  1. Occupied as Married Accommodation. Value of Residence -
  1. Occupied as Single Accommodation. Number of Officers or Employees in occupation -

There are no differences in rent payable under the above schedule, by either expatriate or indigenous public servants occupying similar dwellings except where an indigenous officer occupies a residence by virtue of his position in which case the rent payable is that in the schedule for any particular dwelling or $104 per annum whichever is the lower.

Expatriate officers currently receive a rental allowance of up to $416 per annum if married and up to $200 per annum if single.

No allowances are paid to local officers, whether married or single.

Papua and New Guinea: Provision for Prisoners’ Dependants (Question No. 190)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What provision is made for the wives and dependent children of persons imprisoned in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea?

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Under the Child Welfare Ordinance 1961-1968 of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea an allowance not exceeding Seven dollars per week may be granted by tha Director of Child Welfare where one or both of the parents of a child under the age of sixteen years is imprisoned. In addition, the Administrator makes ex gratia grants to other dependants of persons in prison in deserving cases. Such grants are made by way of rations in subsistence farming areas and by cash, not exceeding Five dollars per family per week, in urban areas. However, such grants are required only in a few cases, as relatives in need are usually supported by kinsmen under traditional arrangements which are a feature of the family relationship of Papuans and New Guineans. The obligation to help a relative is often a binding customary obligation. Welfare officers regularly visit all major corrective institutions in the Territory and detainees are encouraged to discuss with them domestic matters including fears they may have for the well-being of their families. The decision whether to make grants of assistance or not is made on the basis of actual need, having regard to the customary support or other assistance that is being received by dependants of detainees.

Conciliation and Arbitration (Question No. 211)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What was the number of sitting hours occupied by the Public Service Arbitrator, the Deputy Public Service Arbitrator, the Chief Conciliation Commissioner and the respective Conciliation Commissioners in (a) hearings and (b) conferences in each of (he past twelve years.
  2. What was the number of sitting hours occupied by each of the Presidential members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in (a) hearings and (b) conferences in each year since the Commission was established.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The detailed information referred to in the question is not available and to seek to extract it from existing records would be a monumental task which could not be justified.

Conciliation and Arbitration (Question No. 212)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has machinery for keeping Commissioners informed on the Commission’s policy relating to the standards of wages and conditions that are to be observed by Commissioners when arbitrating on industrial matters.
  2. If so, what is the nature of the machinery so used.
  3. If not, have any other means ever been used by any Presidential member of the Commission to determine the upper standards of wages or working conditions.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

I am advised by the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that the answer to this question is ‘No’.

Conciliation and Arbitration (Question No. 213)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

Has any Presidential member of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission ever directly, or indirectly, indicated to Commissioner T. C. Winter or Commissioner J. L. Gough that the Commission will uphold employers’ appeals against settlement of disputes that rest upon awards that grant wage increases or improved conditions above the ‘norms’ fixed by the Commission.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

I reject the suggestion contained in the question that any Presidential member of the Commission had ever sought or would seek directly or indirectly to influence any Commissioner as to how he might deal with a matter before him.

Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union: Equal Pay Case (Question No. 215)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Why did the Government intervene in the recent Joint Bench hearing of a case concerning equal pay for members of the Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union of Australia.
  2. Is it a fact that counsel for the Commonwealth told the Joint Bench that the Government is opposed to equal pay unless the work performed by females is (a) the same or substantially the same as that performed by males under the same award, (b) the same range and volume of work as performed by males, (c) performed under the same conditions as males and (d) not work essentially or usually performed by females unless a corresponding classification applies to males.
  3. Does this mean that where existing wage differentiation and/or special skills and/or adaptability of female workers has led to the exclusive employment of females in a particular industry or calling, such females may become disqualified for equal pay on this account.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. The Commonwealth did not intervene in the Equal Pay Case referred to by the honourable member, but the Public Service Board appeared as a party. However, the Commonwealth did intervene in the public interest in the private industry case which was joined to the Public Service Case and was concerned with two applications by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union.
  2. Yes.
  3. The question whether females employed in individual classifications should be eligible for equal pay is either a matter for agreement between the parties concerned, or for the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to determine, assuming, of course, that the matter comes within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Aboriginals (Question No. 232)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service upon notice:

  1. Has any der sion been reached regarding the creation of additional facilities in the northwest of Western Australia to assist Aborigines to find employment or apply for unemployment or sickness benefit.
  2. If so, what is intended and when is the intention expected to become effective.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2) To supplement the normal services of the Commonwealth Employment Service five new positions have been created by my Department for officers who wilt give special employment assistance to Aborigines in the north-west of Western Australia. This will involve visiting Aborigines where they are located, assessing their employment potential, counselling them about employment, assisting them to obtain employment locally or elsewhere where this is practicable or arranging for them to claim unemployment and sickness benefits as required. These special services will be progressively implemented as officers are appointed to the new positions.

Wage Claims: Delays in Hearings (Question No. 292)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. ls he able to say whether there is grave and growing dissatisfaction among employee organisations with the extraordinary delays that have occurred in the hearing and consideration of many wage claims lodged wilh the various wage, fixing tribunals of the Commonwealth.
  2. If so, will he take steps to discourage delaying tactics on the part of employers by introducing legislation to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in such a way as to provide that wages claims not settled within 90 days from the date on which a claim is filed shall if fully or partially granted be made to operate retrospectively to the date of such application.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. While I am aware that there has been some dissatisfaction over alleged ‘ delays in the hearing of claims lodged with Federal Tribunals 1 do not agree that the delays have been such as to give rise to grave or growing dissatisfaction. 1 would add that 1 have requested an investigation into allegations of delays in the handling of claims lodged with the Commonwealth . Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to see what remedial, action is required, if any.
  2. The date from which a decision by the. Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should operate is a matter for the Commission to determine on the merits of submissions placed before it by the parties. In view of this 1 do not agree that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act should be amended in the way that the honourable member has suggested.

Conciliation and Arbitration: Minimum Wage (Question No. 295)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. To what extent does the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission identify the minimum wage as a ‘needs wage’.
  2. Does the Commonwealth favour the fixation of a minimum wage that will enable each wage earner to enjoy a standard of living consistent with the predominating standards of an affluent community.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. In its decision in the National Wage Cases 1966, the Commission described the minimum wage in the following terms: ‘This provision for a new minimum wage for adult male employees is designed to meet the circumstances of em- ployees in the lowest classifications who are in receipt of award rates and no more. It is not intended to affect the wage of any employee who is already receiving the prescribed minimum through over-award payments’.

    1. The determination of a minimum wage in the Federal jurisdiction is a matter for the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which reaches a decision on the claims submitted to it, taking into account the argument and evidence submitted by the parties and interveners, including the Commonwealth. If increases in the minimum or other wages are to contribute to raising the standard of living, and in this wages are only one element though an important one, the increases must be within the capacity of the economy to support.

Papua and New Guinea: Industrial Safety Laws (Question No. 298)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What industrial safety laws operate in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and what action does his Department take to enforce such laws.
  2. Have any New . Guinean or European workers suffered death or injury due to an employer’s failure to observe these laws.
  3. If so, were the New Guinean and European workers told of their common law rights to sue for damages.
  4. If they were told, what assistance did his Department render by way of legal assistance to such workers.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Industrial safety in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea is provided for by the Industrial Safety, Health and Welfare Ordinance 1961, and orders made under the Ordinance; the Industrial Safety, Health and Welfare Regulations 1965; and sections of other Ordinances, such as the Papua and New Guinea Electricity Commission Ordinance 1961-69. Action by the Administration to enforce the law consists of inspections of industrial safety by Labour Department Inspectors; appointment of specialist Industrial Safety Officers from among engineers of the Department of Public Works, Commonwealth Department of Works and officers of other Government Departments to carry out inspections and provide expert advice; advice and assistance to employers on industrial safety by the Technical Advisory Service of the Labour Department; and courses of lectures, film screenings and a safety pamphlet service run by Labour Department.
  2. Whether death or injury has been due to an employer’s failure to observe industrial safety laws is a matter for determination by the courts in the light of the legal provisions. In cases where it appears that death or injury may have been due to the employer’s failure to observe the indus trial safety laws, the cases are investigated by the Administration’s Department of Labour and referred, if necessary, to the Territory Crown Solicitor. To date no employers have been prosecuted for failure to observe the industrial safety laws.
  3. In cases where it appears that death or injury may have been due to the employer’s failure to observe the industrial safety laws, the New Guinean or European concerned is told of his common law rights to sue for damages.
  4. When the common law right of a Papuan and New Guinean worker to sue for damages is involved, the case is automatically referred to the Public Solicitor. When the common law right of an expatriate worker to sue for damages is involved, the worker is advised to seek private legal advice or, if financially unable to follow this course, to seek assistance from the Public Solicitor.

International Labour Organisation: Convention on Equal Pay (Question No. 346)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

What countries have ratified International Labour Organisation Convention 100 on equal pay.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

I.L.O. Convention No. 100 - Equal Remuneration 1951 - which provides that ratifying countries shall, by means appropriate to the methods in operation for determining rates of remuneration, promote and, in so far as is consistent with such methods, ensure the application to all workers of the principle of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value, has been ratified by the following countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Colombia, Congo (Kinshasa), Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Gabon, Federal Republic of Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Libya, Luxembourg, Malagasy Republic, Malawi, Republic of Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraquay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Spain, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., United Arab Republic, Upper Volta, Yugoslavia.

The I.L.O. Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has given a very wide interpretation to the concept of ‘work of equal value’, applying it not only to women doing the same work as men or like work and doing the same range and volume of work and under the same conditions, but also to quite unlike types of work. Observations made by the Committee of Experts indicate that it regards more than half the countries which have ratified the Convention as not complying fully with its provisions.

Unemployment: Aboriginals (Question No. 425)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is there chronic unemployment amongst Aborigines, particularly the young people, from the Davenport Reserve near Port Augusta, South Australia.
  2. If so, when will a vocational guidance officer be appointed for the Port Augusta area to assist in overcoming this grave problem.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. At 27th February, there were 34 known Aborigines (22 males and 12 females) registered for employment in the whole of the Port Augusta District Office area of the Commonwealth Employment Service which includes the Davenport Reserve. Of these 13 were under 21 years of age. It is not known how many Aborigines may be unemployed but not registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service.
  2. Two Vocational Officers will shortly be based at Port Augusta and will augment the existing Commonwealth Employment Service facilities. Their duties will involve visiting Aborigines where they are located, assessing their employment potential, counselling them about employment, assisting them to obtain employment locally or elsewhere where this is practicable or arranging for them to claim unemployment and sickness benefits as required.

Health Insurance Funds: Incomes and Reserves (Question No. 436)

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

What was (a) the combined annual income of the health insurance funds from contributions and (b) the amount of the funds’ combined reserves at the last date for which accounts of the funds are available.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The combined annual income of the registered health insurance funds from contributions for the 1968-69 financial year, was $182,907,752;
  2. the combined reserves, including the Outstanding Claims Provisions, of the registered health insurance funds as at 30th June 1969 were $119,157,204.

The above figures are preliminary only, and are subject to revision.

Employment: Mackay District (Question No. 485)

Dr Patterson:

asked the Minister for

Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Do the latest official employment figures show that in the Mackay district there was (a) a total of 1,168 persons unemployed and (b) a total of ninety-three jobs vacant.
  2. What are the details of those jobs which have not been filled.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. By occupation the ninety-three vacant jobs at end-February were: 3 rural 8 professional and semi-professional 10 clerical and administrative 6 skilled building 1 7 skilled metal and electrical 3 other skilled 11 semi-skilled 10 unskilled manual and 25 service occupations.

By industry, they were distributed as follows: 5 primary production 2 mining 18 manufacturing 12 building and construction 7 transport 14 commerce 6 health, hospitals 29 other services.

Local Government Statutory Contributions (Question No. 56)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Are steps being taken to obtain statistics of statutory contributions by local government authorities to road, lighting, fire, planning and similar authorities. (Hansard, 26 September 1969, page 2169).

Mr Bury:
LP

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

As advised by my predecessor, this information is not available to the Commonwealth and, as it is not required for normal statistical classifications, it is not at this stage intended to attempt to obtain it.

Royal Australian Navy: Deserters (Question No. 239)

Mr Collard:

asked the Minister for the

Navy, upon notice:

How many members of the Royal Australian Navy have been (a) listed as deserters and (b) charged with desertion over each of the past 5 years.

Mr Killen:
LP

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

No statistics are kept on the number of sailors marked ‘RUN’ after 7 days absence, nor of the numbers of charges of desertion which result in acquittal or in reduction of the charge to improper absence.

The numbers of sailors who were convicted of desertion during the 5 year period 1st January 1965 to 31st December 1969 are as follows:

Naval Personnel: Life Insurance Policies (Question No. 204)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether a well-known Australian insurance company has been inducing Navy personnel to enter into life policies by misrepresenting benefits available to them.
  2. If so, can he state whether it is claimed by the agent that accident benefits are available even while on active service when such is not the case.
  3. If the position is as stated, has any action been taken by this Department against the insurance company concerned; if so, what was the result.
Mr Killen:
LP

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

No cases of misrepresentation by insurance agents have been reported. However, if more information can be provided, I will have the matter investigated further.

World Conference of Health Insurance Funds (Question No. 192)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. Which voluntary health insurance funds will be sending representatives to the World Conference of Health Insurance Funds to be held in the United States this year.
  2. How many representatives will go from each fund, and what is the estimated cost of sending and maintaining them.
  3. Is he able to say whether, in any case, representatives will be accompanied by their wives, staff or other associates; if so, can he state whether their travel to the United States, accommodation and/or other costs will be met by the fund concerned.
  4. If these costs are to be met by the fund concerned, will he identify the fund and give details of the estimated costs.
  5. Has he information as to whether the representatives will be using charter aircraft at any stage on their journey to or return from the United States or within that country; if so what are the details, including cost, of these flights.
  6. Can he say whether the costs of any travel within the United States for representatives, their wives, staff members or other persons accompanying them are to be met by the particular fund they represent; if so, what are the details of this travel and the related costs.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The information sought in questions (1) to (6) is not available in my Department. The next meeting of the International Federation on Voluntary Health Service Funds is to be held in Chicago, United States of America, in August 1970. However, the voluntary health insurance organisations do not consult my Department in determining those who will be attending. Any expenditure involved in sending representatives to the meeting will be a matter for decision by the particular organisation concerned.

Health Ministers’ Conference: Hobart (Question No. 455)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Health, upon notice:

  1. What requests or suggestions were made at the Health Ministers’ Conference in Hobart in March for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth, (b) the Territories and (c) the States.
  2. In what respects and with what results did theConference consider (a) the uniform recognition of the qualifications of doctors, dentists, pharmacists and nurses (Hansard, 22nd May 1969, page 2221), (b) the establishment of a hospital planning bureau (Hansard, 20th August 1969, page 509), (c) Commonwealth assistance for patients and institutions after the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act expires on 30th June (Hansard, 11th September 1969, page 1259) and (d) Commonwealth assistance for State hospitals which provide free out-patient and inpatient treatment for pensioners (Hansard, 10th September 1968, page 874).
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Ministers who attended this Conference agreed that public statements on discussions at the Conference should be limited to the following matters:

    1. Nimmo Report.
    2. Hospital and Allied Services Advisory Council.
    3. Controls of amphetamines.
    4. Enzymes in Soap Powder.

I will forward to the honourable member copies of the statements issued on these matters.

Hospital Benefits Organisations: Reserves (Question No. 115)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What have been the aggregate reserves of the hospital benefits organisations at the end of each year since they were first registered under the National Health Act.
  2. What percentage of contributions did the increase in reserves in each year represent.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The aggregate reserves, including the Outstanding Claims Provision, of the hospital benefits organisations at the end of each year since they were first registered under the National Health Act and detailed hereunder, together with the percentage of contributions which the increase in these reserves each year represented:

Abortions - Hospital and Medical Benefits (Question No. 281)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Which hospital and medical benefit funds pay benefits in respect of abortions.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The registered medical and hospital benefits organisations generally pay benefits to their members in respect of medical or hospital services which attract Commonwealth benefits.

Commonwealth medical benefits for medical services are set down in the Schedule to the National Health Act. There are a number of items in the Schedule under which a Commonwealth benefit is payable in respect of operations that result in the termination of a pregnancy.

Commonwealth hospital benefits are available to patients who receive treatment in public and private hospitals approved as hospitals under the National Health Act

No registered medical or hospital benefits organisation has rules which specifically exclude the payment of benefits in respect of abortions

Exports to China and Taiwan (Question No. 421)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

What was the value of Australian exports to (a) China and (b) Taiwan each year since1950.

Mr McEwen:
CP

– The following answer is supplied:

Australian exports to mainland China and the Republic of China in this period were as follows:

Migrants - Recognition of Trade Skills (Question No. 201)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that many migrants are refused recognition or a licence as a tradesman upon arrival in Australia.
  2. Are adequate precautions taken in overseas posts to ensure that intending migrants with trade skills fully understand the requirements for recognition as tradesmen in Australia.
Mr Lynch:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. and (2) The qualifications of migrant tradesmen in the trade categories covered by the Commonwealth Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act (engineering, electrical, boilermaking, blacksmithing, sheetmetal and boot trades) are assessed by technical advisers attached to our overseas posts at their time of application. They are informed by letter whether their qualifications meet the requirements for recognition in Australia and of the action they may take after arrival to secure recognition through the local trades committees set up under the Act in each State.

In practice all applicants whose qualifications are assessed overseas in this way by the technical advisers as metal and electrical tradesmen would obtain recognition as such tradesmen after arrival in Australia.

Some migrant tradesmen (for example, electricians) must in addition meet the licencing requirements of the various States in order that they may work at their trade. These as well as applicants in other trades similarly placed (for example, plumbers) are given detailed information about the State registration and licencing requirements.

Tradesmen not in the categories covered by the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act are counselled by the overseas posts, on the basis of their employment experience, as to the likelihood of their being recognised as tradesmen in Australia and of any difficulties which they may experience in acquiring that status.

Hospital Benefits Organisations - Operating Expenses (Question No. 113)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. What have been the operating expenses of the hospital benefits organisations in each year since they were first registered under the National Health Act.
  2. What percentage of contributions did these expenses represent.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The operating expenses, including Special Account, of the hospital benefits organisations in each year since they were first registered under the National Health Act are detailed hereunder, together with the percentage of contributions these expenses represented:

Hospital Charges (Question No. 110)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. At what rates were daily charges imposed in (a) public wards, (b) intermediate wards and (c) private wards in each State and Territory in the first year that hospitals were approved or recognised under the National Health Act.
  2. On what dates and to what rates have changes subsequently been made.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. The rates of daily charges imposed in (a) public wards (b) intermediate wards and (c) private wards in each State and Territory in the first year that hospitals were approved under the National Health Act, are as follows:

Papua and New Guinea - United Nations Resolutions (Question No. 156)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What were the texts of resolutions moved during 1969 in the various organs of the United Nations concerning Papua and the Trust Territory of New Guinea.
  2. Which members voted in favour, voted against, abstained or were absent.
Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1. (a) The Fourth Committee of the General Assembly on 12th December 1969, adopted the following draft resolution of Papua and the Trust Territory of New Guinea:

page 800

TEXT OF RESOLUTION

Recalling the provisions of the Charter of (he United Nations and General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, Recalling further its resolutions 2227 (XXI) of 20 December 1966, 2348 (XXI 1) of 19 December 1967 and 2427 (xx1]I) of 18 December 1968,

Having considered the report of the Trusteeship Council covering the period from 20 June 1968 to 19 June 1969 and the relevant chapter of the report of the Special Com- mittee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples,

Having heard the statement of the representative of the Administering Power, Taking into account the observations of the Special Committee and the Trusteeship Council regarding developments in Papua and the Trust Territory of New Guinea, Taking into account the views expressed by the Special Committee urging the Administering Power to reconsider its position concerning visiting missions and allowing a subcommittee to visit Papua and the Trust Territory of New Guinea,

Mindful of the responsibilities of the United Nations to render all help to the people of Papua and the Trust Territory of New Guinea in their efforts freely to decide their own future,

In favour: 87 (including Australia)

Against: None

Abstained: 4 (France, Portugal, Mali, Togo) (As a roll-call rote was not taken, full details concerning the voting or absences of member countries are not available.)

In favour: (112) Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras. Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand. Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Southern Yemen, Spain, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey. Uganda, Ukraine, USSR, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States. Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia. Zambia.

Against: None.

Abstaining: (3) France, Portugal, Togo.

Absent: (11.) Albania, Botswana, Central African Republic, Ceylon, Congo (Brazzaville), Equatorial Guinea. Gambia, Guinea, Malta, Morocco, South Africa.

Taxis: Papua and New Guinea (Question No. 174)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates are (i) registered owners and (ii) licensed drivers of taxis in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. Owners of registered taxis:

There are fourteen companies or individuals who own taxis. Shareholdings are not classified by race but from inspection of records it appears that one public company has a small number of indigenous shareholders and’ the Development Bank holds 25,000 shares; one transport business owned by an indigene holds the licences for both the taxis in one centre; and the remaining twelve owners are nonindigenes.

  1. Licensed taxi drivers:

Records are not maintained on a basis of race but it is understood that almost all drivers are indigenes.

Uniform Laws (Question No. 135)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Where and when have there been meetings of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General since his answer to me on 24th September 1969 (Hansard, page 1922).
  2. What matters were considered at these meetings in the attempt to secure uniform laws.
  3. What stage has now been reached in the attempt to secure uniform laws on the matters listed in his answer on 24th September 1969.
Mr Hughes:
LP

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

  1. Since 24th September 1969 the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State AttorneysGeneral has met in the following places on the dates indicated:

Adelaide- 11 th and 12th December 1969 Wellington, New Zealand - 27th February 1970.

  1. and (3) It would be inconsistent with the confidential nature of the discussions of the Standing Committee to provide a complete list of the matters considered by the Committee. The present position of the matters listed in my predecessor’s answer of 24th September 1969 (other than matters appearing from that answer to have been completed or removed from the agenda) and of matters considered by the Standing Committee since that date is shown in the list set. out below. Items numbered 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 were considered at one or both of the above-mentioned meetings.

Tariff (Question No. 265)

Dr Gun:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

How many items were investigated by the Tariff Board in the last 5 years with a view to-

imposition or increase of a duty, and

removal or reduction of a duty.

Mr McEwen:
CP

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

In the 5 year period 1964-65-1968-69, 125 reports were received from the Tariff Board and tabled in Parliament. In 63 of these reports the Board recommended increased protection, in 26 cases it recommended no change in the level of protection and in 36 cases it recommended a reduction in protection.

Industrial Disputes (Question No. 218)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that a large number of industrial disputes occur as a result of alleged employer victimisation of union shop stewards.
  2. If so, will he examine the Conciliation and Arbitration Act for the purpose of ascertaining what amendment will be necessary to prohibit the dismissal or demotion of a union representative except in those cases where an employer is able to prove to the satisfaction of a judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court that such representative has been guilty of grave dereliction of duty incompatible with bis duties to his union and to those members of the union whom he represents at his place of employment.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. No. Some disputes involving alleged employer victimisation have come under notice from time to time but the number of such disputes appears to be relatively small. It is not possible to give precise figures of the number of such disputes.
  2. Section 5 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1969 already provides protection to union members who are or wish to become officers or delegates of their union, against victimisation on that account.

Oil Drilling Adjacent to Barrier Reef: Subsidies (Question No. 244)

Mr Scholes:

. asked the Minister for

National Development the following question, upon notice:

  1. Were Commonwealth subsidies being paid to firms carrying out experimental oil drilling adjacent to the Barrier Reef.
  2. Are these subsidies to be continued if it is found that these operations could cause harm to the Reef.
  3. Has he suspended payment of subsidies until a full inquiry has been conducted.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. Some subsidies under the Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1959-1969 had been paid to companies in respect of drilling operations in areas off the Queensland coast, some of which could be considered to be adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef.
  2. Future policy on subsidising drilling operations in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef will, if necessary, be considered when the results of the proposed inquiry into possible damage to the Reef by oil drilling are available. However, this issue is not likely to arise, as 1 would not expect that potentially harmful operations will be allowed by the Queensland Designated Authority.
  3. There are no wells being drilled or firmly programmed for the area at present.

Conciliation and Arbitration Commission (Question No. 287)

Mr Foster:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether there is widespread belief among organisations representative of professional engineers and trade unions that the Commonwealth Government and its instrumentalities unduly influence the decisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
  2. To guard against this possibility, will he give an assurance that in future the Government will not attempt to unduly influence the Commission by (a) issuing economy statements which could have that effect, (b) using the term ‘in the public interest which may be taken in a misleading way and (c) regarding impending decisions of the Commission as having a detrimental effect on the economy which may he taken to imply that the Government is opposed to an increase compatible with the cases presented by employee organisations.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Insofar as the belief of which the honourable member speaks is held it is quite wrong and is a reflection on the integrity of members of the Commission.
  2. The Government will continue to discharge Its responsibility by issuing such statements about the economy and other matters as it considers are warranted. Moreover, it will make such submissions to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission as it considers are in the public interest and it has a statutory right to make. It is for the Commission to decide what weight it will give to such submissions just as it has to decide what weight it will give to submissions by other bodies appearing before it.

Conciliation and Arbitration: Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association (Question No. 377)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that great public inconvenience, loss of wages and production has arisen from employers’ refusal to negotiate with the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen’s Association on its 1967 log of claims for updated conditions of employment.
  2. Are the chief obstacles to a settlement due to a refusal of employers to grant (a) double time for dayworkers after 2 hours overtime, (b) normal overtime rates for unrelieved shiftworkers, (c) double time for shiftworkers when Sundays and public holidays fall on an ordinary rostered shift, (d) meal allowances to all employees required to work overtime and (e) payment for public holidays which fall on a shiftworker’s rostered day off.
  3. Is it a fact that a considerable number of awards already provide for the conditions now being sought by the F.E.D. and F.A.
  4. Is it also a fact that Mr Commissioner R. H. Watson, who is handling this dispute, when dealing with the rate of meal allowance, fixed a rate of 85 cents compared with the Metal Trades Award rate of $1.00 and that the last-mentioned rate has been upheld on appeal to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
  5. Is he able to say whether, as a consequence of Commissioner Watson’s decision on the rate of meal allowance, the F.E.D. and F.A. has decided against making further submissions to Commissioner Watson on any of the matters in dispute.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. No. The F.E.D.F.A. presented employers with a log of claims in 1966. A new award, the Engine Drivers and Firemen’s (General) Award 1968 was handed down in September 1968. At the union’s request, it was confined to award rates. Since that time claims for updated conditions of employment have been the subject of Commission proceedings and negotiations between the parties.
  2. On 5th January 1970 the F.E.D.F.A. put these claims to the Metal Trades Employers Federation with a request that all six be satisfied by direct negotiation. The M.T.E.A. replied that it could not accede to some of these claims because they were matters of principle which the union should submit to arbitration, but there were areas for negotiation with regard to other matters. The union reply was that it would be satisfied only with an affirmative reply to all claims.
  3. No.
  4. On 13th January 1970 Mr Commissioner Watson granted meal allowance rates of 85 cents for the first meal, 50 cents for the second meal, and 85 cents for each subsequent meal to workers on overtime who had not been given adequate prior notification of their being required to work overtime. Similar provisions under the Metal Trades Award are$1. 00, 50 cents and $1.00. Under that award a fiat rate of $1.00 per meal for all workers on overtime was set in 1969, but on appeal this was varied to the rates mentioned.
  5. I am not aware of any such decision by the union.

Coal Industry Tribunal Award (Question No. 378)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Did the Coal Industry Tribunal recently make an award to permit the working of multiple shifts on developing headings for ‘long wall’ mining in collieries owned by the Australian Iron and Steel Industries at Kemira and Appin.
  2. Is it a fact that long wall mining greatly increases productivity in South Coast collieries and that since 1959, Australia’s overall coal production has increased from less than 16 million tons to more than 33 million tons without any significant increase in the work force.
  3. If the overall productivity per man has increased to the extent indicated, why has the Coal Industry Tribunal repeatedly refused to grant the union’s claims for reduced working hours.
  4. Is he able to say whether the combined mining unions have decided to strike immediately any attempt is made to implement the Tribunal’s decision unless the union’s claim for shorter hours is acceded to.
  5. Is it in the public interest to refuse to shorten working hours when mechanisation or other forms of technology results in greatly increased productivity and is accompanied by substantial displacement of workers.
  6. If not, will he request the Tribunal to reconsider its decision to enable the Commonwealth to make submissions in support of the union’s claim for shorter hours.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Yes. On 5th March 1970, the Coal Industry Tribunal made a declaration permitting the working of multiple shifts on developing long wall operations at collieries owned by the Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd where this system is in operation.
  2. I am advised that long wall mining has played a relatively small part in the increase in productivity.
  3. In the case referred to in (1) above, the Coal Industry Tribunal recognised that there were features in both development and extraction work in long wall operations, which, when performed on a four shift basis, reasonably entitle each employee to increased leisure but, because the evidence available was insufficient to reopen the decision on standard hours and because the Tribunal regarded increased annual leave rather than reduced hours of work as the proper provision to attain this end. he adopted the former benefit.
  4. The district stoppages in the New South Wales Northern and Southern districts on March 23rd, the day that multiple shifts were to be introduced at Kemira Colliery in implementation of the Tribunal’s decision, were organised under the aegis of the Combined Mining Unions.

    1. and (6) Mechanisation and technical changes in the New South Wales coal mining industry have not, in recent years, been accompanied by any substantial displacement of workers. Indeed the work force has increased by about 20% over the past 5 years.

Non-farm Manual Work Force: Average Weekly Wage (Question No. 450)

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What were the average weekly hours, including overtime, worked by the non-farm manual work force in Australia in each year since 1930.
  2. What was the average weekly wage of this work force.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information desired by the honourable member is not available in (he form requested. In particular, no statistics are available relating to the non-farm manual work force. However, the honourable member may find the information contained in the following tables of some assistance.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 7 April 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700407_reps_27_hor66/>.