House of Representatives
25 September 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1695

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the State of Victoria respectfully sheweth:

That because of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes, the population of kangaroos, particularly the big red species, is nowso low that they may become extinct.

There are insufficient wardens in any State of the Commonwealth to detect or apprehend those who break the inadequate laws which exist. As a tourist attraction, the kangaroo is a permanent source of revenue to this country. It is an indisputable fact that no species can withstand hunting on such a scale, when there is no provision being made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that the export of kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government takethe necessary steps to have all wildlife in Australia brought under its control. Only a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes can save surviving kangaroos. And your petitioners, therefore, as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Censorship

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition -

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That they are not gravely concerned that moral standards in the Australian community may be changing, particularly in regard to the community’s willingness to treat adults within it as reasonable and responsible people who are capable of making up their own minds as to what may be perfectly acceptable or unacceptable material in books,magazines,plays,filmsandtelevisionand radio programmes, and particularly when this material depicts life in human society, including language habits and sex habits and gives warning of the dangers of the use of violence and narcotic drugs.

That they in fact welcome this change, having regard for the fact that it demonstrates an increasing tolerance of and respect for the rights of individuals to think their own way through their own lives, free from information-withholding restrictions which people of one religion or one standard of morals may seek to impose on either the majority or minority who do not hold the same views.

That they question the simplistic view that nations ‘perish’ because of a so-called ‘internal moral decay* unless such ‘decay’ is taken to include an increasing unwillingness to face the facts of life in open discussion and freedom of thought.

That they welcome the statement by the Honourable the Minister for Customs and Excise, Mr Chipp, that the concept of censorship is abhorrent to all men and women who believe in the basic freedoms and that, as a philosophy, it is evil and ought to be condemned -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to give the maximum freedom to adults to choose what they will watch, read and listen to, even in the face of pressure from those who seek to impose their ideas and morals on others who do not share them. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

I move:

That the petition be received and read loudly.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The question is:

That the petition be received and read.

Before putting the question, I point out to the honourable member that any remarks in addition to the words normally used in presenting petitions are out of order.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Censorship

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble petition of the undersigned citizensof Australia respectfully showeth:

That they are not gravely concerned that moral standards in the Australian community may be changing, particularly in regard to ‘he community’s willingness to treat adults within it as reasonable and responsible people who are capable of making up their own minds as to what may be perfectly acceptable or unacceptable material in books, magazines, plays, films and television and radio programmes, and particularly when this material depicts life in human society, including language habits and sex habits and (lives warning of the dangersof theuseof violence and narcotic drugs;

That they in fact welcome this change, having regard for the fact that it demonstrates an increasing tolerance of and respect for the rights of individuals to think their own way through their own lives, free from information - withholding restrictions which people of one religion or one standard of morals may seek to impose on either the majority or minority whodo not hold the same views;

That the question the simplistic viewthat nations ‘perish’ because of a so-called ‘internal moral decay’ unless such ‘decay’is taken to include an Increasing unwillingness to face the facts of life in open discussion and freedom of thought.

That they welcome the statements by the honourable the Minister for Customs and Excise, Mr Chipp, that the concept of censorship is abhorrent to all men and women who believe in the basic freedoms and that, as a philosophy, it is evil and ought to be condemned -

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will seek to ensure that Commonwealth legislation bearing on films, literature and radio and television programmes is so framed and so administered as to give the maximum freedom to adults to choose what they will watch, read and listen to, even in the face of pressure from those who seek to impose their ideas and morals on others who do not share them.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth’ -

Whereas

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian

Education system. <b) a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

  1. more than 500,000 children suffer from serious lack of equal opportunity.
  2. Australia cannot afford to waste the talents of one sixth of its school children.
  3. only the Commonwealth has the financial resources for special programmes to remove inequalities.
  4. nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States have shown that the chief impetus for change and the finance for improvement come from the National Government.

Your petitioners request that your honourable House make legal provision for-

  1. a joint Commonwealth State inquiry into inequalities in Australian education to obtain evidence on which to base long-term national programmes for the elimination of inequalities.
  2. the immediate financing of special programmes for low income earners, migrants, Aborigines, rural and inner suburban dwellers and handicapped children.
  3. the provision of pre-school opportunities for all chidren from culturally different or socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

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

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That due to higher living costs, including increasing charges for health services, most aged persons living on fixed incomes are suffering acute distress.

That Australia is the only English-speaking country in the world to retain a means test for aged pensioners and that a number of European countries also have no means test.

That today’s aged persons have paid at least 7i% of their taxable incomes towards social services since the absorption of Special Social Services Taxation in Income Tax and continue to make such payments. (7J% of all incomes for 1966-67 amounted to $783,082,150 and this year will produce more than $800,000,000, more than sufficient to abolish the means test immediately.)

That the middle income group, the most heavilytaxed sector of the community, subsidises the tax commitment of the upper income bracket through the amount of social services contributions collected by the government and not spent on the purposes for which they were imposed.

That the abolition of the means test will give a boost to the economy by -

additional tax revenue from pensions

swelling of the work force, and

increased spending by pensioners.

That it is considered just and right to allow people who have been frugal, have lived their lives with dignity and have been anything but an encumbrance on the nation, to maintain that dignity to the end of their lives free from fear of penury.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to abolish the means test for all people who have reached retiring age or who otherwise qualify for social service benefits or pensions.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

page 1696

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Defence a question without notice. At 3 earlier question times this session the honourable gentleman has attempted to explain away the dissatisfaction in the Royal Australian Air Force over pay and allowances. I ask the Minister how he explains the dissatisfaction expressed at the Williamtown and, apparently, Amberley bases yesterday in a form which the newspapers variously described as a ‘mutiny* and a strike’ over pay and allowances.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I will be in a much better position to do that when 1 have a report from the Minister for Air.

page 1697

QUESTION

FLAGS

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the current interest in enemy flags and Moratorium demonstrations, his attention has been drawn to the more sinister aspect of the use of these flags as weapons against the police. I ask him whether he has seen an instruction issued to peace marchers by one of the Moratorium organising groups, the Students for Democratic Action, which says:

Put your placard or flag on a thick stick and if an RSL, DLP Fascist, soldier or a cop thumps you -hit back.

Has the Prime Minister had an opportunity to examine these weapons? This is the sort of weapon.

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I have seen the instructions referred to and I have also seen examples of the thick staffs on which the flags have been put.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I rise to order. Is it in order for a member of this national Parliament who has taken the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II to come into this honourable House with a flag belonging to a foreign power? Are we to be permitted to allow members to come in here waving these foreign flags?

Mr Wentworth:

– I rise to order. 1 think a distinction should be made between those who exhibit a flag in order to bring condemnation upon it and those who exhibit a flag in order to approve of what it stands for.

Mr GORTON:

– I have seen the instructions referred to-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I again rise to order. I am very concerned about this. There it is

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will rule on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Hindmarsh. It is permissible for an honourable member to have as his own personal possession any matter which he may think fit. It is not for the Chair to decide what are the personal thoughts or actions of any honourable member in relation to ‘any personal property that he. may have.

Mr Barnard:

– I rise to order. The point that was made by the honourable member for Hindmarsh is well taken. I think it is quite wrong for any member of this Parliament who has sworn allegiance to the Queen to come into this House with a flag other than the Australian flag or the Union Jack. I regret, Mr Speaker, that you have ruled in this way. I want to make it perfectly clear that if you persist with this ruling I will move dissent from your ruling.

Mr Gorton:

– On the point of order, I suggest that what the honourable member for Boothby has done has been to bring into this House in order to exhibit to honourable members a weapon, a stout staff, which has been specially treated so that it can be used as a weapon by those who wish to attack, according to the instructions issued, others who have sworn allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. What he is doing is giving this House evidence of weapons used against subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. Therefore I suggest that the point of order should fall to the ground.

Mr Whitlam:

– Mr Speaker, I submit that you should have another look at this ruling, if there was any validity in the Prime Minister’s point of order then it would he permissible for the honourable memberfor Newcastle, who asked of the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation last week a question about hijacking aircraft, to illustrate his question by bringing in one of the weapons used in such hijacking attempts. Leaving aside the Prime Minister’s intervention and relying upon your own apparent ruling, it would be equally permissible in this place where everybody has sworn allegiance to the Head of State for the honourable member for Boothby to illustrate one of his favourite subjects at question time by displaying the Rhodesian flags that he has brought back from that country.

Mr Jess:

– Mr Speaker, I would like the honourable member who took the original point of order to say what foreign flag it is. It is not a foreign flag of any country. It is a flag under which many leading members of the Opposition have marched at each Moratorium. It is not a foreign flag of any country at all.

Dr Patterson:

– I take a point of order. It is this: Question time today is now appearing to take on the same earmarks as question time yesterday. It must be quite obvious to you and to every other person in this Parliament that the display of that flag - a red flag - is offensive to every member of this Parliament. I ask you, irrespective of how you ruled earlier, to request that the red flag be removed immediately from this chamber.

Mr Daly:

– In support of the point that has been raised on this side of the House I would like to bring to your attention that this is all the more serious by reason of the fact that I understand that in the Government Whip’s room yesterday, with Commonwealth material and Commonwealth employees, miniature Vietcong flags were being manufactured.

Dr Klugman:

– I wish to speak to the point of order taken by the Minister “for Social Services., which was to the effect that there is a difference between bringing in a flag for the purpose of exhibition and bringing in a flag for the purpose of showing that you support that particular flag. I understand that the honourable member for Boothby has brought in a Rhodesian flag. But in addition to bringing in that flag he has also previously expressed the point of view that he supports the people who support that flag.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no substance in the point of order on what the honourable member’s views are.

Mr Hayden:

– I seek guidance from you, Mr Speaker. Is there anything in the Standing Orders about trivia, because that is what question time descends to with the introduction by the honourable member for Boothby of a completely unimportant issue such as the one he has raised. There are great national issues before this Parliament. I think we have some responsibility towards the public. I do not think the Parliament ought to be wasting its time with such stupid things.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I agree with the last part of the honourable member’s statement. I am not aware that this is the flag of any country. I do not know; I have not seen it. I have heard the honourable member for La Trobe inform the House that it is not a flag of a foreign country. I must accept the word of the honourable member that that is so. I must say further that while I have been the Speaker several exhibits have been brought into this chamber by members of the Opposition as well as by members of the Government parties from time to time. Unless the matter in question has some relation to disloyalty or is against the Standing Orders the Chair is not in a position to act on the private property of any member.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Speaker, now that you have made that decision and you have established a precedent, would it be in order, say, for the Minister for Primary Industry to bring a prize bull into this chamber to explain-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would hope that honourable members would use some judgment and responsibility in their actions.

Mr Barnard:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! As the honourable member for Dawson has mentioned this morning, the proceedings have the earmarks of developing along the lines of yesterday’s proceedings. I think it would be a matter of regret if this happened, because question time is prized by honourable members. It is being used at the present time contrary to the manner in which this Parliament should act.

Mr Barnard:

– I can only repeat what I said a few moments ago, that the attitude of the honourable member from the Government Party who displayed this flag is an affront to the Parliament and to the decorum of the Parliament. Mr Speaker, in view of your decision in the matter, I move:

Mr SPEAKER:

-The motion is to be submitted in writing, and seconded.

Dr Mackay:

– On the point of order-

Mr SPEAKER:
Dr Mackay:

– May I speak to the motion?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No.

Question resolved in the negative.

Mr GORTON:

– In answer to the question which was asked, I have noticed instructions which purported to have been issued, indicating to those carrying this flag that they should place it on a stout staff so that that staff can be used as a weapon in their confrontations with, according to the instructions, either the police or somebody from the Democratic Labor Party - why they should pick that particular Party I do not know - or some body from the Returned Services League.

I have noticed the stoutness of the particular staff on which this flag is placed, which is in the possession of the honourable member for Boothby, and also the fact that it appears to have been so treated that it could be used as a stabbing weapon as well as a hitting weapon. I think, having said that, that it might be of advantage to honourable members opposite to have a look and see whether that is not true and, that having been done. I have no doubt whatever that the honourable member with this trophy will burn, with great pleasure, the flag itself.

page 1699

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

Mr BARNARD:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Defence and is supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Does the Minister recall the circumstances which led to a revolt by certain members of the naval forces quite recently? Has he received a report on this matter when members of the Royal Australian Navy expressed their concern and displeasure with the Government over pay rates and conditions of service? I ask the Minister whether there is any parallel between this situation and the one referred to by the Leader of the Opposition. If the Minister has received a report on the case involving personnel from the Royal Australian Navy, is he in a position to inform this House?

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

– 1 do not propose to indulge in a battle of semantics with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but I would make it quite clear to the honourable gentleman that the term ‘revolt’ or ‘mutiny’ is a term of art and has a very precise meaning. Looking back over recent history of his own Party, I would imagine that even he by now would have some comprehension of what is involved. I want to be perfectly clear. The honourable gentleman has made the charge that there was a revolt in the P.oy?! Australian Navy. I want to deny that in the most explicit language. There was no revolt.

Mr Barnard:

– There was.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 regret that the House has not taken any cognisance of the suggestion I made earlier in this session and particularly today. I shall endeavour to conduct question time - and I ask for the co-operation of honourable members - as question time should be conducted.

Mr KILLEN:

– If 1 may continue with a little tranquillising in reply to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, a revolt or mutiny means a revolt against an order given by constituted authority. In the case of the Royal Australian Navy incident or episode - 1 do not care what term the honourable gentleman cares to apply to it - no order was given. I ask the honourable gentleman how there can be a revolt against an order given by constituted authority when no order is in fact in existence. This is a simple case. The question asked by the honourable gentleman is very much in keeping with the pattern of questions that have been asked by many honourable gentlemen opposite in the last couple of days to try to discredit and break down the integrity and discipline in the 3 Australian Services.

Mr Cope:

– I rise to order. Has Able Seaman Killen the right to abuse-

Mr SPEAKER:

– -Order! The honourable member for Sydney will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member for Sydney.

page 1699

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Dr MACKAY:

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister, ls there a delegation of student leaders from Cambodia presently in Australia? Have these students come direct from the war zone to give evidence to Australians regarding the invasion of their country by a foreign power? Why has there been so little public notice of this visit? ls the lack of publicity due ro inefficiency or does it suggest a species of censorship? Will the Prime Minister ask the Australian people to compare the treatment of this visit with that which would surely have greeted such a group if (heir evidence had been anti-American or antiAustralian?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I understand there is a group of students from Cambodia who have come to this country in order to let the Australian people know of what is happening in Cambodia and of the facts of the invasion of that country by North Vietnam. I have not noticed them appearing on the public media and I am sure, as the honourable member suggests, that if they had come to be critical it is quite likely they would have so appeared. I would hope that opportunities will be taken by (he media to enable these representatives– these young student representatives - of a country under attack properly to put their point of view to the Australian people.

page 1700

QUESTION

ARBITRATION

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I refer to his statement last weekend to the New South Wales Liberal Party branch convention on the effects of increased wages on the economy. As the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is shortly to hear the 1970 national wage case, does this regrettable statement indicate that the Government intends to be more blatant in future attempts to influence the Commission? If this is not intended will he assure the House that he will discontinue making such biased and ill-considered statements?

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr GORTON:
LP

– I suppose the honourable member is entitled to add what adjectives he likes to his statement. I would like to make it clear that I do not agree with those adjectives at all. I believe it perfectly proper for myself as the leader of the Government or for other Ministers to point out that the only real benefit from wage rises can come if there is an increase in production and those wages can buy more. I believe it perfectly proper to point out and will continue to point out that the inflation which follows wage rises which are not backed up by increased productivity is an inflation which damages members of this community least able to look after themselves. The object of this Government and of the Budget which it has brought in is to contain inflation for the benefit of those who can least look after themselves. Another objective of it was to provide more in the pay packet by taxation remissions which are much more effective in buying power than the actual sum concerned because they are not subject, of course, to taxation at all. I think it proper, responsible and right to point these things out. I shall continue to do so. I think it is irresponsible for the honourable member to say they should not be said.

page 1700

QUESTION

TRACTOR BOUNTY

Mr MAISEY:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for

Trade and Industry. I preface my question by relating it to advice recently given to the House of Representatives by the right honourable gentleman that the Government intends to introduce amending legislation to permit it to pay a temporary additional bounty to local tractor manufacturers. I ask: Is the Minister aware that the bounty to tractor manufacturers, and the financial benefits flowing to agricultural machinery and chemical manufacturers from the tariff protection they enjoy, is financing a campaign for a grain alcohol distillery to use annually 100 million bushels of wheat; and that this grain alcohol proposal is based on wheat usage at a ruinously low price to wheat growers and an increased cost to users of motor spirit?

Mr McEWEN:
Deputy Prime Minister · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– The honourable member referred to the use of 100 million bushels of wheat at a ruinously low price. No-one in the Chamber would know better than the honourable member that not a single bushel of wheat can be sold in Australia except on the basis of the stabilisation scheme which is operated under Acts of the 6 State parliaments and of this Parliament Within the price fixing provisions of the stabilisation scheme there is no provision whatever which would permit the sale of wheat at a ruinously low price. The honourable member made reference to an intended increase in the bounty payment on tractors and to tariff protection of producers of agricultural machinery. The policies in each respect arise from open hearings by the Tariff Board made at the request of the Government and a finding by the Tariff Board that it is necessary to protect certain Australian industries which comes as a recommendation to the Government. In one case perhaps a tariff will be increased. But in the case of tractors, the recommendation adopted by the Government to protect farmers from dearer tractors was that instead of a tariff a bounty should be paid, as has been the practice of this Government since it has taken office. I think it takes a fair flight of the imagination to argue that because the manufacturer of tractors will in due course have an increased bounty this money is being used to finance a campaign to establish power alcohol distilleries to use cheap wheat. I am bound to say that my mind will not really follow the logic of it.

page 1701

QUESTION

MILITARY CODE

Mr WHITLAM:

– Although the Minister foi Defence is not in a position to answer a question concerning episodes at Royal Australian Air Force bases yesterday, I ask him what progress has been made with a long-tanding matter, namely, the new military code which his predecessors successively said in November 1965 that it was intended to introduce at the earliest practicable date, in April 1966 that the Government was making the most extraordinary efforts to bring right up to date, and last September that it was hoped to introduce in the first session this year. 1 ask the honourable gentleman: Has he made any more successful progress with this project to introduce a comprehensive and contemporary code for the 3 Australian services than his predecessors were able to make over the last 5 years?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Earlier this year the Government made a number of decisions which needed to be made before detailed drafting could proceed in relation to this matter. As my colleague the Attorney-General knows particularly, it has been a heavy year for drafting. The Leader of the Opposition knows of the steps that the Government has taken to expedite matters in this area. Whether or not the measures can be introduced in this session will depend very largely on the drafting. 1 would be hopeful that they might, but 1 cannot give any undertaking to the House that they can be. The number of important decisions that the Government had to take before drafting could proceed were decided by the Government very early in this calendar year.

page 1701

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– My question to the Postmaster-General is supplementary to the one asked by the honourable member for Evans. Will the Minister endeavour to arrange for the Cambodian students to appear on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s ‘Four Corners’ programme?

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

– One is always hesitant, as Postmaster-General, to interfere with the ABC but if this is a question of making a request to the ABC that these students be permitted to present their point of view and their country’s attitude to the problem with which it is faced, I will be very willing to make it soon after question time.

page 1701

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 address a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is an employer, such as the Newcastle State Dockyard, entitled to dismiss an employee a few days before his medical examination for national service is undertaken? What are the rules in this regard? Is there any protection for registrants declared medically fit for service in respect of continuity of employment between the date of examination and the date of call-up, or are they expected to live on the dole while awaiting call-up? Is any penalty imposed on an employer who dismisses a youth from his employment within a fixed period of his entering camp? What effect would this have on the serviceman’s employment position after discharge from service in respect of long service leave and the continuity of his previous employment?

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

– I apologise to the honourable member for not hearing every point made in his question. 1 assure him that I will look at it closely immediately after question time. I will be most anxious to read the question. I will be most anxious also to have the honourable gentleman provide me with the name of the national service registrant. I undertake that my Department will then immediately examine the matter and take whatever action is necessary. Under the provisions of the Act a national service registrant is not to be discriminated against on the ground of liability to register or, after registration, liability to serve. T will make sure that the matter is pursued.

page 1701

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I. direct a question to the Prime Minister. To what extent has the Canadian Prime Minister been in touch with him regarding the Canadian proposal to admit Communist China to the United Nations? Has Communist China applied for admission to the United Nations? If so, has it given guarantees that its future policies will not be exploited through the barrel of a gun?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– 1 understand that the Canadian Prime Minister through his

Department of External Affairs has been in touch with our Department, keeping it, in genera], informed of the progress of discussions between the Canadian Government and the Government of Red China. I do not know what particular stage these have reached as yet and, indeed, whatever action is taken would be the responsibility naturally of the Canadian Government and it would not be for me to reflect upon or talk about it. Our own approach to this matter has been well stated, clearly stated, and is in no way altered.

page 1702

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister: Are films of demonstrations or information obtained from such films used to convey information to counsel or courts in cases unrelated to such demonstrations? Are such films destroyed when it is decided no court action relating to the demonstration is pending or likely? Will he confirm that the description of an accused as a ‘known demonstrator’ in court proceedings unrelated to demonstrations is prejudicial and subversive of natural justice? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that flags, flagstaffs or instructions made by an unruly minority sponsoring demonstrations are not accepted by the Government as evidence of the motives, actions or aims of individual participants or the official sponsors of the demonstrations, including honourable members of this House, who repeatedly have made it clear that they oppose violence in Australia and in Vietnam?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman’s question is far too long

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– I have concluded.

Mr GORTON:
LP

– In reply to the last part of the question which I remember better than the first part, because it was rather long - yes, I would assure the House that the “Government does not regard the instructions given to some who engage in Moratorium marches and other demonstrations in effect to carry weapons with them as being something which applies to all those who engage in such demonstrations or whatever it might be. The Government, however - I am not sure that the Opposition agrees with this - does say that some of those engaged in these demonstrations do carry these types of weapons and do carry them under 1 est ruction and are prepared to use them.

The other part of the question referred to the taking of films of demonstrations. I do not believe that anybody’s rights to natural justice or that anybody’s rights of any kind are infringed by the fact that a photograph is taken of him and if, in fact, at some later stage there should be a question of fact arise I see no reason why that photograph should not be produced to decide what the actual facts were.

page 1702

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE FOR QUEENSLAND PRIMARY PRODUCERS

Mr CORBETT:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry advise the House of the present position regarding the request made by the Queensland Government for finance for the Rural Reconstruction Board which that Government proposes to set up to deal with the pressing financial problems of primary producers in that State?

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The Commonwealth Government is aware of the serious position in Queensland, particularly in the wool industry, because of the severe economic conditions prevailing, that is, the low wool prices and the drought. As a result, a large sum of money has been made available for drought relief to that State. In addition, the Commonwealth has announced that $30m will be made available for emergency relief to wool growers whose income has declined severely in the last financial year as against income during the year 1968-69. Quite a substantial part of this $30m no doubt will go to graziers and wool growers who are suffering in Queensland.

It was announced also in the Budget that I and my Department were to carry out an examination of the debt problem in rural industries. I know that this is a severe problem in Queensland. A survey is not something that one can carry out quickly because finance in relation to rural industries is a very big question. Furthermore, it is an extremely complex question. ft is a question that does involve or would appear to involve the State Governments in possible ways and means of handling the question. Lastly, it is a matter which could involve governments in a considerable amount of expenditure in overcoming some of the problems that we have been told exist.

The survey or the examination that is being carried out by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics will look at the extent of the indebtedness and will try to determine the degree of it in certain areas. The reasons or the cause of this indebtedness will be examined and the Bureau will make recommendations to me as to how the problem ought to be handled, but it is a matter that needs considerable examination. It is not easy to know how some of the matters can be handled. There is a great variation in the problem of indebtedness. Some people are at a stage of near bankruptcy, other people have a severe debt problem which they are finding difficult to manage and others see that their potential indebtedness could be quite severe. All of these aspects must be examined. They will be examined and recommendations will be made to the Government.

page 1703

THE PARLIAMENT

Or PATTERSON - I direct a question to you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday in this Parliament I was suspended for the first time in my parliamentary career, a suspension which ] resent particularly in view of the substance of the unaltered Hansard report, which clearly shows that the Minister for the Interior had, I believe Sir, knowingly stated an undisputed untruth. I would add also that a significant number of Liberal and Country Party .members have apologised to me and expressed their regrets. This includes the Prime Minister. Will you give very serious thought in the week-end to enforcing a hard line at question time by implementing action as vested in standing orders and your good office as Speaker of the Parliament of Australia to end this dangerous farce which question time is now degenerating into so rapidly whereby Ministers are blatantly flouting the laws of this Parliament with deliberately prepared questions on explosive issues to the degree that - * - —- un:nA «*«M9

Ullliuuia ui«? All/VV fWug

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr Whitlam:

– At the end of question time.

Mr GORTON:

– 1 ask that further questions be placed on notice. Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation since my name has been used by the honourable member for Dawson. It is quite true that 1 expressed to the honourable member for Dawson my regret that he should have been suspended. I said that I felt that it was because of a misunderstanding by him of what actually had transpired. I still think that the record of Hansard shows this to be so because I think the unaltered record shows quite clearly that the Minister for the Interior was speaking of a May meeting of the Moratorium and he indicated, I think, that the honourable member for Lalor was at that meeting. The honourable member for Dawson, I believe, thought he was speaking of Friday’s meeting but I believe that the transcript shows clearly that it was not. In fact, I understand that the honourable member for Lalor was at the May meeting. So I do regret that the honourable member for Dawson was suspended. I do regret that it was the result of a misunderstanding but I think the misunderstanding, a genuine one, was in the mind of the honourable member for Dawson.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Yes; on the same episode yesterday the Minister for the Interior stated that from his office he had seen me at a meeting outside Parliament House on 6th May last. I am informed that his office at that time was not at the front of the House and he could not have seen me from his office on that occasion. Yesterday you said that action would be taken if Ministers told untruths. Therefore I ask you to take that action.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– 1 wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr NIXON:

– I have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition on 2 points. My office was in the front of the House. I came to work to the front of the House on that day anyway, and I saw the Leader of the Opposition in the position in which I stated him to be. I should like to say something about what was said previously by the honourable member for Dawson.

I expressed my regret to the honourable member for Dawson in this House last night. Before doing so I showed him a copy of the words I proposed to use. They are in Hansard as a record of what I said. I said that I was talking about the May demonstration. That appears in Hansard as being said last night. In point of tact, the honourable member for Lalor was at the May demonstration. The honourable member for Lalor was, if not deceitful then very close to it in not informing the House when I raised the point during question time yesterday. It can be confirmed by looking at any newspaper of 7th May 1970 that the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the May demonstration and that Dr Cairns, Labor, Victoria, also spoke to the May demonstration. I regret that the honourable member for Dawson was named in the circumstances in which he was named yesterday. No-one regrets it more than I do. I think he should look very closely at the honourable member for Lalor.

Mr UREN:
Reid

- Mr Speaker, to put this in perspective-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Why is the honourable member rising?

Mr UREN:

– On a point of order on what transpired yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member cannot take a point of order. He can make a personal explanation.

Mr UREN:

– I make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

– I claim that 1 gave information yesterday to this House - it was ignored - on what transpired. I want to state it again now. The Government refused to accept my explanation. I said that that was the reason why the honourable member for Dawson was dismissed but honourable members on the Government side refused to accept my explanation and they went ahead and dismissed him. You will note, Mr Speaker, if you examine page 1589 of Hansard that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) made a statement. Following that statement the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) made his statement. It will be seen clearly from looking at page 1589 of Hansard that the Leader of the Opposition said that there were no Vietcong flags at the May meeting, and he then gave the explanation that if there were any Vietcong flags they were brought up at Friday’s meeting after he had spoken.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I think the Chair has been fairly indulgent. The honourable member is not making a personal explanation on his own behalf, and therefore he is out of order.

Mr UREN:

– lt is a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat.

Mr UREN:

– With all due respect to you - I respect the Chair-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have asked the honourable member to resume his scat because he has gone beyond the bounds of a personal explanation. In fact, he has been explaining something on behalf of another honourable member.

Mr UREN:

– May I now come to what I said yesterday?

Mr SPEAKER:

– No. We had an appeal just a moment ago from honourable members, including members of the Party to which the honourable member for Reid belongs, about the conduct of the House. This is just another episode in the story of how frivolous or extraneous points of order are taken and personal explanations are made. The honourable member for Reid has gone well beyond the bounds of a personal explanation. In fact, the explanation that he is making has not touched on bini personally to this stage. Therefore I ask him to resume his seat.

Mr UREN:

– Mr Speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– J ask the honourable member for Reid to resume his seat.

Mr UREN:

– All I say is-

Mr SPEAKER:

-I ask the honourable member for Reid to resume his seat.

Mr Whitlam:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Dawson has asked a question of you and before you could answer it the Prime Minister asked that further questions be placed on the notice paper. It is not possible to place on the notice paper questions directed lo Mr Speaker. What is the position, then, in this case?

Mr SPEAKER:

– In any case, under the Standing Orders I’ would not be required to answer the question that was asked by the honourable member for Dawson, but 1 assure the House that I will have a look at the matter.

Mr Bryant:

– Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order with reference to the personal explanation of the Minister for the Interior. During the course of his remarks he went beyond a personal explanation. He made an attack on honourable members on this side of the House which they could not answer. Will you assert your authority to protect honourable members against attacks to which they have no possibility of replying under the Standing Orders?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I can assure the honourable member that I will, but to do so I must have the co-operation of all honourable members.

Mr UREN (Reid>- Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member for Reid claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr UREN:

– Yes, by what the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) said. On page 1594 of yesterday’s Hansard T am reported as saying:

The Minister for the Interior used the words the honourable member for Lalor and others’.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 would suggest to the honourable member that unless he is personally involved in this matter, and it can be shown in the personal explanation that he is personally involved, he will be out of order.

Mr UREN:

– Of course I am personally involved,

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest that the honourable member should make his personal explanation.

Mr UREN:

– I was saying that on page 1594 of yesterday’s Hansard I am reported as saying:

The Minister for the Interior used the words the honourable member for Lalor and others’. This was after an explanation by the Leader of the Opposition on how he spoke on Friday and oil the appearance of certain flags. The Minister said that if he conferred with the honourable member for Lalor and others-

Then 1 was brought to a halt. The point 1 was making was that it was the Friday meeting; it was not the May meeting. I made it perfectly clear that it was long before the honourable member-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– J desire to make a personal explanation on an entirely unrelated matter. In a question 1 asked on Tuesday, 22nd September, I stated that a certain Mr Beasley was a director of a company known as Pace Insurance Co. and that that company had a paid up capital of $2. Yesterday I received a letter from Mr Colin McDonald, the General Manager of Pace, giving the following information:

Mr J. D. Beasley was for a brief period a Director of this Company but his resignation was accepted on 22nd October 1969.

The paid up capital of this Company is $140,000.

This Company is in no way associated with any other insurance company.

I just want to put that on record.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin

- Mr Speaker, may 1 seek your advice as a comparatively newly elected member of this chamber who is somewhat frustrated and disappointed? We have had a multiplicity of charges and counter-charges in the last 2 days. My question simply is this: Is this a forum of fantasy or a chamber of deliberations and intelligent debate?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

page 1705

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– Pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960-1967 I present the tenth annual report of the Council of the National Library of Australia for the year ended 30th June 1970 together ».i a.. - . _ .___ j .1__ A Auditor- with financial aiaib.uih.iiij and mi. Auditor-

General’s report on those statements.

page 1705

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1970.

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill 1970.

page 1706

QUESTION

PRESS STATEMENT BY THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Debate resumed from 24 September (vide page J 600), on the following paper tabled by Mr Gorton:

Press statement by the Leader of the Opposition, 23rd September 1970- and on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the House lake note of the paper.

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– Mr Speaker, the House is discussing a motion to take note of a statement issued by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). Both the implications of the content of that statement and the implications of the fact that it was made by him have, I believe, national significance for in that statement he advises young men not to obey the provisions of the law as they at present stand and he advises young men who are soldiers to disobey a military order and to refuse to go to a theatre of war to which their unit may be posted, if they claim to have conscientious reasons for not going to that theatre of war. In this particular case the argument refers to Vietnam but of course it goes far beyond that because if it is proper to say to a young man - a soldier: Disobey a military order to go to Vietnam, if you do not want to go there’ then it is equally right to say to a soldier: ‘Disobey a military order to go to any theatre that you may say you do not wish to go to.’ And therefore, Mr Speaker, the implications of this statement, as I see them, are firstly, a direct attack upon the rule of law as it operates in this country now; and secondly, the counselling of a course of action which would make the operations of an army with a content of national servicemen quite impossible in any theatre of war.

Now it is of no use for the Leader of the Opposition to say that if he had an army he would have no national servicemen in it. The facts of the matter are that as the law stands there is an Army. It is reliant upon national servicemen. That was reinforced and brought about as a result of an election not long ago. And the Leader of the Opposition is advocating a course which would make the operations of that Army quite impossible. Just consider for one moment: You have a battalion trained as a team, and the suggestion made to these soldiers by the Leader of the Opposition is that some of them should say: T would not like to go to Malaysia so I will not go there. I will disobey an order to go there.’ Others might say: ‘1 will not go to Vietnam because I do not like the idea of going to Vietnam, so I will refuse to obey an order to go there.’ Whatever theatre of war you may choose to consider this could apply to. The fact that this can be advocated publicly by the Leader of the Opposition - not by somebody outside Parliament, not by somebody seeking to attack the Vietnam war or the rights and wrongs of the Vietnam war, but by the Leader of the Opposition, the man who hopes some day to become Prime Minister - for him to advocate such an action is in fact an implication to which I referred at the beginning of this speech which has national significance.

For it means that he regards his own position so irresponsibly that he would suggest that should he ever become Prime Minister - should this country ever be afflicted with that disaster - then it would be right for an Opposition or a leader of an Opposition to urge disobedience to any law which he might choose to ask the Parliament to pass. This, coming from a man in that position, has very, very grave implications indeed and, Mr Speaker, COL,1. not be more designed, whether on purpose or not, to render the operation of our military forces ineffective in their present role. This of course is the objective of many - those who take part in moratoriums and those who are members of the Communist Party. That is their objective. This advice would fallow out their objective. Whether from the same motives or not does not matter. It would help them to follow out that objective.

I have said that not only would this statement by the leader of the Opposition render the use of our military forces ineffective but it was in fact an incitement to a breach of the law as it stands. Let us examine that. Let us examine the quality of this advice and let us examine what must be the thought processes behind it. In the first place there is no inescapable obligation upon any young man in Australia to go to fight with the Army in Vietnam. There is no inescapable obligation at all under the law. If a young man has genuine conscientious beliefs then he can go before a court - that is, genuine conscientious objection to bearing arms at all or to taking part in any war. Then there is provision in the law for him to go before the courts and if the courts finds that he does so hold those conscientious beliefs he is excused from all service, so there is no requirement there. But, secondly, if a young man does not have that conscientious objection to war but objects to some particular theatre of war then there is provision in the law for that young man to join the Citizen Military Forces, in which case he cannot be called up and will not be called up to serve in a theatre to which he objects.

Now it is quite clear from -the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition that he is talking about the advice he gives to young men before they register. They come along to him - the statement makes it clear -and say: ‘What should T do?’ Surely the law being what it is the right and proper advice to give to such a young man would be to say: ‘If that is how you feel then I can advise you this way. You should join the CMF if you do not have conscientious objections to bearing arms, and should you do that then you will be excused from being called up for service in Vietnam.’ That, however, is not apparently the advice that is given. At least it does not appear to be the advice from the statement that he has made in this House. But if the Leader of the Opposition now as an afterthought is inclined to say: ‘Oh, but I do give that advice first. This is the first advice I give to a young man’, then what he is saying is this: ‘I show this young man a legal and proper way for him to obtain the objective that he seeks. If he turns down and will not use the legal and proper way then I advise him to use an illegal way and to break the law.’ Now, Mr Speaker, there are those who argue that an individual has the right to break a law if he considers it to be a bad law. I do not believe for one moment that that contention can hold any water in a country where parliaments make the law and people elect the parliaments but however that may be when there is a legal Act and there is a legal method of obtaining an objective - when a Leader of an Opposition in his capacity as adviser has pointed out that a legal method of avoiding the service required and is then prepared to go on - because an individual refuses to take a legal course - and advise an illegal course, and advise a young man to join the Army and to refuse to go to Vietnam or to any other place to which he does not want to go, then I believe there can be no more reprehensible or irresponsible thing than for a Leader of an Opposition in such a position to say: ‘There is a legal way that you can act but of course if you will not act in that way I advise you to act in an illegal way.’ And one wonders whether this does show a contempt for law, whether it does show a desire to help to break the law. One knows that in the end result if it is followed out it would lead to severe punishment to young men which could have been avoided had they been given the proper advice and it will lead, while the law stands as it is, to the impossibility of using the armed troops of Australia in the field. The implications of this, coming from the source from which it comes, are very grave indeed for Australia and I believe that all Australians should ponder deeply the fact that that man who now leads the Opposition is prepared to urge - or rather let me say advise - a course of action which would lead to the inability to use our troops and is prepared to advise an illegal course of action when there exists a legal way of attaining the objective required.

One shudders to think of what this kind of approach would mean to Australia should it ever suffer the disaster of having an alteration and that individual becoming Prime Minister of Australia. Just imagine, Mr Speaker, the way in which this country would move should we accept without protest these kinds of suggestions, this kind of advice, by a Leader of the Opposition that the law should be broken even when it does not need to be broken, and even when the objective can be achieved without it. This is gong to result as I said, whether intentionally or not, in an attack upon our capacity to fight and in a real threat to the rule of law in this country, and it comes from a man who has sworn to uphold the law. I do not believe that the people of this country tor one moment wm accept that kind of leadership and I think it is a great advantage that the kind of leadership really there has been by accident, brought out and shown to the people of this country to be a fact.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I move:

At end of motion add ‘And condemns the Gorton Government for its failure to end conscription for Vietnam*.

Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) is under censure from the Government for a reason that has nothing to do with what he said or with the effect of what he said. He is under censure from the Government that knows it cannot maintain office because of its own performance, and which, therefore, tries to divert public attention from itself - to create at least a mild form of hysteria and persuade people that there are others whose faults are even greater than its own. This is not an attempt to examine what the Leader of the Opposition said or the need or justification for it; it is an exercise in the most cynical form of politics that exists. What has the Leader of the Opposition said? First of all he said that if he were speaking to a man who already objected to the war in Vietnam he would tei) him what course he should take if in fact he were called up. The Leader of the Opposition was talking not about young mcn who do not object to the war in Vietnam or to people in general but about young men who already object to the war in Vietnam. What did he say he would fell them? He said he would tell them that they should carry out the law to the full extent their consciences would allow. But the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) of course, has no room for conscience in this country. He just said so. He has no room for conscience because he imagines that he and his Government and the forces behind it are so ultimately democratic that there is no need or room for conscience in Australia. If he thinks that, I do not.

What did the Leader of the Opposition say he would tell these men? He said he would tell them to carry out the law as far as their consciences would allow. If they were in the Army and were ordered to go to Vietnam and they could not in conscience go. then they would have to disobey orders given to them and disobey those orders at their own cost and penalty. This is a right that is recognised in every civilised country. It is recognised by all those people who have led our thinking in philosophy and theology and have given us a civilisation upon which the democracy of today is based. But the Prime Minister has no room for conscience in 1970 in Australia because he and his Ministers happen to be in office. There is no room for conscience any more. No doubt that is how members of the Government parties look at it. Could they tell these young men to put aside their consciences altogether? Men who know nothing of conscience could do that easily. Could the Leader of the Opposition give them no advice at all and leave it to them to be totally unprepared for what might happen to them once they were in the hands of authority? No doubt that is what members of the Government parties would do - they who have amongst them many who are young enough to volunteer for Vietnam but do not. Yet, on the contrary, they force other young men into the military service against their consciences or into gaol for long months for judges to find and report that they should never have been there at all.

If honourable members on the other side of the House have any conscience at all and this will not stir them, then I can conclude only that their consciences are faint and cowardly. No, this is not the Labor way of doing things; it is the Liberal way of doing things - the smart, polished, suave Liberal way of doing things. I know which I prefer and 1 refuse to believe that the Australia people could be so devoid of a sense of fair play that they would prefer the method of the Prime Minister and his followers. It may be difficult for Liberals to understand that there are thousands of young men who are convinced in their opposition to the blood bath in which Australia is involved in Vietnam; who are opposed to conscription for that purpose and to every aspect of the Government which enforces it upon Australia, and who will have nothing to do with the Citizens Military Forces. The CMF is no alternative for boys in this position and anyone who, like the Leader of the Opposition, has talked to them knows that the CMF is no alternative for them because they will not have anything to do with the military service which is tied to this blood bath for which members on the Government side are all responsible. If they do not know that they do not know the young men with whom we are dealing and that is the whole point of the submission I am making. They know nothing of these young men in their cynical detachment and their superior positions.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I would suggest to honourable members on my right that they cease interjecting.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I do not need any assistance.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Prime Minister was heard in relative quietness and I expect the same courtesy to be extended to all other speakers.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Sometimes these young men are so opposed to what the Government is doing that they are willing, like John Zarb and Brian Ross, to undergo 2 years gaol rather than even register for what they consider will be an ultimate moral degradation. What other advice could the Leader of the Opposition give to such young men and maintain his moral integrity? Would honourable members opposite prefer him to help them into gaol for long, cold bitter months before it is discovered that they should never have been there at all? Where is our much vaunted sense of national fair play which allows us to accept petty politicians and pretty Ministers like the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) who preen themselves in the public eye while playing politics with these young men? In my opinion Zarb and Ross have more courage and character than 10 attorneysgeneral like the honourable member for Parkes.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I would remind the honourable member for Lalor that he will be out of order if he casts any reflection on the conduct, character or motives of any honourable member in the House.

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is only relative, Mr Speaker. I could say much more. Would honourable members opposite expect the Leader of the Opposition to behave like the Attorney-General? Never in my opinion. Is it not time that Liberals and members of the public asked themselves why it is that intelligent young men nf the highest character are willing to suffer 2 years in the worst places ancient Australia has been able to produce to imprison and torment those who offend it? Cannot the Government, and those who support it, stop for a moment and ask themselves: What can it bc that moves these young men to face such a harsh and harmful penalty? Cannot they understand that someone has to bc willing to advise such young men, when that person has a personal responsibility, as the Leader of the Oppo sition has, to advise them, on the assumption that they will never be able to carry out the law to the full? That is the basic assumption here. Do Government supporters want the Leader of the Opposition to abdicate his repsonsibility to advise young men who are in this position and cannot be in any other position? Cannot they understand that there are hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of young men who cannot carry out the law to the full, who cannot hive anything to do with military service, with the war in Vietnam or even with the Government that is responsible for it?

Which one of us would undergo even a penalty of a few dollars, let alone 2 years in gaol, for anything we believe in? Which one of us would risk even association with an unpopular idea or group of people? Which of us would risk his popularity with the boss or his prospect of promotion or his job, let alone 2 years imprisonment in one of these inhuman piles of stone we call gaols? Unless we can understand the position of these people we have no right to enter judgment upon them. Would it not be reasonable to expect advice from the Leader of the Opposition to this relatively small number of people which is somewhat different from the talk that goes on in conventional cocktail parties? fs it not only called for but, is there not a moral responsibility on him to give it? These young men, and many , thousands more, believe the war in Vietnam is the instrument of death for the people of Vietnam and an instrument of moral degradation for us. I refer to the words of a leading American, Arthur M. Schlesinger, historian and personal confidant of the late John Kennedy. He said:

All our measures in Vietnam have been sabotaged because the regimes there were, nml are, composed of men who are members of, or allied with, mandarin families that hold title to properties they have no intention of renouncing. . . . They seek to retain their privileges they have, and to regain those they have lost. Their regime is pervaded by nepotism, corruption and cynicism.

When a leading American sees Vietnam in that way, may there not be some compelling validity in the way some young Australians see it? May they not need advice from the Leader of the Opposition a little different from that one might give to a member of the Young Liberals about to enter Parliament? ls it unreasonable to ignore what these young Australians have decided, when we determine our attitude towards them, when we find Schlesinger in another place writing:

Our concentration on Vietnam is exacting a frightful cost. In domestic policy, with Vietnam gulping down . more than a billion and a half dollars a month, everything .is grinding to a stop the Great Society is now, except for a few token gestures, dead. The fight for equal opportunity for the Negro, the war against poverty, the struggle to save the cities, the improvement of our schools - all must be starved for the sake of Vietnam. And war brings ugly side effects … . inflation; frustration; indignation; protest; panic; angry, divisions within the national’ community; premonitions of McCarthyism.

If this is the view of a leading American, an historian and a personal confidant of John Kennedy, about the war in Vietnam and its effects on America, is it unreasonable to expect that it will, also be the view of some young Australians? Is it any wonder that there will be at least a few who will need the advice from the Leader of the Opposition on the assumption that they cannot carry out the law to the full insofar as it effects this situation described by Schlesinger. And then there was the testimony of Louis B. Lundborg before the American Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 15th April this year. He said:

The war has divided, confused and bewildered Americans.

Has it not divided, confused and bewildered at least one Liberal Party supporter? Lundborg also stated in his evidence:

As a result of this confusion and bewilderment many people are losing trust iri the institutions, public and private, through which we govern ourselves and run our economy. Such loss of trust is destructive of the cohesion necessary for an economy’s ability to function at maximum effectiveness. To the degree banks, industrial firms, corporations, state and local governments, federal government agencies and universities are under attack or suspicion for their alleged part in the war in Vietnam, they lose some of their effectiveness as institutions that can provide for the common good. - . The revulsion against our posture in Vietnam has been so strong that it has coloured and distorted the attitudes of our people and particularly of our young people. . . . The disillusionment of the young over the whole Vietnam experience has weakened their willingness to follow adult leadership in anything.

Is it not time somebody here in the conventional establishment asked questions like those answered by Lundborg in America, the Chairman of the Bank of America. If this is the view of the Chairman of the Bank of America, would it not be better for the Australian Prime Minister to inquire why it is also the view of a few young

Australians who will not carry out the law to the full and who require consistent advice from the Leader of the Opposition, rather than to make cheap political capital out of that situation? The danger of the action of the Prime Minister and his Government is that it is the real threat to liberty in Australia. Patriotism may become again, as Edmund Burke once wrote -

A bloody idol which required the sacrifice of children and parents, or dearest connections in private life, and of all the virtues that arise from those relations.

This accentuated growth of McCarthyism, the flag wavers paying off old scores, is a process described by Mark Twain years ago. He wrote:

The loud little handful - as usual - will shout for the war - for someone else to go to the war, but nol for them to go to the war - a few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen and at first will have a hearing and be applauded, but it will not last long; those others will outshout them- as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McEwen) will try to outshout me in a few minutes - and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. And then the whole nation - pulpit and all - will take up the war cry and shout itself hoarse, and mob and honest man who ventures to open his mouth and presently such mouths will cease to open. lt would be naive and deceptive to say that this cannot happen here. Men are already being imprisoned in Australia really for their political beliefs. Mouths have already ceased to open in Australia. The loud little handful is shouting for the war and people are afraid of being identified with anything even remotely related to peace, much short of being identified with things like the Moratorium. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Leader of the Opposition may be forced by his moral responsibilities to have to give unconventional advice in such a situation. The police state, whenever it comes, requires an apathetic, silent and quiet majority. It needs to be able to persuade people that if law and order is to be maintained they must give up association with anything that is unpopular and unconventional, from peace, through uncensored literature to homosexuality.

But this is the very opposite to what law and order does require. Law and order comes from the people. It is what they make by their own decisions. If the people are apathetic, silent and quiet, law and order is nothing but the fiat of those in authority for the time being and this Government wants law and order to be the fiat of itself in office for the time being. It wants to have no penetrating or critical discussion about anything that it is doing, lt wants to divert attention to other people and to what others are doing to be protected in its own inefficiency and its own lack of principle. If the people are apathetic, silent and quiet, law and order becomes nothing but authority. One thing has puzzled observers as it puzzled Lord Russell of Liverpool, who write ‘The Scourge of the Swastika’. It is how kind and considerate men are able to authorise the bombing and burning of civilians, the extermination of populations, of cities, towns and villages and the detention and torture of people for long periods without trial or who are willing to support, as this Government is willing to support those things.

We are told that the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Bury) are kind and considerate men. But in all this what is needed to rid ourselves of silence and apathy and involvement by our silence in immoral policy. We must never turn to violence. Violence is the scourge of humanity. We must seek to advise young men, when they are convinced that they must break the law to end the war in Vietnam or to end conscription, that they must act not by violence but by persuasion, no matter how long it takes. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done in this case.

The Leader of the Opposition has tried to advise young men, who find that they cannot carry out the law to which they have a conscientious objection, how best they can do that with least injury to themselves and least disturbance to the community. He has accepted a responsibility that has to be accepted by somebody, because there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of young men in this position. In contrast to that, all the Government wishes to do is to put these young men into gaol and to discover 11 months later that they had a conscientious objection for which they should never have been put there in the first place. It is not us who should be defending ourselves in this position. It is honourable members opposite who should be defending themselves for what they have done. It is their record which is on the conscience of this nation, with their selfrighteousness, their self-sufficiency and their unwillingness to give any credit to a young man who is prepared to undertake 2 years gaol for his conscience - a situation which I do not believe any honourable member opposite is capable of understanding. They emerge with an attack upon a man who was willing, at risk to his political popularity, to stand upon the principle that something must be done to help and advise these young men who happen to be in this position.

I am not asking for peaceful action, for persuasion and for patience in all these things for the sake of the authorities in Australia, who readily use the most extreme forms of violence in the name of law and order, and who will continue to do so if they think their own position is threatened, believing that the most immoral action is sanctified because it is done by the Government. But I ask for peaceful action because we must eradicate violence from our country and from the world.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Mr DALY:

– I second the amendment.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There were 3 aspects of the speech of the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) which rather intrigued me. The first was his appeal to history in order to substantiate his own view of conscience on this matter. It is a view of conscience which, by the way, is not supported by history. It was an appeal to the centuries of governments of the Western type to support his case. I find this a little intriguing because, in another paper that was tabled yesterday, he sought on 2 occasions to debunk that very history which he sought to use in aid of his own case this morning. Let me give an example. In the other paper tabled yesterday the honourable member for Lalor had this to say:

Now we have reached the stage where we are almost at the end of an historical period. Democracy has been government through Parliament, that is the 17th and 18th century feature of democracy, because Parliament is only one form or one way in which you can govern yourself.

In a further debunking of history and in a further attempt to indicate that the past is to be erased clean, he had this to say:

We are reaching, ladies and gentlemen, whether we know it or not, a changing stage in history.

So he appealed to the past.

The second point which rather intrigued me was the reason for which the Opposition moved this amendment. I believe the moved the amendment because they were terrified. They know that very many of their members have been affronted by what has been stated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). There is a spark of patriotism that runs through many members of the Opposition. They are concerned and they are worried. The Opposition knows that by moving an amendment which amounts to a censure it will at least be able to drag some of its members, who would -otherwise not be willing, to a vote. That is the reason for which the Opposition seeks to move its amendment. The third point which intrigued me was the honourable member’s appeal to the principles of law and order and it is his belief that law and order can be substituted for and invoked against the present social order in the community. With this rather Marcusean doctrine that has so much support from the Opposition I will deal in a few moments.

We see running through this debate an interesting parallel of forces. We see the twin forces of the honourable member for Lalor and the Leader of the Opposition running in the same direction which we know they have been traversing for some time. They are running in the same direction so clearly and so manifestly today. They are twin tracks running to the same destination. Because that destination is so worrisome and because it forbodes so much ill for this country many of us are concerned. In the one case we have the social philosopher, the political practitioner, the organiser of authority outside Parliament - the honourable member for Lalor. In the other case we have the titular head, who is part of the twinning process. As is wont in any analysis of this, let us have a look at the social philosophy which underlay the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. The social philosophy which was enunciated by the honourable member for Lalor yesterday is so monstrous that it should be exposed for itself and for its interpretation. I shall read again from the address which was tabled yesterday and which the honourable member gave during Moratorium week. He had this to say:

In order to govern yourself, ladies and gentlemen, you have to exercise power wherever power is, and Parliament ls not the only place where there is power. Power also exists in the schools, in universities, in factories, in government departments, in banks and everywhere else . . .

Two aspects of that statement deserve examination. Firstly, nowhere is it stated that power exists pre-eminently in Parliament. That is not even conceded. Secondly, the honourable member seeks to politicalise every organisational group within the country. He does not even except families. By making universities, schools, business and financial processes agents in the search for power the honourable member will do this country a grave disservice. That is not part of the history to which the honourable member for Lalor appealed. If this happens in universities there will be no academic freedom left. Universities require this freedom in order to examine the community and seek truth. Nowhere in that statement does the honourable member except families as a part of this process of politicalising power at every stage of the community.

I ask the House to deliberate on those agencies of Government which, within this century, have sought to implement and to find power in every aspect of society. I go back to the statements of Mussolini which are disastrously similar to the application of the philosophy by the honourable member’ for Lalor. I go back to a more rigid and harder application of that philosophy as enunciated in the country next door to Mussolini’s and a little to the east. That is the logical extension of the social philosophy which hase been enunciated by the honourable member for Lalor. It is the most monstrous thing we could imagine to occur in this country. It is the most monstrous thing to be stated on a public platform. We are concerned about that philosophy and its practitioners here.

The honourable member is in company. There is always a military aspect to the deliberation of power. That has been provided in this case by none other than the titular head of the honourable member’s own Party. He has stated 3 or 4 things concerning the Australian Armed Forces which need to be examined in detail. He has substituted himself as an authority for Army commanders in the field and in Australia. He has done this quite clearly. The titular head of the Australian Labor Party has given frightful advice to young men who are concerned about military service. He has quoted countries overseas in which none of the principles which he has enunciated has been followed. The philosophy which he has enunciated in terms of military responsibility dovetails, complements completely and is a twin to the definition of power as demonstrated by the honourable member for Lalor. Let me illustrate this point. I refer again to the Press conference held by the Leader of the Opposition. I read the relevant parts of the report of that Press conference:

Q, You should give written advice again that if . . .

That question tails off. The Leader of the Opposition gave this answer:

That if he was ordered to go to Vietnam he would not obey that order.

The report continues:

  1. Did you go to the point where if he has given that written advice that he won’t and it is ignored that he should ignore the order?

The answer by the Leader of the Opposition was:

He should disobey the order.

Another authority has been set up in place of the authority which is reposed on soldiers in the Australian Army. 1 would ask members of this House merely to reflect from history the occasions in which that has occurred and if they would duplicate that kind of history in this country 1 would hope that they would look to the Leader of the Opposition because he obviously shows himself capable of duplicating it. Of course, in addition to that, the Leader of the Opposition is a simple member of Parliament. He is disposed from time to lime to give advice to constituents. He said at another part of the Press conference that this would be part of the advice he would give to constituents.

I merely want to examine within this context an attitude of cowardice and I want a- cowardice qc it applies In advice of this type, lt is not said that the advice to young men is to break the National Service Act. It is not said precisely and specifically. What is said is that these young men should place themselves in jeopardy in a military situation. The Leader of the Opposition has quite clearly covered his own tracks. He has used a glib tongue to secure his own position in this respect while he prods and pushes young men to thwart military justice. This is the attitude which he has taken. This comes not merely from a member of Parliament who is not trained in the law, as most of us are not still, but it comes from a sort of Sydney silk. This is the advice he would give to an unwilling and unpaying client. What he has had to say has to be examined in that context. He proposes neither protection nor sound advice for his non-paying clients. All that remains for him to do is to nominate the time and the circumstances for a mutiny in the Australian Army on Australian soil. I would hope that when he speaks later in this debate he will seek to clarify that position.

The second aspect of what he has done is this: He has substituted his own sense of strategy as a member of Parliament for the strategy of Army commanders and he has referred to 4 countries. He has nominated Israel, Sweden, Switzerland and Singapore. Will he indicate in which of those countries a choice is open to the members of the Army as to which enemy they would fight? In not one of those countries is that opportunity nominated. Perhaps Sweden is not the best example to compare with Australia for many reasons, but can a member of the Swedish Army say: ‘I will not fight the Russians’ - the reason for which it exists? Is it open to them to nominate such an exception? Can a member of the Israeli Army nominate the enemy against whom he will or will not fight? Can a member of the Singaporean Army have the same liberty? Does a member of the Swiss Army nominate the enemy against whom he would or would not light? This principle is not utilised anywhere, and I regard as most monstrous the proposition that the Leader of the Opposition has perpetrated here today.

Of course it is said this might be mutiny or it might not be mutiny; it might or might be an incitement to mutiny. I have always been intrigued by the wriggling which the Leader of the Opposition can undertake. 1 can only see that there is always an origin for his attitudes. 1 recollect that a few months ago the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, Mr Crawford, had something to say about mutiny within the Australian Army. The only difference was that there was a locality difference between that mutiny and that which was enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition. We know now that the Leader of the Opposition, having exploited the contradictions in his own Party and having used the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) to do it - he may regret it some day - is a clear lineal descendant of Mr Crawford, formerly of the Victorian Labor Party. There is clearly little difference in their attitudes. I challenge htm to apply the principles differently or to make distinctions between them. The points are there. It is up to the Leader of the Opposition to enunciate them.

We return to the honourable member for Lalor. We return to the social philosopher who knows what he is doing about politics and we refer to his titular head. I often think of these two, the honourable member for Lalor and the Leader of his own Party, in the position of another social philosophy used to political power and a titular head. I would put the honourable member for Lalor and the Leader of the Opposition in the same category as Lenin and Keoreinsky. Who will eventually run the show? Who does not know what is going on behind him? Who does not know the revolution that is being organised behind him in his own Party? Who is exercising the real power? I remind the Leader of the Opposition, since he has moved so far to the left, even of the honourable member for Lalor, to reflect what happened to that former Prime Minister- -that titular head of his own country, lt .may be .his own fate also.

But we go a little further. We have seen that a philosophy has been enunciated. The organisation of power within that philosophy has been made clear by the honourable member for Lalor. The military aspects of that philosophy have been made clear by the Leader of the Opposition. We can only say that so many on the front bench through Marcuse give substance to that philosophy. The Leader of the Opposition has now given military teeth to its application. Those of us who are concerned with this country and its position in the world have to take note of what is happening. If this is all right, let them say so. But this philosophy and its application rest upon a political base that comprises some interesting personalities. We have seen the union of that philosophy, its application and its leadership with respect to the recent Moratorium. There we saw the same principle carried through again - a philosophy worked on by the honourAustralia in every State - not excepting organisation being developed by him and the Leader of the Opposition participating in both processes.

Mr England:

– And the Vietcong flag.

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

-That is perfectly correct. The Vietcong flag is involved in this. The episode of the Vietcong flag is merely a manifestation of the process that has been occurring. A platform that has been erected, and the end result of which we see here today, has been developing for some time. It has depended on 3 supports. This has been enunciated before and we challenge the Leader of the Opposition to deny this, lt is dependent upon the support, as is demonstrated through the recent Moratorium, of the Communist Party of Australia in every State - not excepting any. It is dependent upon their union and their working towards the same end and at the same time working with the peace movement in Australia. It is dependent at the highest level on the support of the Leader of the Australian Labor Party also. He has helped to erect this platform. He has on occasion stood on that platform. That substantiates, supports and acts as a substratum to all that has been enunciated here today.

I hope he will answer some of these points because they indeed need to be answered and many people in this country are so concerned at what they would lead to. He might say: ‘I do not know anything about this. I am completely ignorant of these things. I seek to deny it or I seek to ignore it.” He can exploit contradictions. Sometimes they can be exploited for one’s own purpose. Other men have been able to exploit contradictions and even state contradictions. I recollect that very famous leader who at the time he was doing to death between 25 million and 30 million people was able to say: ‘Nothing is so sacred to the ruler of a nation than the lives of its citizens.’ The contradictions can be there. They can be there with respect to Stalin and they can be applied in a much less significant way. but nevertheless significant for Australia, with respect to the leaders on the front bench of the Opposition.

I said that I would refer to one point in the speech of the honourable member for Lalor with respect to law and order. I find his application of the Marcusean doctrine, which has so many devotees on the front bench of the Opposition, rather intriguing. Having reflected on what the honourable member said with respect to law and order, let me indicate what is said by some of their idols. Herbert Marcuse in his book ‘An Essay on Liberation’, said concerning the effect of ideas and social organisations in the community:

These may first be ideological (like the ideas of liberty, equality, fraternity advanced by the revolutionary bourgeoisie), but the ideology can become a material political force in the armour of the opposition . . .

A political machine having been fashioned outside this House which would seek to take power to itself through every sector of society has its application in this passage on social order:

In this situation, law and order becomes something to be established as against the established law and order: The existing society has become illegitimate, unlawful: It has invalidated its own law.

I invite honourable members, if they are devotees of social philosophers, to try to find the difference in terms of thinking betwen the honourable member for Lalor, tho honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and others and the expression of that doctrine through such a discredited gentleman. Here we find it.

There are many other matters to which 1 would like to refer but I leave one or two points for the Leader of the Opposition to answer. I ask him: Does he agree now with the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) and the honourable member for Oxley that association with people such as has occurred in the Moratorium is now open for members of the

Australian Labor Party? Does he approve of this social philosophy and its action in undermining his own Party? Does he approve of its application in this place and outside this place? Is he proud of the fact that he is the only leader of an Australian Opposition who has ever actually called for a mutinous situation to be developed within the Australian Army? Even the great opponents of conscription in the First World War never called for that. Finally I suggest that if one is to refer back to his tory one would find that Lenin the protagonist and Kerensky the man with the aparent power formed a more realistic example of the current situation than one would even dare to imagine.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

– I will not rake very long to reply to the speech which has just been delivered by the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). I merely want to take him up on one point. The honourable member mentioned the word ‘cowardice*. This is strange coming from a man who ran out on his mates when they were helping him to pull down the signs of his electoral opponents. 1 think it is a word that the honourable member would do well to leave out of his vocabulary.

The debate today arises from the tabling of a transcript of a Press conference held by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) on Wednesday last at which he outlined the advice he would give to a conscientious objector to the Vietnam war. I stress that my Leader at no stage has indicated that he would encourage a conscientious objector to resist the draft. In fact, he would advise such persons to accept all their responsibilities - to register, to undergo medical examination, to report for service and to undertake their training. It is only when there is a likelihood that the objector will be sent to serve in Vietnam that a stand is to be taken. The advice which would be given when this stage was reached would be for the national serviceman then to take his stand on a matter of conscience that has been upheld by religious authorities within Australia and throughout the world.

The Government and the Army would be notified in writing well before this situation had developed. They would be advised that this action would be taken. If the Confrontation is to take place the Government and the Army will be the people who do the confronting. My Leader’s advice has been deliberately and poisonously misconstrued and misinterpreted. But after a few years experience in this House dealing with members of the Government one learns to accept that no trick is too low and no lie is too great if there is some political advantage to be gained. During this debate it has already been implied, and it will be implied, that members of the Opposition are guilty of treachery, treason, sedition and subversion. We will be. labelled as Communist stooges and traitors. But our records as loyal Australians will match or surpass the records of any member of the Government.

The man who is most under attack today is my Leader. For the benefit of the House and the nation I take the opportunity to give a brief history of him and his family. He is the son of an ex-Crown Solicitor of the Commonwealth of Australia who was also Australia’s representative on the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations. His wife is the daughter of a late Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales who was also the Vice-Chairman of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council. Mrs Whitlam, who is known to roost of us in this House as a charming, distinguished and friendly woman is herself a diplomate in social studies from the University of Sydney. His sister is the principal of a leading Sydney girls school. His eldest son is a graduate of the Australian National University. His second son is a graduate of Harvard and London. His third son will be graduating from the University of Sydney this year. His daughter, who is still at school, has the distinction of attending the same school as the daughters of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) and the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes). I do not know who is going to be corrupted.

The Leader of the Opposition is a Queen’s Counsel. As a law student he was an associate of two Justices of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, one of whom has since been appointed to the High Court. He has acted as junior counsel to a royal commisison. Does this sound like a man who could be guilty of undermining law and order or of encouraging mutiny? As we are discussing service in the Armed Forces, let me continue by informing the House that during his university days he was a volunteer member of the University Regiment. Unlike some present and past members of this House his military career was not spoilt by the advent of war. He volunteered for service with the Royal Australian Air Force “during the 1939-45 War and served for 4 years as an air crew member. At the conclusion of his service he was one of the personal air crew of the representative of the Australian Chief of Staff at General MacArthur’s Headquarters. This was a trusted position indeed. Besides his family life and his public life in Australia, the Leader of the Opposition has also been personally acquainted with more heads of state and heads of government in our region, and indeed the world, than any other member of this Parliament and by his conduct, integrity and capacity he enjoys their confidence.

The Leader of the Opposition has served his nation with honour in peace and war. He has enjoyed the confidence of his fellow men in every sphere in which he has worked. His reputation, his family and his personal conduct is above reproach, but that does not prevent the members of the Government from stooping to this vile attack upon his loyalty to Australia. But whatever is or has been said there are few if »-ny of the Government members who can face the world with a clearer conscience or steadier eye. He or his family have never been involved in diplomatic incidents or murky court cases. Our Leader has earned the confidence of his Party and the people of Australia, and this cheap political trick today will leave bis reputation unsullied. The cause of today’s debate was the introduction of conscription in Australia. The cause of most of the troubles in Australia at the moment in relation to defence and law and order is the fact that conscription was introduced in 1964. The Government is now reaping the effects of a political action that was taken in 1964.

There has been dissatisfaction in Australia ever since conscription was introduced. It was recognised then as being unnecessary, that it was being introduced for political reasons and as an easy way to acquire sufficient numbers for the Army. The Opposition maintained in 1964 that conscription whs unnecessary and it maintains that today. Our hostility has strengthened because our young conscripts are being sent to fight in the undeclared war in Vietnam. I have always claimed that the introduction of conscription in 1964 was a political decision and contrary to military advice. Let us go back to August 1964 when the Minister for the Army, now the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), made his first comprehensive statement in this House on national service training. After giving all the reasons why it was uneconomical and inefficient to introduce national service training the Minister said:

We have not introduced it because to do so would be against the unanimous advice of our military advisers.

On 26th October in the same year the same Minister went to the National Congress of the Returned Services League held in Hobart and to those ex-servicemen the Minister said:

I could perhaps say. however, that we have not introduced conscription up to this point in time because our military advisers have indicated in the clearest and most unmistakeable terms that it is noi the most effective way of creating the Army we need to meet the situation we face. 1 stress that this is military advice.

Despite these very firm and forthright statements against the introduction of national service on 10th November 1964 the then Prime Minister made a defence statement in the House and announced the decision to introduce selective compulsory service. The reason given for the introduction of national service was the confrontation of Malaysia by Indonesia. The Prime Minister said: lt is very much to be feared that if Indonesia provoked a war, the only people in Indonesia who would get advantage from it would be the Communists, ever ready to thrive on disorder and defeat

The old Communist bogey again, lt is raised on every occasion the Government is in trouble and when a Senate election is pending. The Government has disorder and defeat in Australia now and this is caused by conscription. By not facing up to the will of the people the Government is sowing the seeds for the Communists to increase their strength in Australia. Conscription for overseas service in peace time is morally wrong and should be abolished. This is why the Opposition has moved an amendment to this motion today. But conscription is also inefficient and unfair as has recently been stated by the report of iiic r President’s Commission oil an All-Vo- lunteer Armed Force - a report commissioned by the President of the United States of America and presented in February this year. The finding of the Commission was:

We unanimously believe that the nation’s interests will be better served by an all-volunteer force, supported by an effective stand-by draft, than by a mixed force of volunteers and conscripts; that steps should be taken promptly to move in this direction; and that the first indispensable step is to remove the present inequity in the pay ot men serving their first term in the armed forces.

We have satisfied ourselves that a volunteer force will not jeopardise national security, and we believe it will have a beneficial effect on the military as well as the rest of our society.

The Commission was made up of 15 members. Its chairman was Thomas Gates - a former Secretary of Defense. The members of that Commission came from a wide range of community activities in the United States and they unanimously decided that a volunteer force would be better than a drafted force. This report must be regarded as an informed, impartial and independent report. Some of the arguments advanced for the finding are that conscription is unfair and expects only a certain class in the community to make the sacrifice. In a chapter headed ‘Conscription is a Tax’ it is said:

Any government has essentially 2 ways of accomplishing an objective whether it be building an interstate highway system or raising an army. It can expropriate the required tools and compel construction mcn and others to work until the job is finished or it can purchase the goods and manpower necessary to complete the job. Under tha first alternative, only the persons who own the property seized or who render compulsory service are required to bear the expense of building the highway or housing project. They pay a tax to finance the project, albeit a ta.x-in-kind. Under the second alternative, the cost of the necessary goods and services is borne by the general public through taxes raised to finance the project. Conscription is like the first alternative - a taxinkind.

Later in the same chapter the report states:

When the hidden costs of conscription are fully recognised, the cost of an all-volunteer armed force is unquestionably less than the cost of a force of equal size and quality manned wholly or partly through conscription. The all-volunteer costs are lower for four reasons.

The four reasons are then listed Further on in the report there is mention of Australia’s system of selective compulsory training and I will again quote from the report. I am quoting from the report because I feel that having been commissioned by the President of the United States of America it is well worth study by members of the Government. If the Government wants to cut out the demonstrations and curtail the activities of those people who thrive on disorder it should listen to the voice in this House of the representatives of the people and also to the organisations outside. Members of the Labor Opposition are not the only people who are telling the Government that conscription is unjust and unnecessary. The -churches are telling the Government these things as are other organisations throughout the community but the Government has become so complacent that it will not listen. Perhaps it will listen to the report from which I am quoting. Dealing with Australia the report states:

Some have cited the Australian decision to return to a draft as evidence that an all-volunteer force is not feasible for the United States. There are several reasons why this argument by analogy is inappropriate. First, the Australians have not made a concerted effort to attract additional recruits on a voluntary basis. Once the decision was made to use conscription to raise force levels, no serious effort was made to increase voluntary enlistments either by raising pay or redoubling recruiting efforts.

It goes on to say:

The Australians could have expanded the size of the armed forces on a voluntary basis by raising pay and re-organising recruiting.

Later on in the report, again dealing with our lottery system of selective compulsory training, it says:

The lottery draft recently adopted is at best an expedient. It is important to recognise that the tax inequity implicit in the draft is not eliminated by substituting a lottery for present methods of selection. In theory the lottery makes it equally probable that any individual might be selected from those eligible to serve. It thus aims at equity In selection, but equity in selection is not equity in service. Thse few who are selected to serve, whether at random or otherwise, still pay a large tax-in-kind in order to reduce taxes for the majority.

The Labor Opposition says that if the Government cared to make an attempt to recruit volunteer forces, to serve in Vietnam if necessary, it would be able to do it. I have quoted extracts from speeches made in this House and elsewhere by the former Minister for the Army, now the Minister for Health. In 1964, a matter of 10 or 12 days before conscription was announced by the then Prime Minister, the Minister was travelling around the country saying that the introduction of national service training was against the unanimous advice of the Government’s military advisers. The Government has to admit that its introduction was a political decision. The Government has got into difficulty with it. The war in Vietnam is curtailing the recruitment of young men into our Regular forces because of the fact that the Army is made up of volunteers and conscripts. Opportunities by way of pay and condi tions are not available to assist recruiting. These are some of the things that the Government should look at.

Ali members of the Opposition are called upon frequently to give advice or assistance to young men who have been called up, are about to be called up or are about to register for national service training. I tell them to take the risk, to register, to have their medical examination and to undertake their training. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he goes that far and then says: ‘If they are going to send you to Vietnam, make your stand on a matter df conscience against a particular war.’ The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) spoke about the rights of conscientious objectors, but a person has to be a conscientious objector to all wars, not only to the particular undeclared war in Vietnam. Conscription in Australia has been causing anxiety and discontent ever since it was introduced. The troubles it has created are the responsibility of the Government and until conscription is abolished these troubles will continue and, indeed increase.

This debate arose over the question of conscription. After what I have said, after what has been said by the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and after what will be said by the 2 speakers to follow rae I think it will be clear that there is great feeling in the Australian community against conscription and against conscripts being used in the Vietnam war. The policy of the Labor Party allows for conscription in time of emergency, so members of the Opposition are not against conscription. 1 speak as a man who was a conscript in the 1939-45 war. I had to take my 2 cut lunches at the behest of the Government of the day to the Belmore drill hall on 29th December 1941. I went as a conscript and finally became a volunteer, so I have no objection to conscription. Most of the men behind me have no objection to conscription when Australia is in dire need, but while members opposite are playing politics with the lives of our young fellows in Vietnam in an undeclared war we are against conscription.

Mir DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Sifting suspended from 12.43 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

- Mr Speaker, for the sake of those members of the House who were not here this morning and for the sake of those who may be listening to this debate, I think it might be as well for me to give a resume of the sequence of events that has occurred and that has led up to this debate. It will be remembered that, in the House yesterday, questions were asked firstly in relation to photographs taken at the Moratorium demonstration last Friday outside Parliament House. A considerable amount of debate followed and points of order were taken in relation to the answer given by the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) and in relation to other matters. Then, a further question was asked, this time of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), concerning a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) to a Press conference about matters which were supposed to have occurred at a meeting of the Labor Party Caucus. From those events has come the debate of today.

I heard today and yesterday questions as to whether people are telling the truth, the importance of the truth and the need to protect honourable members against untruth. The debate yesterday culminated with questions as to whether the Leader of the Opposition had appeared at and addressed the Moratorium meeting here last Friday at which were Vietcong flags.’ If one studies the Hansard report of yesterday’s proceedings one finds that what the Leader of the Opposition said was that the Vietcong flags were not there, or that he did not see them, or that he did not know they were there and that they must have been to the back of him if they were there.

I can say only this - and I will say it as I put my hand on the Bible I have here in case I am accused of being a liar in an endeavour to dispute what I am saying: At approximately 10 minutes past 10 last Friday morning, I moved out down the front steps of this House. The Leader of the Opposition was standing in the centre of the median strip surrounded by the panting Press waiting for the march to arrive. On the right of him were 2 young people who, I presume, were students with a flag of red and pale blue with a gold star in the centre - the flag of the Vietcong. As I crossed the road, the Leader of the Opposition turned about and moved into the House.

In the centre of the road, 1 said to him: What is the matter, Gough? Are you embarrassed by being beside Vietcong flags?’ He replied to me: ‘No. Were they there? I did not see them.’ I accept that statement without a doubt. But to say that he did not know they were there is a very different matter. He also stated that he had to go into the House because of question time and that, when the march arrived, he would be out to address those gathered.

Furthermore, I state that, in front of his nose, at a distance of between 12 feet and 20 feet, at approximately i o’clock on that day, was a young lady, with blonde hair, a red sweater and blue jeans with an unfurled Vietcong flag. This is unimportant. But if we are to talk about truth, let us stick to the truth. I do not think this is important, i do not blame the Leader ot the Opposition. He is not responsible. But do not let us have crocodile tears about truth one minute and not the next.

But the issue is not that. The issue, if we look at the speeches of this morning from the Opposition, has not even been touched. The Prime Minister stated that the statement that the Leader of the Opposition gave to a Press conference of what I presume was discussed in confidence in the Caucus of the Labor Party has implications for Australia and for the Australian nation. He said that the statement has greater implications because it was mads by the alternative Prime Minister of this country and that must give it major importance. Let me take issue with Mr Frank Chamberlain and various other members of the Press who say that this is only a political scuffle, that it is of no important and that question time should not be used for such matters. In my opinion there is no more important issue confronting this Parliament and this country because it is a question of the future of government, the future of authority and the future standing of a government in Australia, whether it be Liberal, Labor or anything else, which has been elected by democratic processes.

We now have the alternative Prime Minister of this country lending his weight and standing to the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) and those others who have been preaching the right to break the law when the law does not suit one’s convenience. The honourable member for Lalor made an impassioned speech on his stand and outlook. I do not think that anyone here was confused or did not understand clearly beforehand his stand and outlook. We have no doubt, I think the people of Australia have no doubt and I am sure the Opposition has no doubt where he stands in political spectrum. However he is not the Leader of the Opposition, much to his regret. He is only a shadow Minister. But when the alternative Prime Minister of this country makes statements of this kind it is a very different thing.

Then we heard from the honourable member for Lang (Mr Stewart). I have the deepest sympathy for him because I have never seen a man who appeared to be more uncomfortable than he was. We are not attacking the reputation of the Leader of the Opposition in respect of his service to the country in war. We are not attacking his father. We are not attacking bis father-in-law. We share a high regard and respect for his wife. We are not interested in what schools his children attend and with whom they go. That was nothing more than a red herring to take the minds of the people and of the members of this Parliament off the matter that we are discussing. We are not even discussing conscription. As the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) has said, the amendment moved by the Opposition has allowed those honest Labor men who are uncomfortable to come in now and vote for it whereas otherwise they would have had to vote in support of their leader. 1 believe that the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) will follow me in the debate. Always in these debates the tactics adopted by the Opposition are obvious. You put in the comic. You put in the man with the warm feeling towards the Leader of the Opposition, his loyal supporter, the man who never whispers in the Library, the man who never leaks what happens in Caucus. I think that the Leader of the Opposition could well do some research into who has put him in this position. He is in this position because someone leaked from the Labor Party Caucus. I regret, and I am sure he regrets, that he did not make statements on what happened in Caucus.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! 1 warned the honourable member for Bendigo earlier today during this debate, and he was asked also by the Deputy Speaker to cease interjecting. I suggest that he take that advice.

Mr Kennedy I was not interjecting

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo will cease interjecting.

Mr JESS:

– The interjections are not worrying me, Mr Speaker, because 1 think that they show the discomfort of honourable members opposite. Let me go back to what I was saying. If someone had not leaked the story from caucus the Leader of the Opposition would not have had to make a Press statement and he would not have been in this position. No doubt the honourable member for Grayndler will call people Nazis and Fascists, as he did previously. He always calls those, who seem to have served this country against Nazism and Fascism, Nazis and Fascists, but I will leave it to him to explain his own record. No doubt he will refer to certain women’s fashion magazines, which will get a light laugh throughout the House. But it still does not lessen the importance of the present situation.

Let me review the situation. I have a friend who returned from Indonesia only a few days ago. He was in Djakarta during the Moratorium demonstration in Australia. In the Indonesian newspapers were photographs of the riots, Vietcong flags and the various members who participated in that affair. He said to me: ‘I gained the impression in Indonesia that there had been Molotov cocktails, a revolution, and that this whole country was in riot.’ This is the impression that is created. This is the intent of certain people - not all of them by any means - who wish to bring about such demonstrations and effectively use the photographs as propaganda overseas. But let us look at it not as a question as to who wins the Senate election or who is important in this House, whether he be Labor or Liberal, but as it affects Australia. Indeed, let us look at what impetus it could give to the enemies of this country and to the enemies of those with whom we stand in other countries. Let us look at what the effect could be on our own troops in Vietnam and on the 99.8 per cent of Australian youth who answer the call and who have brought to the Australian Army one of the proudest records it has ever held. One never hears honourable members opposite refer to these matters. According to the Opposition, it is the .02 per cent of youth who are our national heroes. This also appears to be the opinion of many members of the Press of this country.

But what is the situation? Our enemies now can say that the alternative Prime Minister of Australia has come out and given this advice to those in the Army and to those who, if they had had a genuine conscientious objection, would have been excused by the court from serving, or who, if they had had a conscientious objection solely to serving in Vietnam, could have enlisted in the Citizen Military Forces. But because they wish to make martyrs of themselves, because they wish to bc cast in this light, the Leader of the Opposition says to them: ‘Carry out your registration and put in a written report that you will not serve if sent to Vietnam. When you have had your medical examination, put in another written report. But if you are inducted into the Army and the order is given by your battalion commander to move at 0900 hours, you stand fast and refuse to obey that order.’

I think that there arc many views on conscription. I think there is a confused situation, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the future situation in this country in relation to law and order. 1 know that my friend, Mr Maccallum, who is one who seems to write so favourably about law and order, has written an article this morning about the Leader of the Opposition. The article is headed: ‘Whitlam was only waiting to be asked’. What a pity he has not waited to be asked for anything else before. But the article contains the following statement by Mr Whitlam:

If you put it under headlines saying ‘Gorton

Says Mutiny’ it will have a bad effect, but if you see it in the context of Gorton going on about riot and violence and disorder and anarchy, it will rebound on the Government . . .

I presume that is his instruction. That is his plea to Mr MacCallum and others. All I would suggest to Mr MacCallum is that when he puts his next article in the paper as well as showing his beard the drawing should go down to his navel and show the Vietnam Moratorium badge which he so clearly wears in this House because it is indeed a matter, I think, of great concern to the people of Australia.

This morning we heard a question relating to students from Cambodia but not a thing has appeared in the Press. Nobody was aware that they were here but if Mr Dick or Mr Gregory or somebody else came out here with his guitar he would he given a good press coverage and he would appear on ‘Four Corners’ and ‘This Day Tonight*. Lel us not be under any misapprehension. As one famous American general said in respect to Vietnam ‘The North Vietnamese have the most powerful propaganda machine in the world but it does not cost them a cent’ because indeed certain sections only of the publicity media, and now the Opposition, and now even further the Leader of the Opposition, appear to be carrying out perhaps unwittingly what they most seek to gain and that is the ineffectiveness of our defence forces, the lack of morale of our people and the complete lying down of our will to resist.

In conclusion I want to deal with another Press conference given by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think today has been his day. The Leader of the Opposition gave a Press conference on the Macquarie radio network again supporting law and order and again encouraging the young men in Vietnam who serve this country. I think the text of that interview should be read by all in Australia because it is indicative of how this man’s ego and desire for aggrandisement and position has allowed his sense of values to be completely lost and how, in his desire to gain office, he has, I think, lost what standing and what outlook he ever had. If I had a wife, if I had children and if I were all that the honourable member for Lang had said I would indeed wonder when I looked at myself in the mirror. In regard to police in New South Wales the Leader Opposition had this to say. 1 quote only sections of the interview but the meaning will be seen by all. He said:

I fear the trouble is that some of the men from Vietnam who are now in uniform are bringing discredit on the Police Force.

So it is the returned soldier in the Police Force who is responsible. He went on to say:

They think that they have got back a few thugs-

He is referring to the police who he claimed had told him this. who have been corrupted by the violence of that war.

What a beautiful statement from a leader of an Opposition party in this country! This question was asked of him:

  1. . Why should it happen to a policeman?

The Leader of the Opposition replied:

They have the opportunity, haven’t they? No, I think we have got to face the fact that there is a bit of an upsurge of violence as people get back into civilian life. You look at some of the pretty grisly murders . . .

What a magnificent statement to make about young men who have served this country in Vietnam. He went on to say:

  1. . I think it was at Penrith where a soldier went home from a club with a woman and strangled her.

What a magnificent statement. How good for moral. He went on to say: . . expressed this view to me that the police force in New South Wales on this occasion had been besmirched by the conduct of some of these young constables who had come back from Vietnam.

I would dare him to attend a parade of a national service battalion at any time in the future indeed. He went on to say:

  1. . But there are just a few of these fellows who have been corrupted-
Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I warn the honourable member for Bendigo.

Mr JESS:

– He said: . . But there are just a few of these fellows who have been corrupted by their experiences in Vietnam. That is allI am saying. . . . But some of these young fellows did respond to provocation in a way that no decent policeman should.

I think this is a most contemptible statement made by a political leader of a party and an alternative government in this country and I think the seriousness of this matter can not be expunged by a comic recitation from the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) or the platitudes of the honourable member for Lang. The responsibility is with the Leader of the Opposition to state clearly now where he stands and whether, if he is Prime Minister, we and all others will be given the right to break any law that we do not like. He should tell us where this will lead and what it may mean to my wife and my 3 young children and the other young children of this country.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– In my long experience in this Parliament the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) is the only speaker I have seen display nervousness before I started my speech.I may tell a few jokes today and he will be the butt of them. I do hope he enjoys them. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) certainly has a weird collection of supporters. Let us look at the honourable member for La Trobe. He criticised statements made in regard to the army service of a man convicted of murder following national service. The man who made those statements was a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Does the honourable member say the judge should be hauled before a royal commission simply because he differs with a fanatic like the honourable member for La Trobe? Of course he should not.

Let us look at it another way. When I look at the honourable member for La Trobe I would be inclined to take a bit of notice of him but for the fact that I read about him in the newspapers now and again. Let me read the following article in the ‘Australian’ of 22nd April 1970:

The Liberal Party was not inspiring young people in Australia, Mr R. Winnel, a 22-year-old party branch president, said yesterday.

People like Jess (Mr J. D. Jess, the Victorian MHR) can rave on about the red bogey, but young people will not swallow it,’ said Mr Winnel.

And neither will the older people. Let us hear what the Minister for the Navy (Mr Killen) thinks of the honourable member for La Trobe. He is quoted as saying this in the ‘Australian’ on 6th January 1970:

Mr Jess sees himself as a knight in shining armour doing his bit, but not being able to substantiate any allegations.

When you look at it that is a wise statement from that intelligent Minister for the Navy. After all, who are we to take notice of the men who know him or those of us who put up with his ravings here? The men who know him understand him. Let us hear him on all those protesters and all these things. In the ‘Herald’ on 20th June 1968 the following article appears:

Protesters ‘not wanted in the Army.’

A man should not have been forced into the Army when he had no intention of obeying orders, Mr Jess, MHR, said today.

Let us put it in round figures. The honourable member spent too much trouble looking at the lovely redhead out the front the other day to pay due attention to a debate of this nature.

Let us look at the other weird supporter of the Government on this motion. Shortly before the election of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) to that office the honourable member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns) said:

Not even in the lowly position of. Deputy Whip will I serve under this Prime Minister. I have no confidence in bim.

Today who is supporting the Prime Minister? It is the greatest fanatic in the nation - the person who would not serve under him in the office of Deputy Whip.

The Leader of the Opposition should treat the motion with the contempt it deserves. What has he done? He has given advice to people who are now being conscripted under this Government for a war in which this nation should never have been engaged. He has given a lead to young men who are expected to die in the paddy fields of Vietnam in a war that this Government put on for dollars instead of for the salvation of Australia. The real reason why we are in Vietnam is that we are all the way with LBJ. The Government wanted trade and commerce and all these things, and men are dying there for them. Boys are being conscripted at a time when the Government knows our security is not in danger and when Americans walk past them in thousands on their way home leaving Australians to die and fight their battle. Good luck to the Leader of the Opposition for giving advice on this question. As honourable members opposite know, it is sound advice. They know also that the CMF offers no solution to the problem of service in Vietnam. Men who go into it are liable for service there. There is no law to say they will not. So that type of argument cannot be put up.

Anyone would think that members ot the Labor Party were the only ones who had anything to say about law and order and obeying the law of the country. I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr McCwen) is in the chamber because he was here during the time of the great white father. Sir Robert Menzies - the founder of the Liberal Party;the man who brought most of the honourable member’s opposite into this Parliament. But now he has gone and they will very shortly follow him. This is what the Leader of the Opposition, as Sir Robert Menzies then was, had to say when speaking on the Banking Bill on 23rd October 1947:

It. therefore, becomes the duly of His Majesty’s Opposition, and every member of it, not merely to oppose this measure in Parliament with all the force of the arguments at their command, but also to exhaust every effort to rouse the people outside the Parliament to a tremendous defence of their own liberties and rights. If this means, as of course it does mean, a division of the people at a time like this, and in the circumstances which will give rise to bitterness and weaken the national effort, the sin will rest grievously upon the heads of Ministers and nobody else.

Those words outline this Government’s responsibility today in regard to Vietnam. The Government has divided the nation. Sir Robert Menzies in 1947 stimulated the whole country, as we all know, on the banking Bills. He was joined by members of the Country Party. On every corner, on every doorstep, people were rising against certain legislation, irrespective of the law or the will of the people as expressed by their elected representatives. Let us now examine the views of the Country Party. The late Sir Earle Page, founder of the Country Party, when speaking on the Banking Bill, was reported in the ‘Daily Telegraph’ on 30th October 1947 as saying:

The Bank Bill was the most immoral product . . . We shall fight this Communistic ramp against individual freedom by every means in our power - political, legal, constitutional and physical.

These were the words of the then Leader of the Country Party. He was endeavouring to rouse the people outside the Parliament. In days gone by they took it a step further; they formed their own army in the New Guard. If the Minister for Social Services **(Mr Wentworth)** was not a member of it, at least he was sympathetic with it. So it can be seen that this is the back- groundtothethinkingofthesepeople. Let us have a look at the Government that says it will maintain law and order and which criticises the Leader of the Opposition for this judgment. The other day the honourable member for Prospect **(Dr Klugman)** asked a question in this Parliament. He wanted to know what members of the Ministry had complied with the law by stating the amount they had spent in their election campaigns, as is required by the provisions of the Electoral Act. Failure to comply with the law is subject to penalty. We find that 9 members of the Ministry have not complied with that provision of the Act. Included amongst those 9 is the Attorney-General **(Mr Hughes),** the man who is now putting men into gaol at this stage. Even he has not complied with the law. We find also that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Snedden),** who rounds people up like cattle to put them into gaol, has not complied with the law. Other members of the Ministry who have not fulfilled this requirement are the Postmaster-General **(Mr Hulme),** the Minister for Education and Science **(Mr N. H. Bowen),** the Minister for External Territories **(Mr Barnes),** the Minister for Social Services, the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr Holten)** and the Minister for the Army **(Mr Peacock)** - a collection of law breakers impressing law and order on the community. Did honourable members ever hear anything worse? Now, because the Government is in disarray, it is hammering at the Opposition on this issue. Let us look at this old story of the Liberal Party in relation to flags. It is guilt by association. Honourable members will remember that a few years ago if a soldier marched on Anzac Day with a Communist alongside him the Liberals would designate him a Communist. I attended the Moratorium demonstration in front of this House the other day. I was interested to see how many members of the Liberal Party, their staffs and supporters turned up. Amongst other things, I was interested also in the success of the Moratorium. I have here a photograph of the Leader of the Opposition. **Mr Whitlam,** apparently speaking to one of my colleagues. I. also see a rather good picture of myself standing on the other side of the road, but I was a long way from where **Mr Whitlam** was standing. This is the photograph that the honourable member for La Trobe produced. As I stood there someone passed carrying a flag, which I was told was the Vietcong flag. I decided to follow to see who was carrying the Vietcong flag. I was surprised to see that he was an intelligent, well dressed, nice, smart type of chap. So I said to someone standing near me: 'Who would that be?' He said: 'He is a well known member of the Liberal Party. He is so excited and enthusiastic about it that he got carried away. But we hope he will not do himself any harm although it might help to damage the Party.' These are the people who tell us that everybody associated with it today is affiliated with the Labor Party or something else. Do honourable members opposite mean to say that if that flag had been raised in Civic Centre the Leader of the Opposition should have gone somewhere else? Of course, he should not. I have another picture here with all kinds of people in h. Here is one of the Leader of the Opposition speaking outside Parliament House - these are the pictures that the Government says it will use - and right in the front row is a gentleman wearing a clerical collar. Do they suggest that he is a Communist, an undercover person or anything of that nature? Does the honourable member for La Trobe think so? {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr Cohen: -- Who was he? {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY: -- I do not know who he is, but he looks like one of my faith and he looks a very intelligent type. If we pick out some other pictures taken at the front of Parliament House what do we see? The absurdity of the Government's allegation is shown by the fact that in these pictures which were taken - quite wrongly by the News and Information Bureau for political purposes - we find the personal assistant to the Prime Minister, **Mr W.** Arthur, shown with demonstrators carrying placards saying: 'Abolish conscription'; 'Withdraw all troops now'; 'Withdraw support for the Saigon regime'. In another picture the honourable member for Deakin **(Mr Jarman)** is shown with **Mr Arthur** in the same group of demonstrators. If the Vietcong flag had been carried past them at a given lime, under the Government's regulations they ought to be doing time because they are Vietcong spies or something to that effect. This is the old story of guilt by association again. I have here a picture of the Leader of the Opposition with the secretary to one of the most prominent Government members. I know that the Vietcong flag passed by him as he stood there. Is the Minister going to sack him? If Labor men are guilty because a flag happens to be in the same city as they are, why should the Liberal Party escape its responsibilities in this matter? I say to the honourable member for La Trobe that this kind of proof is stupidity of the highest calibre. If men are to be condemned for this type of thing, the sooner we get rid of security police and the Government that tolerates this conduct at demonstrations, the better it will be for democracy in this country. The Liberals have a lot to say about Labor Party associations and they produce photographs. Let me produce one or two others for their benefit. I saw the Minister for Defence **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** on television the other night. I have here a copy of the Canberra Times' of 8th November 1967 which shows a picture of the Soviet Ambassador to Australia, **Mr N.** Tarakamov, and the charming Minister for Defence with their glasses tilted, full of vodka or rich red wine, toasting the 50th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution. The article says: > **Mr Fraser** was among guests who attended a lunchtime reception at the Russian Embassy yesterday. There they were, toasting the revolution: Good luck to the future. Away with the slaves to the salt mines of Siberia.' Over a vodka or a rich red wine all differences between Liberalism and Communism were buried. If the people who were 100 or 200 yards from the Leader of the Opposition contaminated him with the Vietcong flag, it is time for the internment camp for the Minister for Defence. So let us have no more of this rot about guilt by association. Let us go into a few other things. We do not hear any more about the occasion when a Soviet diplomat addressed the Woden Valley Branch of the Liberal Party. What did that make members of that branch? What would have happened if he had gone to a Labor Branch? Would we not have seen the successor to W. C. Wentworth - in repose here at the present time - in uproar? Of course we would. These are the things they do. Let us have a look at the Country Party. I wonder whether, when the honourable member for Moore **(Mr Maisey)** signed the wheat agreement in Peking, the hammer and sickle was hauled down. Or did he sit under it and enjoy what was going to come to the Country Party? When the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr McEwen)** sat in the Kremlin in Moscow recently and talked glibly about the future of trade with that country, did he sit under the red flag or did it become respectable? Surely he would not sit under a red flag. I know he was looking for Communist gold but at the same time is it not disreputable to have a read flag flying over his head - a hammer and sickle? When the Government's representatives sit in Peking now to negotiate agreements are they contaminated when the red flag goes up? Of course they are not, because the Country Party does not care what it does as long as it trades. Principles go overboard as long as these things can happen to their Party and to those around them. So let us have no more of this humbug of guilt by association. We cannot help who walks around with any kind of flag. To say that some people are allied with a particular philosophy because they are seen at a demonstration at which some type of flag is being carried is probably just as silly as saying that the red flag should be pulled down in the Kremlin and other places. These things do not happen. The argument that has been brought forward by honourable members opposite will not hold water. This debate has been forced on the Government by some fanatics who realise that there is no substance in the charges that have been made. 1 ask honourable members opposite who are constantly accusing the Labor Party of being allied with Communism and the Vietcong why it is that this Government trades with all these people. If the Vietcong flag is such a shameful thing - and honourable members opposite think it is - why does the Government sell wheat to China which in many cases, as honourable members opposite know, is going to the Vietcong? Why does the member for Rhodesia tolerate it? Why do we not hear the honourable member for La Trobe in a violent, fanatical outburst condemning these things if they are se wrOn:? It is because he knows that a lot of the wheat that Australia sells to China is going to feed the Vietcong and others. But principles do not matter when Government supporters are attacking the Labor Parry and its Leader. The present Leader of the Opposition is no different from those who have gone before him. Until the day he died **Mr Chifley** was called a Communist in this Parliament by some members opposite. The only time anything good is said about a Labor Party Leader is when he is dead. That is when the Press tells the nation what a wonderful leader it has lost. It is no different today. We on this side of the House know that this motion has been brought up in order that honourable members opposite may attempt to destroy a person whom they know will be the next Prime Minister of this country. It is the fact that this is imminent that is making them so desperate today. They realise at long last, even on issues like this, that if members of the Government do not hang together they will hang separately. That is beyond doubt and that is the reason this is happening today. I would like the Minister for Trade to tell us whether he thinks he should continue to go to Russia and other Communist countries when his Party reacts so violently to those people in the community who support a cause with which he does not agree politically? Does he think he should continue to sign trade agreements with the Soviet bloc when his Party holds this point of view? We on this side think *we* should trade with everybody, but on the other side of the Parliament members condemn the people with whom they trade and condemn us on this side by implying that we are allied with those people. At the same time they seek to get all the monetary rewards they possibly can. I mention these matters in order that the honourable member for La Trobe may learn well that greater men than he in this Parliament have made accusations about the affiliations of other honourable members and later have had to apologise. He goes very close to that from time to time. lt has been said that the Leader of the Opposition is inciting mutiny. Of course be is not. Anyhow, if he were, what would this Government do about it? Men at Garden Island and members of the Royal Australian Air Force mutinied recently, but nobody has been hanged from the yardarm. There is no substance in the charge made by honourable members opposite, and they know it. I do not wish to say more on this issue at this stage. I believe the Government stands condemned for its guilt by association conduct and for its taking of photographs which have been brought into this Parliament by fanatics in order to bolster up a dying administration. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition and other members on this side of the Parliament will speak again against the most infamous war of our time, that is, the war in Vietnam. If the Leader of the Opposition saves only 1 life by his actions, he will have made a magnificent contribution to the welfare of this country. We on this side of the Parliament stand firmly behind him in his campaign to end conscription and to make sure that boys will not be dragged from their homes to fight for a cause which has no connection with this country. I hope that when honourable members opposite are again taking photographs they will be certain to photograph also some of the boys who are coming back from the Vietnam war and will remember those who do not come back. The Government is responsible for the disunity that exists in the community because of the Vietnam war, from which our troops should be withdrawn immediately. 1 commend the Leader of the Opposition on the attitude he has taken. I hope we will have no more motions of this kind. They are of no credit to the Government. {: #subdebate-16-0-s8 .speaker-KJU} ##### Mr JARMAN:
Deakin -- I wish to make a personal explanation. {: #subdebate-16-0-s9 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-KJU} ##### Mr JARMAN: -- The honourable member for Grayndler **(Mr Daly)** said during his recent tirade that he had seen **Mr W.** T. Arthur, the Prime Minister's Research Officer, and me outside Parliament House last Friday and that therefore we were in some way associated with the Moratorium. I went out with **Mr Arthur** - and **Mr Arthur** cannot speak for himself in this House so I speak for both of us - to hear what advice the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** was giving to those who want a Communist victory in Vietnam. I certainly- {: .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- Order! The honourable member for Deakin- {: .speaker-KJU} ##### Mr JARMAN: -- I most certainly- {: #subdebate-16-0-s10 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat. I think he has explained about how he claims misrepresentation by the honourable member for Grayndler. I suggest that in continuing his remarks the honourable member is debating the subject before the Chair. {: .speaker-KJU} ##### Mr JARMAN: -I still feel that I have- {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- I raise a point of order. I ask that the statement by the honourable member for Deakin that the Leader of the Opposition seeks a Communist victory in North Vietnam should be withdrawn. {: #subdebate-16-0-s11 .speaker-KJU} ##### Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA · LP -- On the point of order- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Deakin will resume his seat. The honourable member for Sydney **(Mr Cope)** will remain silent. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- I did not say anything. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The honourable member for Sydney is saying something now. If the honourable member for Deakin used the remarks referred to by the honourable member for Reid, he used them after I called him to order to point out that J thought he had explained his alleged misrepresentation by the honourable member for Grayndler. The honourable member for Deakin explained why he happened to be at a particular place. That was his personal explanation in connection with the misrepresentation. 1 think he is now going into a debate on the issue. I suggest that he has explained his position and 1 also suggest that if he did use the remarks that were referred to by the honourable member for Reid he should withdraw them. {: .speaker-KJU} ##### Mr JARMAN: -- On the point of order, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** 1 have in front of me on a sheet of paper the words that T did use. 1 wrote them down before I made my personal explanation. {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- I raise a point of order- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourablememberforSturtwillresume his seat. The honourable member for Sydney will resume his seat also. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -I want to raise a point of order. You cannot refuse that. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Sydney will resume his seat. The honourable member for Deakin has taken a point of order and I have been listening to his argument. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- He is ignoring your ruling. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Sydney will resume his seat. {: .speaker-KJU} ##### Mr JARMAN: -- There are two points that I have written down here. This is what f did say. I said that I went outside with **Mr Arthur** to hear what advice the Leader of the Opposition was giving to. those who want a Communist victory in Vietnam. 1 did not say that the Leader of the Opposition wanted a Communist victory in Vietnam. There is another point on which 1 claim to have been misrepresented. I raised the point of order because the honourable member for Grayndler implied that I went outside because I supported the Moratorium. I wish to say on my own behalf and on behalf of **Mr Arthur** who cannot speak here for himself that neither of us supports these people. We simply went out to have a look at what was going on, but neither of us supports them. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- The honourable member has repeated the objectionable words to which the honourable member for Reid directed your attention. He said that he went outside to hear what advice I, and I think others, would give to those who wanted a Communist victory in Vietnam. There should be no need for mc to give the reasons why it is unparliamentary to say that any of us here would be giving advice to those who wanted a Communist victory in Vietnam. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -In the circumstances 1 rule that there is no foundation for the point of order taken by the Leader of the Opposition. The opinion of a member of this House about discussions carried on outside the House is not the responsibility of the Chair. The opinion of honourable members as to why that discussion was being held is a matter for those honourable members. Therefore it is not unparliamentary for a member to make a statement as to the circumstances relating to a discussion or meeting outside the House. I say, therefore, that there has been no misrepresentation of or comment relating to any honourable member. {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- I rise to order. If the ruling you have given relating to the remarks of Government supporters about Opposition members is valid and if, as you have already stated, it is not the responsibility of the Chair to decide where those people were positioned on that day, why is it that you have ruled out of order photographs {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order!I gave a ruling on a remark made by the honourable member for Deakin who referred to the circumstances of a meeting outside this House. I ruled that it had no relevance to any member of this House. That is the ruling and that is the reason- {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- How does that make the photographs valid? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- I rise to order. In his personal explanation the honourable member spoke for **Mr Arthur.** He read into the minds of the people outside at the meeting {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! A valid point of order cannot be taken about anything a member of this House reads into the minds of people outside. Neither that nor any other factors of a meeting outside the House comes within the jurisdiction of this Chair. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- If this slush is allowed to continue then this Parliament- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: -- I rise to order. I was one of those outside listening to the Leader of' the Opposition- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- There is no valid point of order. {: .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: -- I would like to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! There is no need for the honourable member to make a personal explanation because he has not been misrepresented. The honourable member will resume his seat. {: .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- I rise to order. Just to set the record straight in regard to what the honourable member for Deakin has said, will you, **Mr Chairman,** say clearly whether it is within Standing Orders and whether it is parliamentary for any honourable member to tell an untruth? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! There is no valid point of order and I would suggest to the honourable member for Bendigo that any remarks he makes should be relevant to what has been stated in a debate in this House. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- I rise to order. I was outside at the meeting when the Leader of the Opposition spoke and as one of the audience I thinkI have a right to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member cannot take a point of order about his being outside at the meeting, IfI can put it in simple terms, as I understand it, the remarks made by the honourable member for Deakin were to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition went outside to give advice. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- That is right. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Those are the words that would be relevant to a claim by the Leader of the Opposition that he had been misrepresented. The further remarks of the honourable member for Deakin in relation to the purpose of the meeting or any other factors relating to a meeting outside the House have no relevance to any claim of misrepresentation. That is a matter of debate. It is an opinion held by the honourable member for Deakin, so I say that there is no valid point of order and that matters that have been raised by honourable members are matters of debate and not matters to be raised as points of order or as claims of misrepresentation. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- I rise to order. 1 was a member of the audience and he said that it went out to the audience- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- If the honourable member for Reid is claiming that as a member of the audience he was misrepresented then he is not claiming to have been misrepresented as a member of this House. I have ruled that the statements made by the honourable member for Deakin in relation to the meeting, the purpose of the meeting and the opinions held by people at the meeting, are not relevant to the points of order or claims of misrepresentation. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- **Mr Deputy Speaker,** from what you have just said it seems to me that if the honourable member for Reid were a member of the audience on that day and if the honourable member for Deakin has said that the audience wanted a Vietcong victory then he is saying that the honourable member for Reid was one of those who wanted a Vietcong victory. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member for Lalor would know that this is not so. It has never been ruled so and again the honourable member's point is out of order. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- If I can be identified as one of that audience then I am being defamed and so is the whole audience being defamed by this Parliament and you know it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member for Reid will resume bis seat. {: .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: -- I rise to order, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** The honourable member for Deakin has associated the Leader of the Opposition with a group. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat. As I explained before, the honourable member for Blaxland is now entering into debate. The facts have been presented and 1 have ruled. The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat. Dissent from Ruling {: #subdebate-16-0-s12 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr KEATING:
Blaxland -- 1 move: >That the ruling be dissented from. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -If the honourable member wants to move dissent from the ruling he must put it in writing. (The honourable member for Blaxland having submitted in writing his objection to the ruling) {: .speaker-KIW} ##### Dr Mackay: -- **Mr Deputy Speaker,** I will occupy about two sentences. As I understand what has been said, the honourable member for Deakin simply said that he went outside to see or hear what advice the Leader of the Opposition would give. {: .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr Keating: -- I rise to order, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** I moved the motion. Have I not the right to speak to it? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! If the honourable member for Blaxland desires to speak to the motion the honourable member for Blaxland has the call. {: #subdebate-16-0-s13 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr KEATING:
Blaxland -- You are very gracious, sir. Thank you very much. The honourable member for Deakin **(Mr Jarman),** in making a personal explanation, drew conclusions about the crowd and the aims of the group outside Parliament House and then associated the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** with those aims. If he had said that the Leader of the Opposition was to give advice that would have been OK, but he reflected upon the Leader of the Opposition by saying he was giving advice to a group that wanted a Communist victory in Vietnam. If that is what the honourable member for Deakin thinks, he has no right to associate the Leader of the Opposition with that group in the way in which be did. He did reflect upon the character of the Leader of the Opposition and, in my view, your ruling is not correct. That is the reason why I have moved dissent from your ruling, and other honourable members of the Parliament agree with me. {: #subdebate-16-0-s14 .speaker-KIW} ##### Dr MACKAY:
Evans -- Just following on what has been said, it is quite correct. Those were the words that were spoken - that the honourable member for Deakin **(Mr Jarman)** went outside to hear what advice the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** would give to those who were seeking a Communist victory in Vietnam. This was not a statement - that all those outside were seeking a Communist victory. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- The implication is there. {: .speaker-KIW} ##### Dr MACKAY: -- There is a study of logic possible, surely, lt is surely logical to deduce that when persons parade a particular flag they do so for the time honoured reason that they owe some allegiance or support to the purposes of the flag. If they were persons, as I saw myself, carrying the Vietcong flag any sane person can deduce that there were those present who sought a Vietcong victory. {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- I wish to raise a point of order, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! No point of order arises. The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. **Dr MACKAY** The Leader of the Opposition went out to speak to them. The honourable member for Deakin sought to hear what advice he had to give to them. That is all he said. He could reasonably expect - and I hope would expect - that the Leader of the Opposition would advise the persons concerned to get rid of those flags and to go home. The honourable member imputed nothing in what he had to say. The points of order are absolutely irrelevant. {: #subdebate-16-0-s15 .speaker-KFU} ##### Dr GUN:
Kingston **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** 1 wish to support the motion of dissent from your ruling moved by the honourable member for Blaxland **(Mr Keating).** In seeking to make a personal explanation, the honourable member for Deakin **(Mr Jarman)** discussed motives that were attributed to him by the honourable member for Grayndler **(Mr Daly).** You - correctly, I believe - permitted the honourable member to make a personal explanation as to why he was outside at that demonstration. The honourable member for Prospect **(Dr Klugman)** and the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren)** were out there also. They sought to make personal explanations too as to why they were there and to point out that the motives attributed to them by the honourable member for Deakin, when he was stating what he thought the philosophies of the audience were, were not correct. You did state also that the honourable member for Prospect was not entitled to make a personal explanation because when he was outside the House listening to the Moratorium discussion he was not a member of the House. I point out that the honourable member for Deakin was not a member of the House either. In fact, **Mr Arthur** is not a member of this House at all and the honourable member for Deakin was making a personal explanation on his behalf as well. {: .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -Order! When I told the honourable member for Prospect that he was not entitled to make a personal explanation, I did not state that he was not a member of this House when he went outside. I stated that the statement made by the honourable member for Deakin was a general statement concerning people at a meeting, and that the honourable member for Prospect had not been misrepresented by an honourable member in this House. The reason why the honourable member for Prospect was not allowed to make a personal explanation, is that he was not in the House at the time in question. {: #subdebate-16-0-s16 .speaker-KGN} ##### Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest **- Mr Deputy Speaker,** I believe that- Motion (by **Mr Snedden)** agreed to: That the question be now put Question put: >That the ruling of the Deputy Speaker be dissented from. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. B. Lucock) AYES: 45 NOES: 50 Majority .. ..5 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 1730 {:#debate-17} ### PRESS STATEMENT BY THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION Debate resumed. {: #debate-17-s0 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade and Industry · Murray · CP -- **Mr Deputy Speaker,** I proceed to get the debate back to the matter before the House. The state- ment which we are debating is the verbatim report of a Press conference which the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** voluntarily held and which eventually was tabled in the House. It is upon the content of that report that this debate turns. The incident, as 1 understand it from the Leader of the Opposition, arose from the fact that he was offering certain advice to the Labor Caucus; that subsequently he learned that a rumour, which was incorrect, was around the place, and he called a Press conference and proceeded to state publicly to the Press what he had been saying to the Labor Caucus. So the fact that we are in possession of the report is in fact an accident. The Leader of the Opposition had set out to speak, as one does speak, secretly in the Party room, but now what he said is a public matter. As the Leader of the Labor Party he was putting the view to the Caucus that the advice to be given to young men who objected to the Vietnam war was that they should disobey and defy military authority, put in the mildest terms, that they should break the law. Applying this as he did in one sense to hundreds of men and in another to thousands of men, an advice to break the military law is advice to mutiny. There is no doubt about that. That is the policy line that the Leader of the Opposition advocated, that young men who say that they hold a conscientious belief in respect of the Vietnam war, should be advised to break the law. We know that the law provides for the man who claims that he has a general conscientious belief against war. If this course, as advocated, is accepted by the Labor Party as policy - and the debate here today makes it clear beyond doubt to my mind that this course has been accepted as the policy of the Labor Party - then in the future every member of the Labor Party will follow it. the land is, you should set out to break it.' This totals up a complete picture of the attitude to law and order of today's Labor leaders and today's Labor Party. This is the constant thread running right through Labor Party's attitude all the time. Labor says: 'If you do not like the law - whether it is civil or military - break it.' This Labor Party is the alternative government of Australia. If it were to become the government, the logic of its present position is that even if it, in government, made laws, it would allow people to break them if they so desired. That is the pure, undeniable logic of it, and it is completely ludicrous for Labor- {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- I do not know whether now is the correct time to claim to have been misrepresented by the Minister, but, **Mr Deputy Speaker,** would you indicate to me when is the correct time? {: #debate-17-s1 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- The honourable member can claim to have been misrepresented when the Minister for Trade and Industry finishes his speech. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- Therefore I say- {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- This misrepresentation will continue unless- {: #debate-17-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Lalor knows that the time at which he can raise a question as to any misrepresentation is at the end of a speech. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- Do I have to sit here and listen to the Minister continue- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- for a quarter of an hour- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. DrJ. F. Cairns- Well, I- {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- On a point of order. Do [ take it that your objection to listening to me now is that you do not want to take up some of the time allowed to the Minister for Trade and Industry? Mi DEPUTY SPEAKER-The point .1 made is that I do not want to name the honourable member for Lalor at this moment. Bearing in mind the importance of the debate now before the House I suggest to the honourable member for Lalor that he resume his seat. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- 1 was just wondering about your intent. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -I call the Minister for Trade and Industry. {: .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEWEN: -- The point 1 was making in respect to the. attitude adopted by these 2 leaders of the Labor Party is that they are not really offering this advice in good faith because the situation would be intolerable if the advice were accepted generally. If they were in Government they would not tolerate people breaking the law, either civil or military law. ft is immediately apparent that the advice which the honourable member is giving and which the Labor Party is following discloses that there is not a real attitude of integrity on their part. The Leader of the Opposition has taken the most important area of all - the laws passed by the Parliament relating to the defence and security of the country. In the words of the Leader of the Opposition the advice given is to disobey military orders in the circumstances that he and I have enumerated. Without an adequate defence force, a reliable defence force, Australia could not fulfil a treaty obligation. This is perfectly true and undeniable. Who would sign or maintain a treaty of mutual defence with a nation that did not enforce its own military laws? Yet that is the proposition that the Leader of the Opposition put to the Labor Caucus whose members would compose the alternate government and which is advocated in this place where the parliamentary Labor Party decides its policies. We should all be very clear on just what it is that the Leader of the Opposition who aspires to be the Prime Minister is proposing. He himself says that he is advising young men to defy and to disobey the military law. That is a lawyer's way of putting it The plain fact is that he was inciting young national servicemen to mutiny. He spoke ot there being thousands of. young men holding this view and this is the advice which apparently privately and certainly now publicly he is offering to them: If you are called up go into the Army and after you are in the Army then disobey the military law.' In the simplest of terms this is mutiny. That is the only way that one who is not a lawyer can regard it and I myself, as a layman, regard it is an act of treachery to this country. The honourable member for Lalor has been a main proponent - I do not want to do an injustice to him but it seems to me that civil disobedience is a moderate term for what he is proposing. We had thought that he was the leader of the doctrine of defiance of authority but now we discover that, the Leader of the Opposition has left him a mile behind. The honourable member for Lalor has never been so reckless and so irresponsible as to offer and publicly advocate the advice that the Leader of the Opposition is now giving. I suppose one could go through the history books and discover many instances of individuals who have advocated anarchy or mutiny or treason, but I would say that this surely must be the first time in history when, in a democratic country, the leader of a party which regards itself as close to being in a position to form a Government elected by democratic process has advocated a course of disobedience of and disregard for the law. lt is quite unprecedented. The Australian people have a long history of supporting and accepting the laws made by the democratically elected Government of the country. The laws have not always been easy or pleasant laws for many of the people to accept but the Australian community has shown a responsibility towards the maintenance of the rule of law over the last 100 years, a record of respect for laws democratically arrived at I would say there is no better record to be found in the world than the record we have. I am sure the Australian public will not have a bar of a political leader or a political party which has shown contempt for the law and the due processes of democratic government and has openly preached law breaking. As a lawyer and a parliamentarian the Leader of the Opposition knows that there is an alternative for the young man who is not a conscientious objector to all wars but has an objection to fighting in Vietnam. The option is to join the Citizen Military Forces. This is provided for. Many have taken advantage of it. I put this quite simply and earnestly. The Leader of the Opposition is in his private capacity a professional man whose profession enables him to be turned to for advice. I say that if a young man came to this lawyer and said: '1 come to you professionally. I am in trouble. I am troubled by a law. I am liable to be called up for service and I may have to go to Vietnam. I do not want to go to Vietnam. Will you please give me your professional advice on whether 1 can avoid it', the Leader of the Opposition, with a knowledge of the law, would be bound to say: 'You have no problem. You join the CMF - the law provides for it'. He could not honestly in his professional capacity give any other advice. But in his other capacity as a political leader he says there is no alternative to defying the law. I say that this has exposed the Leader of the Opposition as a man who in his political capacity is not acting in good faith when he urges his political party to embrace this policy of defiance of military law and propound it and convey it to all the young men who are troubled by the Vietnam war. The only possible conclusion is that he has in bad faith ignored the alternatives available to the young men. Apart from the ethical aspects which are involved, this raises a very important question. Why did the Leader of the Opposition choose to ignore the legal alternative to service in Vietnam and, as a lawyer, a Queen's Counsel, an officer of the courts, give advice to young men to break the law? Why did he take a similar position to the expelled president of the Victorian Labor Party, **Mr Crawford** who, not sitting in his Labor capacity, I understand, but addressing a meeting of unions, persuaded those unions to pass a resolution that the troops in Vietnam should mutiny. There is a shade of difference between mutiny in the field and mutiny by refusing to go into the field. It is a fine shade of difference. As far as I can see the Leader of the Opposition is ahead of **Mr Crawford,** the former Labor President in Victoria. I cannot understand now why he was so hellbent on expelling him from the Party. What were the motives of the Leader of the Opposition in giving advice to young men when he knew that their problem could be solved without one man going to gaol. On one occasion he said hundreds and on another occasion thousands of men who are called up do not want to serve in Vietnam. So his advice would result in hundreds or thousands of young men going to gaol, because this is the penalty for defying the military authority. The only possible explanation for his giving this advice is that he is planning to use these young men to cause political embarrassment to the Government. He is advocating that hundreds of young men should go to gaol to their shame. This would be a blemish on their record forever but it would be a political gain to the Labor Party, or perhaps I should say a political gain to the Leader of the Opposition. He would give a young man advice that would inevitably lead him to prison and cause him to have a stigma for the rest of his life. He would have a dishonourable discharge from the armed forces. This would be a liability for him to carry forever when he seeks employment. He would be a man with a record of military imprisonment, a record of defiance of authority, and his personal and private life would be thrown into disorder. The Leader of the Opposition is knowingly condemning these young men for the rest of their lives so that he may gain political advantage. It is embarrassing to the Government to have one man in gaol because he takes this stand. It would be superb, it would be perfect, from the point of view of the Labor Party if the Leader of the Opposition could put hundreds of men into gaol and blame the Government for it. Perhaps he would become Prime Minister through the sufferings of these men and through blemishing their characters for the rest of their lives. This is a disgraceful incident. It is a disgraceful motive. There is only one possible answer and that is that this Parliament should show that it will not condone this conduct by lawmakers in advocating law breaking. I hope this debate will make clear to the Australian people the perfidy of the motive behind this advice. This gentleman, who legitimately seeks to be Prime Minister - it is a proper ambition for him to lead his party into office - should never have turned to such a contemptible device as to steer hundreds of young men towards imprisonment so that the Government may be embarrassed and he may have political advancement. {: #debate-17-s3 .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- I claim to have been misrepresented by the man who just sat down and I want to make a personal explanation. The Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr McEwen)** said that I was advocating this: >If you do not like what the civil authority does you set out to break the law. He said that was the advice I was giving to people. That is completely false. What I have said, and what I say, is this: If a person has a deeply felt conscientious objection to a law he may refuse to adhere to that law. He will then have to face and undergo any and every legal penalty that may be imposed upon him for breaking the law. What I say, and what I have always said, is- {: .speaker-JSY} ##### Mr Buchanan: -- That is- {: #debate-17-s4 .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- You should cut out your claptrap for a while and listen. Instead of opening your mouth all the time open your ears. What I have said is that he has a moral right to resist the law when it conflicts with his deeply held conscience, but he has no legal right whatever unless that is provided for in the law. I hope that Government supporters will at least listen to that and give me the credit for speaking clearly and without equivocation. I do not in any way say what the Minister has stated. On the contrary, what I have just told the House has been my position with respect to conscientious objection ever since I first spoke on it 15 years ago and it remains unchanged. That is how it is today. **Mr McEWEN** (Murray- Minister for Trade and Industry) - I wish to make a personal explanation. The honourable member for Lalor **(Dr J. F. Cairns)** has misrepresented me. I was led to say what I said in good faith by the words which have been circulated, I think, by the honourable member for Lalor, in a speech that he made. When addressing some people he said: >You have to exercise power wherever power is, and Parliament is not the only place where there is power- He said a lot more including- >I sincerely hope that authority has had its day. There is no greater authority than the law of the land. I read this to mean that he hoped that the law of the land had had its day. I withdraw nothing of what I said. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP -- I wish to make a further personal explanation. I am sick and tired of twisted misinterpretations in this House. I do not intend to sit and listen to them. I have been personally misrepresented. What the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr McEwen)** has to say has nothing whatever to do with conscience, has no relation to the principle of moral conscience and is in no way a contradiction of what I have just said. {: .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- Order! The honourable member for Lalor may not debate the issue. {: #debate-17-s5 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa -- The first time I contested an election as Deputy Leader of my Party the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party were in the same position of electoral jeopardy as they are now and the same state of tension existed between them as exists now. At that time the Leader of the Country Party, the Deputy Prime Minister **(Mr McEwen),** took an attitude which was regarded as statesmanlike. He said that he would never sink to branding any leader of the Australian Labor Party as unpatriotic. It suited him to say that at that time. It gave him a reputation for statesmanship. He had every hope that, as the Liberals were going out, he would become even more important politically in this country than he was at the time. It is sad to see the deterioration in this man in the intervening 9 years. This has been a last round-up for the right honourable gentleman. He is no longer taken seriously in this Parliament. His style and his material are dated in the extreme. He is no longer taken seriously by any British government. He is no longer taken seriously by any government of the Common Market countries in the European Economic Community or by its Council of Ministers. He is no longer taken seriously in the United States of America. The Tariff Board no longer takes any notice of him. There is no economist of any standing in this country who will endorse his attitudes and his policies. {: #debate-17-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The House will come to order. When the Prime Minister was speaking this morning he was heard in comparative silence, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition should also be accorded that privilege. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The debate started this morning with a speech by a lame duck Prime Minister. Everybody knows- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! I suggest that aspersions or reflections on the character of the Prime Minister are not parliamentary language. I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition refrain from making statements of that nature. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The Deputy Prime Minister, however one may describe him, a man who will hold that position only for a few more months, a man who will be leader of his Party for only a few more months. He has resorted to all that exaggeration and misrepresentation which used to serve in this Parliament but which no longer does. The fact is that when there is a Labor government, as there will be after the next House of Representatives election, there will not only be law and order in this country but there will be justice as well. It is not a contempt for law and order that we are debating. We are debating a contemptible law. The way to change and unjust and unconscionable law in this country is to change the Government. We cannot do that until there is an election for the House of Representatives. Everybody on the other side is doing his best to avoid such an election. What, however, is the interim position for the victims of an unjust, unconscionable law? At what stage does the crisis of conscience come for them? That is the matter we were discussing in my parliamentary Party last Wednesday and which, because of a garbled version circulating in the Press lobbies, I corrected at a Press conference later that night. I suppose I am one of the few leaders in this Parliament who is able to give a Press conference at that hour of the night. It is all very well for the Deputy Prime Minister to refer to respect for law and order. I presume he supported the Cabinet decision for an amendment to the national service Jaw. The Cabinet decision was announced by the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Snedden)** but the hawks in the Government parties overruled that Cabinet decision in that respect. How strictly does the Government enforce this unconscionable, contemptible law at this stage? A free pardon is given to people like **Mr Zarb** and **Mr Ross** when the law becomes too uncomfortable for the Government to enforce. There are 2,400 or more men under investigation for suspected breaches of the National Service Act at this moment. The Minister for Defence **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** would not come into this debate today. He is not frightened of the effect on the armed forces of anything I have said. He said on television yesterday that 50 people are awaiting prosecution for breaches of the National Service Act. We all know that for political reasons the Government has not ventured to prosecute all those who are conscientiously opposed to the war in Vietnam. If we had won a majority of the seats in this House last October - under any other electoral system in the world we would have done so - this law would have been amended to provide in those cases where there was a need for conscription that at least there would be, as every church in this country has advised, exemption for those with a conscientious objection to a particular war. But not only that. There would be no conscripts by now in the Australian Army; there would be no persons in gaol or awaiting prosecution for breaches of the National Service Act; and Australian troops would no longer be aiding and abetting the slaughter and destruction of Vietnam. Even under this electoral system we would have had a majority of seats in this House if votes had been available to men and women of 18, 19 and 20 years of age - a reform in relation to the introduction of which members on the other side have so long stalled. I point out that I have represented more persons of conscript age than any other man in this Parliament. Up to the last election I represented a quarter of a million people. I represented the youngest population of any electorate in Australia. Many men came to me as individuals or with their parents to seek my advice on this question. Was I to say: 'I am not interested in your case'? Of course one goes through the details of the Citizen Military Forces and deferment and exemption. But then the crisis comes. What if a man is conscientiously opposed to this unconscionable war in Vietnam? I have said to such men that they should comply with the law for as long as far as their consciences will permit. It is not easy advice to give them. The Prime Minister, of course, says it is stupid because if they take this advice and if the Army ventures to punish them for it they are sent to places like Holsworthy in my electorate. I know the rigours of the treatment they get there. This is the toughest treatment that one could get in Australia. It is not a civilian prison. It is not easy advice to give to men. The fact is, however, that the Army in these cases, having fair warning of the strength and conscience of these people, by an extraordinary coincidence never sends them to Vietnam. They stay in Australia or they go to Malaysia. Let me talk about the future of the Army. I represent, and have for years represented, a greater number of serving officers and men than any honourable member in this Parliament. I know what they want to have this Parliament to do and an Australian government to do if we are to have a volunteer Army as we have a volunteer Air Force and a volunteer Navy. They are frustrated at the complexities of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. They are incensed at the dalay in upgrading pay and allowances for servicemen. They are outraged when every supporter of the Liberal and Country Parties votes against the establishment of a parliamentary committee to investigate their pay and allowances. They are incensed at the fact that the war service homes administration is still bedevilled by restrictions which were imposed in 1951 and tightened in 1961 - restrictions which prevent a serving man from getting a second war service homes advance despite the fact that last year the Division made a profit of $22im. They are incensed at the constant moving from one base to another and the consequent disruption to their children's education. They want a decent opportunity for their children. I see these men, their wives and their children. I know their problems. Hansard will demonstrate that I have shown as consistent an interest in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, war service homes, pay and allowances, training for ex-soldiers and educational opportunities for their children as any man who has served in this Parliament. I know the problems of young men and the problems of their parents and sweethearts under the National Service Act as it is administered. I know the problems and the frustrations of those who serve in the armed forces. No man in this place has had to represent more men affected by national service; no man has had the privilege of representing more men serving in the armed forces. I have been to Vietnam on 3 occasions. Half of the soldiers who have served in Vietnam have been stationed in my electorate. I personally know half the colonels who have commanded the battalions which have served in Vietnam. I know the consequences of the advice I give but I will not turn the other cheek when men and their parents seek my advice as to how their consciences can be affected by this monstrous law. This law is not all on the statute book. Most of it is administrative. It is not even in the rules and regulations of this Parliament. It can be introduced, amended Or repealed by ministerial fiat, by a mere instruction in writing. There is one very clear way in which we can test the credibility of this Government. Much was made of the incident of the Vietcong flag. This is something which is depicted in black and white and where we can see how truthful ministers are. It is a trivial incident. Will anyone really say that a person should immediately leave a meeting if someone hauls out a Vietcong flag? I have spoken at a fair number of these meetings in condemnation of the theory that there can be victory for any side in Vietnam - North, South, Vietcong or Thieu Government. I have always pointed out that the continuing sufferers all the time under this policy by which we are just abetting a prolongation, perpetuation and intensification are the people of the North and the South - Saigon and Vietcong alike. They are the sufferers. We are just haunted by this mirage of victory. There can be no victory for either side. I condemn the notion that there can be or should be victory for the Vietcong just as I have exposed the fallacy of the idea that there can be victory for Saigon - a regime which has had more outside military assistance, men, material and money than any government in history, and which says that it still cannot even maintain its urban enclaves without a continuation of such assistance. We can tell the credibility of this Government. We are not dealing with notions; we are dealing with facts as shown by these photographs. I know that for the rest of my life there will be hundreds of thousands of my fellow citizens who will believe that I spoke under a Vietcong flag, who will forget the fact that I served for some years under the Australian flag but will always believe that I was supporting the Vietcong. This is all the Prime Minister wanted to achieve. Look at what he says outside the House. He said nothing about mutiny or speaking under the flags today when he could be answered, but let me quote from what he said to the Liberal Convention in the Sydney Town Hall on Saturday last. He said: >It is all very well for the Leader of the Opposition to make soothing noises as to what is going on, but just yesterday we saw him speaking to a crowd - an orderly crowd - but a crowd that had Vietcong flags flying above them, and above his head as he spoke to them. The fact is that there is no photograph which shows any Vietcong flag fluttering over me. In fact, it took me quite some time yesterday to get copies of the photographs which the Australian News and Information Bureau took. They took almost 60 such photographs which it produced. At last, last night I obtained them. In the meantime a version of the only photograph which had me with the Vietcong flag anywhere within the block had been circulated by the Prime Minister's Press Secretary. The photograph tabled by the honourable member for La Trobe **(Mr Jess)** was a trimmed version of the original. The ANIB photograph showed the full lines of trees in the background and the full picture of the Administration Building in the background. It gave a sense of perspective. It showed that the Vietcong flag was on the other side of the road from me. I notice the 'Courier Mail' today says: > **Mr Jess** tabled a photograph showing **Mr Whitlam** talking under a Vietcong flag. In fact, I was not talking under any such thing. I was walking on the other side of the road. Similarly, it is interesting for honourable members to see how photographs can be trimmed. I have here the 'Courier Mail', the 'Australian', the 'Canberra Times', the Sun-Pictorial' of Melbourne and the Telegraph' of Sydney and all of them have trimmed the photographs differently. The fact is that the ANIB photograph which the Prime Minister's Press Secretary cir- culated yesteray - and I am quoting the Canberra Times' - had itself been trimmed to destroy the perspective. There was another photograph taken with the same people in it - me and the other people there - very clearly showing the lines on the road between us. Quite apart from this I was able to secure 9 photographs from the 'Canberra Times' of which 2 showed a Vietcong flag on the steps of Parliament House. I got 8 photographs from the 'Australian' and none showed the Vietcong flag. I have not been able to secure photographs from the Melbourne 'Herald'. It took 41. I am informed by authoritative persons there that none of them showed a Vietcong flag. But here a body, the ANIB - an official agency - takes more photographs than any 3 Australian newspapers. What is the purpose of the ANIB taking photographs of a meeting outside Parliament House? We know that there were policemen there filming the whole of the proceedings and, presumably, taping the whole of the proceedings. It was a completely orderly gathering. Even the Prime Minister said that and he will drop words such as riot, violence, disorder, anarchy, mutiny, inciting to breaches of law and order on the least provocation. He says it was orderly. It must have been orderly if he could not detect any disorder in it. So is police action required? The Minister for the Interior **(Mr Nixon),** does not even know where his office was last May at the time of the last demonstration. I need devote no more time to him. There was one other political leader who I gather, made a statement about me. I am quoting the ABC news. He is a man of the same age as the Deputy Prime Minister. He is a man who, if he had any similar sense of public duty, would be retiring similarly. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! It being 4 o'clock and in accordance with the order of the House of 26th August I propose the question: >That the House do now adjourn. {: .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden: -- I require that the question be put forthwith. Question resolved in the negative. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I was quoting what **Senator Gair** said. He is a man of the same age as the Deputy Prime Minister but a man who did not do as he did - enlist at the first opportunity in the First World War. When he was a young man and went into Parliament - and I quote from the Queensland Hansard - he said: >Men went to the war to get out of their obligations. I do not appreciate criticism from a septuagenarian leader of a political party who said that about the hundreds of thousands of volunteers in the First World War. It is the sort of thing that one has to meet in this Parliament. At least we smoked the Prime Minister out. Today he made his first speech for the Budget session. It is over 16 weeks since he last made a speech in the Parliament. His parliamentary effort is confined to answering Dorothy Dix questions when the House meets. Would honourable members ever have imagined **Sir Robert** Menzies stooping to get Dorothy Dix questions put up to him? Of course the Prime Minister showed his real spleen here. Last week he was attacking the Premier of South Australia and the former Chief Justice, the present Governor of Queensland. He used about me the same term that **Mr Askin** put up to him to use which he used against the other man whom **Mr Askin** has urged him to treat as the great 'bogy man of the Labor movement - **Mr Hawke.** A month ago he referred to him as 'that individual': Today I was 'this individual'. This is the way this right honourable gentleman, when he is at his very peak just after question time, describes everybody who happens to displease him. If there is anybody whom he dislikes more than a Liberal Premier it is the Labor Premier of South Australia. The Prime Minister cannot answer criticism. He cannot face up to issues. It is quite clear that at the coming Senate elections, particularly if 18, 19 or 20 year olds are allowed to vote, there will be an overwhelming endorsement of our attitude on conscription for Vietnam. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #debate-17-s7 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP -- **Mr Speaker,** I wish to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON: -- Yes. I do not want to be unparliamentary in this but the Leader of the Opposition, in his usual extravagant fashion, apparently did not hear me reply during question time this morning- {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- I rise on a point of order, **Mr Speaker.** The question of persona] explanations came up earlier- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I suggest to the Minister that he will not debate the question and that he will explain to the House where he personally has been misrepresented. {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON: -- I was in my office in May. I said so at question time this morning. The Leader of the Opposition is either deaf or does not want to hear. Question put: >That the words proposed to be added **(Dr Cairn's** amendment) be so added. The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston) AYES: 45 NOES: 51 Majority . . . . 6 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by **Mr FOX)** put: That the debate be now adjourned. The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. Sir William Aston) AYES: 51 NOES: 45 Majority .. ..6 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 1739 {:#debate-18} ### WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY REGULATIONS BILL 1970 Bill presented by **Mr Hulme,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-18-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-18-0-s0 .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr HULME:
PostmasterGeneral and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Petrie · LP -- I move: **Mr Speaker,** the Bill which I now introduce seeks to give effect to the Government's intention to increase the licence fees for radiocommunication stations. In order to give effect to the proposed fee structure it is necessary to define clearly in the regulations the types of stations which require a licence and to amend the present station definitions to accord with modern concepts. There are 5 basic categories of stations - land, mobile, fixed, amateur and receiving. Land stations are the key, or base stations for mobile stations which are usually installed in aircraft, ships or motor vehicles. Fixed stations are those established for communication between fixed points. Amateur stations are those stations operated by hobbyists, sometimes referred to as 'radio hams'. Receiving stations arc those land and fixed stations not licensed to providetransmitting capabilities. The types of licences to be issued are set out in the schedule to the regulations. They all fall within one of the broad categories approved. There has been no change in the level of the licence fee since it was set at $2 in 1924. Until about 1950, however, the disparity between costs and revenues was not large enough to cause concern since stations were few in number and in any case were provided primarily as a means of emergency communication. Since 1950, however, the situation has changed very rapidly and the number of licences issued has risen from 5,115 to a present day total of 136,000 by increasingly large annual increments. This growth has added greatly to the costs of administration and technical supervision. A comparison of these costs with licence fee revenues reveals that there has been a persistent deterioration which has led to the. present annual deficit of $0.8m. It is proposed, therefore, that the fees for licences be adjusted to a more appropriate level which will return an extra $460,000 in 1970-71 and $620,000 in a full year. These new fees do not seek to recover costs associated with Commonwealth Government services and certain services deserving of special consideration because of the community interests involved. For land and fixed stations the fee will be $10. For those stations with capacity to receive but not to transmit, and for mobile and amateur stations, the fee will be $6. The different fee levels reflect the variation in administrative and technical effort involved. The existing fee of $2, however, is to continue to apply in respect of stations operating as outpost services. In the outback areas of the Commonwealth there are 5,000 such stations which provide services associated with Schools of the Air or the Flying Doctor and aerial ambulances or are providing the only means of public communication and as such are required to handle telegraph traffic. Australian outback missions come within this group. It is also considered that as the regulations apply in Papua and New Guinea, missions in that Territory should obtain similar treatment and be licensed for the present fee of $2. There are approximately 500 such stations. Ambulance services which are not included as outpost stations and rural fire brigades will also continue to be licensed for the present fee of $2.It is also proposed that stations which are established to provide speech connection to the public telephone system both in Australia and Papua and New Guinea will be licensed free of charge because the operators are required to pay the appropriate telephone tariffs. This will be achieved by the issue of special licences already provided for in theregulations and which may be issued without charge. It is proposed that the new fees will operate from 1st November 1970. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr Stewart)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1740 {:#debate-19} ### AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS BOUN TY BILL 1970 Bill presented by **Mr Chipp,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-19-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-19-0-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP -- I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to provide temporary assistance to local manufacturers currently producing bountiable tractors additional to the normal assistance provided by the Agricultural Tractors Bounty Act 1966. The decision to introduce amending legislation was taken after an urgent review by the Government of the. Australian tractor manufacturing industry during which evidence was received from the two registered manufacturers - Chamberlain Industries Pty Ltd of Western Australia and International Harvester Co. of Australia in Victoria - that the industry was facing serious damage from import competition. Since the Special Advisory Authority is not empowered to recommend on variations in bounty assistance, it was not appropriate for the problem to be referred to him for consideration. The assistance now proposed will be additional to and at rates equal to those now paid on production under the present Act. The assistance will only be paid in respect of bountiable tractors produced at premises registered under the Agricultural Tractors Bounty Act 1966 as at 1st July 1970. The amendment extends the bounty to 30th June 1972 subject to earlier termination by proclamation if appropriate. It is estimated that this additional assistance will cost the Government $ 1.25m to the end of the 1970-71 financial year, an amount which it is considered will sustain the industry in the current situation. The Government will review the situation before the 1971-72 Budget to determine the effect of this additional assistance and if necessary adjust the rate of payment. In addition, the Tariff Board will be asked to report on the question of longer term assistance to the industry. Without this further assistance it is possible that the country could lose an important industry involving a large capital outlay and directly employing some 1,400 persons, many of whom are highly skilled. Some reduction in the normal labour force has already occurred. I commend the Bill to honourable members. [Debate, (on motion by **Mr Stewart)** adjourned.] {: .page-start } page 1741 {:#debate-20} ### PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORTS {: #debate-20-s0 .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wakefield -- In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works: >Primary School at Wagaman,. Northern Territory; and Sleeping, Messing and Amenities Facilities for Chiefs and Petty Officers at H.M.A.S. Cerberus', Westernport, Victoria. Ordered that the reports be printed. House adjourned at 4.27 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1742 {:#debate-21} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: {:#subdebate-21-0} #### Universities: Enrolments and Incomes (Question No. 1346) {: #subdebate-21-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he bring up to date the information on universities which his predecessor gave me on 26th September 1969 (Hansard page 2116). 1. Will he provide an answer to this question before the Budget debate. {: #subdebate-21-0-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are116,619 students at Australian universities in 1970, of which 26,108 were new bachelor degree students. Total enrolments exclude 155 higher doctor course enrolments. 1. The number of Commonwealth University scholarship holders in training at 30th June 1970 was 30,510. This represents 26.1 of the total student enrolment at universities in 1970. This comparison is not wholly valid since the total student enrolment includes students taking higher degree courses and single subjects which do not fall within the area covered by the Commonwealth University Scholarship Scheme. The honourable member will recall that in reply to his Question No. 595 of 1968 (Hansard page 111 of 25th February 1969) my predecessor gave statistics which compared University scholars in training in the years 195 1-1.968 with the total student enrolment in courses other than those leading to higher degrees. The comparable percentage for 1969 was 28, and for 1970 it is 30. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. (a) The number of applications received for Com mon wealth University scholarships available in 1970 was 56,327. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The number of Commonwealth University scholarships offered in 1970 was 14,492. 1. The number accepted was 11,760. This represents 20.9 per cent of the total number of applicants. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. NUMBERS OF STUDENTS PASSING MATRICULATION EXAMINATIONS: 1969 The figures shown in the above table relate to numbers passing the relevant examinations In each State at a standard which meets the matriculation requirements *of.* at least one University within that State. Because of differing University matricu lation requirements the figures are not necessarily comparable between States. In the answer to the previous question no matriculation details were available for New South Wales and Western Australia and details were shown of the numbers passing five or more subjects. Matriculation figures for New South Wales for 1968 on the same basis as shown above were 13,579. No matriculation information is available for Western Australia for previous years. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. The fallowing number of Commonwealth University scholarship holders are enrolled ' in the first academic year of courses in 1970. These include students who accepted awards in earlier years, deferred their entry to university ' and commenced their courses in 1970. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. At 30 June 1970 there were: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 28,454 Commonwealth university scholars in full-time studies at universities; and 1. 2,056 Commonwealth university scholars in part-time studies at universities. 1. Under the Commonwealth University Scholarship Scheme, living allowance is payable to scholars on full-time study subject to a means test. For most scholars the rate of allowance is assessed on the basis of their parents incomes. At 30th June 1970, 7,639 of these scholars were eligible to receive part living allowance and 3,183 were eligible to receive full living allowance. In addition there were 1,867 scholars classed as independent' of whom the majority were in receipt of full living allowance. 2. The actual expenditure on benefits for Commonwealth University scholarships in 1969-70 and the estimated expenditure for 1970-71 are as follows: {: type="1" start="9"} 0. The numbers and percentages of Commonwealth University scholars who failed in 1969 were: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. This is the ratio between equivalent full- - time students and equivalent full-time staff members calculated as set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 6.7 of the Fourth Report of the Australian Universities Commission. {: type="1" start="11"} 0. The universities and the faculties or schools in which quotas were imposed in 1970 were as follows: {: type="1" start="12"} 0. (a) and (b) The following table shows the number and percentage of qualified applicants who failed to gain entry into the faculty of their first choice where sin entry quota was applied. Many of these applicants would have been successful in entering a faculty of an alternative choice. {: type="1" start="13"} 0. (a) The numbers of students enrolled at each university in 1970 for the degrees of M.B., B.S. and B.Med.Sc. are as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. First year students who will transfer to the University of Queensland for the remainder of the course in the following year. (b) First year students who will transfer to the University of Adelaide for the remainder of the course in the following year. {: type="1" start="13"} 0. (b) The numbers of beds available for teaching at each university in 1970 are as follows: {: type="1" start="14"} 0. The universities which have increased fees in 1970 and the amount and percentage by which fees have been increased are as follows: {: type="1" start="15"} 0. (a) and (b) The amount and percentage of each university's income received from (i) the Commonwealth, (ii) at State, (iii) endowments and benefactions and (iv) fees in 1968 is shown in the following table: {: type="1" start="16"} 0. University fees paid by the Commonwealth in respect of Commonwealth University (undergraduate) scholars in' training in 1968 were as follows:_ monwealth University (undergraduate) scholars, and are therefore comparable with those provided in answer to similar questions in previous years. Other, payments are made to the universities by the Commonwealth for sponsored overseas students (e.g. Colombo Plan students) and students holding cadetships and free places. The percentages in column (b) of part 16 show the relationship between students' fees, as defined, paid by the Commonwealth and students' fees paid from all sources as used in the answer to part 15. The two sets of figures used to calculate percentages in part 16 (b) are not strictly comparable. The figures in part 16 (a) include fees paid to student unions, etc., whereas the part 15 figures exclude these; again the part 15 figures include an unknown element for post-graduate fees. The amounts involved are relatively small but would, if known, require a small variation in the percentages given in the answer to part 16. {: type="1" start="18"} 0. The following table shows Hie number and degree students in each State and Territory in percentage of new male and female bachelor 1970. {:#subdebate-21-1} #### Colleges of Advanced Education (Question No. 1347) {: #subdebate-21-1-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: - (1) Will he bring up to date the information on colleges of advanced education which his predecessor gave me on 16th September 1969 (Hansard, page 1425). {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Will he provide an answer to this question before the Budget debate. {: #subdebate-21-1-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is its follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) A number of educational institutions classified as Colleges of Advanced Education under the States Grants (Advanced Education) Acts conduct courses both at tertiary and subtertiary levels, although only courses at tertiary level are approved for direct Commonwealth assistance under 'these Acts. No statistics are available of total enrolments at all levels in these institutions. The latest available data as supplied by the various' colleges indicates a preliminary total 44^56 students enrolled in tertiary level courses at Colleges of Advanced Education in 1970. This figure is, in the main, consistent with that given in answer to the previous question (Hansard, 16th September 1969 page 1425) and relates in general to total enrolments in courses which attract a Commonwealth grant- under advanced education arrangements; these courses include those approved, in full or in part, as at tertiary level binder the States Grants (Advanced Education) Acts. However the preliminary student figures supplied by some Victorian colleges also include enrolments in certain certificate courses considered to be tertiary standard by the Victorian Institute of Colleges. Because of these factors the preliminary figures, are subject to some definitional problems hi respect of coverage of tertiary enrolments. The Anal statistics of Colleges of Advanced Education published by the Commonwealth Statistician for 1968 relate to enrolments in those parts of advanced level courses approved under the States Grants (Advanced Education) Acts. No preliminary information for new enrolments is available for 1970. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The total number of students holding Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarships at 30th June 1970 is 4656. All of these students are enrolled' in courses entry to *which* normally follows completion of full secondary schooling. The colleges at which these courses are conducted include most of those named in die States Grants (Advanced Education) Act and also a number of other colleges. The number of Commonwealth Advanced Education scholars at 30th June in colleges named in the Act is 3734. This is 8.4 per cent of the total enrolment of 44,356 given in answer to part 1 of this question. However, as the enrolment figures shown above are subject to definitional problems, as described above, and include enrolments in certain courses and parts of courses not included in the scope of the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme, this comparison understates the actual percentage of students holding scholarships In approved courses. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. (a) The number of applications received for Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarships available in 1970 was 43,375. Most of -these students also applied for other scholarships and awards. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The. number of Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarships offered in 1970 was 5,491. 1. The number accepted was 2,653,' of which 1,932 were (or students entering first year. The acceptances represents 6.1 per cent of iac total number of applicants, or 48.3 per cent of the students who received the offer of an award. 1. The following numbers of Commonwealth Advanced Education scholars are enrolled in the first approved year of their courses in 1970. lt should be noted that certain courses to which entry may be gained one year below matriculation level are, for purposes of .the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme, approved from the second year of the course. The statistics shown here include students who accepted awards in earlier years, deferred entry to their courses at the time and commenced training in 1970. The distribution of scholarship holders who are enrolled in first year of courses is summarised in the following table: The total scholars shown above, 2,177, include a number who won Commonwealth University Scholarships and transferred them to Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarships. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. At 30th June 1970 there were (a) 3,719 holders of Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarships studying full-time and (b) 937 studying part-time at colleges of advanced education or at other approved institutions. 1. Under the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme, living allowance is payable only to scholars in full-time study and is subject to a means test. For most scholars the rate of allowance is assessed on the basis of their parents' income. At 30th June 1970 the number of full-time Commonwealth Advanced Education scholars eligible to receive (a) part living allowance was 1,145 and (b) full living allowance was 8)8. In addition (here were 140 scholars classified as 'independent' of whom the majority were receiving full living allowance. 2. The actual expenditure on benefits to students under the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme for 1969-70 and the estimated exepnditure for 1970-71 are expected to be: {: type="1" start="8"} 0. The number and percentage *of* Commonwealth Advanced Education scholars who failed in their courses in 1969 were: (9). The calculation of staff-student ratios continues to be a difficult exercise in respect of Colleges of Advanced Education. A number of the colleges conduct courses both at tertiary and sub-tertiary levels and . the same staff may leach at both levels; There are also wide variations in the extent of the use made of part-time staff in the various colleges. .The definitional problems of preliminary enrolment statistics described in . parr I above are a further factor which increases the difficulty in calculating meaningful ratios. Because of these factors it is not possible at this stage to give information on staff-student ratios in which 1 would have confidence as being accurate and reflecting the true position in each college. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (11) At the following colleges in the courses specified, quotas were operative in 1970. The figures given relate to eligible applicants not offered a place in the course of their first preference at the college, concerned, ft will be noted that in some instances ti has not been possible to quantify the extent of the first preference quota limitation applied at some colleges. . {: type="1" start="12"} 0. The information below relates to teaching fees for full-time diploma courses. Where the fee varies for each year of a course the yearly average is given. At two other para-medical colleges where students pay fees to the college and to a university there was some variation in teaching fees, however, the colleges concerned did not increase their fees. In its first year of full-scale operation the Canberra College of Advanced Education has newly established its own course and fees structure; it is therefore not possible to make comparisons with previous years. {: type="1" start="13"} 0. The information requested is not available. The requirements of the States Grants (Advanced Education) Acts are met with certified statements from the States relating to funds applied to approved courses at colleges; from this single figure the levels of Commonwealth grant attracted are calculated. It is not necessary for a State to supply separate components of income for colleges. 1. As noted in answer to Question 13 the States, in respect of colleges of advanced education, are not required to separate State grants and fees for the purposes of assistance under the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1967. Therefore the figures of fees received by such colleges and by other colleges not in receipt- of assistance are not available. However the following table shows for each State the amount paid by the Commonwealth for fees on behalf of Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarship holders in 1969. {: type="1" start="15"} 0. This information is not sought from applicants for enrolment at colleges of advanced education and is therefore not available. {:#subdebate-21-2} #### Vietnam (Question No. 1491) {: #subdebate-21-2-s0 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that in a statement dated 24th May 1962 (Department of External Affairs Select Documents on International Affairs No. 1 of 1964, page 36) the then Minister for Defence announced that at the invitation of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam Australia was sending a group of military advisers to that country. 1. If so, has the full text of the request ever been made public. 2. If no, will he make the document available. {: #subdebate-21-2-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. No- The situation remains as mentioned in the reply to a question without notice by **Senator Murphy,** (Senate, Debates 7th April 1970, pages 549-550) that . . . 'there is a well established principle in those matters that communications between Governments are confidential to the Governments concerned. The Government does not believe it is appropriate to depart from that principle in this case.' 2. See 2 above. {:#subdebate-21-3} #### Universities: Commonwealth Scholarships (Question No. 1590) {: #subdebate-21-3-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ls it a fact that the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme for university students was inaugurated by the honourable J. J. Dedman as Minister for War Organisation of Industry in the Curtin Government in 1943. 1. Is it also a fact that, as Minister for Postwar Reconstruction in the 1949 Chifley Government **Mr Dedman** was responsible for the number of open entrance university scholarships being increased to 3,000. 2. If so, will he take steps to correct his statement on 19 August that the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme was first introduced in 1951. 3. Taking into account the tenfold increase in the student population since 1949, is it now four times more difficult for a student to gain a Commonwealth Scholarship than it was in 1949. {: #subdebate-21-3-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >With regard to parts (1) and (2) of his question, Commonwealth Government assistance for university students commenced in 1943 under the Commonwealth Financial Assistance Scheme. One purpose of this, scheme was to ensure that the flow of trained professional personnel would be adequate' to meet the needs of the country during the war and post-war period. > >The scheme was administered by the Universities Commission in co-operation with the Directorate of Manpower under the National Security Regulations in force at that time. > >At the end of the war the Government of the time decided to continue financial assistance to students for a period of five years from the end of hostilities. This extension of the Scheme became known as the Interim Financial Assistance Scheme. Both the original scheme and the Interim scheme which succeeded it, provided assistance in the form of fees and a living allowance both subject to a means test About 1,700 students were assisted each year. > >During the period of the Interim Financial Assistance Scheme, the Government under **Mr Chifley** asked the Universities Commission to draw up a plan for a permanent scheme of assistance to students. > >In 1949, after considering a report submitted to it by the Commission, the Chifley Government decided to introduce a permanent scheme from the beginning of 1951, to be known as the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme. At the same time it decided that 3,000 new awards should be available each year, that the new scheme would absorb those students already receiving assistance under the Interim Scheme, and that the benefits payable would comprise all compulsory fees, plus a living allowance which would be subject to a means test. > >The statement which I made in the House on 19 August was intended to show the growth in the Government's contribution to student assistance from the commencement of the present scheme at the start of 1951. The present Government has no wish to deny the contribution made by the Labor Governments during the war and post-war periods. I am happy to provide the correction to the original statement which the honourable member has sought. > >Total student enrolment in universities in 1949 was 31,128 and in 1969 was 108,631. The total number of students being assisted under the Financial Assistance Scheme in 1949 was 1,873 which includes 479 new awards made in that year. The total number of students being assisted under the Commonwealth University Scholarship Scheme in 1969 was 27,320 which includes 8,948 new awards made in that year. {:#subdebate-21-4} #### Armed Services: Officer Resignations (Question No. 1592) {: #subdebate-21-4-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many officers have (a) sought and (b) received permission to resign from each of the Services in each of the last 5 years and so far this year. 1. Will he provide an answer to this question before the debate on the estimates for his Department. {: #subdebate-21-4-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The number of officers (including those of the Women's Services) who sought permission to resign their commissions and the number of applications approved in each of the 5 years from 1965-66 to 1969-70 and during the first 2 months of 1970-71 is as follows: {:#subdebate-21-5} #### Armed Services: Re-engagement of Servicemen (Question No. JS93) {: #subdebate-21-5-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What number and percentage of servicemen have re-engaged on completion of initial engagement in each of the Services in each of the last 5 years and so far this year. 1. Will he provide an answer to this question before ' the" debate on the estimates for bis Department " **Mr Malcolm** Fraser - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The numbers who re-engaged in each of the 5 years from 1965-66 to 1969-70 and in the first two months of 1970-71, and the percentage of those numbers to the total due for re-engagement on completion of their initial engagement are as follows: {:#subdebate-21-6} #### Pre-School Education (Question No. 1640) {: #subdebate-21-6-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: >What would be the cost of providing all eligible . Australian children with pre-school education of the nature and standard now provided in the Australian Capital Territory. {: #subdebate-21-6-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: ". It is not realistic to attempt to estimate the cost of providing pre-school education over the whole of Australia on the basis described by the honourable member. There are basic differences between the Australian Capita] Territory and other areas in many of the factors which affect costs in the provision of pre-school education, such as the geographic spread of the pre-school aged population, the size of the pre-school centres which would be required, costs of acquisition and development of sites for centres, building costs, attendance patterns and salary levels. Estimates based on applying figures appropriate under one set of conditions to. areas where conditions differ so substantially could not help but be misleading. {:#subdebate-21-7} #### Noongah' Inquiry: Legal Costs (Question No. 1638) {: #subdebate-21-7-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which organisations have applied for the reimbursement of their costs of representation before the Court of Marine Inquiry in the 'Noongah' case and when did they first do so. 1. When does he expect that a decision will be made on these applications. {: #subdebate-21-7-s1 .speaker-5E4} ##### 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: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Merchant Service Guild of Australia', on 18 February 1970, and on 26 March 1970 the Seamen's Union of Australia *an* behalf of the following maritime unions: The Seamen's Union of Australia The Federated Marine Stewards' and Pantrymen's Association of Australasia The Federated Shipwrights and Ship Constructors' Association of Australasia The Marine Cooks, Bakers and Butchers' Association of Australasia. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. A decision was made as 1 September 1970. {:#subdebate-21-8} #### Crimes (Aircraft) Act (Question No. 1644) {: #subdebate-21-8-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: >What steps are being taken to secure South Australian laws complementary to the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963. {: #subdebate-21-8-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### 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: >In May of this year, the mention of the Honourable, the Premier of South Australia was again drawn to the importance and significance of early adoption of legislation complementary to the Crimes (Aircraft) Act. In July, we were informed by the Premier that the introduction of such legislation had been approved -and that it would be available for the forthcoming session, subject to parliamentary time being available. Pre-school Children (Question No. 1646) {: #subdebate-21-8-s2 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the estimated number of children of pre-school age {: type="a" start="a"} 0. in each State, 1. in the Australian Capital Territory, 2. in the Northern Territory and 3. enrolled in (i) each State, (ii) the Australian Capital Territory and (iii) the Northern Territory. 1. What is the per capita expenditure on preschool education in: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. each State, 1. the Australian Capital Territory and 2. the Northern Territory. {: #subdebate-21-8-s3 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP en - The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) (b) (c) It is difficult to define exactly the number of children of pre-school age. This would normally include the number of children aged 3 and 4 years but can also include a number of 5 year olds who are not yet enrolled at primary schools. The following table shows the number of children in the population aged 3 and 4 together with estimates of the numbers of 5 year olds not enrolled at primary school at June 1970. The size of the latter category will, of course, vary during the school year depending on enrolment policies at primary schools. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (d) (i) (ii) (iii) It has been assumed that this part of the question relates to enrolments in preschools in each State and Territory. Pre-school centres in Australia may be divided into the following categories: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Government pre-school centres maintained by State Governments and by the Commonwealth Government in the two Territories. (b) Non-government pre-school centres - 1. 'Affiliated' centres which receive grants from State Governments through organisations such as the Kindergarten Union, all of which are affiliated to and accept the standards laid down by the Australian Pre-School Association. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. 'Unaffiliated' centres, most of which do not receive financial assistance. A large proportion of these centres provide mainly child care rather than pre-school education facilities. The following table shows details of enrolments in government and 'affiliated' pre-school centres ((a) and (b) above) only, in each State and Territory. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Excludes pre-schools for Aboriginal children which had approximately 750 enrolments in 1969. Source: Australian Pre-School Association and Department of Education and Science. Note: Because of the diversity of pre-school activity in each State and the differing methods and timing of counting enrolments, it cannot be assumed that the figures shown above are directly comparable from State to State. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. (a) No comprehensive information is available to enable the calculation of realistic expenditures per head of population on pre-school education in each State. In most States pre-school education is largely financed through fees paid by parents and other fund raising activities but with the assistance of grants in aid to affiliated preschool associations from the State Governments. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. and (c) Government expenditure per head of population on pre-school education in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory (excluding aboriginal pre-schools) in the 1969-70 financial year was: Thesefigures include both recurrent and capital costs but exclude the costs of training teachers. They also exclude costs of land acquisition and site development as well as fees and other contributions by parents. Australian Road System' (Question No. 1450) {: #subdebate-21-8-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice: Has a decision yet been made whether to publish the document 'Australian Road System' which he received on 30th April 1969 (Hansard 26th September 1969. page 21 14). {: #subdebate-21-8-s5 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr Sinclair:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Following consultations with the State Road and Highway Ministers I have now approved that a limited edition of the report be published. The report will not be offered for sale, but will be made available, on request, to people working in the road planning field. A copy will be placed in the Parliamentary Library for the information of interested members. {:#subdebate-21-9} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1853) {: #subdebate-21-9-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1001 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 12th May 1970. {: #subdebate-21-9-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-10} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1854) {: #subdebate-21-10-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 1002 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 12th May 1970. {: #subdebate-21-10-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-11} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1855) {: #subdebate-21-11-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1012 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 12th May 1970. {: #subdebate-21-11-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-12} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1856) {: #subdebate-21-12-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1040 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 12th May 1970. {: #subdebate-21-12-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-13} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1857) {: #subdebate-21-13-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1088 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 19th May 1970. {: #subdebate-21-13-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-14} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1838) {: #subdebate-21-14-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1089 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 19th May 1970. {: #subdebate-21-14-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-15} #### Answer to Question (Question No,1859) {: #subdebate-21-15-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 1124 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 20th May 1970. {: #subdebate-21-15-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Set Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-16} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1860) {: #subdebate-21-16-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1213 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 3rd June 1970. {: #subdebate-21-16-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-17} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1861) {: #subdebate-21-17-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1214 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 3rd June 1970. {: #subdebate-21-17-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-18} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1862) {: #subdebate-21-18-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1216 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 3rd June 1970. {: #subdebate-21-18-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-19} #### Answer to Question (Question No, 1863) {: #subdebate-21-19-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1219 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 3rd June 1970. {: #subdebate-21-19-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-20} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1864) {: #subdebate-21-20-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1221 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 3rd June 1970. {: #subdebate-21-20-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honour- ablemember'squestionisasfollows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-21} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1865) {: #subdebate-21-21-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 1222 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 3rd June 1970. {: #subdebate-21-21-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-22} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1866) {: #subdebate-21-22-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1253 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 5th June 1970. {: #subdebate-21-22-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-23} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1867) {: #subdebate-21-23-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1254 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 5th June 1970. {: #subdebate-21-23-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-24} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1868) {: #subdebate-21-24-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 1255 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 5th June 1970. {: #subdebate-21-24-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-25} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1831) {: #subdebate-21-25-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 383 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 11th March 1970. {: #subdebate-21-25-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The honourable member will be aware that apart from hisseries of questions Nos 1831-1868, he has asked me on notice more than 150 questions this year. Further as the great majority of questions each contain a number of separate enquiries, he will appreciate that a considerable workloadis placed on officers of my Department to provide and collate 'information required to > >Answer the honourable member's questions with the care he would expect. Overall, I have provided answers to 125 questions on notice to date and of these, 107 were answers to questions asked by the honourable member. By way of comparison, the questions on notice to the Minister for Labour and National Service in 1968 numbered 29 and in 1969, 41. I have asked the Secretary of my Department to ensurethat the information required to answer these questions is obtained and collated as soon as possible but so as not to excessively divert the attention of. officers from the other important responsibilities which it is their duty to discharge. {:#subdebate-21-26} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1832) {: #subdebate-21-26-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 412 which has been on the Notice Paper each sit-, ting day since 12th March 1970. {: #subdebate-21-26-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to. Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-27} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1833) {: #subdebate-21-27-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: ' When may I expect an answer to question No. 413 which has been on the Notice Paper each sit ting day since 12th March 1970. {: #subdebate-21-27-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-28} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1834) {: #subdebate-21-28-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the' Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: When may I expect an answer to question No. 416 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 12th March 1970. {: #subdebate-21-28-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-29} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1835) {: #subdebate-21-29-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 447 which has been on the Notice Paper eachsitting day since 17th March 1970. {: #subdebate-21-29-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-30} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1836) {: #subdebate-21-30-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 448 which has been onthe Notice Paper each sitting day since 17 March 1970. {: #subdebate-21-30-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-31} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1837) {: #subdebate-21-31-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When mayI expect an answer to question No. 460 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 18th March 1970. {: #subdebate-21-31-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-32} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1838) {: #subdebate-21-32-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When mayI expect an answer to question No. 664 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 14th April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-32-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-33} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1839) {: #subdebate-21-33-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 664 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 14th April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-33-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-34} #### Answer to Question (Question 1840) {: #subdebate-21-34-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 665 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 14 April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-34-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-35} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1841) {: #subdebate-21-35-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 690 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 14th April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-35-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I supplied an answer to question No. 690 on 22nd September 1970 (Hansard pages 1489-90). {:#subdebate-21-36} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1842) {: #subdebate-21-36-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 709 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 15th April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-36-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-37} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1843) {: #subdebate-21-37-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 714 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 15th April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-37-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-38} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1844) {: #subdebate-21-38-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 772 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 16th April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-38-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-39} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1845) {: #subdebate-21-39-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 802 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 21st April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-39-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-40} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1846) {: #subdebate-21-40-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 803 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 21st April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-40-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-41} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1847) {: #subdebate-21-41-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 80S which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 21st April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-41-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the. honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-42} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1848) {: #subdebate-21-42-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 848 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 22nd April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-42-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I supplied an answer to question No. 848 on 22nd September 1970, (Hansard 1490). Answer to Question (Question No. 1849) {: #subdebate-21-42-s2 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon' notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 849 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 22nd April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-42-s3 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-43} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1850) {: #subdebate-21-43-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 850 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 22nd April 1970. {: #subdebate-21-43-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-44} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1851) {: #subdebate-21-44-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may 1 expect an answer to question No. 981 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 8 th May 1970. {: #subdebate-21-44-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. {:#subdebate-21-45} #### Answer to Question (Question No. 1852) {: #subdebate-21-45-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >When may I expect an answer to question No. 1000 which has been on the Notice Paper each sitting day since 12th May 1970. {: #subdebate-21-45-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the hon ourable member's question is as follows: See Answer to Question 1831. Wave Hill Area (Question No. 1358) {: #subdebate-21-45-s2 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What plans are there for the future development of the Wave Hill area. 1. To what extent wilt this development depend on the agreement of the Vestey's interests in that area. {: #subdebate-21-45-s3 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Baptist Church has been given a lease of land in the Wave Hill residential area for the erection of a Church and residence. The social club at Wave Hill has given notice of its intention to apply for a lease of land for the erection of a store and possibly a service station and motel. Other community facilities including school buildings and additional houses will be provided, within the limits of funds available, to meet the growth and development of the area. A tree planting programme will commence in the near future. 1. Present developments can be wholly contained within the Crown Land on which the residential centre is sited. Aircraft Noise (Question No. 1503) {: #subdebate-21-45-s4 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did recommendation No. 14 of the Interim Report from the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise presented in June 1970 recommend that the Air Co-ordinating Committee examine the feasibility of re-allocating air space to facilitate (he re-routing of Sight paths to minimise noise over residential areas. 1. If so, what steps (a) have been taken and (b) are intended to be taken by his Department to implement this recommendation. {: #subdebate-21-45-s5 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The Air Co-ordinating Committee has considered recommendation No. 14 of the Interim Report from the House of Representatives Select > >Committee on aircraft noise. The problem of aircraft noise has been under examination for quite some time by this Committee and the Air Co-ordination Sub Committee of New South Wales and other regions are continually examining the possibility of re-routing flight paths in their areas in order to minimise noise over residential areas. The Army aircraft training areas are located wherever possible, away from residential areas so as not to inconvenience the public with noise. When Army aircraft approach residential areas, they fly on routes authorised by the Department of Civil Aviation. {:#subdebate-21-46} #### Telephone Charges (Question No. 1528) {: #subdebate-21-46-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. To what extent has the installation of the S.T.D. telephone system contributed to the recently announced increased charges for telephone services. 1. Is it a fact that many private subscribers would gladly have forgone the system rather than face the increased charges. 2. Is it technically possible to allow for the optional connection to such a system. {: #subdebate-21-46-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Not at all, because the installation of the S.T.D. system as well as meeting the modern community need of speed and efficiency also has economic advantages. To the user, the pro-rata charging system on S.T.D. calls offers savings compared to the system of charging for operatorconnected calls in three-minute multiples. To the Post Office it means that fewer operators are required, less exchange equipment and buildings need to be provided and trunk docketing and accounting costs are reduced. Without S.T.D. massive expenditure would be necessary to expand and maintain the manual system. 1. See answer to (1). 2. It is technically possible to bar access to the' trunk network - that is to both S.T.D. and the trunk operator - with access being available to the local call area only. In some cases where suitable equipment is available, it is possible to bar access to S.T.D. only. Because of the additional cost involved in installing and maintaining the special equipment needed to effect access barring, the Post Office charges an annual fee on each service that is barred. {:#subdebate-21-47} #### Uniform Firearms Legislation (Question No. 1582) {: #subdebate-21-47-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Cus toms and Excise, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which State Ministers attended the conference with him inSydney in August 1970 to discuss uniform firearms legislation. 1. What requests or suggestions were made at the Conference for legislative or administrative action by: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the Commonwealth, 1. the Territories, and 2. the States: (3)In what respects has uniform legislation in the Territories: 3. already been, and 4. yet to be brought into operation. {: #subdebate-21-47-s1 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. For New South Wales- The Hon. E. A. Willis, M.L.A., Minister for Labour and Industry, Chief Secretary and Minister for Tourism. Victoria- The **Hon. Sir Arthur** Rylah, K.B.E., C.M.G., E.D., M.L.A., Chief Secretary. Queensland - The Hon. A. M. Hodges, M.L. A., Ministerfor Works and Housing. South Australia - The Hon. A. J. Shard, M.L.C., Chief Secretary- and Minister for Health. Western Australia - The Hon. J. F. Craig, M.L.A., Chief Secretary and Minister for Police and Traffic. The Attorney-General of Tasmania was represented by an observer. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Ministers agreed that the preparation of uniform legislation for enactment in each State is desirable and that the legislation should extend to all facets of the sale and control of firearms and offences relating to the use of firearms. Conference appointed a sub-committee of officers to set out a draft of the principles of uniform legislation which would be circulatedfor further consideration by Ministers. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. My colleague the Minister lor External Territories has advised me that there has been no uniform legislation brought into operation in respect of the Territories of Papua and New Guinea, Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands or Christmas Islands. He has further indicated that when the model Bill of uniform legislation has been pre-; pared then it will be considered and where provisions are appropriate they will be incorporated into the legislation of the several Territories. It is felt by my colleague that the external territories face very different problems from those found in the States and mainland Territories and such Territories, particularly Papua and New Guinea, could not be committed to uniform practices unless these were indeed appropriate to the Territory needs. My colleague the Minister for the Interior, who has responsibility tor firearms legislation in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, has advised me that there is as yet no agreed uniform legislation for the States or Territories. Although there are considerable differences in firearms legislation throughout Australia, the legislation of both Territories does provide strict controls over all types of firearms. On the question of uniformity, my colleague has advised me that he will be pleased to introduce uniform legislation in accordance with any decisions which might be taken by the responsible Commonwealth and State Ministers. {:#subdebate-21-48} #### Telephone Charges (Question No. 1722) {: #subdebate-21-48-s0 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh: asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are the increased telephone installation and rental charges announced in the Budget all the increases in charges that his Department plans to impose on telephone owners and users this financial year. 1. Can he give an assurance that there will be no increases, at least until the next Budget, in the "rates presently charged for local or trunks calls. {: #subdebate-21-48-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are no increased telephone charges other than those announced in the Budget under consideration for this financial year. (2) See answer to (1). Adelaide Airport: Light Aircraft Terminal (Question No. 1825) **Mr Jacobi** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: *%l)* Is it a fact that an application has been approved for the establishment of a light aircraft terminal and maintenance centre at Adelaide Airport. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If so, (a) what is the name of the applicant, (b) on what date was the application approved, and (c) who made the decision. 1. Where were these facilities previously located in South Australia, and what is the reason for their establishment at Adelaide Airport. 2. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to complaints of the considerable discomfort suffered by those people in close proximity to the flight paths and the noise created by these light aircraft. 3. Is it a fact that these new facilities are much nearer the residential areas. 4. If so, will the Minister arrange for the erection of sound screens near the area where these aircraft are to be maintained and serviced. 5. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that the current curfew arrangements also apply to the movements of these light aircraft. {: #subdebate-21-48-s2 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Approval has been given for the erection of a small terminal for use by passengers on charter aircraft that have long been operating at Adelaide Airport. There is no approval or request for the establishment of a maintenance centre. 1. South Australian and Northern Territory Air Services (SAATAS) were given permission on 22nd May 1970 by my Department to erect a small passenger terminal. 2. These are new facilities in that earlier passengers proceeded directly from their road transport to the aircraft. They are not facilities which have been transferred from some other airport. 3. The Minister has informed me that he b kept in close touch with the pattern of noise complaints at each of our capital city airports, including Adelaide. 4. and (6) The new light aircraft terminal will not add to noise nuisance. It is located on the new light aircraft apron and it is a condition for the use of this apron that prolonged engine testing will not be permitted without a properly constructed engine test cell. This new light aircraft parking area is closer to some houses but farther away from a comparable number of houses. 5. The pattern of operations is not expected to alter and there will be no additional noise or annoyance to nearby residences. It follows that there is no cause to review the existing curfew or noise abatement arrangements. {:#subdebate-21-49} #### Industrial Relations (Question No. 1000) {: #subdebate-21-49-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >Did any discussions take place at the recent conference between the Commonwealth, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the National Employers Policy Committee as to whether an accredited job representative should be granted the necessary time off without loss of pay to (a) attend the enrolment of employees eligible to become members of his union (b) communicate with the full-time officials of his organisation whenever such communication becomes necessary during working hours (c) discuss grievances with fellow employees on the job during working hours and (d) communicate and discuss complaints with management during working hours. {: #subdebate-21-49-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Presumably, the honourable member is referring to the national agreement on 'Principles for guidance in establishing and using effective procedures for avoiding and settling industrial disputes' arrived at between the A.C.T.U., the National Employers' Policy Committee and my colleague, the Attorney-General, and myself. As the title of the agreement suggests, it relates only to principles that all 'parties considered should be applied in drawing up detailed procedures to meet the needs of particular industries and establishments. Detailed matters such as those referred to in the honourable member's question will be open to consideration by parties drawing up detailed procedures in light of the principles agreed to. {:#subdebate-21-50} #### Industrial Relations (Question No. 1002) {: #subdebate-21-50-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: >Did any discussion take place at the recent Conference between the Commonwealth, the Aus > >Employers . Policy Committee as to (a) defining what shall constitute a bona fide safety issue and (b) the determination of a code of minimum safety standards for the prevention of industrial accident and disease. {: #subdebate-21-50-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I would draw the attention of the honourable member to the answer to question No. 1000. Arbitration: Sanctions (Question No. 1088) {: #subdebate-21-50-s2 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in his 1969 Annual Report state that although be bad given deep and considered thought concerning the policy of the legislation in regardto sanctions, he had decided not to express his view on the matter unless invited to do so. 1. Has he seen fit to invite the President to give his views on the matter. 2. If so, will he inform the Parliament of the views conveyed to him by the Honourable **Sir Richard** Kirby. {: #subdebate-21-50-s3 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In his Thirteenth Annual Report (for the year ended 13th August, 1969) the President of the Commonwealth Concilaition and Arbitration Commission said: On the other band factors of our own have an obvious effect on our industrial relationships and the incidence of strikes. One is the almost ideological disputation about the so-called penal sections of the Act. Although it is an industrial subject, it is also a political one and it is very difficult to divorce the industrial from the political content. Whether, in the ultimate, the question of statutory sanctions should be regarded as a political rather than an industrial relations question takes a lot of deciding for each person concerned, but in the events which have occurred in my area, it has been handled politically, and those who have thus bandied it would certainly havehad regard to the industrial consequences of any political solution. Nevertheless whilst the matter was being bandied politically, an application came . before a single member of the Commission, which I directed should be dealt withbyafullbench.Thedecisionofthis full bench followed a normalhearing and was reached on the submissions made in the Court room and not outside it The good thing about all this was that the Commission demonstrated it could go ahead with its procedures in the normal way without any suggestion of it or any of its members becoming involved in party politics, even though feeling was running hot in - the political area. I have given a great deal of thought to whether or not I should, pursuant to section 70, give any indication of what I think the policy of the legislation should be in regard to sanctions. I have come to the conclusion particularly having regard to what I have mentioned, that, unless invited, I should at least on this occasion leave this entirely tothe Parliament, without expressing opinions one way or the other'. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. and (3) As a matter of principle, if ( had had any discussion with the President on this matter, 1 would not disclose the terms of it publicly. Social Workers (Question No. 1648) {: #subdebate-21-50-s4 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Where and in what numbers does this Department employ qualified social workers. 1. Is the number adequate; if not in which areas is there a deficiency. {: #subdebate-21-50-s5 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. and (2) Two; one in New South Wales and one in Victoria. Social work and related disciplines in the Department are currently under review. {:#subdebate-21-51} #### Equal Pay (Question No. 448) {: #subdebate-21-51-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the Government support the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Recommendation of the International Labour Organisation which recommended to all member governments that all persons, without discrimination, should enjoy equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of remuneration for work of equal value and that government agencies should apply nondiscriminatory employment policies in all their activities? (2)If so, when does the Government intend to implement the Recommendation in respect of all female employees of the Commonwealth Government? {: #subdebate-21-51-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (l)-(2) Unlike I.L.O. Conventions, the ratification of which creates a legal obligation to take all necessary steps to give effect to their provisions, I.L.ORecommendationsarenotopentocertifica- tion but are intended to provide general guidance in the development of national policy, legislation and practice. Some subjects are of such a nature as to be more appropriate for the adoption of a Recommendation rather than a Convention. The Australian Government and a number of others considered that the adoption of a Recommendation would be the appropriate way of dealing with the subject of discrimination in employment and occupation and, therefore, abstained in the voting on the adoption of Convention No.111 - Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958. After the Convention had been adopted, the Australian Government delegates voted for the adoption of the Recommendation to which the honourable member has referred. This Recommendation supplements the Convention by indicating possible ways in which the general principles set down in the Convention might be applied in legislation, collective agreements, etc. I can inform the honourable member that the general principles set down in the Convention relating to discrimination on the basis of sex, are substantially complied with as regards Commonwealth employees. {:#subdebate-21-52} #### Industrial Relations (Question No. 1001) {: #subdebate-21-52-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Commonwealth or the National Employers Policy Committee give any undertaking during their meeting with representatives, of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to guarantee that there will be no victimisation of accredited job representatives who are called upon to represent the views of their fellow employees in discussions with representatives of employers, in accordance with the procedures agreed upon for avoiding and settling industrial disputes. 1. Is it essential that an accredited job representative should be free to state fearlessly the views and grievances of those whom he represents without even the slightest possibility of suffering victimisation. 2. If so, will he consider amending the Act in such a way as to prohibit the dismissal of an accredited job representative for any reason which may be related to his union position, with the provision that where a dismissal of a job representative takes place, the onus should be on the employer to prove that the dismissal was not directly or indirectly due to his activities as a job representative. {: #subdebate-21-52-s1 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr Snedden:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I would draw the attention of the honourable member to the answer to question No. 1000. 1. It is essential that employer and union representatives conduct their relationships with one another in a responsible fashion. 2. I would refer the honourable member to section 3 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. {:#subdebate-21-53} #### Apples and Pears (Question No. 1322) {: #subdebate-21-53-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What compensation has been paid to apple and pear growers in respect of export losses and losses caused by devaluation. 1. How many growers have received these payments. 2. Had all these growers exported prior to December 1967. 3. If growers had not exported before that date and were paid compensation, what criteria was applied in each case. {: #subdebate-21-53-s1 .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commonwealth Government has paid the following amounts to the Australian Apple and Pear Board for compensation to the industry for losses sustained as a result of the November 1967 devaluation of sterling: 1968 season- $2,350,554.04 1969 season- $2,060,846.60 1. Specific procedural arrangements have been adhered to for the payment of devaluation compensation from the Commonwealth Government to the apple and pear industry. To facilitate the payment of 1969 compensation to the industry, the Australian Apple and Pear Board maintained a special bank account to receive funds made available to it by the Department of Primary Industry. Disbursement of these funds took place after the Board's examination of applications submitted to it, and in doing so, the Board followed the general principle that the owner of the apples or pears at the time of export was entitled to the compensation. Whether the growers of the fruit or the exporters received a compensation payment depended on the industry suggestions to the Board on a State by State basis. These suggestions arose from discussions within the industry which, in turn, have led to industry arrangements which differ slightly between the States but which eliminate some causes of dissatisfaction evident at the time of the 1968 compensation disbursement {: type="1" start="3"} 0. and (4) It has been the practice of the Commonwealth Government to determine rates of devaluation compensation on a separate basis for each industry. In the case of the apple and pear industry, the Government first of all established that the industry in general suffered demonstrable and unavoidable losses and has since been prepared to compensate equally, all those who exported to the United Kingdom in subsequent years. This undertaking to the industry has been regardless of whether or not certain individuals exported to that market prior to the devaluation of sterling. {:#subdebate-21-54} #### Hospital Benefits Organisations (Question No. 1427) {: #subdebate-21-54-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What payments were made to registered hospital benefits organisations by (a) their members and (b) the Commonwealth in 1969-70. 1. What payments of (a) Fund and (b) Commonwealth benefits were made to or in respect of their members by the organisations in 1969-70. 2. How many members (a) made payments to the organisations and (b) received payments from them in 1969-70. 3. How many claims qualified for (a) Fund and *Cb)* Commonwealth benefits in 1969-70. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. What was the average amount paid in (a) Fund and (b) Commonwealth benefits. 1. What were the principal reasons for refusing Fund benefits and in what percentage of claims did each of these reasons apply. 2. How many hospital benefits organisations were in operation during 1969-70. 3. What percentage of the population of each State and of the Commonwealth contributed to hospital benefits organisations in 1969-70. 4. What was the percentage of contributors in each State and in the Commonwealth whose benefits entitlement covered (a) less than the cost of public bed care, (b) the cost of public bed care, (c) the cost of intermediate bed care and (d) the average cost of private bed care. {: #subdebate-21-54-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable members question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) Payments made to registered hospital benefits organisations by their members during the financial year 1968-69 amounted to $109,457,354. Figures for 1969-70 are not yet available, {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Payments made to the registered hospital benefits organisations by the Commonwealth during the financial year 1969-70 amounted to $38,115,581. (This figure includes payments of $16,062,877 towards Special Account deficits, $424,788 fund benefits paid to Subsidised Medical Services contributors and $32,547 in respect of Subsidised Medical Services management allowance.) 1. (a) Payment of Fund benefits (including ancillary benefits) to members by registered hospital benefits organisations during 1969-70 totalled $119,056,728. (This figure includes $424,788 fund benefits paid to Subsidised Medical Services contributors.) {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Commonwealth benefits amounted to $21,595,369.. 2. (a) There were 3.995,527 members of regis- tered hospital benefits organisations as at 30th June 1970. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Details in respect of the number of members who received payment from registered hospital benefits organisations are not available. 3. (a) Claims that qualified for Fund benefits during 1969-70 totalled 1,378,753. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Claims that qualified for Common wealth benefits during 1969-70 totalled 1,323,780. 4. (a) The average amount of Fund benefit paid per claim during 1969-70 was $86.35. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The average amount of Commonwealth benefits paid per claim during 1969-70 was $16.31. 5. The principal reasons for refusing payment of Fund benefits were: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. hospitalisation during an ordinary waiting period or a maternity waiting period; 1. claims not submitted within 12 months of the period of hospitalisation; and 2. maximum annual benefits previously paid. Information to permit a calculation of the percentage of claims refused for each of the reasons mentioned is not available. However, the total number of days for which Fund benefit was refused represented 2.4 per cent of the total days for which Fund benefit was paid. 6. There were 103 registered hospital benefits organisations operating throughout Australia as at 30th June 1970. 7. The estimated number of contributors and their dependants and that number, expressed as a percentage of the total population, by States as at 30th June, is set out hereunder: {: type="1" start="9"} 0. The following figures illustrate the benefit entitlement coverage of contributors *in* each State and in the Commonwealth at at 30th June 1970: {:#subdebate-21-55} #### Hospital and Medical Benefits Organisations (Question No. 1429) {: #subdebate-21-55-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Under existing arrangements with registered (a) hospital and (b) medical benefits organisations, how soon after the end of the financial year is it possible for him to supply information concerning (i) their aggregate reserves at the end of the year and (ii) their operating expenses for the year in answer to questions like my questions Nos 1686 (7) and 1687 (7) (Hansard, 12th September 1969, pages 1322-23). {: #subdebate-21-55-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Section 76 of the National Health Act 1953-69 required each registered health benefits organisation to furnish its annual returns to the DirectorGeneral of Health within 3 months after the expiration of the organisation's accounting year or within such further time as the DirectorGeneral, on the application of the organisation, allowed. Organisations did not have a common accounting year. While most organisations operated on an accounting year ending on 30th June, a sizeable minority had a different basis. > >Under the National Health Act 1953-70, commencing with the year ending 30th June 1971, all registered organisations must adopt a common financial year ending 30th June so that all annual returns, unless an extension of time is granted, will be submitted by 1st October. From these returns the Director-General will prepare the statutory report required by section 76 (1) of the Act. It is anticipated that this report will be laid before both Houses of Parliament during the subsequent autumn session. These will be the final figures in respect of each registered organisation, but it should be possible to supply reliable preliminary information during December of each year to any honourable member who wishes to have it. {:#subdebate-21-56} #### Industrial Mobilisation Course (Question No. 1516) {: #subdebate-21-56-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP irns asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the agenda and scope of the Industrial Mobilisation Course conducted by bis Department 1. Which industries are called upon to provide representatives on this course. 2. Does the Defence (Industrial) Committee actually attempt to co-ordinate military and indus-' trial needs. 3. If so, is he able to give some examples of this co-ordination. {: #subdebate-21-56-s1 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The aim of the Industrial Mobilisation Course is to bring together representatives of industry, State and Commonwealth Departments and the Armed Forces in order to give members an understanding of the economic, industrial and other inter-related matters affecting our national security. In Victoria and New Wales, courses are conducted over 9 months of the year on a part-time basis, with an extensive programme of lectures, and visits are made to industrial establishments, including two symposia sessions each of 1 week's duration at Service establishments. In addition short courses are held in other States. The scope of the Industrial Mobilisation Course covers matters such as: Natural Resources, Secondary Industries, Public Utilities, Manpower, Defence Supply. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. In addition to the Armed Forces, Commonwealth and State Government Departments, and instrumentalities and universities the following industries were invited to provide representation for Industrial Mobilisation Courses in 1970: Aircraft, Automotive, Banking, Chemical, Computer, Electrical, Engineering, " Food, Medical Equipment and Pharmaceutical products, Metals, Mining, Paper, Petroleum (refining and distribution), Railway, Shipbuilding, Textile, Transport Services. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. It is one of the main functions of the Defence (Industrial) Committee to correlate the material requirements of the Services and the production programmes needed to meet them. The Committee makes recommendations as necessary for the retention of existing capacity and the creation of new capacity. It is required also to consider means by which the private sector of industry can be encouraged to participate more extensively in research and development and production for Australian and overseas needs. In approaching its task, the Committee is mindful of the importance of the development of a sound Australian Defence Industry base to support our forces. In making its recommendations, the Committee has regard also to such factors as the development of new skills, production methods and the fostering of new technologies which flow to the industry as a result of its involvement in defence contracting and which will be of value in their applications. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Project N, a project to design and manufacture two flying prototypes of a light twin engined military utility aircraft is a recent typical example of the co-ordination of military and industrial needs. This project was considered in some depth by the Defence (Industrial) Committee prior to its endorsement by the Committee and subsequent approval by Cabinet. The important aspect of this project is that the aircraft is believed to have appeal in the commercial field and to overseas operators as well as defence potential. The project will assist to increase the general technical, design and manufacturing competence of the local aircraft industry. ' The current development in industry of a 1 ton general service cargo truck for the Services is another recent case where the Defence (Industrial) Committee had regard not only to meeting the military requirement, but also to the overall benefits which would flow to the Australian motor vehicle industry. The truck being developed, and which will have a very high Australian content will replace¾ton vehicles having a' fairly low Australian content. The proposed vehicle should have good prospects of commercial sales both within Australia and overseas. {:#subdebate-21-57} #### Immigration (Question No. 1620) {: #subdebate-21-57-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for Immi gration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has any estimate ever been made by his Department of the total cost to Australia for each migrant since the commencement of the scheme. 1. If so, what is the estimate. {: #subdebate-21-57-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The 'total cost' to Australia for each migrant involves expenditure extending beyond the annual budget ofthe Department of Immigration, and because of its complexity, no authoritative estimate of the account has been made. However, the direct costs of the immigration programme over the past 25 years,' during which time some 2.6 million settlers have come to Australia, average out at about $285 a head. Spreading the costs only over the 1.7 million migrants who have received assisted passages, the cost amounts to around $435 a bead. There are, of course, also indirect costs, but estimates of these are not available. Against these, and the direct costs, it wouldbe necessary to set the economic gains to Australia. These include: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. cost savings to Australia for migrants' pre- employment training. (Estimates cited by the Manpower and Social Affairs Committee of O.E.C.D. in 1967 averaged approximately $US8,000.) {: type="a" start="b"} 0. the economies of scale in Austraiian industry made possible by a larger population. 1. lower per capita costs than otherwise would be involved for those major items of national expenditure which do not vary pro- portionately with population changes, e.g., transport and communications, 2. increases in Gross National Product resulting from strong migrant reinforcement of the workforce. These and other factors would need to be taken into account before a balanced assessment of costs could be made. {: type="i" start="1"} 0. This is, . in fact, an important purpose of the cost-benefit analysis of immigration for which I have arranged, on the recommendation of the Immigration Planning Council {:#subdebate-21-58} #### Immigration: Assisted Passages (Question No. 1622) {: #subdebate-21-58-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Out of the amount pf $457,844 expended in 1969-70 under Division 330/4/08 (Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1970-71, page 48) how many Australians were assisted. 1. What are the details of this expenditure. {: #subdebate-21-58-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honour* able member's question is as follows: >The expenditure for 1969-70 shown underItem 330/4/08 of Appropriation Bill No.1 1970-71 covers two distinct immigration schemes - > >the second passage assistance scheme; and lb) assistance to returning Australians scheme. It is assumed the honourable member's question refers to Australians assisted under the second of these schemes. > >The amount of $457,844 incurred *in* 1969-70 is that combined total of amounts paid to carrier companies during that year on accounts received for 1,384 persons who departed for Australia under both schemes. Accounts are received and puid by overseas offices of this Department and the detail of expenditure available in Australia does not enable a dissection of these figures which would readily isolate the amount paid specifically for persons returning under the returning Australians scheme. > >However, the actual arrivals in Australia under each scheme in 1969-70 were: > >second passage assistance scheme . . 1 , 508 > >assistance to returning Australians scheme . '. .. .. .. 174 Total . . . . ... 1,682 Assuming that the numbers paid for *in* 1969-70 were divided between the two schemes in the same proportion as the arrivals, the number of returning Australians assisted from the amount of $457,844 would be 143. The average expenditure per movement *in* these two schemes paid for in 1969-70 was $331. Against this however should be offsetthe contribution of $180 towards passage costs made by each migrant of 19 years and over (credited to Revenue, Department of. Immigration - Miscellaneous). On the pattern of age groups in the total arrivals during 1969-70, 49 per cent of persons travelling under these schemes would have made the $180 contribution, i.e. an average of $88 per person moved. This would reduce the average cost per person to $243. Calculatedon ihe basis of 143 movements, the net cost for returning Australians paid for in 1969-70 would be approximately $35,000. {:#subdebate-21-59} #### Migration Offices (Question No. 1624) {: #subdebate-21-59-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for Immi gration, upon notice: (1)Whatwasthe total cost for the year 1969- 70 of maintaining each overseas office of his Department. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. What is the estimated cost fur the vear 1970- 71. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. What is the total number of stall in each office. {: #subdebate-21-59-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. and (2) Table 12, page 52 in the Budget document Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for year ending 30th June 1971, provides the expenditure recorded against appropriations under the control of the Department of Immigration for 1969-70 and the estimated requirements for 1970-71. The amount shown in respect of United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, and United States of America represents salaries for Australia-based personnel only. The locally engaged staff in United Kingdom is provided under the High Commissioner Act; in the other three countries it is provided by the Department of External Affairs. It should be noted also that: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The amounts shown in Table 12 represent the expenditure by the Department of Immigration under Division 332 for maintaining its various overseas offices. Additional costs for immigration purposes are incurred under appropriations controlled by other departments. Thus where office facilities are shared with the Department of External Affairs, it is normal for that Department to meet such costs as office rent and maintenance, transport, postage and telephones, etc. In the United Kingdom the votes of the Prime Minister's Department bear the expenditure for office rent and maintenance and general administrative expenses. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. In some countries, migrant services are provided by the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration. The cost of these services is not included in expenditure under the various migration offices. I.C.E.M. is compensated by payments under Division 330/4/04. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The functional summary on page 104 of the abovementioned Budget document provides the information sought as to the staff on the establishment of the Department of Immigration in its overseas offices. National Service: Agricultural Science Graduates (Question No. 1709) {: #subdebate-21-59-s2 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister for the Army upon notice: >Can steps be taken to enable agricultural science graduates selected for national service to be given the opportunity to use their particular acquired skills while serving in the Army as is done in the case of graduates in dentistry and medicine. {: #subdebate-21-59-s3 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >There are no Army activities which specifically require a knowledge of agricultural science and it is unlikely that a member with this particular civilian qualification could be employed in an area related directly to his talents. > >The Army endeavours to utilise to the full the skills and qualifications of national servicemen. It is not to be expected however that the Army requirements for particular skills will necessarily match the normal community distribution of these skills as represented in the national service call up. > >Accordingly, when the number of national servicemen holding these qualifications is in excess of the number required for military purposes, members not allocated to those employments are given training in other military fields where a need for their service does exist. > >The Government is aware that the careers of national servicemen may be disrupted by the two year obligation and has provided a range of reestablishment benefits designed to offset some of the disadvantage occasioned by their call up. These include post-discharge vocational training on a full or part-time basis, where it is necessary or desirable for their resettlement {:#subdebate-21-60} #### Vietnam (Question No. 1800) {: #subdebate-21-60-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How may labrador dogs died whilst on service in Vietnam up to 30 June 1969. 1. What were the causes of death in each case. {: #subdebate-21-60-s1 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Up to 30th June 1969, one labrador dog has died while on service in Vietnam. 1. The dog died of heat exhaustion.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 September 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700925_reps_27_hor69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant