House of Representatives
1 October 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 1967

PETITIONS

Australian National University Council

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, 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 citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth.

Whereas -

It has now been recognised that students as members of the University Community have a role and contribution in the making of University policies and decisions.

The Council of the Australian National University is the highest decision-making body and the final authority for the determination of policy within that University.

The University Council has approved the request of students and recommended to the Government that two elected undergraduates and the President of the Students’ Association be members of that Council.

The Government has only agreed to add the President of the Students’ Association to the existing one undergraduate representative on the Council.

The workload involved, the representation required, and the acknowledged necessity for continuity at Council level, demand that at least two elected undergraduates in addition to the President of the Students’ Association, represent the Student Body on the Council.

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

A further undergraduate representative on the Council of the Australian National University.

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

Petition received and read.

Australian National University Council

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, 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 citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully sheweth.

Whereas - (a)It has now been recognised that students as members of the University Community have a role and contribution in the making of University policies and decisions.

The Council of the Australian National University is the highest decision-making body and the final authority for the determination of policy within that University.

The University Council has approved the request of students and recommended to the Government that two elected undergraduates and the President of the Students’ Association be members of that Council.

The Government has only agreed to add the President of the Students’ Association to the existing one undergraduate representative on the Council.

The workload involved, the representation required, and the acknowledged necessity for continuity at Council level, demand that at least two elected undergraduates in addition to the President of the Students’ Association, represent the Student Body on the Council.

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

A further undergraduate representative on the Council of the Australian National University.

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

Petition received.

Social Services

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That due to the higher living cost, persons on Social Service Pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Male Earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with A.C.T.U. policy and adopted as the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our petition: so that our citizens receiving the Social Pensions may live their lives in dignity.

Any your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I, too, present from certain citizens of South Australia, mainly from my own electorate, the following petition:

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

That due to the higher living cost, persons on Social Service Pensions are finding it extremely difficult to live in even the most frugal way.

We therefore call upon the Commonwealth Government to increase the base pension rate to 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Male Earnings for all States, as ascertained by the Commonwealth Statistician, plus supplementary assistance and allowances in accordance with A.C.T.U. policy and adopted as the policy of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners’ Federation, and by doing so give a reasonably moderate pension.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to bring about the wishes expressed in our Petition: so that our citizens receiving the Social Service Pensions may live their lives in dignity.

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

Petition received.

Loss of Books

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned elector of the Commonwealth humbly showeth:

That he lost 92 copies of his hook ‘Epics from Victorian History’, valued at $138.00 in a fire at the Melbourne Mail Exchange in November 1967. The books being in the hands of the Postmaster-General whilst in transit from his Publisher, Arthur H. Stockwell & Co. Ilfracombe, Devon. England. That the book was a product of several years patient research, and has been commended by several noted authorities as a valuable contribution to the study of Australian history. That as the book was published in England any legal action against the consignor is virtually impossible, and owing to the high cost of insurance on overseas parcels, and the small amount of profit an author receives from his works your Petitioner has sustained a heavy financial loss through no fault of his own.

In pursuance to his objective your Petitioner humbly prays that the Commonwealth Government will pay him the sum of $138.00 for the loss of the said books.

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

Petition received and read.

Law and Order

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That they are gravely concerned at the apparent appalling increase in crime in Australia, particularly in densely populated areas:

That they fear the police forces of the various Slates and Territories are undermanned and underequipped to handle the increase in crime;

That their concern is aggravated by the apparent number of unsolved crimes particularly those involving violence to the individual including murder,

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure thai the Commonwealth Government wi’l seek the co-operation of the States and supply extra finance to the Slates to enable;

proper town planning and development to halt the increase in densely populated areas which leads to increased crime,

the proper staffing and equipping of police forces to enable adequate crime prevention and detection measures to reduce the frightening increase of both solved and unsolved crime,

the proper detention of and rehabilitation of criminals, and

compensation to victims of crimes of violence, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Services

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and 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 lest for aged pensioners and that a number of European countries also have no means test

That today’s aged persons have paid at least 71 per cent of their taxable incomes towards social services since the absorption of Special Social Services Taxation in income Tax and continue to make such payments. (7f per cent of all taxable 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 heavily, taxed 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 wilh 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.

Interest Rates

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the recent increase in the interest rate on Government Bonds has cause hardship to the thousands of home buyers throughout this state due to the subsequent increase in interest rates on mortgage contracts by home lending institutions.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration to this most vital matter and your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

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 the residents of the State of New South Wales respectfully sheweth:

  1. The Red Kangaroo and many other mar supials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy.
  2. None of the Australian States have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, andin such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our National Emblem.
  3. It is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale, unless some provision is made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that:

The export of all Kangaroo products be banned Immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the Kangaroo.

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

Petition received and read.

Kangaroos

Mr LYNCH:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representative in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of Mornington Peninsula, Victoria respectfully sheweth:

Australians, custodians of the world’s largest marsupial, the Red Kangaroo have allowed it to be reduced so low numerically that even CSIRO research has had to be suspended in some areas and alternative means of research employed in others.

The Kangaroo is being exploited whilst facts on populations and numbers of kangaroos is unknown - any day the numbers can be reduced below that level needed for survival of droughts and natural mortality. At this date neither the number needed for survival nor the number of kangaroos left is known.

Pending the out come of investigations by the Select Committee, it can be logically assumed that shooters, fearing restrictive legislation in the future, will intensify their efforts to obtain as many animals as possible while they can. We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will: (0 Immediately ban the export of products made from kangaroos.

Strongly urge the State Governments to ban the shooting of kangaroos for commercial purposes, at least until the Select Committee has made its investigations and recommendations.

Add to the Constitution a clause giving power to the Commonwealth Government to act to safeguard any species of wildlife that is endangered through any cause.

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

Petition received.

page 1969

SENATE ELECTION

Ministerial Statement

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– by leave - Honourable members will be aware that to fulfil the requirements of the Constitution the next Senate election must be held before 30th June 1971. Accordingly the Government has decided to invite His Excellency the GovernorGeneral to communicate with the State Governors proposing that the next Senate election be held on Saturday, 21st November 1970. When replies have been received from the States I shall inform the House of the full timetable proposed for the election.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– by leave - The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) has announced the proper procedure by which a Senate election is announced, that 1%. a communication by the Governor-General to the 6 State Governors. 1 would ask that the Prime Minister should use another form of communication by himself to the 6 State Premiers asking them to expedite the legislation which all of them have promised to give votes and adult rights to men and women at. 18 years of age instead of 21 years of age. We are constantly exhorted these days to heed the ballot box, not least in respect of the conscription ballot. The alienated generation is disfranchised. 1 propose a method by which they can vote in a national election. They should not be denied that vote any longer.

The second matter I would like to raise is this, I had challenged the. Prime Minister to have an election not merely for the Senate but for the House of Representatives. Elections for the House of Representatives can be held whenever a Prime Minister ventures to have one. There is no constitutional requirement saying that they can be held only after certain intervals. The only constitutional requirement is that they cannot be held at greater intervals than 3 years. We have never had a situation in our country where the matters for which the House of Representatives is responsible - that is, the principal fiscal matters in this country - have been in such chaos. Yesterday we found that one of the foremost paladins of law and order decided that he would not obey the present law. lt may or may not be a constitutional law but this should not be left in any dispute. The Government has for months shilly-shallied on the issue of receipts duties. Receipts duties and now payroll rax are 2 prime matters concerning the Commonwealth Budget and every Stale Budget.

Surely the proper lime to determine such issues is now. There is to be a national election for one House. The great matters in dispute between the Commonwealth and the States are all in the fiscal field where the initiative lies with the Commonwealth Government of the day; that is, with the party or coalition of parties which has a majority in this House. Accordingly, if proper order is to be achieved in the financial relations of this country and proper relations achieved between the heads of government, Federal and State, in this country now is the time to achieve that by having an election for the House of Repre sentatives at the same time as the election for the Senate. It would cast very little extra. It would in fact settle so very many issues. It is not only the Labor Premier of South Australia whose relations with the Prime Minister have been destroyed; it is all the Liberal Premiers as well. Let us settle all these issues promptly at no greater expense. Let us synchronise the elections for both chambers in this Parliament.

page 1970

QUESTION

RECEIPTS DUTY LEGISLATION

Ministerial Statement

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– by leave - As a preface to my statement on receipts duty legislation I point out to. the House that I know of no dispute with any State Premier other than the Premier of Victoria on this question of payroll tax. Honourable members will recall that last June legislation was introduced to impose a continuing Commonwealth receipts duty on business receipts. The Treasurer (Mr Bury) explained that this was being done at the request of the States, and for their benefit, the purpose being to ensure that the States did not lose revenue as a consequence of the High Court decision which invalidated their own receipts duty legislation as it applied to certain types of receipt. The Treasurer also explained that the Commonwealth legislation would - again at the request of the States - apply retrospectively to 1.8th November 1969, the date on which the Commonwealth’s agreement “to introduce legislation for the benefit of the States was foreshadowed. Provision was made, however, for exemption from duly under the Commonwealth legislation, in respect of the period 18th November 1969 to a date to be proclaimed as the end of a transitional period if duty, whether or nol validly imposed, was paid under State legislation.

The proposed legislation was approved by this House but failed to secure the approval of the Senate. Immediately after the resumption of the House following next week’s recess, the legislation will be reintroduced in the House with inclusion of provisions under which the Commonwealth legislation will cease to apply to amounts received after 30th September 1.970. The overall effect of the new Commonwealth legislation will be that business receipts during the period from 18th

November 1969 to 30th September 1970 will be liable to duty under it at the rate of 0.1 per cent, but that this liability will not arise if the provisions of State laws in this period - whether valid or invalidare complied with. One effect of this will be that, to the extent that receipts are specifically exempted or simply not dutiable under State law, they will not be dutiable under the Commonwealth law. Another effect will be that receipts which Queensland legislation has purported to make dutiable during this period will remain liable to duty at the lower rate of 0.02 per cent - provided of course, Queensland duty is in fact paid on the receipts or has already been paid.

I add that, knowing of the Government’s stated intention to proceed with Commonwealth legislation to impose, at the States’ request, a duty on business receipts, many businesses have continued to pay duty to the States even though the payment of an excise may have been involved. In 1969-70 the States actually collected 85 per cent or more of the total amount they had estimated they would receive. The essential purposes of the new Commonwealth legislation will be to validate the collections already received by the States and, in the case of businesses that have refrained from paying receipts duty in respect of the period to be covered by the Commonwealth law, to require them to make such payments.

The Government appreciates that the 1970-71 budgets of the States have been framed on the assumption that the Commonwealth receipts duty legislation would have continuing operation and that the States would therefore receive the full benefit of the receipts duty revenue that would have been payable to them in 1970-71 if the Commonwealth legislation had continuing operation. The Government also appreciates that limiting the operation of the Commonwealth legislation to receipts up to 30th September 1970 will have a significant effect on State revenues for 1970-71 and that something will need to be done to protect the budgetary situation of the States. We propose that additional Commonwealth grants will be payable to the States in 1970-71 so as to make good the reasonable losses of State revenue resulting from the termination of the Commonwealth receipts duty legislation on 30th September 1970. As in the case of other arrangements for the payment of Commonwealth assistance grants to the States in 1970-71, our willingness to do this is on the basis that the arrangements resulting from the June 1970 Premiers Conference will apply in their entirety.

For the purpose of ascertaining such reasonable losses I am in touch with the Premiers with a view to arranging consultations between the Commonwealth and State governments as quickly as possible. We have in mind that at such consultations there will be discussed the question of the future of receipts duty in the non-excise area under State legislation against the background that the Commonwealth legislation will cease to apply to amounts received after 30th September 1970.

Mr Whitlam:

– I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Is leave granted?

Mr Gorton:

– Aye.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– This is the most historic climb down since Canossa. I do not suppose we can think of any head of government whose undertakings have been so dramatically dishonoured and whose standing has been so desperately discredited. Last June the receipts duties legislation was rejected by the Senate. In the Budget speech in August the Treasurer (Mr Bury) pronounced these oracular words:

I wish to state that the Government will introduce, as part of the Budget, legislation to impose receipts duties, the revenue from which will be for the benefit of the States.

The legislation has not yet been introduced. We now learn that when the legislation is introduced it will be in a different form. The State budgets have all been delivered and were all predicated on the assumption that the Commonwealth’s undertakings would be honoured and that the receipts duties would be collected by the Commonwealth, since they could not constitutionally be collected by the States. Several of us have ventured over the last few weeks to ask when this legislation would be introduced. We now know when it will be introduced and what a foreshortened form it will take.

This is a remarkable situation. We all know that in British parliaments the tradition is that if a money Bill is defeated, as the receipts duties legislation was defeated last June, the government goes to the people to seek their endorsement of its policies. The Government did not do this. If this Bill had been introduced again and defeated again the Government should still go to the country. In fact, if the Bill were now rejected, more than 3 months after the previous rejection, and the Bill had again been rejected, the Government could have had a double dissolution - an election not just for one and a half Houses but for the whole of both Houses. Obviously the Government is not prepared to run that risk. Here we have a government skying the towel on a piece of legislation which it has not yet introduced.

There is one cryptic remark here which undoubtedly will be particularly noted by the Premier of Victoria. It relates to the Government’s undertaking now to make up to the States the amount of money which they would have got if the receipts duties legislation promised in the Commonwealth Budget had been passed by the Commonwealth Parliament. We now find that there is to be an amendment in our Budget. I do not know what Bill is to be brought in to validate these additional grants to the States.

Mr Cope:

– The Government could not do it for the pensioners. How could it do this?

Mr WHITLAM:

– That is an utterly irresponsible remark. This is not to be an election year for the House of Representatives, so the pensioners could not expect to have their living standards maintained. But the Prime Minister and Acting Treasurer stated this:

As in the case of other arrangements for the payment of Commonwealth assistance grants to the States in 1970-71 our willingness to do this-

That is, to recoup Ihe amount which would have come from the receipts duties legislation- is on the basis that the arrangements resulting from the June 1970 Premiers Conference will apply in their entirety.

The threat implicit in that single sentence will not be lost on any honourable member here. It will not be lost on the Premier of Victoria. Whatever the legal position may be about imposing payroll . tax on the State governments, the States hitherto have always consented to pay payroll tax because they realised that the Commonwealth could otherwise reduce its grants, which were within the Commonwealth’s own discretion. This has been known, of course, ever since the Menzies Government dishonoured the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement of 1945. The Chifley Government had given all the States an open cheque for housing moneys. The Menzies Government refused to pick up the bills and it said to the Slates: ‘If you go to court and enforce your obligations under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement of 1945 we will reduce your tax reimbursements, our Slate grants.’

Ever since then the States, even if they did not have to do so, have accepted the obligation to pay payroll tax. Now, the day after Sir Henry Bolte has said that he will not pay payroll tax, the Prime Minister has said in another statement: ‘You will not get reimbursement in Victoria for the receipts duties we promised to collect for you unless you pay your payroll tax.’ The amount that Victoria would have got in receipts duties presumably would have exceeded the amount it would save in payroll tax. So that is the oblique threat in this statement. I do not say that it is blackmail; it is legitimate practice between Liberal heads of government. Nobody accepted paternity for the receipts duties legislation. This waif has now been strangled. When will we get amendments to the Commonwealth Budget for this additional grant? Where is the money to come from? When, above all, will we have a government which will achieve responsible financial relations in our federal system between the Commonwealth and the States and those bodies which the Stales create?

page 1972

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP

– by leave - Mr Speaker, I move:

This is an unusual procedure. The reason for it is that, as you will know, Mr Speaker, the delegates to the Sixteenth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference are in Parliament House now. Because of their programme, they cannot be in this chamber actil approximately 11.45 o’clock. I be- believethattheyhaveentered the Senate chamber first.Following their visit to the Senate, they will be here with us. It was the thought of the members of the Executive of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and yourself, Sir, that we should take this unusual course so that the delegates may be in the chamber while we have our question time. I appreciate the co-operation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) in this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1973

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 13 October, at 2.30 p.m.

page 1973

COMMERCIAL TELEVISION STATIONS - MOUNT ISA, DARWIN, KALGOORLIE

Ministerial Statement

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General and Vice-President of the Executive Council · Petrie · LP

– by leave - Mr Speaker, following my invitation for applications for the grant of licences for commercial television stations in respect of each of the Mount Isa, Darwin and Kalgoorlie areas, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has, as required by the Broadcasting and Television Act, held public inquiries into the applications received and submitted a report and recommendation to me as to the grant of licences. Following consideration of the Board’s reportI have adopted the Board’s recommendations and now announce the grant of licences to the following applicant companies:

Mount Isa Area

Mount Isa Television Pty Ltd

Darwin Area

Lucius Laurence D’Arcy Richardson, on behalf of Territory Television Pty Ltd.

Kalgoorlie Area

Mid-Western Television Pty Ltd

In its report, the Board referred to the fact that the population in the areas to be served by the stations in question was considerably lower than the population being served by any existing stations. Accordingly, the Board, especially in relation to the Mount Jsa and Kalgoorlie areas, gave particular attention to the economic potential of the areas concerned to support commercial television services as proposed by the applicants.

Although the Board has reservations, as expressed in Its report, it concluded, having regard to all the various considerations involved, that there were reasonable prospects for the successful operation of stations in each of the areas concerned. Though it is obvious that the areas will be capable of supporting only a minimum type of commercial operation, the Board has taken the view that residents should not be deprived of some alternative television service if commercial interests are prepared to provide it. I agree with the Board’s conclusions, and I have advised the applicants accordingly.

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– by leaveMr Speaker, the Opposition welcomes the statement by the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme). The people of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and north-western Queensland are just as entitled to receive a television service as are persons in other areas of Australia. There can bc no doubt that, as far as Darwin is concerned, the commercial television station there will be a success. The basis of revenue for a television station is primarily advertising. The Darwin area is a growing and prosperous region. There can be no doubt that the people in the Darwin area and its hinterland will support this commercial television station.

As the Australian Broadcasting Control Board points out, some economic problems may arise in relation to commercial television stations at Kalgoorlie and Mount lsa. But I do not accept this as a warning. Around Kalgoorlie and Mount Isa are rich established companies, both pastoral and mineral. In Mount Isa there is one firm which is noted for the amount of money it has spent on recreational facilities for the people of the area. Perhaps it leads other companies in Australia in this regard. I have no doubt that this company would not allow a commercial television station in that area to fail. A television station in Mount Isa would beam out to the rich pastoral companies in the lower Gulf area and the areas around Cloncurry and the Barkly Tableland. These rich organisations would not allow a commercial television set-up to fail.

I can only say that this is something which is needed by the people in those areas. It will provide better recreational facilities for the people in the northern part of Australia. The people in the south have had these facilities for a very long time. It is also of interest to note an earlier statement made by the PostmasterGeneral that national television programmes will be available in Mount lsa at the end of the year and will be available to Cloncurry, Julia Creek and Richmond early in the new year. This will put the people in the northern areas in a similar position to the people in the south in terms of television facilities. They will have national television programmes as well as commercial television programmes. The Opposition supports the statement of the Minister. The only comment I have to make on behalf of the Opposition is that it is a pity the Government did not see fit to provide these facilities much earlier in the northern part of Australia and in the electorate of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Collard), where television facilities have been badly needed over the years.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– by leave - On behalf of the people in the Northern Territory and in western Queensland in the electorate of Kennedy - the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) is absent overseas serving his country in the United Nations - I welcome the statement by the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme). I know that the constituents in the electorate of Kennedy are aware that the honourable member has unceasingly pressed for television facilities in his area and they will be as pleased as I am at the announcement by the Minister. The people in the southern parts of Australia have enjoyed this amenity for many years. We in the remote areas of Australia have not. The people of Darwin will be overjoyed when they hear the news that they will have in the future a commercial television station. I am certain that the businessmen connected with the running of the stations in Darwin and Mount Isa will make a success of them. I am sure that the strength of some of the industrial companies in Mount Isa will ensure that the station there does not fail. I am advised that the area will soon be served also by a national television station. When this tune arrives I hope that consideration will be given to extending reception to Tennant Creek. I am very pleased to hear that television is coming to the outback areas ot Mount Isa, Darwin and Kalgoorlie.

Mr COLLARD:
Kalgoorlie

– by leaveI join with other speakers in welcoming the announcement of the PostmasterGeneral . (Mr Hulme). I feel sure that the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to recommend to the Postmaster-General that commercial licences should be granted to these places has the approval of all the people in the areas concerned. I can certainly say that the people of Kalgoorlie, where I live, will approve of this decision. The Postmaster-General will recall that even well before a national station was established at Kalgoorlie the business people and mining companies there were endeavouring to have a commercial station established. I must admit that at that time I was a little diffident because if a commercial station had to close because of economics, bearing in mind that at that time there was no national station and no suggestion that there would be a national station, the people who had bought television sets at some expense and had taken out insurance and all of that sort of thing would have found that their sets were of no use. Of course, today we have a national television station at Kalgoorlie.

I am not at all concerned that the commercial station will not be able to operate; the people of Kalgoorlie certainly have the security of the national station. The only concern the Postmaster-General expressed was in respect to population which, in turn, means economics. I have no concern about Kalgoorlie’s population. I am sure that the population there will increase considerably in a few years’ time. But there could be a blank period if the gold mining companies decide to cease operations in the near future. I am hopeful that we have not heard the last word from the Government about assistance to the gold mining industry. We are encouraged by the fact that the debate has not resumed on the Gold-mining Industry Assistance Bill. As far as the economics of the proposed commercial station are concerned. I am convinced that the local people of Kalgoorlie will give their full support by way of advertising and that sort of thing. Whilst I have no real personal knowledge of the situation at Mount Isa and Darwin, I would feel that the same situation would apply in these areas. With previous speakers I am pleased to support this proposition which, as I said earlier, meets with the approval of ali the people concerned.

Mr SHERRY:
Franklin

– by leave - I join with previous speakers in applauding the announcement of the establishment of commercial services in the 3 areas which were outlined by the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme). However, 1 would like to ask the Minister one very quick question. He said that it is obvious that the areas will be capable of supporting only a minimum type commercial operation. T would like to ask: Is this in fact some departure from the accepted norm in a recommendation from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board? Could . the Postmaster-General explain to me what is meant precisely by ‘a minimum type of commercial operation’?

page 1975

EDUCATION RESEARCH BILL 1970

Bill presented by Mr N. H. Bowen, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr N H Bowen:
Minister for Education and Science · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the election policy of the Government to increase the amount of Commonwealth assistance given to educational research in Australia. As honourable members are no doubt aware, some details of this policy were given in my statement in the House on 16th April 1970. The Commonwealth is already assisting educational research in a number of ways. Some examples of this are the assistance given to selected educational research projects through the Australian Research Grants Committee and the Commonwealth Advisory Committee on Advanced Education. In addition there is the annual grant to the Australian Council for Educational Research and special grants to individual projects such as the Australian Science Education Project and the Tertiary Education Entrance project. There are also special grants for the purposes of research and research training in the programme of assistance to universities.

Notwithstanding that the Commonwealth has for some time been assisting educational research in this country, it has become evident that more needs to be done. In September 1969, at a meeting in Canberra, a number of leading Australian educationists carefully considered (he needs of educational research in Australia and highlighted several areas demanding greater attention. The meeting strongly recommended that a greater measure of assistance be given to research in education, and emphasised the importance of communication of results, identification of areas of national importance, co-ordination of research efforts and the training of research personnel. Subsequently the Government promised, as part of its policy before the 1969 elections, to stimulate educational research still further by means of special assistance, commencing with the allocation of $250,000 in the 1970-71 Budget. The Bill now before the House and the programme to which it gives effect are the results of that promise.

To implement this policy and to advise me on the administration of the new research programme, I have established a committee known as the Australian Advisory Committee on Research and Development in Education. The Chairman of this Committee is Professor P. H. Partridge of the Australian National University. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard details of the membership of the Committee.

page 1975

AUSTRALIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION MEMBERSHIP

page 1975

CHAIRMAN -

Professor P. H. Partridge, Professor of Social Philosophy. Australian National University. -

page 1975

MEMBERS-

Mr R. S. Coggins, Principal, Salisbury Teachers’ College, South Australia

Professor A. G. Mitchell, Vice-Chancellor, Macquarie University

Mr D. M. Morrison, Assistant Secretary, Policy and Research Branch, Department of Education and Science, Canberra

Professor E. A. Russell, Professor of Economics, University of Adelaide

Mr D. J. A. Verco. DirectorGeneral of Education. New South Wales.

Mr A. H. Webster, Director of Planning, Department of Education, New South Wales

Mr L. W. Weickhardt. DeputyChancellor, University of Melbourne.

Mr W. Wood, Director of Special Education Services, Department of Education, Queensland

The Committee has held 2 meetings. When this legislation is passed, the Committee plans, as part of its programme, to call for applications for support to research projects from the beginning of 1971. As honourable members will recall, the terms of reference of the Committee were set out in detail in my statement in the House on 16th April. To summarise them briefly, they are to advise the Minister on priorities in educational research, to make recommendations for the financial support of research projects and the training of research personnel, and to suggest means for the improvement of educational research and the application of results in Australia. I have no doubt that this programme will give fresh impetus to educational research in Australia, and, what is more, I look to the Advisory Committee to identify basic issues and to stimulate activity where it is most needed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Barnard) adjourned.

page 1976

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1970-71

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 30 September (vide page 1955).

Second Schedule.

Department of National Development

Proposed expenditure, $38,457,200.

Upon which Mr Stewart had moved by way of amendment:

That the proposed expenditure be reduced by $10.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I want to make some comments, within the context of this Estimates debate, on regional development in Tasmania. In May 1943 Mr Chifley, who was then Minister for Post-war Reconstruction as well as Treasurer, made an interesting forecast on the future of regional development in Australia. He said that the war had given an immense boost to the prospects of planned and sustained regional development of the country districts of Australia. This was due to the policy of decentralisation of munitions production which had involved a capital expenditure of S22m in 35 regional areas. The setting up of munitions factories as strategic points had drawn in the necessary labour power from the local and surrounding towns. This meant that many country regions throughout Australia were being sustained and, in some cases, even developed in time of war. Mr

Chifley went on to make the following pertinent comment:

If this can be achieved under the stress of war, a great deal more can be done by an orderly policy of decentralisation in the post-war period.

It is a matter of very great regret that this recognition of the range and possibility of regional planning was allowed to dissipate in the postwar period. Instead of regional planning at the Commonwealth level, decentralisation policies at the State level were substituted. It is no disrepect to the dedicated efforts of State governments of all political complexions to say that these efforts were unproductive. Only in the past 2 or 3 years have we been getting the sort of regional surveys and blueprints for regional planning which can bring fruitful results.

I refer to the study of Tasmania made by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation called ‘Tasmania in the Seventies’. This study was commissioned by the State Government of Tasmania and the Federation of Tasmanian Chambers of Commerce; it was published a month or so ago. It is a very competent piece of work reflecting the experience gained by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation in similar studies in New South Wales. I do not think it breaks a lot of new ground. Anyone who has spent any time at all in government, administrative or commercial work in Tasmania will be familiar with the bulk of the material contained in the survey and with the conclusions and recommendations flowing from them made by the Foundation. They are unexceptionable and completely sane and logical.

The great virtue of the study is that it collects in coherent form a mass of information about Tasmania, a detailed assessment of the growth problems facing the island, and a series of suggestions on how to handle them. This is a survey on the whole of Tasmania; there are other surveys being made of individual regions such as the Tamar Valley. These will add to our knowledge of growth problems facing these regions and give some inkling of solutions to potential problems. But the whole value of these surveys will be negated unless some framework can be found to fit them into a national scheme for regional development.

I have used Tasmania as an example; any other State or any other region within a

State could be used to point up the argument for formulating regional development schemes linking Commonwealth. State and local government agencies. Unless this can be done there will be no sustained or consistent development in great tracts of this country. Pockets of neglected and economic stagnation will develop as resources are allocated unfairly or inefficiently. The need for Commonwealth initiatives in regional development has been stressed repeatedly by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) at every forum he can command. There has been no more persistent advocate of regional development and decentralisation policies in the political history of this country. lt is a matter for the deepest regret that the Government has not matched this advocacy, that the opportunities for generating regional growth have been frittered away. Already the danger signals are apparent in parts of Tasmania. The recent rise of some 1.24- per cent in shipping freights has had a heavy impact on a State completely dependent on sea transport. This matter will be discussed further by honourable members during the debate on the estimates for the Department of Shipping and Transport, and 1 have no wish to go into it in any detail.

There are pressing rural problems in Tasmania and these will be intensified when Britain enters the Common Market. There are industrial problems dramatised in the shift of some major industries back to mainland States. There are demographic problems illustrated by the loss of overseas immigrants and members of the 15 to 25 years age group to other States. The outward migration from Tasmania averaged about 1, 100 a year in the period from 1961 to 1966. concentrated mainly in the two broad groupings I have mentioned.

New developments, such as the Savage River mining venture. have not brought much direct flowback into the State. As the Hunter Valley survey points out, the removal of minerals, the cutting down of forests, the building of factories, the disposal of effluents, and general urban growth are all matters which have raised sharp conflicts in Tasmanian development. They emphasise the need for physical planning on a regional level.

This is a necessarily over-simplified account of Tasmania’s problems today. No doubt they are shared by many other natural regions of Australia. But in Tasmania they are intensified by physical isolation and the almost exclusive reliance on sea transport bringing in its wake the problems of what one writer has strikingly called the ‘tyranny of distance.’

Against this background 1 draw attention to one aspect of regional development in Tasmania which I understand is before the Government at this moment. This is the provision of a railway line through the Tamar Valley from Launceston to Bell Bay. This is not a new project; it has been mooted for many years, ft has been part of Labor’s Federal election campaign for the past 3 elections. A pledge to build the rail link was included by the former leader of the Labor Party, the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), in the 1963 and 1 966 electoral platforms of the Labor Party. During last year’s campaign the present Leader of the Opposition undertook that the next Labor Government would build the railway.

The need lor the railway goes back beyond this decade. In 1950 a joint committee of the Tasmanian Parliament recommended that the link be built and that Commonwealth assistance be sought to build it. A limiting factor at this stage was that it was thought advisable to wail until port and industrial development at Bell Bay had reached a stage where substantial bulk traffic by rail to and from Bell Bay was economically feasible. In the subsequent years State Governments were not successful in obtaining funds for the rail link from the Commonwealth. This may have been due to lingering doubts about the economic validity of the project. These doubts would certainly have been dispelled by the potential of the wood chip industry in the Tamar Valley.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) who sits at the tabic has some knowledge of the wood chip industry and the great potential that the wood chip industry has for Tasmania as a whole, lt can be said quite fairly that the Minister has shown a great deal of interest in this matter. He would, I am sure, appreciate the great value of this new industry to the economic development of Tasmania, ft would most certainly help to overcome gome of the problems that have arisen as a result of increases in freight rates and other difficulties experienced by Tasmania in recent years, some of which I have referred to.

But the case for the railway has been further reinforced by the need to plug the transport structure of northern Tasmania into a container network based on the port of Bell Bay. Unless this is done the whole pattern of transport development and its links with containerisation will be sharply distorted in favour of the South of the State. There have been significant developments in the case for the rail link in the past few months. According to the preliminary results of the study by the Pak-Poy company of Tasmania’s transport problems, the establishment of the proposed wood chip industries would justify the rail link apart from the important arguments for the future development of the north and north east and the port of Bell Bay.

The Tasmanian Government is pushing the project, admittedly with a much more sympathetic ear from the Commonwealth Government than was ever accorded to the previour Labor Government in the 15 years to May last year. The State’s Commissioner for Transport, Mr Webb, has made a feasibility study estimating the total cost of the new link, improvements to existing tracks, provision of new rolling stock and equipment, and the building of a new freight yard in Launceston at around $14.6m. The cost of the Bell Bay link alone has been estimated at $3,275,000. Ten years ago it could have been provided for just over Sim. This shows the magnitude of the opportunity that has been missed over the years.

There is an excellent case to provide at least the cost of the rail link by way of a non-repayable grant. An immense volume of Commonwealth money has been poured into rail projects in all States of the Commonwealth in the past few years. This spending on important rail links is not begrudged, but surely there is scope for a grant to Tasmania which has got nothing for rail development from the Commonwealth. Now Sir Henry Bolte wants the Commonwealth to take over Victoria’s State railways; he has also lobbied intensively for an amount reported as $80m to develop underground railways in Melbourne. In this context a grant of $3m to

Tasmania for the Bell Bay rail link is an extremely modest one. The situation at the moment seems to be that the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Bethune, says a comprehensive case for the rail link had been sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). According to Press reports, Mr Bethune was so confident of a successful outcome to his submission that he had stipulated 30th June 1972 as the target date for completion of the rail link. The Prime Minister does not seem so sure about the future of the railway. When I questioned him about the Tasmanian Government’s submission on 2nd September, he said he had not seen such a submission and he doubted if one had been received by his Department.

However, with a Senate election imminent it is possible the submission will get a much quicker passage to the Prime Minister’s ‘in’ tray. There is no objection to this grant being offered as part of the Government’s electoral programme; this is a legitimate tactic and, as I pointed out earlier, the Labor Party has been committed to the project in the last 3 election campaigns. But it would be regrettable if the grant was flung to Tasmania as some sort of a sop for the recent stiff increase in shipping freight rates. The rail link is an economically feasible one; it has always been feasible but the case for it has been reinforced by the potential for the woodchip industry in the Tamar Valley. It is most necessary if any benefit is to flow to the north and north east of Tasmania with the development of containerisation. The provision of the link by the Commonwealth should be regarded as a genuine contribution to regional development; it should be seen in the perspective of stimulating and sustaining regional growth in this important area of Tasmania. This would be a much more appropriate response than merely making the grant for short-term electoral purposes or as a palliative for a very unpopular freight increase.

May I say in conclusion that both the Minister for National Development, and the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) are not unaware of the problems. Certainly they are both aware of the very generous gifts that have been given to other States of the Commonwealth for the provision of water supplies, for the standardisation of the rail guage throughout Australia and for additional rail links in

South Australia. All these matters have been considered on the basis of what is fair and reasonable to provide for the future development of the State. 1- hope that the Minister for National Development, who surely is not unaware of the Hunter Valley report, will give further consideration to the matters which I have raised.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– In dealing with the estimates for the Department of National Development I want to concentrate on the delay that has occurred in the building of the Dartmouth Dam. My constituents are very conscious of the fact that they require more water. Fortunately there has been reasonably good rain lately and the Murray River, of course, is running a banker. But it could have been very dry and it could be very dry for the next 3 or 4 years. Therefore, it is very necessary that the Dartmouth Dam be built as soon as possible. What is the history of the holdup? The history is that when the Bill came into this House there were all sorts of amendments and speeches against the Dartmouth Dam proposal being implemented immediately and the South Australians concentrated on the case for the Chowilla Dam. The shadow Minister for Primary Industry, the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), moved this amendment:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: this House is of opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until the Commonwealth has negotiated with the States for the establishment of a national water conservation and construction authority, embracing the Snowy Mountains Authority, to carry out a systematic and efficient development of soundly based water storages in the major river basins including the Murray and Darling systems.’

This motion would hold up the building of any dam, for the simple reason that if we had all these systematic investigations that are envisaged in the amendment not only months but years would pass by. Furthermore, after a final decision was made the governments concerned would have to agree to it. Therefore we are left without any building of a dam at all. What happened after that was that the present South Aus tralian Premier saw immediately that there was a chance for his party to get back into Government. So in the South Australian Parliament a motion was moved regarding the dam. As the propaganda had been spread from here, and existed in South Australia, that if this dam were built the Chowilla Dam would never be built, the South Australian people believed this and supported the Government which was saying that they would lose Chowilla. The present Premier of South Australia gained his present position as a result.

National development is largely water conservation, because following on water conservation all sorts of development can be undertaken nationally. 1 know that the Minister for National Development (Mr Swartz) was very concerned thai the States had not all agreed to the building of this dam at the stage he had recommended for its building, as Chairman of the River Murray Commission. In that capacity he is a very important figure in this House and in Australia. What is happening at the present time? A motion for these investigations to be made was moved b.y the honourable member for Dawson and supported quite naturally by all the South Australians who thought they might be losing Chowilla. J remember at that time f said to the South Australians: ‘Why throw the towel in so easily? You know if you get Dartmouth built now, if Chowilla can be justified the very weight of the justification will cause it to be built’. But no, they would not have that at all. I think they viewed the position of the then South Australian Opposition and thought the case they were putting up would help put it back into office. Of course that proved to be right.

The honourable member for Riverina (Mr Grassby) whose electorate is, for a certain distance, across the river from the electorate of Mallee, supported the amendment. The South Australians supported it. Therefore the whole thing is held up. There is no chance of getting water at an early date from the Dartmouth Dam. I was going to put a question to the Minister and ask: ls it the normal course for the River Murray Commission that when it recommends the building of a storage it also recommends other storages to be built almost immediately, or does the Commission recommend a storage when it feels it is necessary to do so and believes that it would give more water to this nation, and perhaps does not recommend others at that stage?

The whole story of the River Murray is that certain locks and weirs are built when opportunity offers and finance permits and when they are necessary. I ask: Was the River Murray Commission acting in other than the normal way in recommending the building of the Dartmouth Dam without recommending Chowilla and a lot of other storages that apparently are envisaged in the amendment? Over the years the River Murray Commission has recommended, after a great deal of investigation, water storages that it has considered to be in the best interests of those parts of Australia requiring the water that a storage would supply. South Australia knows quite well that Dartmouth would give it much more water than would Chowilla. This was pointed out definitely by the experts.

I was chided for having supported Chowilla at an earlier stage. It is quite right that I supported Chowilla because the experts at that time thought Chowilla was the place to build a dam. But after further investigation the experts said that it was transparently clear that the building of Dartmouth was required and desired more than the building of Chowilla. South Australians would get extra water from Dartmouth. It would be better water, too. It was stated very definitely that the water would be clearer and purer. Therefore I cannot understand why some honourable members support in this place the Chowilla project before Dartmouth. A fairly prominent new member of this place is reported in a newspaper dated 4th September 1970 as having stated: l have continued to stress the commonsense position - Dartmouth is urgent to avoid disaster.

Mr Cope:

– What are my stars for tomorrow?

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honourable member’s star is falling. I do not want to name the honourable member who made this statement because it is not favourable to him. This same member of the Australian Labor Party, when we were debating the River Murray Waters Bill, was not so adamant that it was urgent that Dartmouth should be built. If he had been he would never have supported an amendment put at that time by the shadow

Minister for Primary Industry. The shadow Cabinet Minister for Primary Industry perhaps is interested in water conservation but he is not interested personally locally in the areas to be supplied by Dartmouth. His electorate is in Queensland. In the Riverina and in the Mallee electorate the people are intensely interested in water conservation. Therefore I feel that the Opposition should do something at the first opportunity it gets. Honourable members opposite should get up now and advocate that the building of the Dartmouth Dam is absolutely necessary if those in South Australia and in the electorate I represent are to have more water. But of course things have changed in the meantime. The same honourable member is reported as having stated:

The deadlock was caused by the decision to approve Dartmouth alone without a commitment to further storages on the Murray.

That should not have been a deadlock. Why not build Dartmouth alone? Then if we want to get Chowilla later on, as I said, we can have it also. Owing to certain circumstances related to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association I have been asked to finish speaking at 11.44 a.m. It is so near to that time that it does not matter. So let me make a final plea, not to the Minister because the Minister is active and wants to build Dartmouth, but to the representatives of South Australia to get together and show that they made a mistake when they opposed the Dartmouth project and that the amendment that has been moved is really holding up the building of Dartmouth, and let the Minister get on with the job.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr GRASSBY:

– Yes. During the course of his remarks the honourable member for Mallee stated that I was opposed to the Dartmouth Dam. The transcript of the original debate indicates quite clearly - and I said it on several occasions during the course of the debate, which came before the House in a fragmented fashion - that I made a plea for the early construction of this dam. The only other statement that I made during the whole of the debate was that it should not be the only storage approved on the River. I did not oppose it in the terms indicated by the honourable member for Mallee.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! I think that the honourable member has made his point.

Mr TURNBULL (Mallee)- Mr Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Does the honourable member for Mallee claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr TURNBULL:

– Yes. Let me say in explanation that I did not mention the name of the honourable member-

Mr Foster:

– You indicated him.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I did not mention it. I did not say that the honourable member for Riverina opposed the Bill; I said he supported the amendment. He is far too sensitive.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Mallee will resume his seat.

Progress reported.

page 1981

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr SPEAKER:

– Are there any questions?

page 1981

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE ACT

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

– My question is directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Is it true that the High Court of Australia over a period of years has said that the defence power increases or decreases according to whether there is war or peace? Did Mr Justice Williams say that this power is one that expands or contracts according to the dangers to the security of Australia and that the power is peculiarly one with respect to which it is the duty of the High Court to be satisfied as to the facts? As there has been no referendum on conscription, as there is no state of war and as there are a number of servicemen who are prepared to defend this country but who are unable or unwilling to serve in Vietnam, will the Minister arrange for a test case, by way of a stated case, to be submitted to the High Court to determine whether the legislation which compels servicemen to fight in Vietnam in a time of peace is within the ambit of the defence power of the Constitution?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I think that the firstpoint to make to answer this question is that there is no power under the Constitution for a stated case to be made to the High Court. For the High Court to decide an issue, there must be a matter before it for adjudication. That is the first point to make. So, there is no capacity to do that.

As to the main purpose of the question, the honourable gentleman apparently thinks that there is some shortage of defence power to authorise the legislation. I assure him that it is open to anybody to take a matter before the High Court if that person is able to establish his or her locus standi, that is, his or her right to be there. As far as I know, it has not been taken there. Therefore, one can only assume that, with the array of left wing legal advice that is available publicly and privately and that is proffered whether asked for or not and is volunteered constantly, there would have been a case before the High Court if any of those legal luminaries thought it could be challenged.

The defence power certainly does expand according to the degree of danger. But I have no doubt that the degree of danger required to justify the National Service Act certainly exists. As a matter of policy, the Government pursues national service because it believes that it is important that treaty obligations can be fulfilled. It believes that it is essential that other countries can accept the authenticity of the determination of the Australian Government that small countries ought to have the right to determine their own futures just as we Australians would always want it for ourselves.

page 1981

QUESTION

EXERCISE OF CONSCIENCE

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Our minds of late have been somewhat centred on areas of conscience pertaining to our young national service trainees. Will the Minister give similar thought to our young men and women who, through conscience, do not wish to join a trade union or to pay a political levy? Having given this matter due consideration, will the Minister indicate what approaches can be made to the unions to remedy the situation?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The concept of conscientious objection has a long history and it has been accepted on both sides of this House as a proper concept for which to make special arrangements. It has also been accepted by the trade union movement in terms of joining the trade union movement. That concept has been expressed in the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It has also been expressed in the National Service Aci. The difficulty that anybody has with conscientious objection, whether it be to national service or to union membership, is to establish a means of determining the sincerity with which the belief is held. That is the primary point. As far as the National Service Act is concerned, the manner in which it can be tested and the person by whom it can be tested are clearly laid down. So far as the unions are concerned there is no clear statement of the way it should be determined. The unions determine the issue ad hoc on individual occasions.

Looking at the record it seems that the determination of the unions depends very much on who is making the claim and on that occasion who is to determine the claim. There are 3 things which clearly emerge in relation to the attitude of unions to conscientious objection held by a person to joining a union. The first is that it differs very greatly from union to union. The second thing is that no union accepts a man’s claim to be a conscientious objector merely because he says he has a conscientious objection. The unions insist that the issue be tested and they in fact do the testing. The third thing which is abundantly clear is that unions do not accept a selective conscientious objection to the joining of any particular union.

page 1982

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORT LICENCES

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware of the hostility and extreme concern existing among top level management of the meat industry in my electorate and throughout Australia generally due to the manner in which licences for the export of meat to the United States of America are being rescinded? Is he aware of the dissatisfaction and threats of resignation among Commonwealth meat inspectors due to the Government’s action in bringing New Zealand inspectors to Australia and working them at a salary lower than that paid to Commonwealth meat inspectors? Does the Minister realise that this action is considered a threat to the wage standard of Commonwealth meat inspectors who have long been demanding wage justice and a hearing before the Public Service Arbitrator to press their claims? rs he aware that the regulations in relation to the export of meal are largely subject to the interpretations placed on them by individual. American personnel and therefore change from day to day and from shed to shed and in the attempt to cope with the same regulations it has cost the meat industry of Australia $200m so far and it is still unable to meet the regulations? What was the outcome of the -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable members question is far too long.

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA · ALP

– I will finish on this note. What was the outcome of the conference held on Wednesday, 23rd September, between the Australian Meat Board and representatives of the Victorian meat industry to overcome this unsatisfactory state of affairs? When will the Government take a stand to stop this unwarranted incompetent interference.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member’s question is far too long. 1 remind the House that 2 of the 3 questions which have so far been asked this morning were far too long for the benefit of the House.

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

– The honourable member for Gellibrand asked me whether I am aware of the difficulties of exporting meat to the United States market. I am afraid that I would have to be dead not to be conscious of them. I am badgered on all sides by the many problems that are facing the exports of Australian meat, particularly to the United States market. All of these problems are centred on the killing, dressing and processing of Australian meats to meet the standards required by the American Government. One has to realise that the Americans are the buyers and that they are laying down the standards. They may bc severe. Unfortunately this is the trend today. The public is demanding the highest protection possible in relation to the quality of food that is coming on to the market. What we have to do is try to meet those wishes. If we do not meet them we stand a severe risk of losing a most valuable market for Australian meat, a market which is taking approximately threequarters of our production. If we did not have that market we would have to sell our meat on a lower market and indeed it is not easy to find alternative markets quickly. Whilst there are enormous difficulties^ - I understand the stresses and strains that these are placing on everyone - I also want to see Australia try to meet the demands that the Americans are making providing that these demands are reasonable and sensible. Indeed, these demands are by no means greater than those being made on American abattoirs if they want Federal registration.

The honourable member also asked a question about New Zealand inspectors who have been brought in to relieve the situation. He said that Australian inspectors have complained. Why are we doing this? We are bringing inspectors from New Zealand to try to give Commonwealth meat inspectors recreation leave. I have spoken to the honourable member about this matter in the House before. Because we have made an arrangement to bring New Zealand meat inspectors to Australia to enable Commonwealth meat inspectors to take leave, our meat inspectors have complained. For a period of time they used very strong language because we made this arrangement. The Commonwealth meat inspectors at one stage did not want the New Zealand inspectors at all. However, if inspectors were not brought from New Zealand, meatworks would have to close down completely and workers in those places would be dismissed. Also, the producers would not be able to sell their meat and the price would collapse. There has to be a little bit of sense, reason and compromise by all parties to try to see that meat is handled in a sensible way and we are able to continue to export. In regard to obtaining increased benefits for Commonwealth meat inspectors, I and my Department have done everything possible by way of an approach to the Public Service Board to have their conditions improve. I have already mentioned in this House that considerable improvements have been made to their job and we will continue to do what we can to see that their position in relation to other jobs in the community is kept at a satisfactory level.

page 1983

QUESTION

SOUTH PACIFIC COUNTRIES: AUSTRALIAN AID

Mr HOWSON:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I would like to ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport a question concerning his recent visit to Fiji when he led the Australian delegation to the South Pacific Conference. Can he tell the House whether there is, as a result of his visit, a greater realisation by Australia of the needs of the developing nations in the South West Pacific and whether there is a growing understanding by the leaders of those nations of the role being played by Australia in extending aid given to these people?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– It is true that in company with the honourable member for Bennelong and Senator Drury, a Labor senator from South Australia, I attended and represented the Australian Parliament at the recent meeting of the South Pacific Conference in Fiji. It should be said that, since the days when the Canberra Agreement constituted the South Pacific Commission and with it the South Pacific Conference, Australia has played a leading part both in the sponsorship of the Conference and in the operation of the functions of the Commission. Indeed, a former senior officer of the Department of the Treasury is today one of the economic directors of the South Pacific Commission. Through him, and of course in the direct participation of the Australian representative commissioners, the Australian Government continues to exercise a deal of influence on the aid projects and the development of the region. It was of interest that at this Conference there should be, for the first time, a recognition that increasingly there will be a direct participation by the newly independent countries of the South Pacific. Of course, Nauru and Tonga already have achieved independence and next week Fiji itself also is to achieve independence. Perhaps in the future the role of the Conference and its relationship with the South Pacific Commission will be seen in a somewhat different light.

I would make the observation that there is no doubt that the participating countries within the Conference, as well as the metropolitan powers, contribute much to a greater mutual understanding of the collective problems of development of the region. I believe that in co-operation with the international agencies, whose aid programmes are integrated with those of the Commission, much good resulted from the Fiji Conference. Indeed I would believe that in this Parliament of the South West

Pacific as Mr Oala Oala-Rarua-

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw you attention to the length of the Minister’s reply. Might I say that because visitors are in the galleries, we are not asking for second reading speeches in reply to questions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member will resume his seat.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– lt is most disappointing that the Labor Party, being represented by a Labor Senator at the South Pacific Conference

Mr Armitage:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That is enough.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Why don’t you keep him to the rules?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Hindmarsh.

Mr Armitage:

– In view of your ruling yesterday, Mr Speaker, that personal explanations should not be made or points of order taken on a political basis, and in view of the remarks by the Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I trust that the Australian people recognise the indifference which members of the Opposition in this chamber show to what 1 would see as a developing parliament of South West Pacific nations. Indeed, their altitude is, 1 think, entirely irresponsible. It reflects little credit on what I would regard-

Mr Bryant:

– Show a little respect. The Minister is making a farce of question time. He is making a speech attacking the Labor Party. There is no basis for-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Wills will resume his seat. I might point out that the Minister represented the Australian Government at the Conference. He is replying to an interjection.

Mr SINCLAIR:

– I was also representing the Parliament with representatives of the 2 other principal parties of the Parliament. 1 believed that during the course of the meetings of the Conference the 3 parliamentary members all felt as 1 did and I am disappointed to find that within this Parliament there does not seem to be the same support for the Conference as I would have expected. Nonetheless let me reassure members of this Parliament that 1 regard the South Pacific Conference as a venue where in future Australia will continue to play a significant role. I would hope that the developing countries of the region would also. through this venue, be able more effectively to give expression to their attitudes and opinions on the economic and political development we hope for.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! All honourable members will resume their seats. As earlier

I drew attention to the fact that some of the questions being asked were far loo long [ would also suggest to the Ministers who are answering questions that some of their answers also are far too long. I would suggest that they co-operate with the Chair in the request that I have made on several occasions that answers should not be of excessive length.

page 1984

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Delegations

Mr SPEAKER:

– 1 wish lo draw the attention of the House to the presence in our galleries this morning of :t large number of distinguished visitors who have come from the many countries within the Commonwealth of Nations to represent their Branches at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference to be held in this chamber during the next week. As honourable members will know, there will be an opportunity today for them to meet our visitors, but I am sure that the House would wish me lo convey its very warm welcome to them and its sincere wish that their visit to Canberra will bc thoroughly enjoyable and that the demands of the Conference will not prevent them from seeing something of our national capital. On your behalf, I wish the delegates well in their discussions at the Conference. 1 trust that they will leave Australia wth the happiest of memories of their stay with us.

Honourable members - Hear, hear!

page 1985

QUESTION

PASSPORTS TO RHODESIA

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Immigration a question which concerns the facilitation of travel by Australians to Rhodesia. I know from the Prime Minister that the Minister’s Department acted in accordance with the Government’s policy in issuing Australian passports, since the unilateral declaration of independence, to 3 men who were born in Australia but who now serve the Rhodesian Department of External Affairs in Salisbury, Pretoria and Lisbon. I ask the Minister whether passports are freely given to persons who were born in Australia and who still reside here but who go to Rhodesia on propaganda missions for the Rhodesian regime. The latest instance I have in mind is the recent visit by the national director of the notoriously reactionary and anti-Semitic League of Rights, Mr Eric Butler.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– The honourable gentleman has referred to a particular case. I will look at the circumstances to which he has drawn attention and provide him with an answer in writing.

page 1985

QUESTION

LOANS TO RURAL PRODUCERS

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I have a short question for the Prime Minister. I refer to the announcement yesterday that further funds were to be released by the Reserve Bank of Australia to the trading banks to enable further loans to be made by the banks from the Farm Development Fund and the Term Loan Fund. I ask the Prime Minister: Will these loans be made to rural producers, who are, as is well known, labouring under disabilities today, at the concessional rate of interest which was announced in respect of farm loans several months ago?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I believe that the honourable member is referring to an announcement made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank that a further $63m would be made available to the major trading banks for farm development funds, as to $32m I think, and for term funds, as to $31m. The honourable member will also remember that this Government took action in the past with the Reserve Bank and the trading banks to see that when interest on these funds was raised for the community generally in the past, this did not occur in the case of primary producers.

page 1985

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Prime Minister able to say whether some State governments and many private employers make up the pay of staff called up for national service? If so, will he agree to supplement the pay of Commonwealth public servants called up for national service to the amount which they would have received had they remained in the Public Service?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– This is a matter which is, as I understand it, under the review of the Public Service Board at the present moment. I do know that a number of instrumentalities and a number of private employers make up the pay of those who are called up foc national service. I recently had it drawn to my attention that on one occasion an employee of the Commonwealth felt that his pay was not being made up. I have not sufficient facts to say definitely that it was not; but he had a case to say that it was not, and I have asked for that to be examined.

page 1985

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Labour and National Service noted that section of the statement of the Leader of the Opposition which was tabled in this House last Friday, in which he said:

If members of the Caucus, for instance, were members of the Labor governments in Sweden, Switzerland, Israel or Singapore at the present time they would support conscription in the circumstances in which those countries find themselves.

I ask: Does this represent a change in the policy of the Labor Party on conscription? In what way does it differ from Government policy?

Mr Kennedy:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I understand it, question time is designed to elicit information from a Minister concerning matters within his jurisdiction. This matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister and I suggest the question is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The question was not asked of the Prime Minister. It was asked of the Minister for Labour and National Service and the matter is within his jurisdiction.

Mr Bryant:

– He has not got any jurisdiction over the Labor Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Part of the question relates to a difference between Australian policy and policies of other countries. The honourable member would be nearer the mark in relation to the matter of Labor Party policy, but in that part of the question relating to the difference between the policies of the various governments that were named is in order.

Mr Whitlam:

– I rise to order.I will try a new point of Order with you, Mr Speaker, and that is consistency.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Mr Whitlam:

– Can I try one of the traditional ones?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that in speaking of tradition he maintain the tradition of this House and when he raises a point of order he will not preface it. He will rise and ask the Chair for its indulgence to raise a point of order.

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– It is not surprising that some points of order should be raised to prevent the answering of this question.

MrBirrell - Get on and answer it.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– It is very difficult to answer a question which calls for a knowledge of what the Labor Party’s policy is about conscription because it seems that the policy on the other side of the House-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to order. Mr Speaker, you have ruled that the second part of the question concerning the Labor Party’s policy is out of order. We now find the Minister ignoring the first part of the question that was in order and answering the second part which was not.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not believe that I ruled that the first part was out of order. It has been the custom and practice of this House that in questions matters that are of public interest have been allowed.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The Government’s policy is perfectly clear. It is as I set out in an earlier answer to a question, that is, to make sure that the armed forces of Australia are at the level which is required of them and that there are adequate Citizen Military Forces. I am asked to compare that with other policies. It is very difficult to compare that with a policy when the policy is what somebody says it is for the moment when he says it, just as it suits him. I have always understood that my colleagues on the other side of the House with a proper national interest had said that conscription is justifiable only when the country is under threat. I thought I understood that until I read what the Leader of the Opposition had said last week, that is, that if members of the Labor Party were in government in Singapore, Switzerland, Sweden or Israel they would support conscription. I thought to myself: Which country is likely to rush over the Alps into Switzerland, take Geneva and imprison the Swiss? What about Sweden? Sweden has a Labor government most certainly - a Socialist government dependent upon Communist support - and this is a country which the Leader of the Opposition says quite clearly should have conscription. Singapore is another interesting place. If conscription is justifiable in Singapore in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition he apparently believes in the domino theory - that it is justifiable for the Government of Singapore to have conscription in order to be prepared to resist a downward thrust of conquering Communism. So the honourable gentleman has made the Labor Party’s policy what he wants it to be at the time he states it, and I am certainly sure that other members of the Labor Party do hot share the enunciation of his policy that he made the other day.

page 1986

QUESTION

OMEGA NAVIGATION FACILITY

Mr BARNARD:

-I ask the Acting Minister for External Affairs whether an agreement has been reached between the United States of America and Australia to provide an Omega navigation facility in Australia. If so, what are the terms of the agreement and will it be tabled in the House? Would the cost to Australia of setting up such a facility be around $4m to $5m with an annual operating cost to Australia of $US300,000?Has a site for the facility been selected in the north west of Tasmania on the River Forth near Mount Pelion west and extending into the sea between Devonport and Ulverstone? If so, has preliminary construction work begun on this site? Will the navigation site be controlled from a master transmission station in Hawaii? Finally, is it possible with the Omega system to obtain extremely accurate navigation fixes for nuclear submarines capable of firing Polaris and Poseidon missiles?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have noted the information which the honourable member has provided. I will check to see whether it is accurate and provide him with an answer.

page 1987

QUESTION

TARIFFS

Mr FOX:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry and preface it by referring to an article, published with considerable display a couple of days ago in one of the big daily newspapers, dealing with the cost of tariff protection. I ask the Minister whether the Government continuously reviews the level of tariffs. Is it a fact that, as stated, the burden of the present level of tariffs is of the order of $2,700m a year? Finally, are our tariffs based on the test of an industry being economic and efficient?

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

– I think it can be said that the Australian tariff is continually under review. Since I have been responsible for the operations of the Tariff Board and tariff policies - about 14 years - there have been S13 references to the Board on individual items, a number of these references embracing whole sectors of Australian industry. So this does represent a continuous review. As a matter of interest, of those 513 references, 492 reports by the Tariff Board have been adopted by the Government, 7 have been referred back to the Board and only 14 in that period have been rejected by the Government. As a quick matter of interest to those who think that all tariffs impose a burden on the community, I point out that 56 per cent of the reports of the Tariff Board over that period recommended an increase in protection, 107 reports recommended decreased protection and 117 reports recommended no alteration in the tariff at all. The calculation that has been made in the article referred to - that is, that the burden of tariff on the community is of the order of $2,700m a year - can only be some sort of a calculation based on all industry taking the maximum advantage of the tariff, which is not the case, and assuming that this would be the burden compared with no protection at all. Surely everyone knows that with no tariff protection at all there would be practically no Australian manufacturing industry. The Tertiary industries - the civil service, transport industries, hospitals and education - are based principally on the earnings of the producing industries.

I think it is quite ridiculous to say that this is a burden being carried by the community, for without this policy of protection there would be nothing of the fabric of Australian society. There would be no sizeable Australian nation at all. Protection is not confined only to’ manufacturing industry. There would be no sugar industry in Australia and very little northern population if there were no tariff. The dairying and other industries would not be able to sustain uninhibited competition. In regard to the last part of the question relating to the test for protection entitlement of an economic and efficient industry, this has been the historical test. Most of Australian industry has been established during the time when competition in manufacture came from Britain, due to the operation of our trade agreement. It is one thing to judge an industry to be economic and efficient because it can compete on a fair basis, with a modest tariff, with Britain or another European country, but I would regard it as utterly ridiculous and untenable to decide the next day that the same industry was not economic and efficient because some competition had come in from a deplorably low wage country like South Korea or Taiwan.

Mr Cope:

– Mr Speaker, that was an abuse of your appeal-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sydney will resume his seat and cease interjecting.

Mr Cope:

– I raise a point of order. You have just requested Ministers to make their answers to questions brief. You know that was a Dorothy Dixer, yet you allowed the Minister to go on.

Mr SPEAKER:
Mr Cope:

– And you pull up a person asking a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sydney will resume his seat. As I have pointed out from the Chair many times, it is not within the province of the Chair to determine the source of a question.

page 1987

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORT LICENCES

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Is it a fact that health standards insisted upon by the United

States of America for Australian abattoirs are more rigid than the standards which apply to abattoirs in the United States? Is it so that half of our abattoirs have lost their licences? In view of the disastrous, effect on our meat exporting and processing works in this country of what amounts to gross American interference in an Australian export industry, would the Government consider as legitimate retaliation a boycott on selected American imports? Is the presence of American meat inspectors in our abattoirs not an insult to our own inspectors and a slur on our own health standards?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– 1 have heard of some stupid ideas, but very few exceed that one. We have a very good market for our beef, one which is the basis of the whole prosperity of this rural industry - one of the few rural industries at the moment which are going through buoyant conditions. If we did not have access to the American market I would hate to think what the circumstances of the meat industry in Australia would be in. relation not only to beef but to all other types of meat in this country. There is a problem of maintaining inspection standards, but I would like any member of this House to name another country that has done a better job in upgrading its abattoirs and its inspection service and maintaining access to the United States market than Australia has done.

I saw figures showing that in 1968 approximately 800 foreign abattoirs were delisted from the American list. Australia lost 20. Some countries were completely delisted. Australia is still exporting approximately 50 per cent of the meat that is imported for the American market. It is up to responsible people in this Government to ensure that we continue to have access to that market. We will only have it provided if we can meet the hygiene standards that are required by the American Government. If it can be shown by American inspectors that there are deficiencies in our works and that they do not reach the standards required of them, then we have to do something about it. If these people And these deficiencies we should not squeal too much about it. because we will not win the argument if it can be proved that there are deficiencies.

page 1988

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr CALDER:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. He will know that the vessel ‘Darwin Trader’ has now completed her first % voyages to Darwin. Can the Minister advise me of the results of these voyages and particularly give some indication whether any economies achieved through the use of this vessel can be passed on to the shippers and to consumers in the form of reduced freight rates?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– In its 2 voyages to Darwin, the ‘Darwin Trader’ has achieved a remarkable acceleration in cargo handling of the order of 115 to 130 tons an hour, which compares far more than favourably with the approximate 8 tons an hour per gang achieved in the old B-class vessels. However, in each instance, the ‘Darwin Trader’ has been delayed in Darwin as a result of waterfront disputes, on the first voyage for some 43 days and on the second voyage for some 7 days. The consequential initial burden to the Australian National Line is of the order of $65,000. In the result the introduction of the new ‘Darwin Trader’, I am quite sure, can achieve for the constituents of the honourable member quite substantial economies in the future. However, if these economies are to be translated into freight savings, it must of course be obvious also that the members of the waterfront sector within the Darwin community must work together in order to ensure the quickest possible turnround of that vessel. I understand that shortly a conference to be held in Darwin will consider the question of permanency of waterfront employment. I am hoping that both at that conference and in the question of the resolution of demarcation difficulties consideration will be given to the costs that members of the Darwin and Northern Territory community are suffering. If they are, I am sure that the introduction of the Darwin Trader’ will mean justifiably a way in which freight rates for the Territory in the future can perhaps be not only contained but also reduced.

page 1988

QUESTION

STRATEGIC EXPORTS TO CHINA

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry a question. He will remember that I asked him yesterday about the export of 12,500 tons of iron and steel scrap and waste and 14,000 tons of refined zinc to mainland China last year. I now ask the right honourable gentleman how his Department opened up such a valuable market for Australia when no such exports had been achieved in the 2 previous years and when in 1966-67. the first year in which the present classifications of exports were adopted and the last year in which I asked him a question on this matter, there were no exports of zinc to China and the exports of iron and steel were less than 1 per cent of those achieved last year.

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The Department of Trade and Industry certainly has taken no steps, using the words of the Leader of the Opposition, to open up this trade with China. Such trade as there is with China is conducted by the Australian Wheat Board in respect of wheat, and in all other respects, to my knowledge, by private individuals in Australia. It of course depends on the requirements of the Chinese government and upon the availability of material in Australia. I think it would be appropriate, if the House would be a little tolerant, ifI explained what the policy is on this highly important matter which so concerns members of the Australian Labor Party. Australia’s policy towards trade with mainland China prevents the export of strategic goods, but the policy does not obstruct commercial trade in what are obviously non-strategic goods, for example wheat and wool, which constitute over 95 per cent of our trade. China can buy those products elsewhere. In common with many Western countries, Australia prohibits the export of strategic products on what is called the COCOM list. In addition, in respect of mainland China and North Korea, Australia maintains control over exports of a large range of additional items of potential strategic significance. To export these items, prior approval of the Minister for External Affairs is necessary. Only the United States, which prohibits direct trade with mainland China, goes further than Australia does in this matter.

In other words, Australia is more strict than-

Mr Hayden:

– Hypocrites! You are both hypocrites!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Oxley will withdraw that remark.

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– As I will be put out for a week if I do not, I will withdraw that remark.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call the Minister for Trade and Industry.

Mr Hayden:

– Following that-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for Qxley will resume his seat and pass no further comment.

Mr McEWEN:

– I conclude by saying that there is no country in the world, other than the United States of America, which maintains such a strict restriction on exports to mainland China as Australia does.

page 1989

ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Snedden) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

-I will take the opportunity to raise the question on the adjournment of the House-

Motion (by Mr Snedden) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.32 p.m. to Tuesday, 13 October, at 2.30 p.m.

page 1990

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Electoral (Question No. 1985)

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Have any of his election campaign speeches since the beginning of 1965 been written by an official or officials of his Department.
  2. If so, what was the date and place of delivery of each speech.
  3. What was the name of the official in each case.
Mr McEwen:
CP

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

As Leader of the Australian Country Party throughout the period mentioned by the member for Kingston my Policy Speeches have always been prepared in consultation with my Country Party colleagues in. the form and with the content

I determine. In the preparation of my Policy Speeches I obtain from officers of my Department whatever factsI require.

Pharmaceutical Research Organisation

Mr McEwen:
CP

– On 1st September the honourable member for Robertson asked if I was aware that the only basic industrial pharmaceutical research organisation in Australia, Riker Laboratories Pty Ltd, had received over $500,000 in research grants since 1967 and had been closed down after being taken over by the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, thus placing thirty highly qualified Australian scientists out of work. I was asked if it was proposed that the company refund these grants to the Commonwealth.

I undertook to familiarise myself with the facts and see what action, if any, was called for. I am informed that the facts are that the research facilities of Riker Laboratories Australia Pty Ltd have not been closed down. However, the company has decided that a significant reduction in the level of its research effort should take place, and 11 members of the staff with graduate qualifications were dismissed last July. Riker Laboratories Australia Pty Ltd claims to be still conducting the largest industrial pharmaceutical research effort in Australia although it is not the only company engaged in this field. The company is now owned by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing who recently acquired it, along with the other companies of the world-wide Riker Group, from another American company.

The decision to reduce the level of I.R. & D. activities was based, I understand, on a commercial assessment of the costs and benefits associated with the Australian research activities. The Managing Director of Riker Laboratories Australia Pty Ltd has informed the Department of Trade and Industry that the decision was in no way connected with the change in ownership. Riker Laboratories Australia Pty Ltd has received from the Australian Industrial Research and Development Grants Board the sum of $213,283 in relation to research undertaken in 1967-68 and 1968-69.

The company received these grants because it had in those years increased the level of its total industrial research and development expenditures above the level of these expenditures in 1965-66 and was eligible for a grant under the provisions of the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act. These grants are only required to be repaid if it is shown, subsequent to the grant being received, that the eligible expenditure on which the grant was assessed was overstated.

Papua and New Guinea (Question No. 664)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

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

  1. Which of the more important provisions of International Labour Organisation Convention No. 110 on plantation workers’ conditions have been complied with in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. Which of the provisions of the Convention are not applicable to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  3. Which of the provisions have not been given full effect.
  4. What are the conditions in Papua and New Guinea which make the Convention inapplicable to the Territory.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. to (4) An extensive review of the law and practice in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea in relation to the matters dealt with in Convention No. 1 10 is still in progress.

Immigration (Questran No. 860)

Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. In what ways are immigrants disadvantaged under law in Australia either before or after naturalisation.
  2. Will he take appropriatesteps to raise the matter with the State Attorneys-General in order to remove any such disadvantages especially in the case of naturalised citizens.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2)In general, migrants are not disadvantaged under law in Australia. It is recognised, however, that the receipt of certain privileges and benefits can be dependent upon the fulfilment of legislative provisions which require applicants to be, for example, British subjects or to have resided in Australia for a stated period of time. Such provisions can affect non-naturalise migrants (aliens) or migrants who have recently arrived in this country. Acquisition of Australian citizenship throughnaturalisation normally places aliens on the same legal footing as Australianborn persons.

The areas where a migrant who remains an alien can be at a disadvantage in Australia are relatively few. These are:

Disqualification from voting at an election (State, Federal or Municipal) or from standing as a candidate for such an election.

With minor exceptions, permanent appointment to the Public Services of the Commonwealth or States requires British subject status. Entry to the legal profession and appointment as a judge or a magistrate also depend upon this.

In respect of Commonwealth social service benefits there is no nationality qualification. Legally therefore there is no discrimination between the alien and the Australian citizen. There are, however, residential qualifications for certain social service benefits which apply to all persons. These are - 10 years for age pension; 5 years for invalid pension; and 5 years for widows’ pensions - other than for persons widowed after arriving here.

There are also provisions in the Commonwealth Crimes Act which provide for the deportation of a person not born in Australia in defined circumstances. This is a matter for my colleaguethe Attorney-General.

Under the laws of some States the overseas dependents of deceased migrants are not eligible to receive payments under Workers’ Compensation legislation. However, 1 am informed that the States concerned are now in the process of introducing amending legislation.

There may be some other instances where an alien does not enjoy the same advantages as an Australian citizen under State Laws. However I believe these would be relatively few and I know from my colleagues the State Ministers for Immigration that the situation is under continuing review.

Nuclear Power (Question No. 1193)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for National Development the following question, upon notice:

  1. Were any other sites besides Jervis Bay considered for building of Australia’s first nuclear power station.
  2. If so, where were the sites and why was each discarded in favour of Jervis Bay.
Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. As I explained recently inthe Housetwo main considerations affected the choice of the site. The first of these was its physical characteristics and secondly the ability of a State electricity system to accept the size of the station which was considered appropriate. A 500 MW unit was chosen as the costs of electricity from a nuclear plant: decrease rapidly with size; New South Wales was the only system which could conveniently accept this size.

Seven sites within the New South Wales system were considered; namely:

New South Wales - Jervis Bay North, Bass Point, Hawkesbury River - Spencer, SnowyMountains area - Jindabyne Reservoir.

Commonwealth Territories - Murrumbidgee River - Cotter, Murrumbidgee River - Uriara, Jervis Bay South.

It is possible that some of these sites might be found acceptable for nuclear stations at some future time. The New South Wales sites were found to have no advantages over the Australian Capital Territory sites. As siting in a Commonwealth Territory had certain constitutional advantages for a Commonwealth sponsored project the Territory sites were subject to intensive investigation. Of these the Jervis Bay site was found to be pre-eminent because of its physical characteristics and the lower construction costs it afforded.

United States- Australian Defence or Scientific Installations or Facilities (Question No. 1417)

Mr Whitlam:

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

How many Australian scientists and technologists are now employed at each United StatesAustralian defence or scientific installation or facility.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Australian scientists and technologists areemployed at the joint United States/ Australian defence or scientific installations or facilities shown hereunder. The figures include both professional staff and non-professional technicians.

Arrangements are in hand for a significant increase in the number of Australian staff to be employed at the Joint Defence Space Research Facility, Alice Springs, during the coming year. There will also be Australian professional staff employed at the Joint Defence Space Communication Station, Woomera, when it becomes operational.

Immigration of Papuans (Question No. 1478)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

Can he state the differences between the laws and procedures of (a) Australia relating to the entry for residence or visits of the peoples of Papua, who are Australian citizens, and (b) New Zealand relating to the entry for residence or visits of the peoples of the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau Islands, who are New Zealand citizens (Hansard, 12 June 1970, page 3644).

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Although Papuans are Australian citizens they do not, under Australian law, have right of entry to Australia.

Possession of Australian citizenship does not, of itself, prevent a person from being regarded as an immigrant’ and as such being denied entry to Australia under laws relating to ‘immigration’ within the meaning of the Constitution. It has been held by the High Court that a person wishing to show that he is not an ‘immigrant’, and that he cannot constitutionally be excluded from Australia, has to show that he is ‘a constituent member of the Australian community’ or, in other words, that he ‘has his homein Australia, This means that people in the External Territories, who have not previously lived in Australia, can be as a matter of law prevented from coming to the mainland.

Papuans wishing to come to Australia for residence or for visits are required to obtain prior authority in accordance with the policy of the Government relating to the entry of nonEuropeans.

The answer to Question No. 1120 (Hansard 12 June 1970 pages 3643 and 3644) included the statement that it is understood that peoples of the Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau Islands are New Zealand citizens and are entitled to enter New Zealand.

Discrimination (Question No. 1510)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a statement by the Acting Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr N. Shelton, on 8 July 1970, that New Zealand had been trying for many years to have the principle accepted in its relations with Australia of no discrimination between natural born and naturalised persons.
  2. If so, why does the Australian Government continue to insist on this discrimination.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. Yes. I have read the Hansard record of the statements made by the Acting Prime Minister of New Zealand on the 8 July in answering questions in the New Zealand Parliament. These related generally to the arrangements under which New Zealand and Australian citizens may enter each other’s country.

The conditions relating to entry into Australia are the same for persons born in New Zealand and those naturalised there. By administrative arrangement New Zealand citizens of European descent, whether natural born or naturalised, may in general come to Australia without prior permission - from New Zealand or elsewhere. These arrangements apply also to Maoris coming to Australia from New Zealand.

Other New Zealand citizens, whether born or naturalised in New Zealand are required to obtain prior permission to travel to Australia for any purpose except in direct transit.

  1. As indicated above the entry rules are the same for New Zealand citizens by birth and by naturalisation.

Papua and New Guinea (Question No. 1543)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether the Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd company informed the Australian Council of Trade Unions party which conducted negotiations with that company concerning wage rates at Bougainville that the company was fully prepared to bridge the gap between expatriate and indigene wage rates but that this had been prevented by the Administrator of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.
  2. Has he or his departmental officers any knowledge of any steps being taken by the company to equate indigene rates of pay with those payable to expatriate workers.
  3. Is the company required to obtain approval from the Administrator or his department before it is permitted to remove the present discrimination between wages paid to indigenous and nonindigenous workers.
  4. If so, has this permission been sought.
  5. If the company has sought permission when was it sought and what was the outcome of the request.
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. I have no knowledge of such a statement being made by Conzinc Kiotinto of Australia Ltd to the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The negotiations between the Company and the A.C.T.U. were restricted to the question of wage levels for expatriate construction workers.
  2. No. However the company has just signed an agreement to revise the conditions of employment and wages of indigenous workers on the project. This agreement was negotiated with the Bougainville Mine Workers’ Union which represents the indigenous workers on the Bougainville project.
  3. . (4) and (5) A company is not required to obtain approval from the Administrator or the Department of Labour for private agreements set. ting wage rates unless the parties concerned were required to negotiate under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. However, where the parties are called upon by the Secretary for Labour to negotiate under the Ordinancethe agreement so reached has to be forwarded to the Industrial Registrar for registering as an award. In the case of the agreement between Bougainville Copper Ply Ltd and the Bougainville Mine Workers’ Union the parlies were called upon to negotiate under the Ordinance and the resulting agreement is currently under consideration by the Industrial Registrar for registration as an industrial award.

Immigration (Question No. 1614)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many migrants have arrived in Australia in each of the last 10 years and what was the total for the period.
  2. From which countries did these migrants come what was the total number from each country, and what was the number of (a) males; (b) females; and (c) children.
  3. How many in each case were (a) skilled; (b) professional and; (c) unskilled workers.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) A total of 1,339,469 settlers, i.e. persons who indicated that they intended to settle in Australia arrived during the last ten. financial years. Of these, 713,851 were males and 625,618 were females. 562,000 were aged less than 21 years. Arrivals cross-classified by sex and showing the numbers of persons aged less than 21 years for each financial year of the period are shown in table 1.

The main source countries for settlers during the period were the United Kingdom and Ireland, Italy. Greece, Yugoslavia and Germany, in that order. In table 2, settler arrivals during the period are shown cross-classified by country of last residence and sex.

  1. Of the 646.550 workers who arrived as settlers during (he period, 253,723 were skilled, comprising of 64,971 professional technical and related workers and 188,752 other skilled. 230,986 were semi-skilled and 161,841 unskilled. Settler arrivals of workers by sex and degree of skills are shown in table 3.

Immigration (Question No.1 617)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

How many migrants in Australia at this date, who are eligible for naturalisation, have not yet applied.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

It is estimated that as at 31st March 1970, 209,680 aliens over the age of 16 years were residentially qualified to apply for Australian citizenship but had notdone so.

The fact that a number of migrants do not make application for Australian citizenship when they are legally eligible to do so results from a variety of factors. These include indecision as to permanent stay in Australia; a desire to defer lodging an application until all family members become eligible; failure to appreciate the significance of Australian citizenship; or a preference to defer making an application until more fully established in Australia.

Although the period of residence required by law for the grant of Australian citizenship is generally 5 years, the average lapse of time between the date of arrival and the grant of citizenship is something over 8 years.

All possible steps are taken to encourage nonBritish settlers to apply for Australian citizenship. For example:

When adult aliens have been in Australia for 4½ years they receive a letter from the Minister reminding them of their eligibility to apply for naturalisation and inviting them to lodge an application. A simple form of application is sent with the letter, together with informative literature and a reply-paid envelope;

Aliens under 21 years of age receive a similar letter after completing 2 years residence, when they qualify to apply for citizenship.

If the initial invitation does not bring a response a further letter of invitation is sent to all aliens after they have completed6½ years residence in Australia. This action is taken because the average length of residence at the time of naturalisation has been found to be over 8 years;

Naturalisation Promotion Officers in New South Wales and Victoria, work through national groups, employer and employee organisations, the Good Neighbour Councils and other organisations interested in the integration of migrants; also Mobile Units tour selected areas in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia to furnish citizenship information, accept applications and interview applicants;

With the co-operation of Local Government authorities arrangements are made for eligible persons to be invited to attend their local town hall to discuss citizenship questions, lodge applications for naturalisation and have their interviews immediately;

Posters and information leaflets are distributed through Post Offices. Offices of the Department of Labour and National Service. Good Neighbour Council Offices and places of employment throughout Australia:

Arrangements are made for articles on the subject to appear in newspapers and other journals as often us possible;

The requirements for citizenship are reviewed from time to lime. For example, in June 1969 provision was made to allow aliens to acquire citizenship after3 years residence if. in addition to being able to speak English as is normally required, they are able to read and write Englishproficiently.

Social Services (QuestionNo.1649)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What is the number and what are the duties of qualified Social Workers employed by his Department?
  2. Is the number adequate: if not in what areas is there a deficiency?
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. The Department has an establishment of18 (qualified) Social Workers. Positions are allocated to capital city offices as follows:

Currently three positions are vacant - one in Melbourne and the two positions in Perth. An appointment to the senior position in Perth is in process, and recruitment action is being taken to fill the other positions.

Social workers are concerned with the more involved personal and domestic problems of migrants which require professional and expert attention. They work from the Department’s offices in capital cities and accept case referrals from community sources when it is apparent that the problems are related to migration and resulting settlement difficulties.

Senior Social Workers have additional responsibilities, including the oversight of the scheme under which Commonwealth funds are provided to selected community agencies to enable them to employ social workers. To date 25 social workers have been employed by agencies located in areas of high migrant density and engaged in direct welfare amongst migrants.

  1. Since June 1968, the number of qualified social workers available to work with migrants through Departmental sources has increased from 11 to 41, including those employed by agencies. It is anticipated that this total will rise to 60 by mid-1971.

Staffing proposals seeking social worker positions for departmental offices at Wollongong, Townsville and Hobart are currently being considered, and data is being prepared for future proposals for a position to serve country areas in Western Australia. The need for additional social workers in all States will also be kept under continuous review.

Ideally social workers dealing with the problems of migrants should have an understanding of their cultural and social backgrounds together with experience in work with migrants. It is also desirable that social workers should speak the languages of migrant,they are assisting although use can be made of interpreters. For these reasons the Department is endeavouring to add to its present establishment, social workers from the major source countries or those who may have qualified in thiscountry after migrating to Australia.

Immigration (Question No. 1718) .

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked this Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Does his Department employ any social workers who speak Finnish; if so, how many.
  2. If the number employed has proved insufficient, will he arrange, as a matter of urgency, for the number employed to be. increased.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Neither ibe Department’s staff of 15 social workers nor the 25 social workers employed with community agencies engaged in welfare work amongst migrants (whose salaries are financed by the Commonwealth) include a Finnish speaking social worker.

Ideally social workers who work with migrants should have an understanding of their cultural and social backgrounds, and it is desirable that they should speak the language of the migrants whom they are assisting. The Department’s social worker establishment includes some who have been trained overseas or who have qualified since their arrival in Australia as migrants. The general lack of bilingual social workers is largely overcome by the use of interpreters and counselling officers on the staff of the Department’s State Branch offices and by access to these resources in the community, includingthe Good Neighbour movement.

The Department’s social workers and those employed with community agencies, in addition to providing a professional case work service involving more highly complicated personal, domestic and social problems, have also an administrative and supervisory role. Moreover, many of the integration problems encountered by migrants do not require the services of professionally qualified social workers, but can be handled effectively by trained welfare staff. The Department plans to increase its social worker establishment preferably with those who have an intimate knowledge of the background of migrants coming to this country. It is also endeavouring to increase its welfare staff for which bilingual officers can more readily be recruited.

Tariff Board: Printing of Report

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice:

On what dates in the last 10 years has the Tariff Board’s annual report been (a) delivered to the Government Printer for printing and (b) returned by him in print.

Mr McEwen:
CP

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

Papua and New Guinea: Wages (Question No. 1734)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

What are the (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average wages paid to its indigenous employees by the company which offered a directorship to Mr Toua Kapena, M.H.A., the Ministerial Member for Labour in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

I understand the company to which the honourable member refers is just establishing itself in the Territory and at present the General Manager is the only employee.

Immigration

Question No. 1775)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What is the (a) name and (b) nationality of each person whose application for a visa to enter Australia has been refused over each of the last 20 years.
  2. In respect of each case, what was the stated reason for refusing the visa application.
Mr Lynch:
LP

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

Applications for visas and the reason for decisions thereon are confidential matters between the applicants and the authorities involved. The names of persons whose applications for visas have been refused and the reasons for such refusal of visas are confidential. This rule is fair to the individual applicants and otherwise sound and the Government does not propose to depart from it.

Defence (Question No. 1820)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

Defence, upon notice:

  1. When did Sir Robert Thompson visit Australia.
  2. Who sponsored his visit
  3. What was the cost of his visit to the Commonwealth.
  4. What discussions did Sir Robert have with members of the Government.
  5. How many public meetings did Sir Robert address in Australia.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Sir Robert Thompson has visited Australia on a number of occasions, the last being from 24th February to 6th March 1970.
  2. On that last occasion Sir Robert came to Canberra at the invitation of the Australian Government
  3. The cost to the Commonwealth was $3,853.85 including return air fares from London, expenses and an honorarium.
  4. Sir Robert had discussions with the Prime Minister and the Ministers for External Affairs and Defence. He also had a series of discussions with the members of the Defence Committee and other senior officials and Service officers, and took part in several seminars and discussion groups attended by a total of about 180 officials and Service officers from several Government departments.
  5. Sir Robert did not address any public meeting while in Australia. He did, however, lecture to the Australian Institute of International Affairs. He also spoke on the ‘Guest of Honour’ programme of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and was interviewed on television.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 1 October 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19701001_reps_27_hor70/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant