House of Representatives
19 August 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

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

page 287

PETITIONS

Education

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, 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 -

the Commonwealth Parliament has acted, to remove some inadequacies in the Australian Education system.

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Dr GUN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 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 -

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

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot, afford to hinder the edu cation of these 200,000 Australians.

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

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– 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 -

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

a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the tack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allow- ‘ able for tertiary education expenses.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– r 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 shewethWhereas -

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

a major inadequacy at present to Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.

200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions and their parents suffer severe penalty from inadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1968.

Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.

Removal of the present age limit in respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.

Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.

Increase in the maintenance allowance for students.

Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

Whereas -

  1. the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove someinadequacies in the Australian Education system.
  2. a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all.
  3. 200,000 students from Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and other Tertiary Institutions, and their parents suffer severe penalty frominadequacies in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1938.
  4. Australia cannot afford to hinder the education of these 200,000 Australians.

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

  1. The allowance of personal education expenses as a deduction from income for tax purposes.
  2. Removal of the present age limitin respect of the deduction for education expenses and the maintenance allowance for students.
  3. Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for tertiary education expenses.
  4. Increase in the amount of deduction allowable for students.
  5. Exemption of non-bonded scholarships, for part-time students from income tax.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr MORRISON:
ST GEORGE, 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 of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 27½. per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47½ per cent on some Contraceptive Devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no Sales Tax. Also that Customs Duties be removed, and that all Contraceptive Devices be placed on the National Health Scheme Pharmaceutical Benefits List. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, willever pray.

Petition received and read.

Contraceptives

Mr JESS:

– 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 of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27½ per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47½ per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr ENDERBY:

– 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 of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 271 per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 471 per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Dr GUN:

– 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 of Australia respectfuly showeth:

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27± per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47) per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, 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 of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27) per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is customs duty of up to 47) per cent on some contraceptive devices.

And that this is an unfair imposition on the human rights of all people who wish to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And furthermore that this imposition discriminates particularly against people on low incomes.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the sales tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into line with other necessities such as food, upon which there is no sales tax. Also that customs duties be removed, and that all contraceptive devices be placed on the national health scheme pharmaceutical benefits list.

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

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr JESS:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

That the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;

That the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

That the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

That honourable members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares (hat the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare- chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

That the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;

That the Australian Government does not accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use’ in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

That the Parliament take note of the consensus of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

That honourable members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, 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 electors of the Com- monwealth of Australia respectfully showeth -

that the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2603 XXIV A (December 1969) declares that the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which Australia has ratified, prohibits the use in international armed conflict of any chemical agents of warfare - chemical substances whether gaseous, liquid or solid - employed for their direct toxic effects on man, animals or plants;

that the World Health Organisation Report (January 1970) confirms the above definition of chemical agents of warfare;

that the Australian Government does nol accept this definition, but holds that the Geneva Protocol does not prevent the use in war of certain toxic chemical substances in the form of herbicides, defoliants and ‘riotcontrol’ agents.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray -

that the Parliament take note of the consensu; of international political, scientific and humanitarian opinion; and

that Honourable Members urge upon the Government the desirability of revising its interpretation of the Geneva Protocol, and declaring that it regards all chemical substances employed for their toxic effects on man, animals or plants as being included in the prohibitions laid down by that Protocol.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr ENDERBY:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the Division of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth -

That there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capital Territory will in the foreseeable future be made independent of the New South Wales education system:

That the decentralisation of education systems throughout Australia is educationally and administratively desirable, and is now being studied by several State Government Departments:

That the Australian Capital Territory is a homogeneous and coherent unit especially favourable for such studies:

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that a Committee of Inquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practising educators, and the Canberra Community, be instituted to inquire into the form that an Australian Capita) Territory Education Authority should lake, the educational principles and philosophy that should underlie it, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received and read.

Taxation

Mr WALLIS:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– J present the following petition:

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

That they are gravely concerned that tax concessions for people residing in Zone B have not been increased for 1 1 years.

Their concern is aggravated by the fact that many towns of high living costs which are situated geographically in isolated areas are either classified as Zone B or receive no Zone classification.

They are also gravely concerned that taxpayers living in these isolated areas receive no tax deductions for travel and accommodation expenses when they or their dependants are forced to travel to cities to receive specialist medical treatment.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that, the honourable members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that the Commonwealth Government will take immediate steps to amend the above tax anomalies by:

An early investigation of the location of Zone A and Zone B areas so that towns of equal isolation and cost factor will receive the same Zone concession.

An early investigation of the amount of concession entitlement for Zone B with a view to an increase in that amount.

The Income Tax Assessment Act be amended so that travel and accommodation expenses be allowable deductions when a taxpayer or his dependants are forced to travel from isolated areas to cities for specialist medical treatment.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, 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 showeth:

That the Australian people both in Metropolitan and Ruralareas should have the best of television programmes available to them and that television as a powerful means of communication should not be in the control of too few hands.

The increased quota for Austraiian dramatic productions should not be imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board at the expense of Australian professional variety or Australian documentary or educational programmes, but directed more towards cutting down expenditure on the purchase of imported productions, thus effecting a considerable saving in Australia’s overseas balance of payments.

The Australian Parliament has a responsibility to encourage the development of our National identity, character and heritage and the promulgation, for the sake of our children, of an adequate picture of Australia, her standards, morals, and way of life, particularly through the media of Radio and Television, which is in the immediate control of the Australian Government.

Until constructive and positive action is taken by the Australian Government to promote Australian culture and protect the employment and professional standards of Australian writers, artists and producers in Australia itself there is little likelihood of stopping the flow of Australian talent from Australia to other countries.

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board must insist that its new quota standards of Australian dramatic content on television are rigidly imposed and enforced on all commercial television stations.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should -

Cause the Australian Government to recognise the right of Australian professional people engaged in the creative and performing arts to further develop their skills and talents in Australia, and to be protected from overseas programmes in a way that will encourage an Australian Television and Radio industry that can reflect and contribute to our identity and growth as a Nation.

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

Petition received and read.

Broadcasting and Television

Mr MORRISON:

– 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 showeth:

That the Australian people both in metropolitan and rural areas should have the best television programmes available to them and that television as a powerful means of communication should not be in the control of too few hands.

The increased quota for Australian dramatic productions should not be imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board at the expense of Australian professional variety or Australian documentary or educational programmes, but directed more towards cutting down expenditure on the purchase of imported productions, thus effecting a considerable saving in Australia’s overseas balance of payments.

The Australian Parliament has a responsibility to encourage the development of our National identity, character and heritage and the promulgation, for the sake of our children, of an adequate picture of Australia, her standards, morals and way of life, particularly through the media of Radio and Television, which is in the immediate control of the Australian Government.

Until constructive and positive action is taken by the Australian Government to promote Australian culture and protect the employment and professional standards of Australian writers, artists and producers in Australia itself there is little likelihood of stopping the flow of Australian talent from Australia to other countries.

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board must insist that its new quota standards of Australian dramatic content on television are rigidly imposed and enforced on all commercial television stations.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should:

Cause the Australian Government to recognise the right of Australian professional people engaged in the creative and performing arts to further develop their skills and talents in Australia, and to be protected from overseas programmes in a way that will encourage an Australian Television and Radio industry that can reflect and contribute to our identity and growth as a Nation.

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

Petition received.

Broadcasting and Television

Mr DOBIE:
COOK, 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 showeth:

That the Australian people both in metropolitan and rural areas should have the best of television programmes available to them and that television as a powerful means of communication should not be in the control of too few hands.

The increased quota for Australian dramatic productions should not be imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board at the expense of Australian professional variety or Australian documentary or educational programmes, but directed more towards cutting down expenditure on the purchase of imported productions, thus effecting a considerable saving in Australia’s overseas balance of payments.

The Australian Parliament has a responsibility to encourage the development of our National identity, character and heritage and the promulgation, for the sake of our children, of an adequate picture of Australia, her standards, morals nad way of life, particularly through the media of Radio and Television, which is in the immediate control of the Australian Government.

Until constructive and positive action is taken by the Australian Government to promote Australian culture and protect the employment and professional standards of Australian writers, artists and producers in Australia itself there is little likelihood of stopping the flow of Australian talent from Australia to other countries.

The Australian Broadcasting Control Board must insist that its new quota standards of Australian dramatic content on television are rigidly imposed and enforced on all commercial television stations.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should -

Cause the Australian Government to recognise the right of Australian professional people engaged in the creative and performing arts to further develop their skills and talents in Australia, and to be protected from overseas programmes in a way that will encourage an Australian Television and Radio industry that can reflect and contribute to our identity and growth as a Nation.

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

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

The Red Kangaroo, largest marsupial in the world, has through shooting for commerce become extinct or rare in many areas of Australia where it was once prolific.

All scientific evidence points to this decimation of numbers, which is clear evidence that State Governments are unable to control commercial shooting within their boundaries.’

We, the people of Australia, feel strong repugnance to the fact that industries should be allowed to operate, which in the past have decimated the koala to extinction over vast areas of this land, and which have now similarly exploited the kangaroo. We feel that the taxpayer should not have the heavy burden of having to pay for the control of an industry which benefits but a few people in this country, and that live kangaroos through their value as tourist attractions are economically far more profitable to our economy and to us aesthetically. We your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that you will:

Immediately ban the export of products made from kangaroos.

Strongly insist that State’ Governments prohibit the commercial shooting of kangaroos.

Enact legislation to give the Commonwealth Government control of all native wildlife throughout Australia.

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

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinance: Contraceptives

Mr ENDERBY:

– 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 Division of the A.C.T. respectfully showeth:

That the A.C.T. Pharmacy Ordinances 1931- 1959 Section 46, Sub-section (1) states that ‘A person shall not publish any statement, whether by way of advertisement or otherwise, to promotethe sale of any article as a medicine, instrument or appliance . . .for preventing conception’.

And that this infringes upon each individual’s right as a human being to all available information about contraceptive devices in order to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the words ‘or for preventing conception’ be deleted from Sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the A.C.T. Pharmacy Ordinances.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr COHEN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 293

QUESTION

LIBERAL PARTY

Mr DALY:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Opposition and the people are appalled at the public display of sordid intrigue and disunity by his Government in recent weeks? Is it also a fact that the strong support for the honourable member for Wannon and the honourable member for Moreton in the Deputy Leadership ballot of the Liberal Party - and the defeat of his nominee - indicate a lack of confidence in the Prime Minister? If so, will he for the sake of unity in the nation and in this once great Party - if I might coin a phrase - either call a general election, resign the Prime Ministership and test his standing in the Party at a secret ballot, or at the very least recall from the Cabinet in exile the honourable member for Wannon and Killen the magnificent?

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The use of the words sordid intrigue’ reminded me of the thinking of most sensible members of the Australian community about the way in which the Labor Party conducts itself, and particularly the way in which we know the honourable member for Grayndler conducts himself outside this House. I do not know anyone who has a greater capacity for whispering than he has. As to the honourable gentleman from Wannon and the honourable gentleman from Moreton, they are both people of exceptional ability and both of them have shown their talents over the whole of the period they have been in this Parliament. They can never remain out of my consideration when I am thinking about additional appointments either to the Ministry or to the Cabinet.

page 293

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Mr BONNETT:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Army, and I refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister last night regarding the future of our forces in Vietnam. I ask the Minister: Firstly, can he indicate the size of the force which will remain in Vietnam after Christmas? Secondly, will the changes proposed in the national service scheme affect national service officer production as a consequence of the reduced time of service? Thirdly, can the Minister assure the House that national service personnel serving in Vietnam will not be prejudiced as to the date of their discharge?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– In reply to the first part of the question, as the Prime Minister said last night the plan is for most of the combat element to be withdrawn by Christmas but that plan does presuppose that a small combat element will remain for the security of the base, stores and the logistic personnel who will remain for packing and dispatching of stores and equipment. I might add that detailed planning is still proceeding so it would not be wise for me at this stage to go into the intricacies of this. In regard to the second part of the question relating to the officer cadet training unit at Scheyville, the present duration of the course for officer training of national servicemen is 6 months and this will continue. The Army will therefore have the benefit of national service officers for approximately 12 months after their graduation and of course their additional time on the reserve list. It is intended that by a method of cross posting an equitable discharge of servicemen will occur irrespective of where they are serving.

May I say in conclusion, particularly because the question has been asked by the honourable member for Herbert who has such an interest in servicemen and who represents the Laverack Barracks in his electorate where at present 2 infantry battalions are stationed, that as the Minister for the Army.l should not resume my seat so shortly after the Prime Minister’s statement without paying tribute to all those who have served and are still serving in South Vietnam in a particularly difficult war and commitment against an enemy which is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. This service has imposed extraordinary strains on our servicemen at a time when they have also been hindered by ivisive elements both at home and abroad out despite their critics they have per.formed admirably.

page 294

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION OF INDUSTRY

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– I preface a question to the Minister for Trade and Industry by referring to a statement made by him on 21st April headed ‘Decentralisation: A Vital National Necessity’. 1 ask: What are the Minister and the Government doing to create the climate in which the people of Australia will want to press this Government into making appropriate decisions on decentralisation? What will be the Minister’s plan of campaign? Will he take action to set up a ministry for balanced development and decentralisation? Will he take action to induce the Government to provide taxation incentives, transport concessions and other measures which would induce industry to lend its aid to revive the dying townships of Australia?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– It is very kind of the honourable member to offer me the authority to set up a ministry of decentralisation of industry. It is true that like other Government supporters I have made a number of speeches on the importance of decentralisation and trying to avoid over-centralisation of population in our capital cities. I believe there is a national need for attention to be given to both these matters at once. The problems of urban living are becoming great and a good deal of Government attention needs to be given to these problems so as to provide the essential services and amenities in urban areas and to relieve the pressures which now face these people and which affect the character of living in these areas. Likewise there is a need for greater recognition of the problem of providing employment and services in country areas.

I have always stated that if there are to be any national projects and national programmes there has to be a national recognition of the problem. For these reasons I have been talking deliberately in metropolitan areas about the problems in the country and the need to give every type of assistance to hold the population there and not to add to their already accentuated difficulties. What have we done about it? First of all one has to recognise that most of the facilities for helping in the decentralisation of secondary industry lie within the jurisdiction of State governments. I can think of no better way of helping the States to do this than by trying to correct some of their financial difficulties.

The decision of the Government during the past year to give the States a growth tax, to hand across the payroll tax, to ease some of the payroll tax difficulties of local government, is a major step forward in helping the States to accomplish something more in the area of decentralisation. The Government has done many things to try to keep people in the country areas. I suppose that the greatest efforts of government are related to the assistance we can give to primary industry. All of this assistance is of direct importance to decentralisation. The more people- we can keep on the farms the more people there will be in the country towns in the support industries and the service industries. The Government is very conscious of the need to do what it can to assist in solving this problem and it will continue to give assistance.

page 294

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONS

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. What is the Government doing about the militant trade unions which obviously are determined to destroy the arbitration system? Will the Government resist the Socialist left and militant unions in order to support those unions which appreciate the conciliation and arbitration on which a large number of workers depend?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– As the honourable gentleman has made clear, one of the avowed intentions of the Communist Party in Australia and that of the Socialists -

Mr Foster:

– Which one?

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable gentleman would listen for a change he might learn something. One of the avowed intentions of the Communist Party in this country and that of the -

Mr Uren:

– Which one?

Mr LYNCH:

– Communist Party or parties. I would have thought the honourable member would know more about that situation than perhaps I do.

Mr Uren:

– I probably do.

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable gentleman has any doubt about what that type of interjection means perhaps he could direct it to his own and not to this side of the House.

Mr Whittorn:

– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. May I have my question answered?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises.

Mr LYNCH:

– It is very easy in this House to detect the matters which upset honourable members on the Opposition benches considerably. What I was saying before I was interrupted by members of the Opposition was simply that one of the avowed intentions of the Communist faction or factions in Australia and that of the Socialist left is, as the honourable gentleman has mentioned, to destroy the arbitration system. They have been intent on developing in this country a situation of industrial lawlessness outside the ambit of the Arbitration Commission. We on this side of the House have made very clear what our position is, and that is a position which is predicated on the continued maintenance of the conciliation and arbitration system in Australia, a system which has judicial authority, so that the awards which are made by the Commission have the force of law which, of course, they have. 1 say to the honourable gentleman that this Government will be resolute in resisting the pressures which are evident in the community today from those elements to which I have made reference. We will certainly not desert the Australian community or the Australian wage earners who are so vitally dependent upon the awards of the Commission and turn to any system of collective bargaining which in the terms of what the Communists and the Socialist left have put forward is not collective bargaining as it is known overseas but in fact a system of collective bludgeoning. That type of system is total anathema to all the traditions of egalitarianism in the Australian community. It is a system which provides disparate wage levels for work of the same value performed in the same or other industries. It is a system which pays no attention to the public interest or to those who are greatly disadvantaged in the community as a consequence of direct wage negotiations between employers and employees. I think here, of course, of the pensioners and those engaged in rural industry. It is a system which is inconsistent with the concept of effective economic management in Australia, and it is a system which leads to the direct industrial confrontation as practised in so many overseas countries.

page 295

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT FACTORY, FISHERMEN’S BEND

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– 1 address a question to the Minister for Supply. Have there been retrenchments in employment at the Government Aircraft Factory at Fishermen’s Bend? If so, what was the extent of these retrenchments, and are further retrenchments likely? Are there any proposals for rationalisation of the aircraft industry? Will the Minister make a statement about the future of this industry, which is of such vital importance to Australia?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– It is true that some 49 retrenchment notices were issued on 11th August to employees of the Fishermen’s Bend Government Aircraft Factory. It is unfortunately true that fluctuations in employment are inevitable in the defence aircraft industry. The Government’s policy, as has been expressly stated, is to maintain a small viable defence aircraft industry, but by nature that industry is subject to fluctuations. We are at present towards the end of the current aircraft generation in the construction of Macchis and Mirages, and the next generation is not expected for some years. Employees at Fishermen’s Bend were given one month’s notice and every assistance is being given to find alternative employment for them. The Public Service Board, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Department of Labour and National Service were notified, and it is hoped that many of these employees will find other employment within that period.

In reply to another section of the honourable member’s question, it is true that the Government is looking at possibilities for a rationalisation of the aircraft factories in the Fishermen’s Bend area, and I hope at some time to come to be able to say something more specific about that. But in general the Government is trying to boost the long term workload and smooth out fluctuations, and in this direction there are some prospects. I think the honourable member will be aware of deep difficulties that exist in aircraft industries in other major manufacturing countries. As to his final question, I will certainly consider the possibility of having something more to say about this matter in the near future.

page 296

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

Mr PETTITT:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. Following my representations to him, has the Minister yet issued invitations to come to Canberra to the mayors and shire presidents from the south west slopes and the Riverina to discuss the alleged pollution of the Murrumbidgee River, from which domestic water supplies are drawn for large areas in southern New South Wales?

Mr HUNT:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I am very conscious of the criticism that has been levelled against the Australian Capital Territory and the sewerage system outfall here by various shire councils, particularly by the Goodradigbee Shire Council health inspector. Other authorities have expressed some concern in this matter. I did arrange for medical officers, including the Chief Health Surveyor from New South Wales and other Department of Health inspectors, to come to Canberra on 12th and 13th August last to discuss this very question with officials from the Department of the Interior and the National Capital Development Commission. As a result of the representations that I have received from the honourable member for Hume, I have now issued a formal invitation to the shire presidents and mayors of the various local government bodies on the south west slopes and Riverina areas to visit Canberra on 16th September for discussions with officers of my Department and the NCDC. I can assure the honourable member that my Department is arranging for a continuing series of tests to be taken of the waters of the Murrumbidgee in New South Wales to complement the extensive tests that have been carried out already in the Australian Capital Territory. I assure the House that everything is being done to take into account the concern that is being expressed by people and organisations in the shires adjoining the Murrumbidgee.

page 296

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY: STAMP DUTY

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I, too, have a question to direct to the Minister for the Interior. Is it a fact firstly, that the Northern Territory Administrator, Mr Chaney, delivered yesterday to the Northern Territory Legislative Council a letter stating that the Minister bad requested the Council to remain in session so that a Government Bill to increase stamp duties could be introduced and passed; secondly, that the Minister at 8.45 p.m. last night did not know that he had made this request; thirdly, that a Canberra printer’s proof of this 41-page Bill was presented to the Council’s business committee only on Friday afternoon last when there remained only 3 arranged days of sitting; and, fourthly, that this procedure of attempting to introduce this Bill was entirely contrary to all established Standing Orders and procedures of the Northern Territory Legislative Council? What is the reason for the only local House of Parliament in the Northern Territory being humiliated in this way?

Mr HUNT:
CP

– Firstly, I refute the statement made by the honourable member that I did not know about this matter. I had been in contact with the officers of my Department who had been in contact also with the Administrator during the course of yesterday afternoon. To put this matter into its true perspective I think the House needs to know that stamp duty has not been increased in the Northern Territory since the 1880s and the stamp duty presently applying in the Northern Territory is lc a cheque, whereas in New South Wales it is 5c a cheque. In order to bring the Northern Territory more into line with other areas in the Commonwealth and to provide the Territory with an additional $500,000 revenue in a tight budgetary situation, it was resolved that we should increase the stamp duty. It is true to say that the Legislative Council has refused to allow this Bill to come before it for debate on the grounds that the Business Committee did not authorise the printing of it. It is true that the Administrator, with my concurrence - I have been in touch with the Administration this morning - has written a letter asking the President of the Council to keep the Council sitting to consider the Bill substantively and to arrange whatever meetings of the Business Committee may be needed to enable this matter to be debated and discussed in the Northern Territory Legislative Council. Beyond this, I wish to comment no further.

page 297

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Mr LUCHETTI:

– My question, directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry, is supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Gellibrand. I ask: In view of the desperate financial plight of many people in country districts due to disastrous economic conditions, will the Minister now take positive action to establish industry and provide employment for those seeking work in these areas? Will the Minister tell the House what action he intends to take to implement decentralisation of industry, and whether he has any plans to halt the flow of people from the country to the State capitals and seaboard cities and towns?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– There is a section of the Office of Secondary Industry which works on the question of seeing what assistance and advice can be given to industry in the way of necessary information to help it make decisions. We solicit the support of universities in Australia to carry out surveys and examinations of the relevant factors - the labour opportunities in the area, the suitable sites, the location of water, the service facilities, the cost of transport and the general disabilities that might be imposed upon it. The Government provides this information through the Office of Secondary Industry. The honourable member seems to bypass the real fact of the matter, that is, that the States have the constitutional authority in this area. The Commonwealth has no rights to interfere in the areas of local government or the many other services and facilities that are necessary for industry. We are prepared to sit alongside the States, consult with them, advise them and assist them when and where possible. There is a consultative committee which operates between the Commonwealth and the States. The members of that committee have been active. They have been working on preparing a report which I hope will be ready for examination by the Government some time.

page 297

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES: PAYMENTS TO MINISTERS

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Prime Minister, refers to a question addressed recently to him concerning payments to Prime Ministers or other serving Ministers of the Crown for writing newspaper articles. I ask the Prime Minister whether such payments are in order.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– In a speech made yesterday the Leader of the Opposition did say that I had made contributions to newspaper articles and received payments for them. I have made contributions on noncontroversial matters associated with the administration of the Department that I was administering for the time being, and payment has been made. But on every occasion I have ensured that the payment was passed to the social fund of the Department that I was administering. In later years I have ensured that every single cent of it was paid to social or organisations of a similar kind in my electorate, particularly to the people who look after sub-normal children in the Eureela homes in Burwood. That has been my universal policy. As to my attitude to the retention of payments by Ministers, I do not like the idea and would not countenance it, myself. As to the general policy, I will take this up with my Cabinet colleagues and soon I will make a statement on the propriety of it relating to all Ministers.

page 297

QUESTION

RURAL INDUSTRIES

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is the Minister aware that the rural sector of the economy - that is a euphemistic term for the farmers - hailed his accession to the present post with high hopes that the grievous burden of excessive tariff protection would shortly be lifted at least a little from their bent backs? Is the Minister aware that it is a reduction in duties that we want and not just another helping of his sunny smile?

Mr Foster:

– Go on, give him a smile.

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– It is pretty hard to smile at times. Smiles are about all one can get in this place at times. It is true that the Government has announced that there will be a progressive review of tariffs. The objective of this review is to ensure that excessive or unnecessary duties are not being applied to goods, because they add to the costs of imports. However, I should not like it to be thought that only secondary goods get protection. The great bulk of rural industries in Australia have various devices, duties and other ways of protecting themselves against competition - sometimes unfair competition - from other countries. It should be, and it is, the objective of governments to keep tariff duties as low as possible so as to not to have pressure on costs and prices within a country but what we must aim at are reasonable levels of protection. If a country is to become industrialised and to have high standards of living there is a need for a degree of protection. That is why the Tariff Board examines levels of protection and makes recommendations to the Government. That will be the Government’s continuing approach to tariff making in Australia.

page 298

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Industry a question following on his answer to my colleague the honourable member for Macquarie. Is his Department represented on the CommonwealthState officials committee on decentralisation which was set up by a decision of the Premiers Conference in 1964 when his predecessor, now Sir John McEwen, was Acting Prime Minister, but which has not met since February 1969? Furthermore, since the right honourable gentleman referred to the role of the States I ask him why it is that this year’s Budget, like last year’s Budget, has done nothing to fulfil Sir John McEwen’s undertaking, given at the last elections, that Commonwealth funds would be made available through the State governments as a contribution to the costs in the smaller centres of population of such amenities as swimming pools, child care centres, civic centres, showgrounds and playing fields. Finally, has the Cabinet at any meeting which he has attended yet considered the report of the 2 State committees on decentralisation, namely, the Victorian advisory committee’s report of September 1967 and the report of the Development Corporation of New South Wales on selective decentralisation of March 1969?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– It is good to see this new-found interest in decentralisation, but it is a strange coincidence that it happens when there is to be a decentralisation conference in Canberra over the next 2 days. We are well aware of the interest honourable members opposite show when it is politically opportune. My Department is represented on a committee of Commonwealth and State officials which meets on the question of decentralisation. I cannot tell the honourable member when the committee last met but I know that the committee has been preparing reports and has been waiting on reports from universities which have been carrying out work in this field. As I said to a previous questioner, when the report is finished it will be examined by the Government. As to whether the Government has examined the reports of the 2 States which have had committees on decentralisation, I point out that it is not the function of this Government to examine those reports. However, I have seen those reports produced at Cabinet meetings and some of the information in them has been referred to and discussed. In regard to the last part of the question, which referred to my predecessor’s statement that it would be the objective of the Australian Country Party to seek special assistance in providing certain facilities for country towns, that still remains the objective of the Country Party.

page 298

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

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

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SWARTZ:

– Yes. The ‘Australian Financial Review’ today reported that some figures which I had quoted yesterday were incorrect, and I should like to put the record straight. During the statement which I made in relation to the Jervis Bay nuclear power station project I did quote some figures which related to site preparation. The figures I quoted are entirely accurate and, unfortunately, the representatives of the ‘Financial Review’ misread the figures quoted in the Auditor-General’s report, which had been tabled just a short time previously.

I indicated to the House that $1,230,000 had been spent on direct site preparation and that $500,000 had been incurred on consulting fees associated with the project. These were the only matters on which 1 concentrated. On the other hand, the Auditor-General’s report, amongst other things, funded proportions of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s head office and research staff salaries when these officers were working on the Jervis Bay project, the purchase of premises for use by the consultants, and also expenditures incurred by the Lucas Heights research establishment. AH these things came to well over $lm.

I might add that head office and research staffs would have been employed on other work had the project not been commenced, and their wages would not have been accounted for by the AuditorGeneral in this way. Also, the sum of over $400,000 was paid for premises for use as the headquarters of the consultants, and these buildings are still owned and being used by the Atomic Energy Commission. The figures which I quoted yesterday are entirely correct, and I only hope that the Financial Review’ can withdraw the statement it made today.

page 299

STATES GRANTS (INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS) ACT

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence and Minister for Education and Science · Farrer · LP

– Pursuant to section 7 of the States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969, I present a statement of payments made to independent schools in each State for the year ended 31st December 1970.

page 299

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES ACT

Mr HOLTEN:
Minister for Repatrition · Indi · CP

– In my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Air, pursuant to section 10 of the Royal Australian Air

Force Veterans’ Residences Act 1953-1965, I present the annual report of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Trust for the year ended 30th June 1970, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 299

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received advice from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) that he has appointed Senators Carrick and Hannan to be members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to fill the vacancies caused by the resignation of Senators Buttfield and Sir Magnus Cormack.

page 299

REPORT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Australian Tourist Commission

Mr DOBIE:
Cook

– I present the one hundred and twenty-eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee which relates to the Australian Tourist Commission. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection leave is granted.

Mr DOBIE:

– Your Committee’s inquiry into the Australian Tourist Commission has served to highlight the importance of tourism as an international industry and as an activity of very great importance to Australia through its contribution to the earning of overseas exchange, the generation of additional income within Australia and as an instrument of goodwill and understanding. The evidence shows that the Commonwealth has long recognised the importance of international tourism and, in 1929 became actively involved in this area when it arranged for the inauguration of the Australian National Travel Association. In this connection your Committee would pay tribute to the work of that Association over the years and its foresighted recognition, in 1964, of the need for a new style of tourist organisation to meet Australia’s growing international tourist needs and which culminated in the establishment of the Australian Tourist Commission in 1967.

Arising from its inquiry your Committee would congratulate the Commission for its approach to the task of developing a professional marketing organisation in its structure, the integration of that structure with proper and adequate financial controls and the building of an organisation to develop Australian tourist facilities for projection to overseas markets. We would also congratulate the Commission on its approach to project budgeting, a system introduced from July 1970 following a careful examination that it made of the activities of the Canadian Government Tourist Organisation in relation to programme budgeting and the concepts adopted by that organisation. In examining the affairs of the Australian Tourist Commission your Committee has borne in mind that the Commission had been in operation for only 3 years when its inquiry began. For this reason, many of the problems that have confronted the Commission in the past have been mainly developmental in nature.

On the basis of the evidence, however, we believe that some of these problems should have been resolved at an earlier stage in the Commission’s development. In this regard we note that it was not until 1969 that the Commission appointed management consultants to examine the problems involved in a number of defects in its accounting system to which the Auditor-General’s office had drawn the Commission’s attention in 1968. We also feel that the Commission should have evolved rules relating to the conditions of employment of its staff prior to January 1970. When our inquiry commenced the Commission had not tested fully the scope of the powers conferred upon it. We believe that the Commission should explore the extent of its existing powers and, if need be, discuss with the Minister at the earliest opportunity, any variations that it considers should be made to those powers to increase its effectiveness, particularly if it is to become actively involved in the development of tourist facilities in Australia. Your Committee also believes that the Commission’s arrangements relating to its inventory of assets at its overseas offices require urgent examination and that inventory checks at all of those offices should be designed by the Commission’s internal audit organisation. Allied to this, your Committee believes that a high priority should be accorded the introduction of an effective internal audit organisation within the Commission’s administration

The evidence indicated that while market research carried out by the Commission has been costed in detail, it does not appear that the Commission has examined this facet of its work in terms of increases in its cost. As the Commission is evidently anxious to develop market research expertise in Australia we believe that the costs associated with such a development should be kept under close surveillance. During our inquiry we examined witnesses on the matter of a formula for Commonwealth contributions that had been recommended to the Commission by management consultants. On this matter we would observe that while in years of increasing tourist activity a formula of the type recommended might result in larger Commonwealth contributions than would otherwise be made available, the application of such a formula in years of restricted or declining tourist activity might well result in reduced Commonwealth contributions. As a consequence, this situation might inhibit the Commission in the exercise of its responsibilities in circumstances where a more intensive effort is, in fact, required.

Finally your Committee would observe that in each year from 1966-67 to 1968-69 the Commission’s annual reports disclosed details of its executive staff located in Australia and overseas. It was not until 1970, however, as a direct result of our inquiry, that the Commission provided any information in its annual reports relating to its total staff employed. Your Committee notes with satisfaction the assurance given in evidence that staff details similar to those provided by the National Capital Development Commission in its annual reports can be provided in the annual reports of the Commission for years subsequent to 1969-70. I commend the report to honourabe members.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 300

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Barnard, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I move:

That the Bil* be now read a second time. Mr Speaker, this is a Bill designed to amend the National Service Act and remove from it certain features which the

Opposition finds most objectionable. This is the second time I have put this Bill to the House.

The first occasion was on 27th February 1969 when I introduced the Bill and it was briefly debated. On that occasion the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) who was then Minister for Labour and National Service led for the Government. The debate subsequently lapsed and was never revived by the Government. The Opposition restored it to the notice paper as an item of general business.

In the 2i years since this Bill was introduced there have been some changes in the structure of national service. However, the basic anomalies and injustices which moved the Opposition to introduce the Bill still remain in the principal Act. For this reason we consider its re-introduction justified and urge the Government to give it sympathetic consideration. At the outset let me state the attitude of the Opposition to the national service legislation. In simple terms the Opposition is opposed as a matter of principle to the National Service Act. Our policy has been stated frequently in this Parliament; it has been reaffirmed repeatedly by Federal Conferences of the Labor Party. The Party is committed to the repeal of this legislation when it wins office. This means it will abolish the callup and the selective ballot system and take appropriate measures to build strong forces by forming a volunteer army. These are the basic policies of the Labor Party.

However, Sir, we are realistic about what we can do to change the national service legislation as an Opposition. Quite obviously the legislation cannot be overturned by action in this House; this Bill is not designed to achieve this. What the Bill is designed to do is soften some of the unjust features of the legislation, particularly with regard to conscientious objection to national service. Before 1 outline in detail the provisions of this Bill, I would like to make some general comments about national service. The timing of this debate is most appropriate because last night the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced the first substantial change in the national service scheme since its inception in 1964. This was the reduction in the term of national service from 2 years to 18 months. The right honourable gentleman did not elaborate on the reasons for this decision but quite plainly it was a corollary of the Vietnam withdrawal. The effect of the reduction to 18 months will be to reduce the total strength of the full-time army by 4,000. Presumably, it will increase the citizen and reserve forces by the same number.

The Prime Minister made the rather peculiar statement that this would not affect the present organisation of the Army into 9 battalions although it would put some battalions on a reduced basis. This seems to be a sleight of hand trick with numbers and paper battalions which needs further explanation to the House. The reduction of the term of service to 18 months seems to be a rather feeble compromise between the political requirements of the Government, the demands of the Army and the actual requirements of the Department of Defence. There is evidence to suggest that the Department of Defence believes 1 year is adequate for national service.

In July this year no less an authority than the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who, for a brief but unforgettable period was Minister for Defence, made this point. He said, and I trust I quote the honourable gentleman correctly:

If national service were reduced from 2 years to one, and the number doubled, then there would be some greater equality of burden than there is now.

The argument of the Army has always been that 2 years were needed because it took 1 year to train a soldier thoroughly. On this basis the conscript spent 1 year in training and 1 year in Vietnam. With Vietnam over the Government could not be expected to find in the twinkling of an eye another war for these yoting men in their second year. It could send them to Malaysia-Singapore for a year or it could commit them to a year of inactive service within Australia. With the rotation of battalions to Malaysia-Singapore only a minority could do a year’s service there.

Quite obviously a year of service within Australia after a year of initial training would produce strains and frustrations. The obvious solution for the Government, given its commitment to selective national service, would have been on the lines suggested by the honourable member for Wannon - to cut national service from 2 years to 1 year and double the call-up. It is disputable whether there was ever any real need to call up men for longer than 12 months, even on the Government’s own terms. A soldier can be fully trained in 6 months and after that can give excellent service for another 6 months not only in Australia but in an operational theatre. It is nonsense to suggest that effective service cannot be given in a period shortened to 1 year.

An example is the work done by engineer units in Borneo which went to this theatre between 1964 and 1966 for a 6 months tour of duty on construction work. The only reason for the Government’s insistence on 2 years was its objective to keep 3 battalions in Vietnam. Now that the commitment is nearing its end, it has switched to a call-up of 18 months which is illogical, and will satisfy no-one.

The other broad matter I want to refer to is the rationale of the Government’s system of national service. Undoubtedly national service has been the second most decisive factor at both political and social levels in Australia in the past 6 or 7 years. The first, of course, is the Vietnam commitment which the Government is in the process of liquidating. A most objectionable feature of the national service system was its introduction without any attempt to fill the ranks by voluntary means. There has never been any attempt to justify the imposition of enforced recruitment in the terms of economic logic.

The Government has not tried to justify the resort to conscription at the expense of a volunteer army except to say in vague terms that pay increases in 1963 had failed to stimulate recruiting. The Prime Minister could still repeat this spurious claim in his speech last night at a time when the Kerr Committee was overhauling the whole structure of service pay and conditions. The Government has never attempted to analyse the prospects for switching back to an all-volunteer system. It has made no attempt to survey future manpower requirements of the Australian workforce and relate them to potential strengths of the armed services in the 1970s and 1980s.

The Government does not seem even remotely interested in having these issues tested on the lines of the Gates Commission appointed by President Nixon to plan an end to the draft and a move to an allvolunteer army in the United States. It has assumed in an arbitrary and clumsy fashion that national service is still necessary with Vietnam over but it is not as necessary as during Vietnam. In real terms next year national service will be 6 months less necessary than it is at the moment. In effect the national service currency will be devalued by 25 per cent. None of the evaluation in cost benefit terms of conscription relative to an all volunteer army has been done by the Government. It has disclaimed any interest in analysing the problem in these terms. There has been a lot of valuable work done by mathematical economists in assessing the relative costs and benefits of the 2 systems. Their conclusions support the claim that filling the ranks by conscription is as costly as it is unjust. Certainly the Government will come under increasing pressure, both in this House and outside, to justify its retention of conscription at a time when Australian forces are not committed in military operations. I turn now to discuss some of the features of the Bill before the House. The first part of the Bill to which I draw attention is proposed section 29a which is intended to provide an alternative civilian service to military service. Briefly the section provides that a person called up under the Act may elect to perform such an alternative service. A person who elects to serve in any one of the armed Services in this way may be issued with a certificate certifying that he is entitled to render that alternative service. The remainder of the section is concerned with machinery matters to implement this proposal and bring it into line with the principal Act.

The principle of alternative service which this Act seeks to introduce is an extremely vexed one and I want to look at it in some detail. A proposal to amend the Act in this way was first put by the Opposition in this House and in the Senate when extensive amendments to the National Service Act were enacted in May 1968. According to my recollection, the amendment on alternative service was drafted by the late Senator Cohen, Q.C., who was then Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. It was rejected by the Government, ostensibly on the ground that it could be construed as manpower control which would be unconstitutional, or as an infringement of

International Labour Organisation conventions. The honourable member for Wentworth, who was then Minister for Labour and National Service, put these arguments quite strongly. These objections seem to have been based on the Slavery Convention of 1930 whose signatories, including Australia, undertook to suppress the use of force, or compulsory labour in all its forms within the shortest possible period. However, a later convention of 1957 made it clear that the term ‘forced or compulsory labour’ did not include any work or service exacted in virtue of a compulsory military service, laws for work of a purely military character or work which is part of a normal civilian occupation. The normal occupation in this category is that of a citizen. Further doubts were cast on this argument by the incorporation of alternative civilian service in the draft laws of many countries, including the United States, Britain, Sweden, West Germany, Denmark and France.

Last year the Government modified this tack and Cabinet devoted considerable attention to studying the introduction of an acceptable and viable civilian alternative. Unfortunately, the Government decided that it was beyond its ability to find an alternative that was both just and practicable. There were reports that opposition from influential sections of the back bench had forced the Government to shelve the scheme after it had been widely publicised. It seems the former Minister for Labour and National Service, the present Treasurer (Mr Snedden) kept in the back of his head some hopes of reviving the proposals. He said on 11th February this year that the Government had never closed its mind to an alternative which satisfied several criteria. These included justice for those undertaking the military service, the relevant constitutional requirements and the relevant ILO conventions which have been ratified by the Australian Government. As I indicated earlier, I believe the Government has overstated the relevance of som? of these criteria.

On the evidence of this statement it seems the Government is still giving active consideration to the principle of alternative service. Perhaps the Minister in his reply can enlighten the House as to what stage Government thinking has reached.

Undoubtedly there are many complexities and difficulties existing in the introduction of such a scheme. These reservations are not confined to the Government; they are held by important sections of the Labor movement. Objections here are based on contentious issues of manpower control and cheap forced labour. Obviously it would be intolerable if a pool of cheap involuntary labour were established in competition with the civilian workforce. This could not and would not be contemplated. My personal attitude is that 2 factors counter these most cogent objections. The first is the limited number of young men involved. In no sense could the operation of an alternative service scheme be construed as the formation of a civilian construction corps or anything of that sort. There are suitable outlets for the limited number of young men who decided to choose alternative civilian service in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. For example the non-combatant element of the Army could be extended to provide jobs of a civilian nature for some of these men. Work of a peace corps nature could be provided for applicants willing to work in areas such as Papua New Guinea, the Pacific Islands and South East Asia.

Another alternative would be suitable work within the Commonwealth and State public services or Territory administrations relevant to the aptitude, skill and education of men who want to opt for this type of alternative. The second reason why I think objections to alternative service are overstated is that the pay rates of servicemen are moving much closer to civilian pay rates. The serviceman in future can expect to be paid at least at an equivalent rate to his civilian counterpart of the same age. Pay differences between civilians and servicemen will always be a contentious matter but this should not arise in a future alternative scheme if the Kerr Committee does - as I am sure it will - an effective job. A skilled man who is called up and opts for an alternative form of service ought to be paid for his skill and used in the work for which he is trained. For example, a tradesman would be paid award rates, or a doctor according to equivalent civilian salary scales. Overtime would be paid if the area of employment meant extra hours of work. Pay rates would also have to be adjusted to allow for the differential in living costs from a soldier who lived in barracks. Certainly a young man who opts for a civilian alternative would not be expected to benefit financially from his status. But he should not be penalised because he elects to do this work in accordance with his conscience.

Most other countries which employ the call-up system have been able to evolve a satisfactory civilian alternative. These include countries such as Sweden and West Germany with governments of impeccable Democratic Socialist credentials. I refuse to believe that it is beyond the wit or wisdom of this Government to evolve a satisfactory form of alternative service. Nor do I believe the Labor movement would oppose a scheme which provided a dignified alternative under the law if the other options were military service against the grain of conscience or 2 years in gaol.

The second element of the Bill to which I would now like to refer outlines and relates to exemptions on the grounds of conscientious belief. There has been very grave dissatisfaction over the existing protection within the Act for conscientious objectors and how these laws have been enforced. I

Know that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) will point to his latest report on the operation of the national service scheme for 1970-71. This shows that 9 out of 10 applicants for total exemption have been granted that stutus There may have been improvements in the interpretation and administration of these provisions in the past 2 years, but the fact remains that under the present Act young men can still be gaoled for 2 years for refusing to comply with the Act in any way.

Mr Daly:

– Shocking!

Mr BARNARD:

– As the honourable member for Grayndler interjects, this is a shocking indictment of the Government. It is a shocking judgment of a society that bases its legislation on a democratic principle. This anomaly will always remain. It is no good saying that these men ought to apply for conscientious objector status. The Department of Labour and National Service has the discretionary power to treat them as conscientious objectors and refer them to the courts for determination of their status. Where young men refuse to comply with the Act in any way and the Department refuses to use its discretionary power, then the odium of a 2-year gaol sentence remains. No-one can presume to judge the consciences of these young men. They may be people with subtle shades of conscientious objection beyond the Department’s ability or willingness to comprehend. But their rights must be respected.

After all, the Act lays down an absolute right of exemption on the ground of conscientious belief. It gives this right with one hand and largely takes it away with the other. At the moment 2 young men are in gaol for taking their conscientious objection to national service to the utmost extent. Charles Martin was gaoled in September last year for refusing to comply in any way with the Act. He made it clear that this refusal was because of his objection to the Vietnam war. He said in a typed statement which he distributed to his friends before the court case - I quote from the Adelaide Advertiser’:

I am sure an Australian military presence in Vietnam is not in the interests of peace, freedom or democracy for the people of Vietnam, but on the contrary in the interests of injustice and privilege. It is brutalising and embittering all combatants as well as uncommitted sections of the the populace.

Obviously this is the statement of a man of most intense feelings of conscience against a particular war. One must contemplate the attitude of the Government now, particularly in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister in this Parliament last night that all Australian troops will be withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of this year. Without canvassing the policies involved in the statement, because a reply was made in this House immediately after the Prime Minister had delivered his statement, the fact remains that under the provisions of the Government’s legislation as it now stands, Charles Martin will probably still be committed to gaol when all of the troops have been returned from Vietnam.

From my understanding of this young man, one can place complete an absolute reliance upon the statement of Charles Martin made to the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ and which I have just quoted to the House, that his conscientious objection is based on a particular war, the war in Vietnam. Obviously this is a statement of a man of most intense feelings of conscience against that war. No young man would commit himself voluntarily to 2 years in an Adelaide gaol unless it were in response to demands of conscience which could not be compromised. It is beyond belief that such a person could be thought of as a malingerer or a draft dodger. Yet under this law he has to go to gaol for 2 years.

The other man in gaol is Geoffrey Mullins of Sydney, who was gaoled in March this year, again for refusing to comply with the Act because of a deeply held objection to the Vietnam war. Both Martin and Mullins refused to comply with the law in any way. Because of conscientious belief they could not apply for exemption under the Act. Honourable members opposite may find this paradoxical and difficult to understand, but they should not presume to judge the consciences of others. At a time when the end of the Vietnam war is in sight it is monstrous that 2 men who pushed their objection to the war to the hilt should remain in prison. There is no need for the Government to pursue its vindictive course against these men at a time when the folly of its Vietnam commitment is clearly exposed. They must be released immediately.

In his recent report on national service the Minister said that no country accorded the status of conscientious objector simply to those who might claim it. However, the ways in which conscientious objection cases are determined is much more satisfactory in most of the countries to which the Minister referred. The first amendment the Bill proposes on determination of conscientious objection cases provides exemption for a conscientious objector who objects to a particular war. If this simple provision had been incorporated in the Act when the national service scheme was introduced a lot of the agony and divisiveness produced by conscientious objection cases could have been avoided. In isolated cases magistrates have found conscientious objection on the basis of the objection to the Vietnam war and granted exemption. However, the usual interpretation of the Act is that it provides for exemption only on the basis of objection to all wars.

This interpretation was confirmed by the High Court in Thompson’s case of 1968. It will remain a permanent blot on this Government that for purely political reasons it consistently refused to give conscientious objector status to young men who were prepared to defend their country but could not in conscience accept the Vietnam commitment. This amendment which is proposed for the Bill would allow a much more flexible operation of the provisions of the Act. The second reform proposed by the Bill revises the whole procedure by which a conscientious objector applies for exemption. The trend in other countries has been to a broader and much more flexible attitude to conscientious objection and its determination by the courts. When I last presented this Bill I made the point that there was considerable variation in the determination of these cases in the courts. On examination of a number of cases it was clear that it was much easier to get total exemption in some States than in others. It was much more difficult to get exemption in New South Wales and Victoria than in South Australia and Western Australia.

This situation may have changed in the past 2 years. Unfortunately, the Minister’s report did not give a break down of conscientious objection cases on a State by State basis. Certainly the overall number of total exemptions granted has risen, but the basic point that there must be the utmost consistency in the judgment of conscientious objection cases remains valid. Undoubtedly there has been a considerable amount of inconsistent interpretation of the Act. This is inevitable where the procedures vary from State to State. Undoubtedly different courts and different magistrates have applied different tests and standards. This is not intended as a criticism of magistrates who have tried to do their job - fairly and in accordance with the law as they see it. But in such a system anomalies are inevitable. There has been a quite remarkable variation in the interpretation of the provisions from court to court and from State to State.

The Opposition wants the utmost consistency in the hearing of conscientious objection proceedings. It has introduced this amendment to establish a uniform procedure for hearing conscientious objection cases in all States. This procedure is set out in clause 29 (c) and clause 29 (d) of the Bill. (Extension of time granted). The appointment of a Commissioner for Conscientious Objection in each State would eliminate differences between the States and give a consistent and uniform interpretation of the law over the whole of Australia. Such a system would allow a consistent body of law to be built relating to conscientious objection cases, so that consistent and equitable principles could be applied, lt would also allow commissioners to develop complete familiarity with conscientious objection and all its ramifications. These are matters which magistrates unaccustomed to dealing with delicate questions of conscience must find difficult to interpret. Our system would remove any possibility of individual prejudices on the part of inexperienced magistrates in dealing with these matters. Under the amendment commissioners would be either senior judges or barristers or solicitors of at least 10 years standing.

The Bill also provides a much broader right of appeal than exists under the present legislation. It would give a right of appeal from a commissioner’s decision to the court of a State or Territory constituted by not fewer than 3 judges. Present rights of appeal are much more limited. The Bill also provides for an appeal to be brought to the High Court of Australia by leave of the High Court. I have outlined the main reforms that the Opposition wants to incorporate in this Act. The Bill also contains a number of other machinery measures which I will not outline in detail. In conclusion, the Opposition welcomes this chance to look at broad issues of national service. Until the National Service Act can be repealed by a Labor Government, we regard it as our duty to see flagrant injustices removed from the Act. The Bill may have some imperfections but it is intended to make the operation of the existing system more humane and more liberal. I commend its basic principles to the House and ask for its support from honourable members.

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

– Is the motion seconded?

Mr Bryant:

– I second the motion and ask leave to continue my speech at a later time.

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP

– The Government totally opposes this Bill which has been introduced by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard), a Bill which is substantially the same as that which was before the House in February 1969. 1 say at the outset that one might have expected some attempt to revise this Bill in the light of the debate on that occasion, the strong arguments advanced against the proposed amendments and subsequent developments, in particular, of course, the changed position concerning Vietnam and Australia’s commitments there, which make it clear that the Bill is even less appropriate now than it was when first proposed.

The reasons which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has given for allowing this Bill to be re-presented without substantive alteration are in fact totally unconvincing. Indeed, they leave the impression that this debate is taking place only because there is an atmosphere of contradiction and ignorance of the essential goals and objectives of national defence surrounding Labor Party policy on defence in general and on national’ service in particular, and within which the policy was recently refrained. The Labor Party says that national service should be abolished. This is one of the central planks of its defence platform. It is based on the belief - the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is reported as stating this only recently - that the need for national service is ‘directly related to Vietnam’. The Labor Party would however retain the power of conscription, in the words of the Labor Party platform, ‘should the security of Australia be threatened’.

Immediate implementation of this policy would mean a substantial reduction in the size of the Australian Army to less than 30,000 men. The size of the Army would be reduced by one-third. Our defence capability would be thereby considerably impaired, with obvious implications for our national security. The Government’s decision and consistent policy to maintain national service on a continuing basis is a policy which is in the best interests of the defence security of Australia and is certainly a policy which has been endorsed by the majority of Australians, as evidenced in continuing gallup polls which have taken place on this subject in recent years. This therefore is one of the major areas of disagreement between the Government and the Opposition in terms of defence.

It is not enough to say that should the need for defence arise the men and capability will be forthcoming or, as is sometimes suggested, that a reservoir of men established by a short term of basic training could be brought to the necessary level of proficiency in sufficient time. As the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) said last evening, we must maintain a defence capability that is evident both to friendly countries and to potential enemies and which we could develop in adequate time should more immediate threats arise.

While national service has enabled Australia to fulfil our commitment in Vietnam, it was not introduced for that purpose. The time factor alone denies this. The present scheme was introduced in November 1964 and commenced as from January 1965. No decision was made to commit national servicemen to Vietnam until March of 1966. National service must be seen as one aspect, an important aspect, of the defence effort expended in this country to ensure national security by maintaining effective defence forces and in particular an Army of a size consistent with this goal. The Labor Party evidently chooses to ignore this reality. The repeat presentation of this Bill is in fact no more than a manifestation of its contradictory, inadequate and misinformed approach to Australian defence requirements.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spoke in some detail about the proposition that a volunteer army, or that an adequate number of volunteers, could be provided if there were pay increases. Those people who place their faith in pay increases as a panacea for defence manpower problems must accept that the supply of volunteer recruits to the armed forces is a primary function of fixing rates of pay levels in those forces - if you raise the pay you generate additional recruits to the armed forces on that basis - and moreover, that the supply of recruits is elastic, that is, it does not require major changes in pay to obtain an adequate number of additional recruits. That hypothesis has still to be tested in overseas countries. The research that has been undertaken in Australia, mostly by people who start from the premise that national service is unnecessary, gives little reason to expect that the supply of recruits would be increased to the extent necessary by pay increases alone. I think that we should remember here that we are talking about a situation where one-third of the Army would require replacement, not what can be done to increase the Army’s numbers by a few men to make things appear in a better perspective.

I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would recognise that one of the problems faced in relation to Army recruiting today is that the Army and the other armed Services are recruiting in a period of growing indiscipline in all sections of the general community, a period of full employment. These 2 factors certainly cannot be overlooked in asking the question whether the additional recruits required could be generated as a direct consequence of pay and salary conditions.

I now turn to the substantive aspects of the Bill. I shall deal’ first with the proposal for a civilian alternative to national service. As honourable members will appreciate, the Government has investigated this proposal in depth on a number of occasions but a form of alternative service that would be viable within the context of the present scheme has not yet been found. The matter is a particularly complex one and by apparently re-presenting without alteration the provisions of its Bill which was first drafted in 1968 and debated in February 1969 the Opposition appears not to have appreciated the issues involved.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will recall my answer to a question asked in the House on 31st March in relation to this subject. As I said at that time, any civilian alternative would need to meet a number of quite fundamental criteria. Firstly, there is the question of constitutionality. The alternative open to all men which the Bill proposes would involve the Government in exceeding its constitutional powers. It would amount to direction of manpower which constitutionally the Government can assume only in time of declared war. Men would need to be provided with suitable working opportunities in lieu of full time military service though, no doubt, some men would find work on their own. In either case, it would need to be acceptable to the Government. The men would be required to carry out efficiently the work which they are undertaking and to be subject to the same penalities which apply to men who fail to render the military service required of them. However this is described, it is a form of manpower control. Certainly, this vital aspect of the constitutional implications is one which is totally ignored by the Opposition in bringing this proposal again before the House.

Secondly, there is Australia’s position in the international community. We have ratified International Labour Organisation conventions on forced labour which forbid work exacted under penalty and the use of compulsory labour as a means of mobilising labour for purposes of economic development. Although the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made reference to the implication of the ILO conventions, it is certainly my understanding that the position that he has taken in relation to ILO is in fact a misinterpretation.

Thirdly, in terms of criteria, there must be equity vis-a-vis the overwhelming majority of men who undertake the military service for which they are liable. This requires that the alternative involve interruption of a man’s life and livelihood as in the case of a man enlisting in the Army; a rate of pay such that men undertaking civilian work are not advantaged as against those undertaking military service; and an obligation for service which has regard to the duration of military service required. It should be stressed that countries which provide for civilian service - normally, for conscientious objectors who in Australia are exempt from all service, military or civilian - not infrequently require service for a longer period than military service. I note in passing that the Bill requires only the same period.

Finally, a civilian alternative must not erode in any way the purpose of the present national service scheme, that is, of strengthening the Army by providing the required manpower in terms of both numbers and the range of skills. The Opposition’s proposal could achieve this objective only by balloting in and calling up an additional number of men.

This proposal, however, as I indicated in the House in a quite frank manner to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is not a proposal upon which this Government has a closed mind. I refer the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the discussions which are still continuing between officials of my Department, the Returned Services League and the Australian Council of Churches. But I think it is fair to say against the background of the criteria which I have mentioned that the matter is extremely complex. Despite the fact that it has been considered on several earlier occasions, no scheme has yet been determined or provided by this Government, by the Opposition or by any of the many bodies which put representations to the Government, which can be considered a viable proposition in the light of existing circumstances.

Proposals for a civilian alternative in Australia are frequently conceived on 2 assumptions. The first is that substantial numbers of young men are defaulting from their obligations under the Act. All of us have heard this charge freely stated in the general community. The facts indicate that’ the’ overwhelming majority’ of men arc complying with the obligations required of them from the period of registration through to that of actual service. During the last’ year, 1970-71, compared with 107,000 men who registered, 1,924 - or fewer than 2 per cent - were denied the benefit of the national service ballot because they failed to register at the proper time. Moreover, to impute to all these men opposition to national service as the main reason for their failure would be. quite false and quite misleading. In the same period more than 8,200 men were called up and enlisted. Fewer than I per cent, some 62 men, failed to report without reasonable excuse. And to underline the point, some 750 men - or 9 per cent of those called up - actually volunteered for service. Furthermore, only a minority of men who have refused to report for service have gone to gaol, a fact which is not widely appreciated when this matter is discussed in the general community.

Mr Foster:

– One in gaol is one too many, mate.

Mr LYNCH:

– I will refer to that point later in my presentation.

Mr Foster:

– One in gaol is one too many.

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable gentleman will just contain himself for a moment, I shall come to that if he gives me the opportunity. Last year, of the 19 cases finalised - the honourable gentleman might listen to this point because it is a matter pertinent to his perspective - 10 men after their failure to report subsequently applied for and were granted by the courts exemption as conscientious objectors and are therefore not liable for any service, civilian or military. Two men who refused to seek recognition as conscientious objectors were referred to the courts by the Minister, and established that they were entitled to exemption. Two men who had previously refused to attend for medical examination and had been convicted of that offence, including serving of 7 days imprisonment, underwent a medical examination and were found not to meet the Army’s standards of fitness. Two men were prosecuted for refusal to report. They agreed to report and they did so. One man was granted 5 months temporary deferment by the courts on the grounds of exceptional hardship. Of the 19, 2 men persisted in their refusal to honour their obligations under the Act. They were dealt with according to law and were sentenced upon conviction to a period of imprisonment equivalent to the period of national service for which they were liable.

I say to the House and particularly to the Opposition that these figures rebut any assertion of widespread non-compliance with the National Service Act. I will summarise them. Last year fewer than 2 per cent were penalised for failure to register - and it would be wrong to imply that they were all non-complier. - fewer than 1 per cent failed to report for service, and 2 out of 19 men who failed to report and whose cases were finalised were imprisoned. By contrast, 9 per cent of the men called up and enlisted were volunteers. That this is the position in terms of compliance with the National Service Act reflects, I believe, the good sense of the community. I think it is also due to the provisions which the Government has made for men who conscientiously object to military service, including the reference provisions introduced in August last year, and the firm, but I believe sympathetic, administration of the scheme by officers of my Department so that no man is unaware of his obligations or his rights and no man is forced to act without due regard to the consequences and in a manner which on reflection he might regret.

The second assumption underlining a civilian alternative is that it would be acceptable to men who refused to serve.

Indeed, let me say here on this particular point that if the statements of a number of men concerned are taken at their face value, few of them would do so because it is clear, according to officers of my Department who have studied the text of these statements, that they are apparently opposed to conscription per se. I might briefly mention here the proposals in the Bill to amend the procedure for prosecution of men who fail to report for service. Proceedings would be brought in a magistrate’s court which would then commit the defendant for trial or, with his consent, determine the proceedings. But the issues to be determined are simple and straight forward. They are basically 3 questions of fact: Is the man liable for service? Did he receive a call up notice? Did he obey the notice served on him? These are not matters involving, for example, complex evidence which may require consideration by a jury. They are matters of fact which can be established beyond any doubt and which, once established beyond doubt, in themselves warrant conviction.

I will now deal with selective objection. The second major aspect of the Bill is that it proposes that men who object to participation in a particular war should be eligible for exemption from the liability to render military service, that is, that we should provide for the recognition of selective service as a means of relieving a man from the liability to undertake compulsory service. This proposal was debated during the previous Bill put foward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in 1969 and again during the debate on the matter of public importance which he raised in October 1970. I would have thought with the greatest respect - the honourable gentleman knows that I have this respect for him - that frankly further discussion of this aspect would be unnecessary. This is doubly so if one has regard to the Prime Minister’s statement of last evening concerning withdrawal of the Australian troops from Vietnam, because our involvement in Vietnam has been the primary ground for seeking selective objection. For my own part, I do not propose to traverse these earlier debates but I wish to briefly refer to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of America which has created considerable interest in this country. The bench was 8 to 1 against recognition . of selective pacifism, as it is sometimes called. The judgment of the court pointed out that selective objection may be found more in political considerations and non conscientious beliefs than otherwise. It may be subject to change with the vagaries of a war to which a man objects. It would include such diverse beliefs that it would not be practical to distinguish reliably between them and it would seriously inhibit the possibility of examination of objections with any hope of reaching fair and consistent results. The bench also pointed to the effect which recognition of selective objection could have on other men who agree with the particular objector at all points, but nevertheless would not seek exemption or assert their selective objection because they held themselves bound by democratic processes under which the Government has decided that the objections raised to the particular conflict should be overridden.

Surely it is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that those who are chosen for military service are not subject to a capricious or inequitable process. This would be the unavoidable result were selective objection to be recognised in accordance with the provisions of the Bill.

Finally, the Bill provides for the initial determination of conscientious objector applications by Commissioners for Conscientious Objectors. The Opposition would remove the question from the court’s jurisdiction to which it is at present delegated and where it has the respect the community accords to, and draws on, the resources of the judicial structure. Arrangements for hearing conscientious objector issues need to be acceptable to the men concerned, the organisations, groups and individuals, such as legal representatives and, of course, the community generally. There is, moreover, an accumulated body of relevant case law built up over a considerable period going back to World War II. I ask the question: Is all this to be overthrown? Furthermore, under the new arrangements established places of hearing are available in all major population centres generally convenient to applicants and their witnesses. What of the availability of the machinery which the Opposition proposes?

Approximately 80 per cent of men who apply for total exemption are successful and are being granted the exemption they seek by the courts. Ten per cent are being refused and the remainder are granted non-combatant status. These factors, I believe, make it clear that there is no need to amend the present position. Indeed, what the Opposition proposes would be less advantageous for the reasons which I have mentioned.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised with me in speaking to this debate and in introducing the Bill the question of the release of the 2 men who are currently in gaol for failure to render service. I remind the Opposition that both of these men had a clear liability to undertake national service. They were in default from the obligations of the National Service Act and. they were dealt with according to law. I remind the Opposition also that neither of the 2 men concerned has, in fact, claimed exemption as a conscientious objector. They were; consistently given every opportunity to make .that claim and to establish whatever status they might claim under the provisions of the Act. I simply make a statement here to members of the Opposition to make the point clear: As Minister for Labour and National Service I have no power to release young men from gaol. Under the provisions of the National Service. Act that power is not within the compass of the Minister for Labour and National Service. But if the Opposition is indicating that the position of either of these men has changed-

Mr Bryant:

– It has not changed. You know it has not.

Mr LYNCH:

– If the honourable member will listen for a moment I will continue. If the position of either man has significantly changed for example in the light of any announcement recently made by the Government, then that is a position which, of course, I’ would wish to discuss with my colleague the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood). I do not know whether the position has changed.

Mr Uren:

– It has not changed. Have a look at it with the Attorney-General. I am asking you to do that.

Mr LYNCH:

– If I recall what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said specifically, it was that they objected to service in Vietnam.

Mr Uren:

– That is right

Mr LYNCH:

– If national servicemen are no longer to be sent to Vietnam it is conceivable that their attitude to national service might have changed.

Mr Foster:

– Why do not you release them then?

Mr LYNCH:

– This matter, frankly, is too serious a matter-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! It is now 2 hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the House. The debate on the motion is interrupted

Motion (by Mr Peacock) agreed to:

That the time for the discussion be extended until 12.45 p.m.

Mr LYNCH:

– As I was endeavouring to make clear before the interruptions, this is a matter of serious substance which does not lend itself to the unruly interjections which are being interposed by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster). If he has any point of substance to put to me as the Minister, or if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or any member of the Opposition has a point of substance to put to me, I will listen to it. Points raised by members of the Opposition are not always accepted, but if representations are made, 1 will listen to them. I repeat, under the provisions of the Act I have no power to release the 2 men. If there is an indication that their position may have changed I will look at the facts and consult with the Attorney-General in whose ministerial province the matter primarily rests.

The Opposition rejects national service, but realising its forlorn hope of electoral success has introduced this Bill to provide alternative civilian service and to amend existing provisions relating to conscientious objection. As to alternative civilian service, conceptually the Opposition has not demonstrated the justification for its proposals. Present facts rebut any suggestion of widespread non-compliance with the National Service Act. These facts have been made clear. Equally, it appears improbable that a civilian alternative would be generally acceptable to men who may refuse to serve. Technically the proposals do not meet the fundamental criteria of constitutionality, conformity with international conventions which Australia has ratified, equity in relation to serving men and the need not to undermine the basic purpose of the present national service scheme, which is to provide the Army with the number of men required and, of course, with the range of skills needed.

On the question of conscientious objection, selective objection is unacceptable to the Government both in theory and in practice, a conclusion confirmed by a decision of the United States Supreme Court earlier this year. As to the determination of conscientious objector cases, the need to change the present procedures clearly is not- established and the Opposition proposals would, indeed, be less advantageous than those presently existing. In summary, therefore, the Bill is totally unacceptable to the Government, believing, as it does, in a strong defence capability and, at the same time, accepting that there are those in the community who conscientiously object to military service and whose position should be recognised as, in fact, it is under the present provisions.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) spent 30 minutes demonstrating that he does not understand the current situation at all. He has given no consideration to the real defence of the nation and has made no attempt to understand the moral issues or the position in which the young men to whom he was referring find themselves. I instance the case of young Mullen. He is a bachelor of science. My colleague, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), knows him well. Mullen has strong exception to service in Vietnam. His general position does not fit into the definitions of conscientious objection. One of the deep arguments that I have with my friends opposite is that they have not made any efforts to get hold of young men aged 20 and 21 and get into their minds to understand the moral and spiritual stand they are taking. This is the most unsettling thing that I have come across in my period in Australian politics. It seems that on this issue the Government and its members, through party discipline, have erected a barrier. One cannot get members opposite to consider the issue. I have no possible hope of persuading the Minister for Labour and National Service to come out into public in his own electorate or in mine to discuss national service. No member opposite will come out to discuss it. Members opposite escape the issue.

The Opposition has presented the Bill because it is the best and most that it can do at this stage. We do not control the forms of the House. The Bill has been on the business sheet for 18 months. It will not come back again and we have to take whatever opportunity we can to explain it. So in the time I have left to me this morning I can speak only in a kind of parliamentary shorthand. First, I shall deal with a few points which the Minister raised. He referred to the attitude that we sought to express in the Bill. He said we were introducing caprice, inequity and selection into the scheme. The present scheme of national service as implemented is capricious in the extreme. It selects men by chance - by birth dates drawn by ballot. It is totally inequitable in placing upon one group in the community a sacrifice not demanded .of anybody else. It is selective in that some are chosen while others are allowed to stay at home. I listened for 30 minutes to the Minister subverting his great talents in justifying an act of national immorality.

In trying to pander to sections of the community he used cliches and words like: honour their obligations to render service’. Honour! What honour is there in the national service system? Its very genesis was a political gimmick. Their obligations! Why is A obliged to serve while B stays home and plays football and C turns up in this Parliament when he is of military age? Honourable members opposite constantly refuse to face the moral and spiritual issues that we see in the present scheme. As for the Minister talking about attempting to gain political profit or credit from this Bill, no member of the Opposition from the inception of the scheme has avoided the issue whether it has meant political credit or political debit. I believe that members opposite have not examined the situation at all.

I ask members opposite: What is your principle? What right has the Government to play God with some young men’s lives and take away their freedom, whether it be by putting them in gaol or by putting them into the Army? Is not this what the Government is doing? Is not this what is being said when it allows 90 per cent of Australia’s young men to remain at home and says to the other 10 per cent: ‘You have no freedom. You have no life left’? This situation is no longer tolerable in an Aus* tralian democratic society. I served for many years in the Services. I could not be a conscientious objector. Possible, in certain circumstances, I could regard myself as a pacifist. I know that so many young Australian men take more or less the position that I do. When the chips are down, the defence of Australia is involved and we are under attack, they will be there. I know dozens of these young men. I have spoken to them. I have asked them: Why not apply for release from national service on the grounds of conscientious objection; it is better than going to gaol?’ They say: ‘We will not’. They will not sell their spirit or soul even to keep themselves out of gaol. This is something that honourable members opposite, including the honourable member who just laughed, cannot understand. Deep in the heart of these young men is the very spirit that this nation needs in its defence, and the present situation is most distressing. I say that the Government has no right to dispose of the lives or freedom of any individual or collection of individuals. How does the present national service scheme fit in with the rights of individuals in accordance with the Constitution?

Members of the Government Parties take refuge in anachronisms and generalities. It had been my intention to deal more particularly with the Bill but my colleague, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard) has done so. However, I would ask the Government: Why were 20-year olds chosen for national service? Was it because the Government regards a 20-year old as the most efficient soldier? I suggest that members opposite study the records relating to those people who won the Victoria Cross during the last war. Were they aged 20? The majority were in their late 20s and early 30s. There is no proof that if the most efficient army is wanted, 20-year olds should be recruited. I am not suggesting that these young men have not been turned into efficient soldiers, but it is well known that a person does not acquire in his late teens the spiritual, moral and physical strength needed of soldiers. If the Minister wanted the best 9 battalions he could get, would he choose his men as they are chosen for national service? Of course he would not. Would he pick the 20-year- olds? Of course he would not. The young man who last drew the marble out of the barrel in Melbourne was Ron Clarke who was breaking world records at 27 and 28 years of age. I cannot understand how he fell for the task. But these young men are picked because they are the cheapest. Generally speaking they have no wives; they have no families and they have no vote. They can be sacrificed at the least possible political and economic cost.

The Minister says that he has consulted the Returned Services League and also his Department. I do not think he consults with his Department; he is probably its prisoner. He said, he also has consulted the Australian Council of Churches. But the last thing he will do is have an effective discussion with this Parliament and its members who represent the people directly, and I wish he would establish some machinery by which we could all take part. We have fallen for this defence by political gimmick. There is talk of the gallup poll. 1 am running short of time, but let me examine one or two of the propositions that the Minister has put to us. I see that I have only 5 minutes left. This is one of the penalties. Honourable members opposite talk about democracy and freedom, but those things do not apply even in this place. When will this issue be discussed again?

It will be worth reading the Minister’s speech. He used some beautiful cliches. He referred to the ‘viable proposition in the light of existing circumstances’. What circumstances? He says that we have to have 9 infantry battalions. Good heavens why? As an old footslogger myself, I have great respect for the Australian Army, but if, when I address a gathering of people, I put a map on the wall, look at it and say: There it is. Where do the threats come from?; I can answer that they can come only from the sea or the air. How will the Government protect itself against this with 9 infantry battalions? Is the Minister, playing the part of God, going to teach the people to walk on water? That is the last thing he would do. Any conscientious consideration of the defence of Australia at the present moment, in the light of all the existing circumstances, would not include having 9 infantry battalions as the way to do it.

I have no objection to the Government’s having 9 infantry battalions. But the Gov ernment stands condemned if it has turned our society into the kind of one that cannot raise 9 infantry battalions by volunteer methods. I believe that an effective citizen force with adequate background training, and materia] support could produce the same effective military and defence result in the light of existing circumstances. But when I ask the community generally about national service, I get no answers. People say: ‘Yes, we are in favour of national service’. When I ask people why they are in favour of national service they say: ‘We have to defend the country’. When I ask: Against whom’? Nobody can ever tell me.

I am not one of those who say that because one cannot name a specific enemy at this point of time one should disband the defence Services. But one has to take a totally different look at the picture, instead of building upon the anachronism of compulsory military service in infantry battalions. It is damn nonsense in anybody’s language; it is an act of incredible folly: it is an act of great injustice to a team of young men. I for one believe deeply that the community has abdicated its responsibility to the young men of Australia. If the Government has the guts, the strength and the nerve and believed in its policy, it should perhaps call up 25-year-olds. They would have been able to vote for 4 years before they were called up, and they would have wives who could object. I would have some respect for Ron Clarke who drew the last marble out of the barrel if he had enlisted himself. He is one of the fastest runners in Australia - just the man you need on occasions. I have done a bit of running myself for the cause.

These are the issues, as I see them. There are many more. This Bill before the House is an attempt to reform a totally unacceptable system. The best we can do is to attempt to mitigate the hardship of the young men of Australia. We want the conscientious objection provisions changed. I have been to the court on a number of occasions when these young men have been there. My friend the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), I understand, has a law degree and a law practice. It would do him good if he went into court to see what happens to the young men and whether the principles of law, as he understands them, are applied. These young men are absolutely, totally and completely helpless in the grip of the law. They stand there firm in their resolve and say: ‘I won’t be in it.’ But instead of getting some kind of conscientious consideration of their position from honourable members opposite, they are sneered at and laughed at. The Minister says that these young men have not honoured their obligations.

We want to repeal the whole Act, but we want this conscientious objection provision applied immediately. We want the cases of young men like Mullen and Martin reconsidered absolutely. I think it is a disgrace that these two men are in prison. The whole system has done all sorts of things to the Australian community. It has subverted our system of justice. The High Court of Australia has ruled that a case does not need to be on indictment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:

– Order! The time allotted for precedence for General Business has expired. The honourable member for Wills will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

page 314

VIETNAM

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP

– Mr Speaker, in accordance with my undertaking to the House last night I now present photo copies of the following correspondence: Marked A is a copy of a letter dated 29th April 1965 sent by the Australian Ambassador to His Excellency Dr Rhan Huy Quat, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Vietnam; and marked B is a copy of a letter dated 29th April 1965 sent by His Excellency Dr Rhan Huy Quat, Prime Minister of the Republic of Vietnam, to the Australian Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam. I present the documents against the background of the statement I made on 22nd June relating to the Pentagon Papers. 29th April, 1965

Your Excellency, 1 have the honour, with reference to our conversation yesterday, to confirm the Australian Government’s offer to send to Viet Nam an infantry battalion of 800 men, with some 100 personnel in logistic support, to serve, with United States forces in assisting in the defence of the Republic of Viet Nam.

I have informed the Australian Government, following our conversation, that Your Excellency has accepted this offer and has requested the despatch of this force to Viet Nam on the basis which we discussed.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

  1. D. Anderson Ambassador

His Excellency Dr Rhan Huy Quat, Prime Minister of the Republic of Viet Nam, SAIGON 29th April, 1965

Dear Mr. Ambassador,

I have the honor to refer to your letter of today’s date confirming the Australian Government’s offer to send to Viet Nam an infantry battalion of 800 men, with some 100 personnel in logistic support to serve with United States forces in assisting in the defence of the Republic of Vietnam.

I wish to confirm my government’s acceptance of this offer and to request the dispatch of this force to Viet Nam on the basis which we discussed.

Sincerely,

page 314

RHAN-HUY-QUAT

The Honorable H. D. Anderson

Ambassador of the government of Australia Saigon, Vietnam.

page 314

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 18 August (vide page 215), on the following paper presented by Mr N. H. Bowen:

International Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 18th August 1971- and on motion by Mr Swartz:

That the House take note of the paper.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

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

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I thank the Leader of the House. I had been informed that I would get 30 minutes and not unlimited time. I hope to confine my remarks to the 30 minutes. First, let me congratulate the new Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) on his debut. He is the third man to hold that position in 5 months. I have sufficient esteem for him to express the hope that he will shortly and prudently follow his predecessor in his seat rather than his predecessor in his portfolio namely, to the bench and not the back bench.

I applaud the matters which the honourable gentleman included in his statement. It would be expected, and I would wish, that 1 should speak principally on China and Japan. I am one of the 3 persons in this Parliament who has actually visited Japan - the honourable member for Shortland (Mr Griffiths) in 1957 and the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and I last month.

Mr McMahon:

– China - tell the truth again.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Oh!

Mr McMahon:

– Sorry.

Mr Cope:

– Have you ever been to Moscow, Bill?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not think the Leader of the Opposition needs assistance by way of interjections from members of his own Party or others.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Since I made a slip in using the word Japan instead of China, may 1 add that I have also recently visited Japan. I had the most thorough visit there that any member of this House has had and have paid more visits there than any member of this House.

There were other matters in the Minister’s statement upon which I shall take little time to speak. There was the question of Indo China. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) last night made a statement on that subject and a debate ensued. I need only say at this stage that I believe the Prime Minister’s announcement last night will do more to normalise relations between Australia and China than will the statement which we are debating now. The fact is that we would never have been in Vietnam but for the Sino-phobia which is felt in Australia and her great and powerful associates. I add that for advisers from Australia or other countries to remain in Indo China would be another breach of the Geneva Agreements of 1954.

Nor will I take the opportunity to speak on East Pakistan. This subject came up yesterday on the initiative of the Opposition by way of an urgency debate launched by the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). Among the speakers was my colleague from Kingston (Dr Gun), who has recently visited the distressed area.

Nor will I contribute on the question of the South Pacific. 1 am pleased indeed that this subject was included in the Minister’s statement, lt is a subject upon which I have urged for some years that more consideration be given. I need only say that I believe the Minister’s contribution could have been more helpful if he had acknowledged certain other problems in the area. First, there is the question that might be summarised as immigration. The people in the South Sea Islands, who are mostly members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, feel that the number and the nature of the Australians in their cities and plantations cause more disruption to their society and economy than would the presence in our cities of some Df the vigorous English speaking people from their countries who wish to come to our cities. Again, 1 believe the Minister could have made some explanation of the difficulties which have appeared in the South Pacific Commission over the weighted vote there. Australia has 5 votes whereas most countries of the South Pacific Commission - the new ones certainly - have only one vote each. This matter came to a head on the election of the new SecretaryGeneral. Thirdly, I would have thought that it would have been helpful to have some comment on political developments in New Caledonia and Tahiti. In each country there is a movement to autonomy; in fact in many cases to independence. Lastly, I wish that the Minister had referred to the French nuclear tests. The countries of this region - the Commonwealth countries and the newly independent countries - cannot understand why it has been impossible to exclude this form of testing from the South Pacific when it proved possible years ago to exclude it from the Sahara.

My remaining comment on matters other than China and Japan which were contained in the Minister’s statement would be to mention that I think that for the first time a Minister for Foreign Affairs, or as previously was the case a Minister for External Affairs, has made a ministerial statement without referring to Britain or to the Commonwealth. I reiterate, as I did in speaking to his predecessor’s statement last April, that the best, in fact the only link, between Australia and many other countries in the Indian Ocean is the Commonwealth. If there is a fruitful association in the Indian Ocean, it is the Commonwealth.

I turn to the questions of China and Japan. There has been a notable change in emphasis on those matters since the present Prime Minister, who was the Minister for Foreign Affairs before the last one, made a statement on them on 19th March last year. The stumbling-block then to recognition of China by Australia and the admission of China to the United Nations was China’s conduct. There was no reference to the situation of Taiwan. The question of China has become of great moment in Australia this year because of trade. We have learned to our cost that the biggest wheat market we had has been lost to us because Australia does not recognise China. It is true that we did for very many years throughout the 1960s sell wheat to China without recognising her. Canada also sold wheat to China without recognising her. China would take the natural, sensible attitude that if she wants a product enough she will get it where she can best get it and the two most appropriate sources in quantity, price- and location were Australia and Canada. There was little to choose between the two of them. It may be that Australia was marginally more hostile to China - to use the Chinese term - than was Canada in that from the middle 1960s onward Australia had troops in Vietnam and an embassy in Taipei whereas Canada had neither. Nevertheless when last year the Chinese were given an option of choosing a friendly country or a hostile country as a supplier they naturally chose the friendly country. It is unfortunate from Australia’s point of view that the Australian Wheat Board is regarded as a government agency and accordingly suffers from the attitude which the Australian Government has brought upon itself.

There has not been so much attention given to the position of our manufactures. We do sell quite an amount of manufactures, including strategic goods, to China. We sell them from private companies. Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd sells to China. It is able to do so because it is not a government concern and it is totally an Australian concern. There lies the significance.

For the Chinese a government agency takes on the character of its government; a corporation can take on the character of its ownership. In particular an Australian company which is a subsidiary or an associate of an American company would be most unlikely to get any orders in China. Again, an Australian company which is a subsidiary or an associate of a Japanese company with interests, trade and investments in Taiwan would be most unlikely to get orders from China. The Japanese are very skilled businessmen. They deliberately divide their companies into those oriented to Taiwan and those oriented to the mainland. JETRO has produced a book listing the friendly companies as the Chinese would regard them. Accordingly any Australian subsidiaries or associates of those friendly companies could readily trade with China. I would hope there would be other occasions when one can go into details in these matters.

Let us face the fact that, despite the disclaimer by the latest Foreign Minister on this subject, trade has made China’s status of immediate interest to Australia. I am not suggesting that this should be the predominant interest. The predominant reason why we should be interested in China and in her recognition and admission is the fact that the Vietnam war is almost over and we now have an opportunity of having rational relations among the countries surrounding the Pacific Ocean.

I should, before going further, comment on 2 allegations which the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) made for the first time in the House. I do not propose to follow all the allegations he made while I was overseas when I could not answer them or those which he has made at Liberal Party gatherings when I could not answer them. I answer the 2 allegations he made 2 afternoons ago. One was that the Australian Labor Party’s delegation had compromised the wheat sales to China and the other was that it had compromised the first moves that we - meaning the Australian Government - were making through diplomatic channels to open up a dialogue with China. The first allegation is sufficiently answered by pointing out that as we arrived in Canton we met Monsieur JeanLuc Pepin, the Canadian Minister for Trade, leaving China.. He had just come from Peking after signing a communique establishing first consideration in wheat sales for China. The wheat situation was sewn up by Canada before we ever spoke to any Chinese officials. Secondly, we had our conversations with the Acting Foreign Minister of China on 4th July and with the Prime Minister of China on the night of 5th July. I learned - and I will quote one of the most favourable sources, the Sydney ‘Morning Herald’ of 5th July - that on 3rd July in a televised Press conference in Perth the Prime Minister had said:

Australian officials have held fruitless talks with representatives of Communist China. We have not been able to get any commonsense out of them at all.

I must confess that none of our delegation had learned of these words of wisdom, these prudent statesmanlike utterances. The Prime Minister of China had. So Australia had been compromised before we ever spoke to anybody in authority in China.

We have now a chance to avoid the mistakes made in 1954. Wc can make the most of opportunities offered after Vietnam, which we lost after Korea, for rational relations in our region. President Nixon has given the West a second chance. In a small way the visit of the Labor Party helped Australia to share in that opportunity. My own visit to Japan and the Philippines after the China mission confirms me in my belief that Australia is uniquely well placed to improve relations between China, the United States, Japan and Indonesia. 1 would not be so bold as to say that we were so well situated to improve relations with the Soviet Union but I did notice - as a matter of fact when I arrived in Tokyo and was met by my old opponent but good friend, Mr Gordon Freeth - as a crowning irony that the Prime Minister had just said this about the Soviet Union and me:

He spoke contemptuously of the Soviet with whom my Government is slowly building bridges towards a better understanding beneficial to us.

A man whose political career was gravely damaged when he as Foreign Minister and as a predecessor in that portfolio of the present Prime Minister made an unexceptionable statement calling for realism about fears of Soviet activities in the Indian Ocean, must have found it ironic that I should hear this comment in that place and in his company.

It is open to any Australian Government, even the McMahon Government, to normalise relations with China. We do not have to wait until after the elections but it can only be done if the McMahon Government is willing to put our national interests above what the Prime Minister believes to be smart, short-term political ploys. The choice before any Australian government is whether it adds to the embarrassments of its neighbours and allies or seeks to reduce those embarrassments. If we seek to strengthen the artificial and untenable position of the Chiang Kai-shek regime we add to the difficulties and embarrassments of the United States and Japan without in any way helping the people of Taiwan. By obstructing the inevitable wc only make the ultimate acceptance of the inevitable more humiliating.

The Australian Labor Party supports the formula agreed on between China and Canada, and shortly afterwards agreed on between China and Italy and several other nations.

I will quote the terms. On 13th October last year the Governments of Canada and China announced that they were going to exchange diplomatic representatives and their joint communique proceeded in these words:

The Chinese Government reaffirms, that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the Territory of the People’s Republic of China. The Canadian Government takes note of this position of the Chinese Government. The Canadian Government recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China.

At the same time the Canadian Government issued a unilateral statement which included these words:

The Canadian Government does nol consider it appropriate either to endorse or to challenge the Chinese Government’s position on the status of Taiwan. This has been our position and continues to be our position.

Australia can have recognition on those same terms. I will take this opportunity on the question of Taiwan specifically to rebut the Prime Ministers assertion on Tuesday that I had told Japan to cancel her treaties. What 1 have tried to do is explain to the Australian public the special difficulties of Japan because of her treaty with Taiwan. As I said to Prime Minister Sato, who did not dissent, the greatest diplomatic task facing Japan, demanding all her skill and patience, is normalising her relations with China in the light of the special difficulty raised by her treaty with Chiang

Kai-shek. I spelt out this view in my address to the National Press Club on 26th July in these words;

The best friends of Japan will be those who encourage and assist her to solve her special difficulty of the peace treaty with Taiwan in the most honourable and least embarrassing way. We should be the first to point out to Japan that she is not in honor or reason irrevocably tied to a treaty forced on her at a time when she was weak and dependent, especially, when that treaty is an expression of attitudes of 20 years ago which the United States herself now repudiates. It would be grotesque for us to bind Japan to the spirit of Dulles, when Dulles’s own VicePresident, Mr Nixon, is foremost in striving to lay his ghost. We should say to Japan that we accept her commitment was a personal one to Chiang Kaishek and that she has fully and honourably discharged whatever obligation she may have fell in that quarter; Japan is now entitled to pursue her own interests, which require a restoration of elations between her and China. 1 might add that that night after my speech to the National Press Club I received a phone call from the Japanese Embassy to compliment me and to thank me on the balance of my presentation.

Now that I have more time in which to speak than I had anticipated, thanks to the indulgence of the House, I shall go at greater length into the reasons behind the Japanese difficulties with China. The difficulties between China and Japan are much greater than those between China and the United States. There has been a history of hostility between the United States and China for 22 years; that is all. With all other great powers China’s relations have been worse than they have been with America but with Japan in particular there have been hostile relations since the Sino-Japanese War of 1894.

China is still extremely suspicious of any interest which Japan takes in Korea, which was detached from Chinese suzerainty in that war, and in Taiwan which was taken from Chinese sovereignty in that war. Furthermore any continuing economic interest which Japan shows in Taiwan arouses Chinese suspicions that Japan wants to continue to regard Taiwan as her colony. More recently and more technically the situation is that in 1952 Japan made a treaty of peace with Chiang Kai-shek - well over 2 years after he had taken refuge in Taiwan. This was the first act that Japan carried out on regaining her sovereignty as a result of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951. She entered into this treaty with Chiang Kai-shek the very day she recovered her sovereignty. China and Russia were not represented at the San Francisco Peace Treaty. China was not represented because those who were at San Francisco could not agree which was the Government of China. The situation technically is that not only is Japan still in a state of war with the Soviet Union but she is still also in a state of war with China.

The treaty of peace with Chiang Kaishek in 1952 was in respect of the territories which he controlled. He has never controlled the mainland. Even if one accepts the legitimacy or the legality of the treaty of 1952 one still has the situation that there is a state of war between Japan and all of China except the province of Taiwan. I would point out that until I returned from China very few people in this country - very few editorial writers and very few pundits - realised that the term ‘province’ is applied to Taiwan by both Chiang Kai-shek and Chou En-lai. This has always been so, and they stick to that description most rigorously. If there is one quality which one must acknowledge in Chiang Kai-shek it is tenacity because since 1926 or 1927 when he first got to a top position in his country he has asserted those nationalist principles.

Japan’s treaty with Chiang Kai-shek followed correspondence between Prime Minister Yoshida and Secretary of State Dulles. Mr Yoshida gave 4 reasons in December 1951 for making a peace treaty with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. Firstly, his regime was in the United Nations and was recognised by most members of the United Nations. (This recognition has declined.) Secondly, the Chinese Communist regime had been branded by the United Nations as an aggressor in Korea. (The last Chinese soldiers left Korea in 1958.) Thirdly, the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance, concluded in Moscow in 1950, is virtually a military alliance aimed against Japan. (China certainly repudiates any such concept of it now.) Lastly, the Japanese government believed that the Communist regime in China is backing the Japan Communist Party in its programme of seeking violently to overthrow the constitutional system and the present Government of China. (Nowadays one of the most constant critics of the Government of China is the Japan Communist Party.)

Honourable members will see how little substance there is now in the full reasons advanced on the eve of the peace treaty which Japan entered into with Chiang Kai-shek back in 19S2. I might add on this matter that America similarly has a mutual defence treaty with Chiang Kaishek, concluded in 1954 and covering Taiwan and the Pescadores. One cannot be too bold in forecasting the results of President Nixon’s initiative but I venture a reasonable hope that by the time of his visit there will be very few outside troops in Vietnam and there will be no military threat to Taiwan. I would imagine that both he and Chou En-lai would sec advantages in those two situations.

Perhaps I should speak briefly on the difficulty between China and the Soviet Union. China resents Russia’s attitude because she is the only nation which still holds to the unequal treaties concluded in the 1860s. All the other countries which imposed unequal treaties on China have abandoned those treaties. Germany and later Japan had to do so. But the others did so voluntarily. Russia alone keeps to them. Russia is anxious to conclude a border agreement with China. China is very patient on the question. China is realistic. She realises that she could not defeat the Soviet Union. She realises that she will not recover the territories which were ceded to the Czars. She is willing to hold o.ut for 20 or 30 years until she is in a position of equality with the Soviet Union before she enters into an equal treaty to ratify those borders. Most of the other borders, of course, have already been made the subject of treaties between Peking and her neighbours. Chiang Kai-shek has frequently criticised Peking for yielding China’s territory, above all Mongolia.

Australia should now adopt these propositions. First, we should accept the view of Chiang Kai-shek, and the view of all the other Chinese that I have heard speak on the subject, that there is only one China, and that Taiwan is a province of China. This is not a question on which there is any dispute between Chiang Kai-shek and Chou En-lai. Nor is there dispute between them on any of the other matters which are frequently thrown up against the Chinese Government, namely, questions of offshore islands, fishing rights, the ocean sub soil, the seabed, the continental shelf, Tibet and the China-India border - to use the historic term, the McMahon line.

Secondly, 1 put it that we should accept the view of President Nixon that diplomatic relations with China must be normalised as speedily as possible. Now is the time to do it. We missed out at the end of the Korean war and after the suspension of civil war in Vietnam in 1954.

Thirdly, we should accept the view of Sir Robert Menzies, which he maintained throughout his 16 years as Prime Minister, that there should be no Australian ambassador in Taipeh. If one accepts the situation that the sole legal government of China is in Peking and not in Taipeh, then one transfers from Taipeh to Peking the Australian Embassy to China.

Lastly, we should make explicit the simple truth about our relations with Chiang Kai-shek over the last 22 years. We have never had and never will have any military commitment to the preservation of his regime. We have no engagements with any other country for the preservation of his regime. Recognition of these simple facts, these 4 propositions, cuts through all the hypocritical nonsense about dumping Taiwan. Who accuses Canada of dishonour? The policy there is bi-partisan. The Leader of the Opposition in Canada, the Conservative Leader, visited China the week after we did. There is no disagreement between him and Mr Trudeau, the Liberal Prime Minister, on this question. There is no disagreement between any of the Democrats in the United States and President Nixon on his proposed visit. There is no disagreement between the Opposition in Britain - - the Labour Party - and Mr Heath, the Conservative Prime Minister on Britain’s decision to withdraw her consuls from Taiwan. In fact, Britain has asked Australia lo represent her interests in Taiwan when she withdraws her consuls. The Australian Government has accepted the proposition. It knows that the British on a bi-partisan basis agree that they should withdraw their consuls if they are to have full diplomatic representation in China and from China.

Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs put the proposition for 2 Chinas or for China and one Taiwan. He put it in these terms:

The People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China both claim to be the sole government of China. The reality is that the PRC controls the mainland and he ROC controls Taiwan. We have taken the view, therefore, that in present circumstances the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China should both be represented in the United Nations.

The position regarding these conflicting claims has been the position for 22 years. Why have we not taken this attitude all along? This would have been realistic 22 years ago if it is realistic now. Nobody ever took the point as long as Chiang Kaishek had a majority in the United Nations. Twenty-two years later, when he no longer has a majority in the United Nations, people then decide that there are 2 Chinas.

Mr McMahon:

– That is untrue. We started at the last meeting of the United Nations-

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The Prime Minister is quite out of his depth. He should keep quiet.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I do not mind the Prime Minister interrupting, because the fact that he did not interrupt during the previous propositions I have put indicates that he consents to them. The right honourable gentleman has gone back on his original intentions of producing a change of government before the end of this year. Accordingly he may still have some influence on what Australia does in the United Nations General Assembly this year. Therefore, may I help to sort out his ideas and clarify the situation for him?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Get on with it.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I will quote what the Sydney Morning Herald’ said about you, Sir, if you go on like that. I think it said: As one would expect, his was a flat and impersonal and narrow presentation*. Let us examine the concept of 2 Chinas. It might be said that great powers have the right to multiple representation in the United Nations. There is such representation for Russia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine. The suggestion has never been made for any great power such as the United States or China. If one is to put this forward as the basis for a 2 China representation, a multiple representation of China, then one must logically apply it to the other great powers.

Also, it might be said that because China is divided there should be representation in the United Nations for each of the parts. If one puts forward this argument then one would also suggest that there should be representation in the United Nations for both halves of Korea and both halves of Germany which have been divided since Potsdam in 1945. It was intended that they should be divided only temporarily. They still are divided. If one is going to divide on that basis then one must give representation not only to East and West Germany and to North and South Korea but to North and South Vietnam which also were divided, albeit temporarily, at Geneva in 1954.

The third proposition might be that one should seek self-determination for countries which are ruled by different governments. It seems a very reasonable proposition indeed, but it is not a proposition which would appeal, say, to India because she might be divided up in different linguistic groups. It is not one which would appeal to Pakistan, which would certainly be divided into the Punjab and Bangla Desh. It is not one which would appeal even to Britain, to Ireland or to Cyprus. What numbers in the United Nations are prepared to adopt this idea? The simple consequence would be that the membership of the United Nations would double if there were a procedure for selfdetermination. If we are going to use these different arguments for 2 Chinas let us at least be consistent about them. Let us see them through to their logical conclusion. AH the arguments appear completely ingenuous and completely insincere when we realise that the realistic situation on China has only been realised 22 years after it came about.

I will make 2 quotations in conclusion. One is from the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ and one is from a distinguished ambassador. I quote from the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’:

But the climate of opinion on the China question in America has recently undergone a startling thorough change. The influence of the notorious China Lobby’ which backs Chiang Kai-shek has waned and support for a more realistic diplomacy has correspondingly waxed. There is very little doubt that the Washington Administration is searching for a means of extricating itself from a dilemma posed by its commitments to a Nationalist rump on Formosa. That is to say, the situation in America which has exercised the strongest influence on Australia’s China policy has radically changed, lt may, in fact, fairly be supposed that an Australian decision to recognise Red China would now be welcomed in Washington as a further argument for a realignment of American Far Eastern policy. Moreover, an Australian gesture at this delicate stage in Asia could carry considerable weight, not only in Peking but also in the capitals of those Asian powers which, while friendly towards this country, have been bewildered by our continued refusal to face facts on China, lt is surely plain that there can be no satisfactory or lasting settlement in the Far East white an emigre government of China enjoys Western support.

Perhaps 1 should add that that editorial was written in 1 955. I make the other quotation from a distinguished diplomat because one of the disturbing things for Australia is the extent to which the morale and the reputation of our Department of Foreign Affairs and all the skills assembled there should have been committed bv its political masters to such time consuming, futile and discreditable exercises as justifying our attitude on New Guinea and justifying our attitude on China. I do not overlook the fact that there are some officers of that Department who have carried out briefings of the Press in support of their present political masters, but there are winds of chance in that Department. Officers of the Department know which way the wind is blowing in Australia and overseas. One distinguished ambassador who is now free to express his views on it is Mr Walter Crocker. This year he published his latest book, which is entitled Australian Ambassador’. It was written in March last year, and 1 quote from the second last page:

My own choice as best for Australia’s security in the long run would be, in spite of all the difficulties at the beginning, to strive for a modus vivendi and for friendship with China. This does not mean a cut-and-dried choice between America and China. We could still be on good terms with America. The present may not be the time to launch the initiative, though I am not sure about that. In any case the time will come. As soon as it is politically feasible we should recognise Peking and exchange diplomatic missions. Our concern with Indonesia has a significance here. There is much to be said against a policy of neutralism or non-alignment; but there is more to be said for it than the Australian public has been told. And be that as it may, not only is it unrealistic to treat Taiwan as the Republic of China, it is a most perilous form of unrealism. Our opening an Embassy in Taiwan In 1966 to the so-called Republic of China, after resisting pressures to do so for 16 years, an off-the-curT decision made, without consulting the Department of External Affairs or, apparently, the Minister for External Affairs, by the Prime Minister of the day, himself an amiable man whom no one could dislike but who knew almost nothing about foreign affairs, was as foolish as it was naive. Australia counts for nothing with the Chiang Kai-shek regime in Taiwan except as a convenience. We risk being confronted in the future with a fait accompli of some face-saving compromise between Taiwan and Peking of the kind for which the Chinese have a genius, and to find ourselves with nothing but the disdain of both sides, of all Chinese - unless America and Formosa first involve us in some war on this account. 1 need only add that since that was written it has become clear that there will not be a war between America and China on this issue. Secondly, there are clear indications of talks, a dialogue, between Taipeh and Peking. Even the Generalissimo’s son, Chiang Ching-kuo, is mentioned to that connection.

The other quotation I make from Ambassador Crocker is from his Australian Broadcasting Commission ‘Guest of Honour’ talk on 9th May last. He said:

In particular we must normalise relations with China. It can also be agreed that it is not unreasonable to base within limits a foreign policy on fears. No normal government will ignore the fears, even if irrational, of the voters, just as it will take no risks about defence. But criticism is called for when the foreign policy is also based on ignorance. Prejudice and subjectivity always inflated by fear then hold sway. How many Australians have any knowledge at all of China’.’ How many members of Parliament could pass the most elementary examination on Chinese history, or civilisation or geography or economics? How many Cabinet Ministers?

He also said:

The first question must always he ‘what are the facts?’ This is a habit which will lead us in our international relations to what is so much required, to lower the voice, to de-dramatise, to be patient and to feel suitably foolish when political cheapjacks, however highly placed for the moment, talk as they have talked in the past, about ‘getting tough with China’.

I would like to have moved an amendment to the motion to take note of the Minister’s statement, but we already have on the notice paper such an amendment on the statement by the immediate past Foreign Minister, in the terms that the Australian Government should establish diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China and work for her representation to the United Nations. I invite the present Minister to allow a vote to be taken on this matter, which has been outstanding for nearly 4 months on the notice paper.

Mr TURNER:
Bradfield

– I have a meagre 15 minutes in which to speak. I must deal briefly with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) before going on to more important matters. With regard to the quotation from Mr Walter Crocker, I would say that I have the highest regard for that distinguished gentleman, and indeed there is no difference between the 2 sides of this House in an approach to the normalising of diplomatic relations with Peking. But to suggest that Mr Walter Crocker would support all the things that the Leader of the Opposition has done in this matter would be to suggest something that is entirely false.

I would like to say something about the recent visit of the Leader of the Opposition to China. He said very little about it in his rambling commentary, his essay in foreign affairs,’ although of course it is always entertaining and interesting to hear the report of Marco Polo on his return from the Celestial Court.

I believe that this visit to China was conceived in sin. I believe that the purpose of it was to win certain seats where wheat growing interests are paramount in this country. The presence of the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) in the Australian Labor Party delegation that visited China supports what I say about the purpose of the visit - that it was conceived in sin. lt was carried out with total disregard for the principle of a united national front vis-a-vis the outside world. British Leaders of the Opposition have been to Moscow, but they have always supported the position of the United Kingdom Government. Every member of this House knows that when he goes to the United Nations as a delegate he does not speak for his party. He is bound by the policy of the Australian Government. This is a principle that has been followed in more sophisticated countries than apparently this country is.

In going to China, the Leader of the Opposition might more usefully have explained the fears that China’s neighbours have of her aggressive words and actions. I refer to wars of national liberation round her borders and I could specify them. It would have been more useful if the Leader of the Opposition had explained in Peking that China’s neighbours have some good reasons for their suspicions. Instead of agreeing with everything that Mr Chou En-lai had to say, he might have had some regard for the objectives of our allies and in particular for President Nixon in his bargaining with Peking in his forecast visit to China. The Leader of the Opposition already has bargained away Taiwan. Perhaps we should all begin to learn the Chinese way of pronouncing ‘Taiwan’. Now it may be that Taiwan will be lost, but the

Leader of the Opposition has given it away already. Is this the way in which any responsible person deals with a foreign government? Does one give away in advance everything that one may be able to save in the course of bargaining?

I wish to refer in a little more detail to the- visit to Peking by the honourable gentleman. He has been singularly reticent about it. Let me recall to him some of the words that he used. He said:

We have been impressed . . . that you’ve resolutely followed the policy of having no troops outside your own country.

Let us look at that statement. Have we never heard of the wars of national liberation in South Vietnam and Thailand and the attempted coup in Indonesia? Oh, yes, it is true that they have not had regular troops outside their borders except in circumstances which might be justified; but nobody can deny that the Chinese have fought by proxy outside their borders. But the honourable gentleman said:

We have been impressed . . . that you’ve resolutely followed the policy of having no troops outside your own country.

This is a lie. He went on to say:

In particular, we are impressed by the principle that you do not seek to dominate any, country to which you extend aid.

Let us look in this regard at Africa: Burundi, Dahomey, Upper Volta, the Central African Republic and Ghana which expelled Chinese who were fermenting insurgency in that country. The President of Niger charged China with plotting and financing an unsuccessful revolt against his government. But the Leader of the Opposition stated:

In particular, we were impressed by the principle that you do not seek to dominate any country to which you extend aid.

We have all heard of a place called Indonesia, too. The Leader of the Opposition went on to discuss Australia’s SEATO allies. He said:

Of the other members, the Philippines and Thailand arc trying desperately to insinuate themselves into your Government’s good graces.

Insinuate’ - a splendid word! It precisely describes what the honourable gentleman was doing. If the insinuation is being done, he has mentioned that if he were in government, he would insinuate - and I repeat the word, insinuate - himself into the good graces of that country. Australia then is to be one of those countries that insinuate themselves into the good graces of the Government of Peking.

Following Mr Chou En-lai’s attack on Japan and the United States of America, the Leader of the Opposition said:

This is a very powerful indictment of the AmericanJapanese policy. None of us has any doubt about the seriousness of these fears towards reviving Japanese militarism.

Can honourable members imagine any better way of reviving Japanese militarism than by fomenting, pouring oil on the flames of Chinese hostility to Japan? This is the very thing that he complains about. Then, when Mr Chou denounced *he Soviet Union for terminating the Sino-Soviet friendship treaty, the Leader of the Opposition said:

This sudden termination of that time was abominable.

In the alignment of forces in the world today, is it well that we insult Russia? We are trying to sell wool to the Russians just as the Leader of the Opposition was in China to sell wheat to that country. But the Leader of the Opposition insults the Russians. In the change of forces today, if I may say so, this is a rather stupid thing to do. The Leader of the Opposition goes on:

The American people have broken with Lyndon Baines Johnson and if Richard Milhous Nixon does not continue to withdraw his forces they will destroy him similarly. The Australian people have had a bitter experience in going all the way with LBJ. They know America made him change his policy and they will never again allow the American President to send troops to another country.

Mr Chou said: l have similar sentiments with you. Such a very good appraisal of the American people.

Now, ‘All the way with LBJ’ - I have heard that incautious phrase before. Are we now to substitute another phrase for it? Let us all remember this: No longer ‘All the way with LBJ’, but ‘Let’s all kowtow to Chairman Mao’. This is the new slogan of the Australian Labor Party. It is a great difference. ‘Let’s all kowtow to Chairman Mao’. Let us remember it. The time will come when that phrase, I think, may become commonly known and well remembered - just as well remembered as All the way the LBJ’.

Then, Mr Chou referred to Sihanouk. He said:

He is a very fine man.

The Leader of the Opposition stated:

Yes, he is. And it is tragic for his people . . . and so on. I will give one final quotation because the honourable gentleman has not referred to this interview at the Celestial Court The transcript of the dialogue reads:

Mr CHOU: What is past is past and we look forward to when you can take office and put into effect your promises.

Or: When you can insinuate yourself into our good graces. The transcript continues:

Mr WHITLAM: If my party wins the elections you will be able to see the first visit by an Australian Prime Minister to the Chinese People’s Republic and its sole capital, Peking.

Mr CHOU: We will welcome it

Mr Foster:

– I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the honourable member now addressing the House is reading extensively from a document. Is it in order to ask that that document be tabled? It is ‘Nation’, I think.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! No point of order arises.

Mr TURNER:

– These are private notes.

I said that I did not wish to spend too much time on the Leader of the Opposition and I have finished with him. Let us get on to more important matters. The Leader of the Opposition has failed even in his trade objective. We are going to hear about this from the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) who will speak next. He failed because he has politicised our trade relations. Honourable members opposite have talked about tabling a document. At the end of my speech I may ask for leave of the House to table a document from the Parliamentary Library setting out quite factually what has happened to the trade of those countries that have or have not had diplomatic relations with China. As honourable members opposite are so anxious to have documents tabled, I shall seek leave at the end of my speech to table this document. It is entirely factual. The Leader of the Opposition has failed in his trade objective because now he has politicised trade in a way in which it has not been politicised before and now the Chinese cannot trade with us without going back on what they have told the honourable gentleman who is about to speak and the Leader of the Opposition. But trade is not all. As I said, this visit was conceived in sin for the purposes of domestic politics. It was bom in iniquity by the betrayal of all of our national interests in Peking and it was nurtured in folly because he made Australia contemptible in the eyes of the world, like a performing monkey in Peking, for the purposes of Chou En-lai, not for the purposes of Australia.

There is one great lesson which springs from this visit.

Mr Uren:

– Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask that that remark be withdrawn. It is unparliamentary and it is an insult to the honourable member for Werriwa.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I suggest that the honourable member for Bradfield withdraw the comment he made about the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr TURNER:

– What- about his being a performing monkey? Yes, I withdraw it. The great lesson that is to be derived from this visit - and it is a tremendous lesson for us to digest - is a matter that was pointed out by some honourable members in this place some time ago. When a country like ours trades with a Communist country, the government of that Communist country has complete power to turn on trade or to turn it off like a tap. This makes our people completely subservient - vassals, if you like - of Communist countries. This is the result. The Chinese will say: ‘If you want us to buy your wheat, you must recognise us’, or: If you want us to buy your wool, you must cut off your relationship with the United States’. The list of those demands that could be made by a country whose government can turn trade on or off like a tap is endless. This is a great lesson that we have to learn in our relations with any Communist power.

My time is limited. I had hoped to say more, but I have only 15 minutes. However, I want to say that we now have to reappraise our relations, not only with China but also with other countries. The year 1971 is a climatic year for us. It is as important as, say, 1066 was to England, or 1688 or 1815, or as important as 1776 was for the Americans. It is a turning point in our history. This is the year in which Great Britain will turn her back upon the Empire and her face towards Europe. This is the year when the Americans are calling the legions home. This is the year, 1971, when Australia is left alone. We have to reappraise our relationship with all of these countries - with Britain, the United States of America and the other emerging powers in our area. 1 do not have time to go into this matter. Unfortunately the Young Turks have cut 5 minutes off the inadequate time we used to have in debates of this kind. Well, splendid for the Young Turks. I cannot say what I would like to say on this occasion. Perhaps I shall never get an opportunity. However, I would like to say that we have witnessed the emergence of Russia as a world power, a sea power which has projected itself into the Indian Ocean. We have witnessed the emergence of Japan as an economic super power. She is our best market. Yet she can suffer from latent chauvinism. Has Japan been rebuffed by the United States of America? The detente between China and the United State may be regarded by Japan as a rebuff. It may be that the blockage of trade opportunities in the United States will also be treated as a rebuff. So we face a nightmare. Japan may either go in with China in an economic entente, despite words, or she may go in with the Soviet Union. We just do not know. I have not the time to deal with these matters.

We must re-assess our position with regard to Great Britain, the United States, China, Japan and the Soviet Union. In regard to China, there is no disagreement that the Australian Government should seek to normalise diplomatic relations, but that falls a long way short of the sort of vassalage that the Leader of the Opposition has been presenting to this House, and the cautious approach of the Government to this matter, I believe, is to be commended.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr TURNER:

– I ask for leave to table a paper that I referred to during the course of my speech.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner) maintains that the Australian Labor Party mission to China was conceived in sin. If that is the case, let us hope that there will be more missions overseas conceived in sin, judging from the success of this mission and the complete embarrassment it has caused to the Liberal Party and. of course the Country Party because I will be referring to wheat in the very near future. The speech of the honourable member for Bradfield represents a living example of the arrogance of this Government. It indicates why our image overseas, particularly in Asia, is so poor and why we have lost the $100m wheat trade with China. No one can tell what it will cost Australia, in terms of our economy, to regain that wheat trade.

I will now speak in defence of the Leader of the Opposition. The way in which the honourable member for Bradfield and others criticised the interview of the Leader of the Opposition with Premier Chou En-lai in amazing. Of course, the honourable member was not there. He reads comments and the newspapers of his friends from the Press. Can the honourable member show me any derogatory comments made by any of the top Australian newsmen who were there at this interview? Can he show me that? The same remarks apply to the comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) and the absurd statements made by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) when he was overseas. This is what we have to put up with. The success of the Labor Party mission has been acknowledged not only in Australia but also overseas.

When I was listening, only 6 feet away, to the interview between the Leader of the Opposition and Premier Chou En-lai my mind wandered to how our Prime Minister would have fared if he had been sitting where the Leader of the Opposition sat. I wondered how the Prime Minister would have fared if he had been cross-examined by Chou En-lai, the leader of approximately 750 million people. Judging by the Prime Minister’s pathetic performance in the Parliament on Tuesday when he was cross-examined by the Leader of the Opposition, all I can say is that Premier Chou En-lai would have rung him out that summer night, and reduced him to the status of a dehydrated rabbit. The attack by the Prime Minister, supported by the honourable member for Bradfield and others is simply a case of sour grapes. The Aus tralian Labor Party stole a march on the Government and the Government has not recovered.

I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether you have ever seen a government disgrace itself so much as this Government has done by the way it has somersaulted in the last 4 months? For example, just consider the names by which it used to call China. Everyone on the Government side of the chamber called it Communist China. Do you hear that any more? Then it was Red China, and then suddenly the Prime Minister woke up to the fact that he must not use those words because the United States of America was not using those words any more. Then it became continental China. Then it became mainland China and now, of course, it is the People’s Republic of China. How can the Prime Minister be trusted to give the people of Australia the facts? He maintained before the Australian Labor Party delegation went to Peking - he has maintained it since - that there was absolutely no truth in the claim that the Chinese postponed wheal purchases from Australia because of politics. He still maintains that.

Mr Pettitt:

– Ask the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board.

Dr PATTERSON:

– 1 am not interested in what the Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board told you. This is what we have been told. If, of course, the Australian Government claims that I am telling lies, it is also accusing the Foreign Minister for China, Chi-Peng Fei, and the Minister for Foreign Trade, Pai Hsiang Kuo, of telling lies. Of course, this is the mental outlook of the Country Party. What do honourable members of the Country Party care if $100m worth of wheat has gone down the drain because of the stupid and arrogant attitude of the Government? The Prime Minister still insults the people of China. He recently referred to the Chinese people as being carpet-baggers, a derogatory and insulting expression. The Minister for Shipping and Transport gave his views while overseas on the Chinese situation. He can be thankful that Monsieur Trudeau is a gentleman otherwise the Minister would have been deported very quickly. The editorial in the Age’ condemned the Minister for Shipping and Transport for his absurd statements overseas regarding China.

Let us look a little at what China thinks of Australia. It is all very well for the Government of this nation with a population of a little over 12 million people to say what it thinks of a nation with a population of approximately 750 million people. We had interviews and spoke at length with top officials concerning foreign trade and foreign affairs. We spoke with the 2 Ministers concerned and with other officials. The Chinese view of Australia was put bluntly in these terms:

The present Australian Government is an accomplice or vassal of the United States helping to slaughter people in Vietnam while at the same time shamelessly allowing her own people to be killed and maimed in Vietnam - a country whose internal problems are not the responsibility of the United States or Australia.

It was maintained that as each day passes and Australian troops continue to remain in Vietnam Australia’s image in Asia and throughout the world worsens. The Chinese view is that the war should be ended immediately so that the people of Vietnam and Indo-China can solve their own problems immediately, without interference from the United States or Australia. The Chinese Foreign Minister’s view is that the essence of United States imperialist policy, which Australia is blindly following, is to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries by openly engaging in war or by other surreptitious means under the guise of protection by stationing troops in those countries. Ministers of the Chinese Government maintain, as we well know, that the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government of China and that Taiwan is an unalienable part of China - a province of China. This is the only policy acceptable to China.

It was made crystal clear that China is opposed to the creation of 2 Chinas. We were told, again in blunt terms, that if Australia is not clear on this there will be serious difficulties in the establishment of normal relations between China and Australia. It was made clear also that China will have, and is prepared to have, peaceful co-existence with Australia despite the. different political systems and social systems if the Taiwan situation is solved - that is, that there is only one China. Chinese policy with regard to relationships with China is that good relations cannot exist between China and Australia as long as the Australian Government continues its hostil ity towards China and tails the United States aggression in Asia. Another point the Chinese made was that the present poor relations with China have not been caused by China and therefore an initiative must come from the Australian Government. The Chinese view is that it is not possible to have normal relations with the Australian Government while the Australian Government openly supports Chiang Kai-shek, continues to establish close relations with him, opposes China in the United Nations and supports United States resolutions to exclude China.

The 2 Chinas policy is clearly unworkable in terms of logic. The People’s Republic of China will not take a seat in the United Nations if Taiwan is also represented. However, Taiwan cannot be expelled from the United Nations because Taiwan, as a country or a nation, is not in the United Nations. China is. China as a nation is already a member of the United Nations and the basic question confronting the Australian Government and the United Nations is: Which Government of China is the sole legal government of China. Is it Chiang Kai-shek’s Government; is it Chou En-lai’s Government? As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, Taiwan is recognised by both Chiang Kai-shek and Chou En-lai as a province of China. To admit Taiwan to the United Nations it will be necessary to secure a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly as well as the sanction of the Security Council. Thus, if the United Nations were able to get Taiwan in first, China would not go in. If the People’s Republic of China were admitted first as a member of the Security Council, it would veto the entry of Taiwan. The 2 Chinas policy is completely unworkable and the People’s Republic will not accept it. It has good and sound arguments as to why it should not accept it. So, of course, has Chiang Kai-shek. Both governments agree that there is only one China.

The Australian Government must understand that principle, which is being more clearly recognised throughout the world at present. Canada recently has recognised it. An example of the serious repercussions of this 2 Chinas policy can be seen with respect to a problem which is already boiling in that area over Senkaku and Tiaoyutai islands near Okinawa. These islands are held by the United States of America at present. But the United States wants to get out of the area and get out fast, but to whom does the United States hand over the islands? Up to 1968 nobody cared about them, only map makers, but suddenly a United Nations survey found what it believes to be evidence of oil deposits under the islands. So to whom does the United States give the islands? Who claims the islands? Japan claims them, Taiwan claims them and Mainland China claims them. Who owns them? This problem must be solved. The Japanese maintain that they must be given to them. Nationalist China has records dating back to the 15th century. Mainland China agrees with Taiwan but makes the point that the People’s Republic of China is, in fact, the sole and legal government of China not Chiang Kai-shek. This is the type of problem one encounters. The same problem arises with the Spratly group, lt is ruled by Taiwan; it is claimed by the People’s Republic. Whom will the United Nations decide upon as the legal owner of these groups?

Because of the Australian Government’s open hostility to China the Australian people and the Australian economy have suffered. We have lost the wheat market. I will deal with this at a later date. We have lost a major wool market in China. We have lost a great steel market which only now is being developed. The wheat farmers and wool growers of this nation do not owe this Government any thanks for its ostrich-like approach to the realities of China. When it comes to the next election this Government will see very quickly what the wheat farmers and woof growers think of its foreign policy on China.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Order! The honourable member’s time expired.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) devoted much of his speech to the alleged loss of Australian wheat sales to China, but I remind the honourable member that the Australian Wheat Board recently announced that the current carryover will be the lowest for many years. Sales to other countries, thanks to the outstanding initiative and energy of the Australian Wheat Board, have been extremely successful, including major sales to the

United Arab Republic and, most recently - this is interesting to note - to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I will have a few more words to say about trade presently. 1 put it to the House that naively is not necessarily something to be condemned, neither is over-eagerness to please. In most people these defects are not likely to be important. In a politician they would merely make him ineffective in his electoral work and in the Parliament, but I suggest that the position changes when a leading politician exhibits these deficiencies. If he exhibits them publicly it may be merely embarrassing, but when he does so before the leader of a country whose recent record gives no reason for believing its policies are sympathetic or favourably disposed to Australia the position becomes just plain dangerous. This is the message which is now getting across to the people of Australia following the visit to China by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Australian Labor Party delegation. It is a long way to China, but the longest ride that the Leader of the Opposition and his Party got was not on the way over - it was right there in Peking, and they did not have to move a foot. The real issue of the performance of the Leader of the Opposition in China is not whether we should or should not trade with China or hold discussions with China, but how his visit there will affect Australia’s relations not only or even primarily with China, but with the rest of our trade associates, our friends and our allies.

In this context 1 come back to the question of trade. It is important to remember the trade figures between Australia and China and the other countries of Asia. Excluding Japan which, of course, is our largest trading partner, the figures make interesting and important reading. Their implications are clear. Since 1966 our exports to China have varied between $l28m and $63m a year, and over the 5 years totalled $5 lim. Our imports from China during the same period totalled $143m. But, on the other hand, I should like the House to take particular note of this: Our exports to Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines totalled $1,1 96m and our imports from those countries totalled $3 16m.

In his extraordinary anxiety to please China, the Leader of the Opposition completely ignored the fact that our trade with our Asian friends is far more important to us and, incidentally, far more stable. A study of the record will show that once a country has recognised China, her trade with China has generally declined. In other words, as was mentioned by my friend and colleague the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), once China has achieved her objective, once she has succeeded in getting a country to take the bait of recognition, trade declines. It will be very interesting to see whether the same thing eventually happens with Canada.

I am not opposing any move towards increased trade with China. I am just pointing out the relative importance of our trade with other countries in Asia. In fact, if honourable members will consult Hansard they will find that back in 1967 I said:

Trade is one way of preventing China from becoming isolated from the rest of the world. This is one way of retaining an avenue where China may eventually come to realise the folly and danger of her present course.

I suggest that there are not many honourable members who could look back 4 years and find that they had made a similar comment. I just wanted to make that quite clear in case I am accused of taking a sudden interest in this subject. Let me return to the Leader of the Opposition and his China foray. For a politician of his experience it was an extraordinary performance. Presumably, he wishes to be considered as an alternative leader of this country, yet he has insulted our neighbours, such as Thailand, the Philippines and Taiwan. He directly accused Japan of developing militarism and advised her to abrogate her treaty with Taiwan. The Leader of the Opposition made the interesting comment that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had treated China abominably. That may very well be so, and it would apply not only to China, but I cannot help wondering how the Leader of the Opposition would describe China’s treatment of Tibet, and how he would describe China’s treatment of India; but we must be left to wonder because there is no indication of how he would describe it. We can only assume that he considered it was something less than abominable.

What we do know is that in the field of international diplomacy the Leader of the Opposition has been found wanting to such an extent that if he were ever in a position to speak for this country on the question of China, he would find himself and Australia without bargaining power, without any cards left to play. In fact, he is like a bridge player who shows his cards to his opponent before the bidding is even opened. In plain language, he and this country would be left without a feather to fly with. What an incredible thing to do by a man who seriously puts himself forward as an alternative Prime Minister. It is almost as if he believed that China’s interests and our own were identical. I put it to the House that China’s recent history gives us no confidence for such a view.

Everyone recognises that China is a great power and that she will exert increasing influence throughout the world, and particularly in Asia. In accepting this fact, by all means let us try to ensure that China becomes one of the community of nations, but do not let us blind ourselves to China’s recent history of interference and sometimes active aggression in the affairs of other countries, such as Korea, Tibet, India and Burma. Let us not forget Chairman Mao’s dictum, which I have never heard him contradict that ‘political power grows out of the barrel of a gun’. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition remembered that when he said in his discussion with Mr Chou En-lai - and this again was quoted by the honourable member for Bradfield, but 1 will quote it again and it will be quoted many times in future months in this country.

We have been impressed - That is, the Australian Labor Party delegation -

  1. . that you’ve resolutely followed the policy of having no troops outside your own country.

This is where naivete becomes dangerous, when an obsequious over-eagerness to please refuses to face facts. Or again, when he said of the deposed Cambodian Head of State, Prince Sihanouk: . . it is tragic for his people that his Government was subverted in this clandestine, this evil way.

I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition should consult his colleague the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) who would be able to inform him that Prince

Sihanouk was replaced as Head of State by the legal, constitutional processes of the Government of Cambodia. What a gratuitous, completely unwarranted insult to a foreign government.

I should now like to quote from an article on Chinese foreign policy, and I will give the source of the quotation in a minute. It states:

There can no longer be any doubt that the Peking-originated phrase ‘the wind is blowing from the East’ conceals a concrete plan conceived by Mao and his associates as far back as the 1950s. Recently it has been officially referred to as the ‘great strategic blueprint of Mao Tse-tung.’ It is not difficult to understand its implications for foreign policy. It is crude and primitive. Its central idea is the eventual creation of a superpower which will encompass not only the Far East and South East Asia, but also central, and, later on, parts of western Asia.

Further on the article states:

The Maoists’ utterances and their actions lead one to note that Mao’s projected ‘Super Reich’ would include, in addition to China itself, Korea, the Mongolian People’s Republic, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma and various other countries in this region.

Mr Kennedy:

– Who said that?

Mr STREET:

– I will tell the honourable member in a minute. This is very interesting, and I ask the House to note that phrase ‘various other countries in this region’. The article continues:

The second stage of the ‘storm from the East’, projects the expansion towards the Hindustan peninsula, Soviet Central Asia, the Soviet Far East, and finally the Near East. It isn’t quite clear at present what the blueprint envisions for the final stage, but the plan does not stop with the ‘Maoisation’ of Asia. ‘We shall gaze proudly a 5 continents,’ one of Mao’s spokesmen proclaimed recently. ‘China today, tomorrow the whole world . . .’

Further on the article states:

Politicians in the heat of debate sometimes exaggerate. But we have before us very clearly stated intentions. There is not a single continent which is left out of the projected Maoisation of the world at one stage or another.

Perhaps honourable members might be excused for believing that these words came out of some Liberal Party publication, that we were engaged in what the Opposition is sometimes pleased to describe as kicking the Communist can. I now inform the House that this article conies from a Communist source.

Mr Kennedy:

– From the Russian Government?

Mr STREET:

– Not from the Russian Government. It is translated from Russian. It was written by a man called Ernst Henri. I am not surprised that honourable members opposite have not heard of him. It takes some trouble to find articles which this gentleman has written. He is a Russian journalist of considerable prestige and, if honourable members opposite did a bit of research work themselves, they would find that he has had a longer and wider experience in China than any other senior Soviet journalist.

Mr Giles:

– Not a oncer.

Mr STREET:

– He is not a oncer at all. He is a man who has been reading and writing about and visiting China over many years. So let us be under no delusion when we talk or negotiate with China. We sincerely hope that the recent initiative is an indication of a willingness on China’s part to modify and perhaps to change the direction of its policies which it has followed in the past. But do not let us forget what those policies have been. The interests of this country are not best served by adopting an obsequious, subservient attitude to China, trying to insinuate ourselves, as the honourable member for Bradfield said, into China’s good graces by gratuitously insulting our friends. It is a disastrous foreign policy exercise which results simultaneously in alienating our allies and surrendering and throwing away all our bargaining points for future dealings with one of the most powerful countries in the world. Yet it is now apparent to the Australian people that this is precisely what has been done by the Leader of the Opposition. It is apparent and it will not be forgotten.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– The charade of this Government for the last 6 k years has now been completed. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) today, after 6i years of futility of trying to hide the documents associated with our entry to Vietnam, has tabled them. I would like to read them. The first one is a response from the Prime Minister of the Republic of Vietnam. He wrote:

I have the honour to refer to your letter of today’s date confirming the Australian Government’s oiler to send to Vietnam an infantry battalion of 800 men, with some 100 personnel in logistic support to serve wilh United States forces in assisting in the defence of the Republic of Vietnam. 1 wish to confirm my government’s acceptance of this offer and to request the dispatch of this force to Vietnam on the basis which we discussed.

There was no request. In fact, all that it was was an acceptance. Quite clearly - and the Government agrees - the decision was made months before. But the great difficulty was to get the South Vietnamese Government’s agreement to accept - not to request but to accept.

I would now like to refer to the Pentagon papers and to a dispatch which was sent from the United States Ambassador to Washington dated 17th April 1965, a little less than a fortnight before the date of the documents which have just been tabled by the Prime Minister. Page 444 of the publication ‘The Pentagon Papers’ in part states:

April 8. Received Deptel-

This is from Washington - 2229 directing approach to GVN, suggesting request to Australian government for an infantry battalion for use in SVN. While awaiting a propitious moment to raise the matter, I received Deptel 2237 directing approach be delayed until further orders.

What happened then was that Ambassador Maxwell Taylor made some suggestions to the United Stales on how to handle third country forces. On page 445 of the documents he said:

Let me suggest the kind of instruction to the AMB-

This is him telling Washington what to tell him - which it would be most helpful to receive for use in presenting to GVN what I take to be a new policy of third-country .participation in ground combat.

The suggestion he made is this:

We arc prepared to bring in additional US ground forces provided we can get a reasonable degree of participation from other third countries. If the GVN will make urgent representations to them, we believe it entirely possible to obtain the following contributions; Korea, one regimental combat team; Australia, one infantry battalion; New Zealand, one battery and one company of tanks; PI, one battalion. If forces of the foregoing magnitude are forthcoming, the USG is prepared to provide the remainder of the combat reinforcements as well as the necessary logistic personnel to support the third-country contingents. Also it will use its good offices as desired in assisting the GVN approach to these governments.

Quite clearly the much publicised and not until now published letter from one of the multitude of South Vietnamese weekend governments is no more than a contrived gimmick to give a veneer of respectability to the unprecedented action of sending abroad in a time of undeclared war young Australians to be killed and maimed in a futile war. The Liberal Party was not the only government of this world to be so conspired against. In fact it was part of a world wide conspiracy manipulated by President Johnson. The pattern of personal pressure by President Johnson on the heads of governments of client states including Australia to commit forces led to the inspired - not request - acceptance by the Government of South Vietnam. With the concurrence of the House I incorporate in Hansard the 2 documents which were tabled earlier by the Prime Minister. 29th April 1965

Your Excellency,

I have the honour, with reference to our conversation yesterday, to confirm the Australian Government’s offer to send to Viet Nam an infantry battalion of 800 men, with some 100 personnel in logistic support, to serve with United States forces in assisting in the defence of the Republic of Viet Nam.

I have informed the Australian Government, following our conversation, that Your Excellency has accepted this offer and has requested the despatch of this force to Viet Nam on the basis which we discussed.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

  1. D. ANDERSON

Ambassador His Excellency Dr Phan Huy Quat, Prime Minister of the Republic of Vict Nam, SAIGON 29th April 1965

Dear Mr Ambassador,

I have the honor to refer to your letter of today’s date confirming the Australian Government’s offer to send to Viet Nam an infantry battalion of 800 men, with some 100 personnel in logistic support to serve with United States forces in assisting in the defence of the Republic nf Vietnam.

I wish to confirm my government’s acceptance of this offer and to request the dispatch of this force to Viet Nam on the basis which *e discussed.

Sincerely,

PHAN-HUY-QUAT

The Honorable H. D. Anderson

Ambassador of the government of Australia Saigon, Vietnam.

The Prime Minister in his speech yesterday asserted that all was well in Vietnam and that our intervention had been a success. But can he say that Communist China’s influence is less now than it was in 1965 when we sent our forces or in 1954 because now, at a time when United States prestige throughout Asia is at its lowest ebb, Communist Chinese prestige is at its highest? Does he know that there is less territory of the areas of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos now under the control of authorities favourable to the United States than there was in 1954 or at any time since? Is he aware that Laos has suffered between 1966 and 1969 the highest casualty rate in the world and endured the US bombers the highest bombing per square mile in all history? Does he know that in Cambodia since May 1970 the US invasion has produced over 1 million refugees and that thousands of ethnic Vietnamese living in Cambodia have been slaughtered? Has he been advised that the Cambodian Government in only the last few days has protested to the South Vietnamese Government - not to the North Vietnamese Government - about the atrocities committed by South Vietnamese troops who have vietnamised Cambodia, the only area in which vietnamisation has been a success? Does he know that the poorer classes in Vietnam are being forgotten while a minority of irresponsible people in positions of power think only of grabbing money and consolidating their power to continue to exploit the people? He should know, because this was contained in a statement made by Vice-President Ky.

Last night the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) tried to argue about land reform. Vice-President Ky, in speaking about this subject, said:

The peasantry is supposed to be given special help through the land reform programme. But in reality they are still being exploited by intermediaries.

Does the Prime Minister know that 400 Australian sons, brothers and husbands have been killed and over 3,000 maimed? Yes, our policy in Vietnam has been a success - a disastrous success! A Communist regime would have been hard put to it to achieve a similar success. But the point is that through our misdirected desire to ensure the reimposition of the French empire in Indo-China in 1945 and the United States assumption of the French role in 1954 we effectively stopped the evolution of an Indo-Chinese solution to an Indo-Chinese problem. We might not have liked the result but could it have been any worse than the current sufferings and the past sufferings of the Indo-Chinese people? There is an old Persian saying that only your own fingers can find the itch, and it is about time that we let the people of Indo-China resolve their own problems. There are many influential South Vietnames who are prepared and who are capable of negotiating with the North Vietnamese. This is fundamentally and primarily a Vietnamese and Indo-Chinese problem and the big powers should keep out until they are asked to provide guarantees that they will not come in again. Perhaps I could quote a Korean proverb which says that when whales fight the shrimp get crushed. I suggest that the whales be invited to sail well out to sea.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– 1 think this debate in the House this afternoon and the other debate yesterday evening in relation to foreign affairs and external relationships show the gap that there is in most instances between the Government and the Opposition in their attitudes and their thoughts on external affairs.

Mr Foster:

– Thank God tor that.

Mr LUCOCK:

– The honourable member for Sturt says: ‘Thank God for that.’ Perhaps there might be occasions when we would need - if we were to follow the Opposition’s policy - a lot more than even our own strength and our own will to survive. If we have a look at the situation we find that to a certain degree the policy of the Opposition on external affairs is a policy that is in many cases dictated by street demonstrations, by hippies and by woolly headed thinking that does not face up to the reality of the situation. I would remind members of the Opposition that in these debates during the past couple of days they have been placing a great deal of stress and emphasis on the number of deaths and on the number of people who have been maimed in Vietnam. Might I say something that I have said previously in this House, that is, that the members of the Opposition are not alone in their feelings and in their thoughts in regard to this, and no-one, unless that person had something wrong with him, would desire the loss of any one life under the circumstances of war. Those of us who have had any experience of war would, I think, say that with all the knowledge and appreciation of all that war brings.

But there faces a nation a time when a decision has to be made. There faces a nation a time when those who have accepted the responsibility of government must take a decision which they feel is in the real interests of the country it is their responsibility to govern. It is easy enough now to say that the actions taken by this Government X number of years ago were unwise or wrong or, as has sometimes been said, were not in the best interests of this country. But as I say it is easy enough to say now that this policy was wrong. Is it not possible that the situation has developed to a point at which we face it and we can understand it and at which we find ourselves at this moment only because of the action that we took in the commitment of troops to Vietnam? I am sure that history will show that with the committing of troops to this area it was not only Vietnam that was affected but also other areas in Asia and, one might also say in view of the closely related world situation at this time, countries in Africa and perhaps even the Middle East.

It has been said that we brought destruction upon Laos and Cambodia. I would point out, particularly in regard to Laos, that there was destruction and war in that country long before those engaged in the South Vietnamese conflict ever moved into it. This was not at the instigation of the United States or ourselves but at the instigation of the Communists of the North Vietnamese forces. This is something that cannot be denied. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) said: . . the Government considers that Parliament should have an opportunity to consider Australia’s foreign policy. I am, therefore, taking this early opportunity to make a statement. Important shifts are occurring in the policies and alignments of the major powers. These will have great significance for the area which is of most immediate political and strategic concern to us - East and South East Asia.

We can discern the shape and the broad direction of some of these changes; perhaps we can identify trends. But it will be some time before we can assess fully their implications for the interests and policies of Australia.

I think we should ponder those words because we have seen certain shifts, movements and changes in this power situation.

We saw not so long ago an attack by the Chinese upon India. There was an attack by the Chinese and a takeover, if I can use that expression, of Tibet. The Chinese Communists influenced many of the African countries but I believe that by our action in Vietnam, by our showing that we were prepared to take certain actions and make a certain stand we gave these nations the ability to stand firm and not follow a course that would have led to their destruction. If one has a look at the situation at the moment the Communist influence in Africa, while it is still there, is not as strong nor as marked as it was even 5 years ago. When we are talking about the change of policy in relation to Communist China, while I do not oppose talking to the Chinese I would remind the House and the people of Australia that the late Neville Chamberlain went over to talk to Hitler but it did not make much difference. He came back and waved a piece of paper and said: ‘Peace in our time’. He believed it and did everything he could - although I believe he was wrong - in his way of doing it to bring about peace. But because we were talking not from strength but from weakness talking did not achieve the ultimate aim which was the peace of the world.

I want to quote from a book titled People’s War: Vision Vs. Reality’. The writer says:

Temptation to be less cautious still entices the Peking communists, particularly in areas near home. The areas where there are threatening manifestations of Mao’s ‘people’s war’ strategy - Vietnam, Laos, etc. - arc those where Peking’s muscle can be most effectively used. Although nuclear armament may change the direction of China’s strategic thinking, it is not impossible that a nuclear umbrella could give Peking greater confidence in promoting revolutionary war on the periphery.

This is what we should keep in our minds. Let us talk to them, but there is no necessity literally to commit acts of obeisance before Mao and others. I believe they appreciate strength and it is from strength that we must deal. It is from strength that we should have all our discussions with them. To fawn upon them is, I believe, only giving away the safety and security of this country for years ahead. In this regard I think we should give serious consideration to this question: Is it not possible that the situation in which we now find ourselves - which has improved - came about only because we were prepared to take a stand in the first instance?

I want briefly to make a comment about areas outside Australia. The honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) referred to the action of the Australian

Government when the first commitment of troops to Vietnam was made, lt was acknowledged that there was a discussion previously and it was also acknowledged that a request for troops had come from the Vietnamese in the first instance. The letters from which he quoted, as always, can be quoted to emphasise either one point or another. The Asian area is of vital importance to Australia because of its proximity and as I have said before it is an area in which we can have tremendous influence. However, we should not allow ourselves to close our eyes to the events which are occurring in other areas in the world. Although we are not so closely involved in Europe and the Middle East now as we might have been a few years ago it is an area in which the events which are taking place can have an influence on Australia. I do not think anyone can separate in international affairs the economic an J political events. The entry of Britain into the European Economic Community is, because of the economic and political implications, a matter of vital importance to the people of Australia. Although 1 believe we should not pay as much attention to that area as we should pay to other areas which are closer to our shores, it is dangerous for us to lose sight of what is happening on the European scene. We should not feel that we do not need to make any endeavour to have an influence in that area at all.

In regard to the Middle East I think we should give as much encouragement as we can to the countries of Lebanon and Jordan. Those 2 countries, particularly Lebanon, can have a stabilising influence on the European scene. We in Australia know the problems which confront Israel. We hear people talking about the United Nations, what it does and what it should do and also what Australia should do but I would like those same people really to examine the situation and see for themselves what a failure the United Nations has been in regard to this situation. I hope that we in Australia do not become lulled into a false sense of security by feeling that the United Nations has all the solutions to the problems confronting the world today.

I want to make a brief comment on Australia’s wheat sales to China. I was in that area in the early days when the United Kingdom recognised Communist China.

After that recognition I saw a complete change of attitude in the Chinese towards the United Kingdom. No longer did China need the UK. The UK had done what China wanted and the Communist Chinese literally ignored the UK and insulted that country. If you, Mr Deputy Speaker, were to visit China, as a group from the Opposition side did, and tell the Chinese that you know that they will not buy your wheat unless you recognise them would this not put into their hands the very weapon with which to destroy the economic and financial situation of Australia in this sphere? I would think that the one lesson which any member of the Opposition has learned in this regard in the political sphere is that you do not say to those who are your opponents something which will give them the opportunity to do the very opposite to what is in your own interests. I think this is what has been happening with members of the Opposition in regard to so many of the problems and difficulties that confront Australia. We do not minimise them. We say that these problems are complex. One of them is the two China situation. We say that these problems are complex and we also say that in the interests of Australia and its future this Government has done much for our safety and security.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) suggested a mentality which explains only too well why this Government has such great difficulties in recognising a few simple realities about world affairs. The reason why the Government is faced with these difficulties is that its supporters continually see the world in terms of black and white and in terms of the cold war confrontations that have bedevilled Australian and American foreign policies for the last 2 decades. It is not possible for Government supporters, psychologically, mentally or intellectually, to adjust to the new opportunities for peaceful relations in the world such as President Nixon’s statesmanlike intention to visit China has opened to us in Australia. Honourable members will note that there is only one member of the Country Party on the list to speak in this debate. I do not want to spend too much time on this: I am not concerned with the politics of it. I want to put forward my views as to why I think President Nixon’s intention to visit China is so constructive, so valuable and so laudable.

Before doing so I point out that neither the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) nor the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) are to take part in this debate. As I said, only one member of the Country Party is scheduled to participate. This is not surprising because after all, in the wheat electorates in this nation there has been a tremendous uproar against the rigidity of this Government’s policies and the disastrous effects they have had on our wheat trading with China. This is quite remarkable when one considers that this is a nation which needs as many friends and as many buyers it can possibly get, particularly at a time when there is the threat to our trade of British entry into the European Economic Community. For example, let us have a look at the size of the trade that Australia has had in wheat sales to China. From 1960 to 1970 Australia sold 743 million bushels to China. This trade has now been lost. It has been lost by this Government. It is no wonder that only one member of the Country Party is taking part in this debate. It is no wonder that so many Government supporters are trying to put up such a smokescreen of fear and horror about the new policy towards China. What has the sale of 743 million bushels of wheat meant to Australia? It has meant a return of $904m. I emphasise that amount of S904m. That is the value of the trade that this Government has lost to this country because of its policy towards China.

We have heard some rather remarkable statements about what the Leader of the Opposition’s visit to China has done and how it set the dominoes tumbling and caused Australia to be cast alone in the world. No doubt we will hear from a few more experienced speakers who will hammer this theme that Whitlam cannot be trusted as the next Prime Minister. After all, every supporter of the Government knows that the next Prime Minister will be Mr Whitlam and hence the personal attack on him. Honourable members who will follow in this debate on the other side will say the very same thing.

Many people will be listening to the broadcast of this claptrap that has come from the other side. A couple of weeks ago I had the pleasure of listening to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) when he was interviewed on the television programme ‘Monday Conference’. Mr Anthony was by no means the ferocious fighter that he used to be in the Parliament. I was rather intrigued by the things he had to say about Mr Whitlam’s visit to China. I would like honourable members in this House and those people listening to this broadcast to bear in mind what Mr Anthony said. It was a rather tricky sort of position he was in, because he found it very difficult to justify his own Government’s policies. Mr Walsh, in part of his question about trade with China, said to Mr Anthony:

And you have said subsequently that Mr Whitlam’s to blame for us not going in in July,’ and it is a non sequitur to me.

Mr Anthony replied:

I am not saying he … I think it was Dr Patterson who brought the wheat issue into it. I think … I wouldn’t criticise Mr Whitlam’s visit to China on purely political grounds. I think some of his actions were a little indiscreet. But if it can help in improving relations with the Western world then he is doing a service.

Note that in comparison with the rubbish, the nonsense and the exaggeration that was put across by the Government supporters in this debate today. We will hear it from the next few speakers, but not from Country Party speakers because, very logically and reasonably, they are not taking part in this matter. Perhaps the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will come out with some more of this personal attack on the Leader of the Opposition. His attack is not very convincing, because the Australian people have been genuinely and thoroughly impressed by the initiative that the Leader of the Opposition took in going to China, not merely to regain the trade that the Government has so disastrously lost but to build bridges of understanding between this country and China.

What is the Government’s attitude on the whole question of our relations and the United States relations with China? We welcome the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen). We are quite delighted with it. He said that an era of new relationships between China and the United States had been opened. This is a new attitude. Only a few weeks ago after Senator Gair had spoken about the Pekingese dog, the Prime Minister was rubbishing the Leader of the Opposition and accusing him virtually of sabotaging the nation. In the meantime, unfortunately for it, the Government has been overtaken by events that it could not foresee, could nor control and with which it could not even keep in step. President Nixon is going to China and he is adopting a policy which virtually discredits and discards the policies that this Government has pursued for 20 years, of rigid containment and isolation of China. In place of those policies which have now been discarded is a policy of reason, understanding, discussion, dialogue, compromise and concession. President Nixon’s initiatives are opening up a great era for us.

Let me give my views now on President Nixon’s visit to China. I am very disturbed by the fact that we can have in this House an official statement which welcomes President Nixon’s visit but the visit can then then be attacked, virtually, with the sort of arguments that Government members have used so far and will go on using week in week out, kicking the Communist can and deliberately creating a mentality of fear which is the very contrary to what President Nixon is trying to do in his initiatives with China. It is very interesting to see just how hostile the attitudes among back benchers of the Liberal and Country Parties are. It is also interesting to see how closely they resemble those of Mr B. A. Santamaria and the Democratic Labor Party. I am not concerned with those parties, but I am just drawing a comparison with them. These parties are deeply suspicious of President Nixon’s attempts to bring about peace, security and stability in the world through understanding with China. This is why we have had the sort of attacks we have had expressed today.

I see 3 principal reasons for President Nixon’s visit to China. I think they are most important to this country. The Australian people should realise them and appreciate them. First of all, it is rather extraordinary that President Nixon is now being attacked by the extreme Right in Australian politics. One of the charges that will be raised - although not in this House, I suspect - is that of opportunism. It is a very plausible argument. It is a very subtle variation on the ancient theme of

Tricky Dick’. Tricky Dick, President Nixon, is out to win votes, they say. He is going to placate the powerful and turbulent Left in the United States, and this is how he does it. It is a superficial argument. It is a plausible one, and at least it does concede that domestic politics in the United States is an important factor in how American foreign policy is decided. That is one of the realities behind President Nixon’s policy towards China. The American people are sick and tired of a policy of continual confrontation that is based upon the cold war mentality that we have heard expressed only too clearly and only too frequently in this Parliament today.

The American people are pro-peace and anti-war. I praise them. I praise President Nixon for having the flexibility as a conservative politician to realise that there is a new direction demanded by his people and by international realities. Let me refer to a most important document that has not been quoted in this Parliament. I suppose the Australian Government may have seen it at some stage, but I doubt whether it could have, in view of the statements made by the Prime Minister on 13th July when attacking the Leader of the Opposition. I will spend some time quoting from this document because I regard it as a most important indication of where President Nixon’s policy is taking the United States, where it is taking China and where it is taking us. On 7th July in Kansas City, Missouri, President Nixon spoke to some executies of the Press, radio and television. Note that 7th July was 6 days before that disastrous attack by the Prime Minister on the Leader of the Opposition, on which he had to back-pedal later. President Nixon said:

Mainland China is, of course, a very different situation - from Russia -

First in terms of its economic capacity at the present time, a pretty good indication of where it is, is that Japan, with 100 million people, produces more than Mainland China with 800 million people. But that should not mislead us, and it gives us and should give none of the potential competitors in the world markets. Mainland China, any sense of satisfaction that it will always be that way, because when we see the Chinese people - and I have seen them all over the world, and some of you have, too, whether in Hong Kong or Thailand or Singapore or Bangkok, any of the great cities, Manila, where Chinese are there - they are creative, they are productive, they are one of the most capable people in the world, and 800 million Chinese are going to be, inevitably, an enormous economic power, with all that means in terms of what they could be in other areas if they move in that direction.

Here is where President Nixon’s thought is expressed so contrary to the nonsense that has been spoken by Government members today. He said:

That is the reason why 1 felt that it was essential that this administration take the first steps toward ending the isolation of Mainland China from the world community. We had to take those steps because the Soviet Union could not, because of differences that they have that at the present time seem to be irreconcilable. We were the only other power that could take those steps.

He continued:

Let me be very, shall 1 say, limited in what I would discuss on this particular issue, because we should not consider that more has happened than has happened.

This was about a week before he announced his visit to China. President Nixon continued:

What we have done is simply open the door - open the door for travel - open the door for trade.

Now the question is whether there will be other doors opened on their part. But at least the doors must be opened and the goal of US policy must be in the long term, ending the isolation of Mainland China, and a normalisation of our relations with Mainland China because, looking down the road, and let’s just look ahead IS to 20 years, the United States could have a perfectly effective agreement with the Soviet Union for limitation of arms - the danger of any confrontation there -

He is referring to the Soviet Union - might have been almost totally removed.

I will continue because this is so imporant and it is going to be a clear indication of the way in which American policy will evolve. President Nixon said:

But Mainland China, outside the world community, completely isolated, with its leaders not in communication with world leaders, would be a danger to the whole world that would be unacceptable, unacceptable to us and unacceptable to others, as well.

So, consequently, this step must be taken now. Others must be taken, very precisely, very deliberately, as there is reciprocation on the other side.

He said more, but what I have quoted shows Australia that the policies which the United States has pursued towards China for 20 years, that is, policies of military containment of the Chinese and diplomatic isolation, are no longer to be followed in the United States. In their place is to be a policy of negotiation’, discussion and compromise. This will open up new possibilities in our area of the world and for easy relations between nations. These bitternesses between the United States and China have incinerated Korea and Vietnam. They have been a disaster for world peace. Of course they have all been lauded fulsomely by Government members. With this sort of statement by President Nixon, we can look forward to an era of understanding and peaceful relations from which Australia can only benefit. I personally regard President Nixon’s initiative as being a display of statesmanship of the highest order from which this country can only benefit.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Kennedy) would seem to give the House the view that there have been no discussions and no attempts to negotiate with China over the last 20 years. But of course, the facts are that United States representatives and the Chinese have met in Warsaw off and on over a very considerable period of time and no progress has been made. The honourable member further forgets that the one significant strategic difference between the situation that then prevailed and that which is now beginning to emerge is China’s growing fear of the Soviet Union which makes China look outward to see what other relationships she might form and what changes she might be able to make in her connections with other countries. Therefore, provided people like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) keep out of the ring in this particular context, the United States has a very clear weapon in its hand in trying to negotiate sensible solutions to some of the problems with China. If the waters are muddied, if the pass is sold long before the negotiations with the President and China begin in earnest, there will be no chance of that.

The decisions of the Government in this matter are clear. They have been stated by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen). They were stated again last night. A cardinal plank in the Government’s approach is one of responsibility, regard for other relationships in South East Asia, in the Malaysia-Singapore area, and regard for relations with Japan, the United States and Taiwan. This contrasts markedly with the approach that the Leader of the Opposition has so far pursued. An analysis of the transcript of his confrontation, his dialogue, his agreement with Chou En-lai shows how different are the approaches in principle and in policy. This is not yet fully understood by the Australian public. The Labor Party’s policies pay no regard whatever to Australia’s continuing strategic interest, which is an interest in the security of small countries. We are concerned about war of any kind subverting the liberty of any country. We are concerned for our old friendships and alliances both inside and outside our own reigon, and we are concerned to conduct foreign policy relationships with responsibility.

All these matters have been ignored by the Leader of the Opposition. In his visit to China he repudiated Australia’s old friends and alliances, lt was Professor Arndt who, in resigning from the Australian Labor Party, said that this entirely distinguishes the approach of the Leader of the Opposition from that of President Nixon. President Nixon is trying to bring China within the ambit of nations and to normalise relationships with China but at the same time preserving those other relationships, friendships and alliances which need preservation with other countries in this part of the world. As far as the Leader of the Opposition is concerned, they have been sold on every count. Let me demonstrate this. Let me document it from the Leader of the Opposition’s own words. He has clearly become a Chinese candidate for the next Australian elections. His endorsement of China’s policies in relation to South East Asia and East Asia has won endorsement by Chou En-lai as the next candidate for Australia. Chou En-lai said:

We look forward to the time when you take office and put into effect your promises.

Not very many promises appeared in the public transcript of the public discussions except one to forsake Taiwan, which was a very significant one. So the question immediately arises: What other secret promises were made in private discussion between the Leader of the Opposition and the various Chinese representatives at different levels? Unless this can be explained in clear and concise terms, the Leader of the

Opposition has forsaken his right ever to claim to be the Prime Minister of this country, because Australia just could not run the risk of having as its Prime Minister a person who has in all likelihood secret agreements of one kind or another or who has given promises which Chou En-lai expects him to put into effect.

This is a gross distortion of the sorts of relationships that should prevail. If President Nixon said that he would like Mr McMahon to win the next elections, the Labor Party would scream to high heaven that this was interference in Australia’s domestic policies. But has anyone raised any objection to China’s endorsement of Mr Whitlam’s candidacy for the Prime Ministership at the next elections? This was put in other terms by the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) last night when he said: ‘I am not a stooge of Chou En-lai, nor am I a stooge of President Nixon’. The present Leader of the Opposition certainly cannot say that. The Leader of the Opposition also supported fears of a revival of Japanese militarism. After listening to a long description by Chou En-lai of the fears and dangers of alleged Japanese militarism he said:

This is a very powerful indictment of United States-Japanese policy. . . . None of us have any doubts about the seriousness of these fears towards reviving Japanese militarism.

The Leader of the Opposition went to China to try to do something about wheat. He soon forgot about that and then sided with China against Japan, a country which takes 27 per cent of Australia’s exports. Of course it is in this area that the tensions have arisen between the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and the Leader of the Opposition. The honourable member for Dawson was prepared originally to visit China and try to do something about wheat, but he did not want his visit to be made into a political mission which would tie him to any political agreements. Presumably he was also concerned with the Labor Party, but personally he clearly did not want to be tied to an alliance with Peking. This has emerged from a clear examination of the report of the mission. It does more than this. By his actions, the Leader of the Opposition has clearly indicated that China should not buy any more wheat from Australia until Australia has accepted the policies that China would want. If anyone has done anything to keep the wheat market in China closed to Australia, it is the Leader of the Opposition by his actions and by his suggestions that this is the course that China should take.

The Leader of the Opposition has also denigrated the Australia-United States alliance. He said that Australia has had a bitter experience with the United States. He said that a United States President will never again be allowed by his people to send troops to another country. Let me for a moment examine the implications of that quite outrageous statement. If no United States President can ever again send troops abroad, that immediately destroys every defensive alliance that the United States has around the world. It will mean that the ANZUS Treaty is worthless. It will mean that the defence of Western Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, is of no account and could not be put into effect. It would open the door to any significant aggressor anywhere around the world, knowing that the United States would do nothing about it. That is the policy that the Leader of the Opposition has clearly advocated on this occasion.

In conformity with this policy, the Leader of the Opposition in his discussions opposed the. stationing of all troops abroad, from West Germany to South East Asia. The beneficiaries of this would be Russia and China. It would destroy the alliances with the United States, NATO and the Five-Power Pact with Malaysia and Singapore. The allied position around the world would be utterly destroyed as a direct consequence of the kind of policy that the Leader of the Opposition and his Party have wholeheartedly endorsed. Does the Leader of the Opposition want this? That is the obvious assumption. Or is he so naive that he does not understand the realities of world politics?

The Leader of the Opposition attacked Lon Nol and the United States over Cambodia in defiance of the correct interpretation of that action, which the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) recorded to his Party when he was visiting there. The Leader of the Opposition was offensive to the Thais and the Filipinos, as we have been told. He accused them of trying to insinuate themselves into Peking’s good graces. The Leader of the Opposition is not only trying to insinuate himself into the good graces of Peking but has also been trying for some years to insinuate himself into the good graces of the people of Australia. This is something in which he will never succeed. He falsely praised China for having rigidly followed a policy of having no troops in other countries - a plainly false, blind statement. Has he forgotten Korea against the United Nations forces? Has he forgotten Burma, Tanzania, Laos, North Vietnam and India, to say nothing of Tibet? This is a list long enough for any country. Mr Whitlam’s paean of praise was plainly false.

He said that China has always kept its word. Chou En-lai himself went to Bandung in 1955 and accepted the principle of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. Let us forget the wars of liberation for a moment as the Leader of the Opposition plainly has and just recall the gross Chinese interference in the attempted PKI coup in 1965. As I have indicated and has been mentioned in the debate, the Leader of the Opposition agreed with China over Taiwan. He discarded the Canadian formula as soon as the Chinese said that it was not acceptable to them. This is a betrayal of 14 million people who want to live their own lives. He might well ask himself why 14 million people in Taiwan should be intrinsically less important than 12 million people in Australia. Not on any occasion did he argue with China. On every occasion, the transcript will show, he accepted the Chinese policy.

There were many issues he did not raise publicly; there were some he claimed, when he was questioned about them, that he had raised in private. One, I think, concerns an old school friend, Francis James, who has been imprisoned in China for a considerable time. When the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the Chinese about it he was apparently told that the Chinese knew nothing about it. The Leader of the Opposition knew that that was false - entirely false. Then the best that he could do was to appeal to the Press and say how Francis James had supported Chinese policies and that if the Press could convince the Chinese that Francis James was a friend of China, they might let him go. The least one that could expect from a decent person who wished to become the Prime Minister of Australia would be to offer firm support to try to secure the release of an old school friend. But Mr Whitlam turned his back on that as he would turn his back on anyone if he thought it would suit his purpose.

When he was troubled by questions from the Press and others he said: ‘Oh, we talked about that in private talks’. What happened in these private talks? We need to know. Australia knows nothing of it. What commitments, what agreements and what promises did he give to Chou En-lai in those private talks which he allegedly is going to put into effect if he is ever Prime Minister of this country? He agreed with China on all points that were raised in public so, presumably, he agreed on all points that were raised in private. What did he concede? The Australian public has a right to know. Unfortunately, the only way they can find out is to have the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister and then see what he does. But that is a risk that Australia could not afford to take.

He is the Chinese candidate for the next Australian election; he is the Chinese advocate for the Chinese cause in Australia and around the world. If everyone adopted the Whitlam approach, President Nixon’s valiant effort to bring this large, great country into the community of nations would fail because all the negotiating cards that President Nixon might have would have been sold before the negotiations began. We all want normal relationships with China but we do not want to be in a competition to get to Peking first at the price of friends and interests vital to Australia and other small countries. The Leader of the Opposition has paid total disregard to the interests of small nations and he has shown a total misunderstanding of world politics. Does he not understand that China is seeking the elimination of the United States presence and security support for South East and East Asia and the Western Pacific area which means the destruction of ANZUS, the withdrawal of bases in Australia and the withdrawal of forces and troops including the Seventh Fleet and all the rest right down the Western Pacific? The Leader of the Opposition has aided and abetted this policy. He has ignored China’s support-

Mr Kennedy:

– A good thing, too.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The honourable member said ‘A good thing too’. Let us have that on the record. The Leader of the Opposition has ignored China’s support for revolutionary warfare; he has ignored China’s blatant support and pursuit of nuclear policies; he has ignored the fact that China is building strategic military roads in Asia that could be used to invade Thailand through Laos or through Nepal and which could be used for invasions in other areas; he has ignored the basic interests of Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, South East Asian countries and Australia. What else has he promised in private if he ever becomes Prime Minister? The man is a disgrace to Australia.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

- Mr Deputy Speaker, this afternoon we have heard grudging apologies for 20 years of Liberal Party policies. We find honourable members opposite grudgingly accepting the fact that China will be recognised. Although the Government has grudgingly stated that this is its policy, private members of the Libera) Party even more grudgingly are decrying that policy and are wishing that they could go back into the past from which they have come and from which they never wished to venture. I wish to answer one statement that has been made by the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He claimed that the Leader of the Opposition ought to be ashamed of himself and that he is not fit to be called an Australian. The recent behaviour of the honourable member for Wannon is so well known to the Australian people that they understand which of those 2 persons is not to be trusted. A man who stabs his own Leader in the back for his own personal hopes and ambitions is one who certainly does not win honour from the Australian people.

There are 2 things that I wish to say at the outset about the Department of Foreign Affairs. One is that I would like to see more men handle the Foreign Affairs portfolio. That statement appears rather thoughtless, I suppose, of the stability of the Department, but at least it would be of benefit to the Government. I remember the time when my predecessor was one of the worst Red baiters in this country. I remember the time when he would have been at ease in the right wing of the

Country Party or the Australian Democratic Labor Party. Yet, when he became Minister for External Affairs, as the portfolio of Foreign Affairs was called then, he made a statement that was reasoned, sound and objective and that stands to his credit to this day. It was a statement which was quite out of character. Yet, it was made by him no doubt sincerely because of the things that he had learned while he was Minister of this Department.

He was succeeded by the right honourable member for Lowe (Mr McMahon) and that right honourable member was once asked how it was that his views had changed on a certain subject. He said: Since becoming Minister in charge of this Department I have learned some things about foreign affairs that I did not know’. Of course, we have seen 2 other Ministers appointed to administer that portfolio. I think that the statement by the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) shows a certain soundness and objectiveness that was lacking in his recent statements about foreign affairs because he appeared to be drifting in the direction of the right wing Democratic Labor Party stance in Australian politics. I understand the wailings and the grief of honourable members opposite to us when they stand to speak on this subject. They have counted this as one of their strongest points in the past - unfortunately, only in the recent past. I say that because at the present time history has caught up with them and has caught up with them so quickly that the people have not had a chance to forget where they stood only a few years ago and are unable to see where they stand at the present time.

I remember when the Australian Labor Party was announcing to this country that we ought not to be involved in the Vietnam war. At the very outset of our involvement, members of the Australian Labor Party were saying that it was an immoral war, an unwinnable war and that it was a civil war. Those statements were decried by Government members. Yet, in the Pentagon papers which Government members are so reluctant to recognise, and certainly to refer to, these things are recorded. In August 1963, a United States State Department expert, by contrast with the gentlemen on the government benches, recommended that the United States pull out of

Vietnam because there was no way the Communists could be defeated. The ‘Daily News’ of Friday, 25th June 1971 deals with this subject. It states:

The report, based on the secret Pentagon documents, said that the then Secretary of State, Mr Dean Rusk, had brushed the recommendation aside. The report quoted Mr Rusk as saying: ‘lt would be far better for us to start on the Arm basis of 2 things - that we will not pull out of Vietnam until the war is won, and that we will not run a coup.’

Of course, the Americans have done both. The article continues:

The Chicago Sun-Times in a report said to be based on the Pentagon study, said that in 1961 President Kennedy sought a Pentagon assessment of the situation in Vietnam. The Pentagon concluded that the ‘vast majority’-

The words in inverted commas are worth repeating - . . the ‘vast majority’ of Viet Cong troops were of local origin and that there was little evidence that they were receiving major supplies from outside.

The article goes on:

The Sun-Times said that President Kennedy deepened his commitment to a non-Communist South Vietnam despite a report by Charles Maechling, chairman of a special committee that: If free elections were to be held in South Vietnam in 1962, Ho Chi Minh would get 70 per cent of the popular vote.’

That is a more conservative estimate than that given by President Eisenhower who assessed it at about 80 per cent -

Mr Maechling estimated that the Viet Cong were getting only a trickle of supplies from North Vietnam and noted that nobody, had found a Chinese rifle or Soviet weapon used by the guerillas.

He concluded that the massive aggression theory was completely phony.

Those figures were known before the Pentagon papers were ever publicly printed. I remember going to hear my predecessor, the former honourable member for Forrest, speak at a public meeting on the subject of our involvement in Vietnam. I asked him whether the figure I have just quoted or figures similar to those were correct when he used the argument that we were in Vietnam because China was involved. He said: ‘Yes, but they are giving them moral support’. That was at a time when the United States of America had sent 125,000 men 7,500 miles across the sea to within tens of miles of the Chinese border to fight. Now, we find that we are to withdraw our troops, and the Americans are looking for a way to withdraw all their troops. At the same time, the South Vietnam Government has announced that it would consider the possibility of holding elections right across the country to elect a government for the re-unified Vietnam. The denial of elections was the very cause for our involvement in the first place. Yet all the time, honourable members opposite have said that we were in Vietnam for freedom and democracy, lt was a denial of democracy that took Australia into Vietnam in the first place because we were not prepared to accept the outcome of free elections in that country. Having travelled that ground, having come from the point where it was known in 1963 that it was an unwinnable war. where the American Government was advised not to be drawn into it, we arrived at the point from which we departed with the following result: The Vietnam war has cost the United States close to $200,000m. It has cost the United States 44,000 men killed in action and 7,600 aircraft lost, he United States has dropped 5.5 million ions of bombs, or twice the total amount of United States bombs dropped in World War II. It nas been the second most costly war for the American people. Statistics lacking include those on refugees and civilian casualties in Indo-China, enemy losses, the effects on health of herbicides used in Vietnam, the significant inflationary effect of the war on the United States economy, and the long range costs of Vietnam veterans benefits.

The ‘Australian’ on Monday, 12th July 1971, deals wilh this matter. In referring to defoliation it states:

About 5.2 million acres of forest land and 562,000 acres of South Vietnamese cropland - or nearly one-seventh of the country’s land area - had been sprayed with plant-killing herbicides by the United States from 1962 to 1971.

Turning to civilian casualties, the newspaper article continues:

Neither the Pentagon nor the United States civilian agencies have tried to study total civilian losses due to allied military action, the researchers noted. The official figure for South Vietnamese civilians killed or kidnapped by Viet Cong terrorists from 1965 to 1971 totals 64,000. Since the beginning of 1968 more than 300 government officials have been among those killed.

The contrast between what has been the effect of the involvement of the United States from so far away, and the little part played by the Chinese, if any, is one that we cannot fail to see. The fact that we have come through such destructive years to the point from which we departed and have gained nothing but have lost so much, clearly illustrates and portrays for the people of this country at the present time how the Government is exposed on the grounds on which it stood and for the things that it has said over recent years for political reasons. If the Government’s Vietnam policy has been wrong, as has been exposed by the passage of history, so too has been its policy on China. In a statement on foreign policy made by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Bury) it is stated:

Peking has been recognised by Canada, Italy, Chile, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait and Cameroon and is exchanging ambassadors with Nigeria.

Therefore, Australia wants to join the line. The Government sees that there are sufficient countries in this world - some of them of such tremendous importance - prepared to recognise China that it wishes to find a place in the line to begin diplomatic relations with China. The Government sees that the number of countries seeking to establish diplomatic relations and willing to support China’s entry into the United Nations is such that China will be admitted to the United Nations either with our assistance or in spite of us. That is the situation. That is something that the Government has to accept. How grudgingly it has accepted it has been illustrated in this debate this afternoon. The position from which the Government has been fighting for the last 20 years has been eroded. Its position has been exposed as absolutely false and baseless. The Government said Australia could not recognise China because of her war-like stance in the world. President Nixon has said that we have to recognise China for the sake of peace in the future. I think that the opposite to that statement made by President Nixon is that the American Government has been prepared to court war while continuing to try to isolate China. The Australian Government, too, has done exactly the same thing. It has been prepared to court world war for the sake of maintaining a policy of non-recognition of China and for the sake of not creating diplomatic relations with China. This position has been untenable and has been exposed as untenable. The Government has been caught in a comprising position. One might say that the Government has been caught with its pants down and is behaving like someone who has been caught with his pants down.

We have seen the Prime Minister scuffle from one side of the stage to the other overnight. He was preparing himself to maintain a stance of opposition to China. In a talk at Launceston one day he was leaning further and further to the right. Then President Nixon made his announcement that he would seek an opportunity to visit China. In an interview at Tullamarine Airport, the Prime Minister was most annoyed to learn this. He said he did not know of it and his behaviour exposed that he did not know of it. However, the very next day he said that he had had a communication about the United States’ situation and was informed. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) says that he was not informed. Once again, of course, the Prime Minister was telling an untruth, as comes so easily to him and as he does so frequently.

When Mr Anthony was asked about his opinion of Mr Whitlam’s tour of China he said:

I wouldn’t criticise Mr Whitlam’s visit to China on purely political grounds; I think some of his actions there were a little indiscreet, but if it can help in improving relationships with the Western world, then he’s doing a service.

In conclusion I should like to read some words from a man who has had experience in the Ministry to show how they expose the Government’s position. Mr Gorton said-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Corbett:

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

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · Evans · LP

– The outstanding impression that one has of the visit of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) to China and the astonishing verbatim record of his discussions with Chou En-lai on 5th July is that of a pilgrimage. We have the depiction of the devotee who waits eagerly for some accolade of approval from his master, and in that rarefied atmosphere everything else is forgotten- all history, all experience, all loyalties, all criticism. The dialogue unfolds to the bitter end when we hear the endorsement: ‘Go and win. We look forward to when you can take office and you can put into effect your promises. We believe you will shortly be able to rise up again.’ Chou En-lai has spoken. With the deepest of kowtows the Leader of the Opposition withdraws. But the record remains. It stands as a document evidencing the most unutterable diplomatic indiscretions and just plain ignorance that one can possibly see in an aspirant for Prime Ministership. Here is a man whose price is very low indeed.

But let us look at the dialogue in detail. The scene opens with a little skirmish of pleasantries about mutual Socialist friends and then Chou goes into action on Vietnam and a policy of a complete unilateral withdrawal by the allies is attributed to the Australian Labor Party. And there is no denial. Then Chou makes an enormous statement - a statement so offensive, so sweeping and so damning to this country that even the Leader of the Opposition should have risen in protest. Here are the exact words Chou says:

We are in favour of the withdrawal of all United States forces, first of all from the Far East and then from all those places where they committed aggression.

Let every Australian listen to the list that Chou gives of the areas of American aggression. First, South Korea, where in 1950 the United Nations Security Council declared there was clear aggression by the North against the South. South Korea is a case of American aggression. If that makes honourable members sit up, then the next should make them stand up in anger, because the next on the list is Japan. One of the places against which the United States, according to Chou, has committed aggression is Japan. Remember the United States aggression at Pearl Harbour, in Malaya and Singapore, and in the Philippines; the aggression in the Coral Sea and finally in Japan itself. Chou lays it down, and the Leader of the Opposition sycophants on. This man sits on when he has just heard, in one unambiguous sentence - and I will not quote it all - the epitome of what Chou, Mao and Lin Piao and other Chinese Communists have been spelling out at length for decades, namely, that they, China, not the United States, Japan or anyone else, are going to dominate the East, including Korea, Taiwan, IndoChina, Thailand and the Philippines.

The strategy will be the same in the future as it has been in the past. The friendly Chinese forces will move in to assist their Communist comrades in those countries to expel the United States aggressors or, if they are not in evidence, their running dogs and imperialist lackeys - that is, all the non-Communists. This sentence is possibly one of the most important sentences for the future of South East Asia ever spoken to a member of this House in a quarter of a century. And what does the Leader of the Opposition do? Is there any protest or even an angry and bewildered silence? Not a bit of it. He is in there with the great man. eagerly aiding and abetting the programme for aggression and justifying it to the aggressor. To make his own role completely clear the Leader of the Opposition takes a full fisted smack at the 2 countries which are listed by Chou as next on the roll for liberation. And while they sit there laughing together over the proposed rejection of the SEATO treaty, the Leader of the Opposition declares:

It is moribund. I do not think anybody places much reliance on the treaty, where Britain has so clearly determined never to undertake any military operations again.

Well, he is not quite up to date with his history. However, he goes on:

Of the other members, the Philippines and Thailand are trying desperately to insinuate themselves into your Government’s good graces.

What great diplomacy! Could this man ever again enjoy the confidence of the Philippines or of Thailand? He has gone overboard.

The next country that China mentions which is to be liberated from United States aggression after Korea and Japan is Taiwan. Well, the Leader of the Opposition goes all the way with that. He will, of course, at once break off diplomatic relations with Taiwan, when he is king. The United States aggressors will be rolled back. But does he know or does he care anything for the history of this matter? Does he recall the way the Taiwan issue came into being: How Britain, Labour Britain, trying desperately to establish normal relations with China, opted 21 years ago to support Peking in the matter and how the British Labour Party and its Ministers were insulted and rejected by the Chinese Communists? Does he recall, for instance, President Truman’s announcement on 5th January 1950 when, among other things, he said:

The United States Government will not pursue a course which will lead to involvement in the civil conflict in China. Similarly the United Slates Government will not provide military aid lo Chinese forces on Formosa.

That identical assertion was repeated at the same time by Secretary of State, Dean Acheson. Both men expounded the view that they regarded Formosa as an integral part of China. That was in January 1950, but in June North Korea invaded the South and right from the beginning Peking declared its support for the aggressors, ls it any wonder that the United States acted quickly both in terms of Security Council action and in terms of its own defence? The United States was recoiling from the beginnings of what had happened at Pearl Harbour. It had already delineated its perimeter of defence so that never again would it be in such a situation of treachery. Now that perimeter was open again to attack from one of the 2 Communist powers which at that time were working in close collaboration. So the United Sta’.es moved to assert aid to other nonCommunist governments around the perimeter of Asia should they be attacked, and those governments included Formosa and IndoChina.

The aggression in Korea had fateful consequences. It led directly to the tragedy of Vietnam and it gave substance to the 2- China position. Just as there were 2 Koreas, soon there would be 2 Vietnams and 2 Chinas. To show how fully he is now in accord with Chinese Communist thinking, the Leader of the Opposition takes up the dialogue. First the kowtow; then:

We have been impressed, particularly at the meeting yesterday with the Acting Foreign Minister, that you have resolutely followed the policy of having no troops outside your own country.

Let us pause there. Can he be serious? Has he never heard of the Chinese road through Laos to Thailand, for example, guarded when I was there last year by 5,000 front-line Chinese troops with surfacetoair missiles? What of Tibet? What of the Indian border? What of the Chinese volunteers in North Korea and Chinese support for the terrorist movement in Malaya? There was not a whisper of all this. Can it be that the Leader of the Opposition has already ceded Laos to China? He orates:

You have resolutely followed the policy of having no troops outside your own country.

Then comes his incredible comment:

May I add that we were very impressed today, following our request to your Acting Foreign Minister that we be given a copy of Chairman Mao’s eight principles for extending assistance to other countries. In particular, we were impressed by the principle that you do not seek to dominate any country to which you extend aid. . . .

No wonder the Communist accolade of acceptance now touches his bowed head. The Leader of the Opposition said:

You have a very correct understanding of our principles. 1 wonder whether Ted Hill, in his wildest dreams, ever expected to receive such praise. What fools the rest of the world really are! Fancy the peoples of the United Arab Republic not understanding that the Maoist guerillas, trying to oust their governments by the use of murder and terror, are just good Chinese social workers! Fancy the African leaders, who have seen the fruits of the huge Chinese embassies in their countries in blood, rape and fratricide, not understanding that this was just rendering assistance. What a pity that the Tibetans did not see the real values of the incursion which wiped out a thousand years of independence and cultural and religious autonomy. What a fool Lee Kwan Yew was when he spoke about his fear of going through the Communist mincing machine. Perhaps the Chinese soldiers inside Laos were only playing and that Souvanna Phouma did not really understand his people’s true interests. Hookline and sinker, and the fish does not even know he is being played.

Chairman Mao has spoken, and the Leader of the Opposition is ‘deeply impressed’. Later he bought a little ‘Red Book’ to read for himself and to study for the next peace conference - such philosophies as ‘War is the continuation of politics … by other means’; ‘the seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution’. But to listen to the Leader of the Opposition one would think that China had been on a peace crusade for 20 years, and had been unjustly treated by the rest of the world. He left China trumpeting about Chinese honesty and reliability which he declared to be a watchword. Let me quote from a voice which the Leader of the Opposition must have forgotten, a man with one of the most distinguished and knowledgeable backgrounds on China of the wartime and immediate postwar period, a man who went with Mr Attlee as interpreter when the British Labour Party sent a mission to China in 1954. I refer to Michael Lindsay. He was one of the Australian academics who strove hard in the early 1950’s to establish peaceful and sensible relations with Peking. He himself supported the Communist cause and policy up to 1950. He said among other things:

One finds in Chinese publicity continual examples of statements designed to create hatred of America which are simply untrue. Such deliberate attempts to work up international hatred by false or exaggerated statements are fundamentally different from honest criticism and are quite incompatible with a desire for international goodwill.

As for Chinese-British Labour Government relations, surely the Leader of the Opposition remembers the calculated insults which the Chinese gave to Ministers and Parliament alike when they visited England in 1950. The left wing Labour magazine, the ‘Tribune’, summed up their behaviour as ‘the worst mannered delegation ever to visit this country’. Has the Leader of the Opposition forgotten all this? It makes nonsense and humbug of his obsequious protestations to Chou En-lai. He speaks of United States aggression and says nothing of Chinese aggression. He even stated to the Chinese:

You have resolutely followed the policy of having no troops outside your own country.

That is the statement of the Leader of the Australian Parliamentary Labor Party. But sitting on the same front bench is another senior and respected member of the Australian Labor Party Executive, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley). Let me quote to the House his exact words:

To praise Chinese genocide in Tibet as the elimination of feudalism, to attend peace congresses in China, to see wall pictures advocating hate of the outside world, and to come home and hold up China as the paragon of peace, as some members of the Party have done, extends this form of blindness a degree further. It looks like rationalised cowardice. Fortunately less has been heard since China’s attack on India . . .

I want to conclude with another assertion by Mr Beazley - and let his Leader neglect this warning at his peril; let Australia neglect it at its peril. Mr Beazley said:

Communism in Australia works for the withdrawal of the US military presence in South East

Asia, so that Communism abroad can occupy the vacuum. The Labor Party frankly does not attempt to answer this strategy.

That was nearly 5 years ago. From all that the Leader did in his visit to China and from all that he has said since, the Labor Party frankly still does not attempt to answer that strategy. Rather than answer it, the Labor Party increasingly adopts it. Members of the Labor Party have become supine pawns before the East Wind in a demonic game of Mah Jong, and the stakes are the freedom of this nation and of South East Asia.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I hope that the people listening to the broadcast of these proceedings have registered their strong disgust at the contribution this afternoon by a man of great intellectual capacity. After all, he holds a doctorate from somewhere or other and he is a highly placed member of this Parliament, being a Minister. He is a man who in personal and private conversation I have found to have intellectual gifts beyond the average. To hear the kind of speech we have heard this afternoon is a disgrace to this Parliament and it has been matched only by the speech of the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Listening to his speech this afternoon, one could say that the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) is lying stem-on to the waves of history; he has no understanding of what is happening. 1 can see him on the goldfields over 100 years ago, in the 1850s, leading the anti-Chinese riots at Lambing Flat. That is where they are trying to bring us, those people who are standing against all the tides of history. The Minister for the Navy is not even consistent as a scholar in his approach to the study of Chairman Mao, because if he were he would recall that the same principles were espoused by his own former Leader, the right honourable Sir Robert Gordon Menzies. The Minister is getting congratulations now from the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) who must be the greatest eccentric who has ever hit this place when it comes to parliamentary discussion. The Minister said that Chairman Mao, who is a dreadful fellow, said:

War is the continuation of politics … by other means.

They are terrible thoughts, and I agree with the Minister that they are terrible thoughts. But I was in this House some 12 or 13 years ago when the knight of the Cinque Ports was reported as having said in London - he was not prepared to say it here - ‘We must be robust, sensible, firm’. That meant that we had to drop bombs on the people of Cairo. The continuing theme of the Government’s approach to foreign policy, to history and to everything else has been that if you cannot convince them, bomb them.

This debate on foreign policy is not a debate about China alone, ft is true that the Chinese exercise at the present time has captured the imagination of people because of the initiative of the Australian Labor Party. Let me pay a compliment to the 2 wings involved. I compliment not only the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) who led the delegation, and led it with great effect, one which made an impact upon the world stage, but also the Executive of the Labor Party which initiated the delegation. It came from the mainspring of the Australian Labor Party itself, lt was the embodiment of the ideas and ideals that somehow we hope to get across to the world, that the people of it belong to one world no matter what their politics. What the world of the 1970s will be like should be the subject of this debate.

I think I should remind those people who are listening, who read Hansard and who consider these things that this afternoon we heard a dreadful speech from the honourable member for Wannon. He was back pedalling to get into the Ministry. I think it was the worst speech he has made since he came to this Parliament. He attacked the Leader of the Opposition not for his policies or activities; he attacked him in person, in every possible malicious way. Honourable members opposite are introducing McCarthy ism in preparation for the next election. It is going to be the China Premier election, or something of that sort. For heaven’s sake, can we not grow out of that? Can we not for once face the issues confronting the world at large? Can we not forget all these mischievous and malicious things that have been used by honourable members opposite as a part of their history?

The real point is that on the other side of the chamber there is a deep and lasting envy for the initiative which the Leader of the Opposition took in conjunction with the Labor Party - it is just plain straight envy. Those who cared to consider politics at that time only had to look first at the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) whingeing his way around Europe, trying to knock his way through the doors of the European Common Market and being rejected at every point, and then at the triumphant visit of the Leader of the Opposition to Asia, including not only China but Japan and other countries. He was stepping with the currents of history. The Deputy Prime Minister was of course going against the tide. But let us make it quite clear now that if the issue of the next election is the McCarthyism which we have heard here this afternoon we will take the Government on. We are warned now; let the people of Australia be warned. That is no way to conduct the affairs of this nation. One only has to look back to the black record of the 1950s in America to see how it blossomed and faded and was condemned, and that is what will happen to my colleagues opposite.

We have taken the initiative in these matters and the honourable member for Wannon can do what he likes. Australia will never look at the China issue the same way again. No matter what is said the cynicism, the insincerity and the insensitivity of the last 10 or 15 years of foreign policy have been exposed for all time. For example, the Minister for the Navy talked about the inconsistencies or the illegalities, or whatever it was, of the position of China and Taiwan. He remarked about the acceptance by the Leader of the Opposition - not exactly the acceptance - but the acknowledgment of the position taken by China that Taiwan was a province of China. He denounces this. Chiang Kaishek for years has said, and this Government has accepted it, that China apparently and Taiwan are of the one part. If Taiwan is a part of China - and I do not necessarily accept this view myself; but in the legality of the world this is the way it goes- Chaing Kai-shek has no right to be the government of Taiwan and we have been supporting an illegal government there. But we could argue the inconsistencies of the Minister’s position all the afternoon.

The other dreadful exposure as I see it is the letters which were tabled by the Prime Minister - the letters that requested our support in Vietnam. The documents comprise a letter dated 29th April 1965 sent by the Australian Ambassador to the Republic of Vietnam headed by Dr Phan Huy Quat, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Vietnam and a reply from him. The first sentence of Dr Quat’s letter states:

I have the honour to refer to your letter of today’s date confirming the Australian Government’s offer to send to Vietnam an infantry battalion of 800 men. . .

This document has exposed the lie of 6 or 7 years, of 2,500 wounded and of a country divided. It has exposed the absolute and continuing lie. There is no other description. This is not the kind of word I like to apply to my colleagues on one side or the other. But that to me exposes the lie of the last 6 or 7 years - the dreadful and tragic lie. That is what the people of Australia have to ponder at.

What we ought to be doing this afternoon, is trying to establish some principles for what might be the new look of a new world. We on this side have felt that the new world was with us some 20 years or so ago. But it is obvious now that things are different, that the world is not the same, that we cannot look at the Asia phobia, of the hordes from the north that were going to come down and submerge us all. We cannot develop the China neurosis any more. We cannot look at China that way because no-one else in the world will accept it. We cannot look to 1942 and the United States alliance and all the things that the Americans were supposed to have saved us from then. The American alliance has been one of the continuing themes in attempting to prejudice the self reliance of Australia. I am for alliances but I have no faith in them. The American alliance has been one of the sacred cows of Australian politics for years. Now at last even the Government is starting to believe that it is one of those sacred cows that will never come home at milking time.

Then we have claims about Communists submerging this part of the world. What is it all about? Why was the honourable member for Wannon speaking this way this afternoon? He was speaking to get Australian Democratic Labor Party preferences at the next election. What was the Minister for the Navy doing? He was speaking to protect his DLP preferences at the next election. I hope that the people of Australia will reject them with disgust.

There has been a total change in the world. Back in the 1930s, it is true, the world was an imperialist one run mostly from Europe. Decisions to be made in Delhi were made in London; decisions to be made in Hanoi or Saigon were made in Paris; decisions to be made in Djakarta were made at The Hague; and the world was totally different. We have to look at it in a new way. No-one on this side knows what all the answers are. We know that the world is made up of cantankerous and obstreperous people, of people who are full of sentimental imperialist attitudes; of the Indonesians who want West Irian, not for the best benefit of the Papuans themselves but because it is part of their sentimental attachment. I believe that in a way the attitudes of the Chinese, whether it is Taiwan to the mainland or the mainland to Taiwan, belong to this mode of thought - sentimental imperialism is the term I would give it. It is not based on a consideration of human needs; it is based upon some flow-on from historical attitudes. This is what it is about in Ireland. This is why the Spanish want Gibraltar.

We do not have to accept that from anyone. We should stand in the world with a vision of our own. This is a world of change and I think Australia can offer something completely different. In this total change - in this watershed of history of the last 20 years - for heaven’s sake can we not get with it for a change? I believe the principles we have applied, or that we are hoping to apply in the development of an independent nation in Papua New Guinea and our attitude to Nauru, are the way in which we have to encourage the rest of the world to go. We are not so helpless.

For 15 years I have sat here and heard it - the American alliance, to be saved from the surges from the north, cringing down in the south east corner of the continent, waiting for someone to save us. It is all rubbish. We on this side of the House have never believed in it. We are not help less. In the world at large battleships do not count for much any more. It will not matter how many ships of the Russians sail around in the Indian Ocean. They will not harm anyone unless someone organises a war. In that case all they have to do is press the trigger and then it will not matter how far away they are in modern terms.

First of all, international affairs must be the politics of persuasion. Power will not work any more. All the power of the United States and all the power of the Russians cannot make the Egyptians and the Israelis come to terms until they decide to do so themselves, not that the two great powers could not demoralise them and demolish them in 5 minutes, but because it cannot really happen like that any more.

I recall some 6 or 7 years ago speaking in Yugoslavia to a senior Yugoslav who said to me: ‘Russia just has no influence now. It is just another big power.’ What we have to realise is that there is in fact an effective world opinion that can work in causes of good. I know that this is an optimistic view of things. But as recently as the last 18 months - or the last 12 months - both Spain and Russia, neither of them notably perceptive or receptive of world opinion, refrained from executing people because of an outcry of world opinion. There is a world public opinion. I do not have time this afternoon to debate it or really to explain it all, but it is there in the history books of the last 20 years for those who wish to look. This is the influence we would have on China if we could get that country into the United Nations. We should get them into the United Nations and when they are there, we could resolve the problem of Taiwan in some other way. That is for them to resolve between them. I for one will take no part in the trading of people, no matter whosoever they are. It is a decision for the people of Taiwan to make on their own behalf; it is for the people of the world to protect their right to make it. But we have done very little about this matter so far. No-one can say that rump of a government in Taiwan is a really representative sample of what a government should be.

But this afternoon, and in continuing debates, there has been a total exposure of the hypocrisy of the people opposite.

They care nothing for anyone unless the Americans have cared first. Who cares what is happening to Cambodia? Not a sound is heard, not a funeral note is heard for the Cambodians who have committed no sins at all. They have been wrapped up in a war in which we have participated and aggravated and no-one cares. What about the people of Laos. What about the thousands of refugees whom our committee saw last year. Have they their blankets and ground sheets yet? Of course they have not. There is not a tear to be shed for the people of East Pakistan. If there was one liberation front that had a claim to have absolute and unqualified public support it is the people of East Pakistan. But there is not a sound from us, not a tear from the Prime Minister. No delegation is going off to say to Yahya Khan: ‘Can you not just stop this now?’ There is not a sound. What have we said about the Suez Canal and trying to correct the situation there? What have we done to try to convince the Indonesians that they ought not to be acting in the way they are? In West Irian there are lots of things that one could say. But I want to make clear the difference between ourselves and the people opposite.

We start from an air of optimism; members on the other side operate from pessimism. We believe that it is possible to have a co-operative world; members on the other side of the House believe that they can solve problems by political and military power. We recognise that we live in a world of change while members opposite are looking backwards and trying to step back into the past. There is no place in the Government of this country for people who hold those views and I hope those honourable members opposite who still are sensitive to some of the decencies of Australian politics will tread as hard as they can on those people we heard here this afternoon - the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner), the honourable member for Wannon, the Minister for the Navy and the disgraceful McCarthyist attacks on the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– I will not involve myself in the arguments that the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) put forward tonight because we have heard them all before. They have been strung out. 1 have before me a speech that 1 made in 1968 from which I was going to quote and 1 see that on that day I followed the same honourable member and his speech was a similar sort of song, a constant regurgitation of cliches, catch-cries and slogans, but put forward with this spiritual soul-searching in which he casts aspersions on the Government and charges that we have not got the sympathy, the thinking or the feel of the pulse of the nation. We have heard it before. He has never understood. He has never tried to understand. The only accuracy that was contained in the speech of the honourable member for Wills was the very passing remark and reference to Cambodia, and I give him credit for what he said when he visited there last year. But he stuck his neck out, he got it chopped and he has been back in his burrow on the subject ever since. But I give him credit for having brought it forward to the nation last year and it is a pity that others have not followed him.

Mr Bryant:

– I hope my electors did not hear you praise me.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I would not praise you for anything else but you deserve praise for that one utterance and that is all. I want to refer briefly to the announcement of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) last night in which he stated that we as a Government would now be withdrawing all remaining combat forces from Vietnam. I will be very brief in what I say because, as I said at question time, I wish to pay tribute to those who have served and are still serving in Vietnam. We committed troops for a number of reasons, among them being, it should be recalled, to maintain our alliance and treaty obligations, because it was a strategically vital area, and also to permit the South Vietnamese to choose their own form of government and not to have terror and coercion imposed upon them from North Vietnam. A great deal has been achieved and the large number of soldiers who have participated there deserve, as I say, the reference that I made at question time this morning. Theirs has been an unenviable role but they have played it in the best tradition of the Australian Army. Apart from the Army’s important and direct military assistance it as an institution has built up a great and substantial record of assistance in Vietnam in the field of military civic action and perhaps insufficient credit has been given to it for this. It too has reflected the increasing involvement of the South Vietnamese themselves.

Vietnamisation has tended to become the sort of catchcry that is used for the justification of many activities, but in governmental action, in the capacity of the South Vietnamese forces to defend themselves and in the field of assistance and social welfare policies this Government in South Vietnam is beginning to reach out to the people to an extent that it never had before. We have encouraged this and in this field of civic action we encouraged a move by the Government of South Vietnam for the further decentralisation of self-development funds to village councils. This is the sort of thing we have been espousing in encouraging the South Vietnamese to obtain greater access and control over the area. In April this year in Phuoc Tuy alone the Province Development Committee was established with the role of meeting monthly to review development in the province and to consider priorities and proposals for inclusions in the province development plan. So the whole range of our civic action efforts, whether they be in the field of housing, medical and dental work or educational, agricultural or village developmental work, is a successful record of which the Australian Army can be proud.

A military commitment buys time. I think I recall the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Beazley) using that expression once many years ago. He said that a military commitment essentially buys time. The Opposition was not even prepared to give this tiny country the time in which to develop, stabilise and reach out into the area that it now controls. It was a small country that had suffered wars for centuries and that had dictatorial groups in power. There were no such things as elections but they have now been given this opportunity. They have been given the opportunity to reach out and hold elections. Prior to the commitment there had been virtually no liaison between the Government and the people. But this tiny country has been given the chance to establish itself and we have made a contribution that allows it to have that chance, a chance that the Opposition would have denied, the chance that the Opposition would have tried to scuttle away from if it had had the opportunity and not assisted in the stabilisation of the area.

I have paid credit to the Australian Army which is primarily what I wanted to do today, the day after the announcement by the Prime Minister. I now refer to the speech made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) yesterday and in particular to this statement:

For Australia and our neighbours, (his changing pattern of relationships offers new challenges and new opportunities. It calls for policies that are sensitive, flexible and imaginative. At this time Australia is seeking to broaden its relations with the Soviet Union and to normalise its relations wilh the People’s Republic of China.

The Minister went on:

We are giving particular attention to the development of our relations with Japan. We continue, of course, to attach the first importance to our relations with the United States.

In other words, there is a need for us to call forth the new perceptions required to meet these contemporary issues and not to grandstand on an international stage in the manner of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). The Minister continued:

We recognise that the establishment of full and normal relations with the People’s Republic of China on mutually acceptable terms will bc a difficult and perhaps protracted exercise.

But obviously the Leader of the Opposition believes that matters such as these can be changed overnight without regard to the ramifications of important international affairs and without regard to the important ramifications which must obviously occur in the field of international relations and within the world power struggle itself.

The House will remember, of course, that the Prime Minister has praised the Nixon initiative and said that Australia in fact had been seeking a normalisation of relations with China since October last year. The Prime Minister was at pains to warn that the initiative itself did not automatically mean the end of conflict in the South East Asian region, for we have to keep matters in perspective, a concept and viewpoint that the members of the Opposition tend to forget. It must be admitted that some of the pundits have tended, together with members of the Opposition, to get carried away by the possible implications of both the Nixon visit and the possibilities of Australia’s dialogue with

China. Although it may be one of the most exciting and hopeful moves in world diplomacy for more than a decade it does not mean the whole world is going to change directly and immediately as a consequence.

In his recent statement the Prime Minister said:

We have no hostility to the great Chinese people whose history and culture have contributed so much to the achievements of mankind.

I would thoroughly endorse this remark. I would now like to examine briefly the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean to the peoples of South East Asia and China. The Indian Ocean is immensely important to Australia. Because it touches 3 continents - Australia, Asia and Africa - it is the centrepiece for the underdeveloped world. The Indian Ocean, if you like, is the Afro-Asian Ocean. It is the ocean of economic under-development. It is the ocean of the new nations and therefore an area of compulsive change; the testing ground for the new political and economic patterns of the post imperial world. China has-

Mr Morrison:

– Who wrote that?

Mr PEACOCK:

– I wrote it myself. I do not want a second-rate stooge who left the Department such as yourself to write my material. I was able to write it myself and 1 am proud of what I am putting forward.

Mr Morrison:

– I find that remark objectionable and I ask for a withdrawal.

Mr PEACOCK:

– 1 withdraw the reference to ‘second-rate stooge’. Perhaps I should replace it with ‘first-rate stooge’.

Mr Kennedy:

– Will you debate the matter with the honourable member?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! I ask honourable members on the Opposition side to cease interjecting.

Mr PEACOCK:

– I withdraw the remark and add that I do not normally speak in those terms. I regret the description used. I had said that this is a testing ground for new, political and economic patterns of the post-imperial world. China has a vital interest in the future of the Indian Ocean, as has Russia. China aims to try to prevent the Russian naval presence becoming too formidable. As a result this has affected her recent dealings with a number of South East Asian countries, particularly Ceylon. As the tensions of the surrounding land masses of the Indian Ocean - the surrounding land masses reflected very well in that ocean - are changing more dramatically and turbulently so is the present conflict for influence over that ocean. In the Pacific and in the Atlantic there is a simple adjustment of existing power but in the Indian Ocean a complex adjustment of new powers is taking place and all this is happening in a climate of insecurity and unpredictability.

China, if not yet a world power, is clearly concerned that her presence should be felt throughout the world as a power of consequence, as a revolutionary leader, and as a potential trading partner, and in the exercise of her diplomacy against Russia strategically, against Taiwan in undercutting its voting strength in the United Nations and against India, its Asian neighbour, with which it has its longest boundary. All her interests direct attention to the Indian Ocean. Her mountainous west which historically protected the central kingdom now limits the newly extrovert People’s Republic and the balance of her population reinforces her communications pattern in making her look outward to the sea in terms of trade and travel. China’s landward links with West Asia and East Europe would cross Russian territory and therefore create dependence on Russian terms. For China the Indian Ocean means cheapness, bulk transport and freedom of the seas.

China has no interest in Russian domination of the Indian Ocean. Her presence in the Indian Ocean gives her another line of pressure on India. And her active interest in West Asia and East Africa depends on access by sea. We should bear that in mind.

The scare diplomacy of China in the 1960s was expressed by Premier Chou En-lai in 1961 when he said that Africa was ripe for revolution. This concern is now being replaced by the long term diplomacy of a more settled China; of cooperation with friendly governments, irrespective of ideology, lt is apparent therefore that this scare diplomacy which emanated from China during the middle 1960s and in particular at the time of the cultural revolution is changing, which is not surprising because the cultural revolution was the greatest disaster China has faced, lt is my contention that China has a vital interest in ensuring that the Russians do not gain a dominant presence in the Indian Ocean and this is primarily the motivating factor in her relationships and the seeking of a detente as it would be with the Western world.

A continuing British presence has been accepted in South East Asia in the form of a combined ANZUK force which is being established in Singapore and a 5- power consultative agreement on the defence of Singapore and Malaysia. This is a great step forward. It is, of course, an alliance which will not stop change but rather it will seek to delay or control change by ensuring that such change is by negotiation rather than by violence.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– The Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) has just dished out a rather aggressive insult to the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison). In his speech the Minister painted a very rosy picture of civilian aid by his Department in Vietnam. I point out to the people of Australia who are listening to this broadcast that the Minister was 26 years of age when Australia became involved in the war in Vietnam but he, like other Liberal Party supporters, was not prepared to put on a uniform and go to Vietnam. He was, however, prepared to conscript other people’s children. Apparently he prefers to lie on Sheridan sheets in his home in Melbourne than to spend his time lying around the swamps and jungles in Vietnam.

Mr Giles:

– What did you do in World War II?

Mr JAMES:

– You know what I have advocated and you know what I have done. The Minister for the Army may have been afraid of losing his standing as one of Australia’s best groomed men. He gained a great deal of publicity from that. This debate has been an interesting one for this Parliament and it will be for the benefit of Australia. The Australian people as a whole sighed with relief at the Government’s decision to withdraw Australian troops from Vietnam. I want to make some reference to the remarks of some Government supporters who still cling to the hawkish line in international affairs. This afternoon the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) appeared to have some feeling of repentance at the Government’s action in connection with conscription. It was only a matter of time before this Government would change its policy on conscription because public opinion polls have shown a swing against the Government from month to month because of its continued policy on conscription. The honourable member for Lyne said that not only had members of the Opposition placed a great strain on the Government in connection with its Vietnam policy but that other honourable members had felt the same way. I interpret his remark as one of repentance and regret. The honourable member, like other honourable members on the Government side, has never had the courage to stand and denounce the Government as did the late Senator Hannaford, who resigned from the Libera] Party because of the Government’s Vietnam policy. The Government is positively defensive in regard to its South East Asian policy and particularly its nonrecognition of the People’s Republic of China. The Government is concerned at its loss of substantial wheat sales to China. Australian wheat sales to China were 31 per cent to 33 per cent of our total production which represents only li per cent of the total consumption of wheat by the people of China. I have heard Government supporters say that they would not sell any wheat to China; that they would sooner let the people of China starve. That is a ridiculous statement to make when one looks at our wheat sales to China. This Government is worried because of the crisis which exists in the rural industry.

Members of the Country Party have stretched the loyalty of their supporters to breaking point and it is doubtful whether the Government’s supporters in urban areas will continue to support it in the future. This will be due to the successful mission of the Australian Labor Party delegation to China a short time ago. Members of the Government always purposely refrain from telling the truth about China. Prior to the Communist Government coming to power, the average life expectancy in China was 28 to 30 years. Women had to sell their children, the new born babies, in the street by the pound. This was a chaotic and distressing situation which should reach the heart of the most steely man.

This situation brought the Communist Party into power. These things no longer exist in the People’s Republic of China, which I visited in 1962. I have been the Vice-President of the New South Wales Branch of the Australian-China Friendship Society for some years and 1 am proud to hold that position, in my mind, China is not an aggressive nation. There are numerous books in the library that honourable members on the Government side will not allow themselves to read.

Mr Turnbull:

– What about Tibet?

Mr JAMES:

– There is an interjection from a member of the Australian Country Party about Tibet. One of the most talented men in the Department of Foreign Affairs resigned and wrote a book on Tibet entitled ‘In Fear of China’. It would do the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull), who interjected, good to read that book. Tibet was always a part of China. Another book on Tibet that is worth reading is by Alan Winnington, an English writer, entitled ‘Slaves of the Cool Mountains’. He tells that slaves bred slaves, hobbled them like horses and put them out into the fields to work so that they would not have to put guards on them. This was under the old Dalai Lama rule. The Chinese have removed that type of slavery from Tibet. Tibet was always a part of China and the people of Tibet are better off today under direct Chinese rule than they were under the old Dalai Lama rule. I would put more faith in the writings crf that outstanding Australian diplomat, Gregory Clark, in his book ‘In Fear of China’, which is here for any honourable member to look at, than I would in what honourable members opposite say about China.

China has been criticised by members of the Government for its so-called aggressive attitude towards India. There is any amount of evidence available in the Parliamentary Library to show that China was correct in defining her borders with India. China had border disputes round about the time that she came into conflict with India. She had border disputes with Burma, Nepal and Pakistan. I have seen copies of the letters that the Chinese Government wrote to the governments of those countries, asking for a round table conference to define their borders because China bad no defined borders with them after the Communist Government took over the country from the old corrupt, crooked Chiang Kai-shek regime. The governments of Burma, Nepal and Pakistan conferred round the conference table, and the border disputes between those countries and China were cleaned up in a proper, peaceful manner. But the letters written by the Chinese Government to India were never answered by the Indian Government.

India is not lily white. No questions were raised in this Parliament when the Indians walked into Goa a matter of three or four years ago. There were protests by the Portuguese Government, particularly to Britain asking Britain whether she was going to stand by and allow this to happen without her using her good offices with India. Portugal threatened to break off a treaty which she had had with Britain for many years under which British warships were allowed to use bases in Portugal. But there was no criticism in this Parliament of India’s aggressive attitude towards the colony of Goa. I made some study of the conflict between India and China over the McMahon line and I believe, as many important world figures who have made greater studies than I have - British people - that China was correct over the border dispute with India and the McMahon line.

Dr Everingham:

– There are the writings of Bertrand Russell.

Mr JAMES:

– Yes, there was Bertrand Russell, who had a great deal of respect from people all over the world for his independent, forthright opinions. We have heard so much about this Chinese bogey for so long, but now some of the truth is starting to come out. It is strange that noone ever objected from the Government side of this Parliament about China’s purchase of £Stg 17m worth of rubber from Malaya almost annually in approximately the last 7 years. If rubber cannot be regarded as strategic material I do not know how else it can be regarded. We have adopted a stupid attitude in offending these people when we depend on other countries to buy our goods and so maintain our standard of living. I believe that the rural community is seriously in doubt as to whether it will place its loyalties with members of the Country Party, due to that Party’s attitude to China in the years gone by.

As the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) said this afternoon, honourable members opposite are living in fear of losing the preferences of the Democratic Labor Party. China seems to be getting on well with many of the smaller countries, as the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Kirwan) said this afternoon. China has recently exchanged diplomatic relations with Chile. She is improving her relations with Portugal and Spain, 2 countries often referred to by many Australians as Fascist countries. Austria and China have just agreed to institute diplomatic relations. 1 believe that this Government has left its run too late. We know that the Government is changing face and is going to vote for China’s admission to the United Nations, but I think it has left its run too late, because the Chinese realise, and they state, that we have been the puppets of the United States for too long. I think there is some merit in that accusation.

Also, China is giving a substantial grant of about $70m to one of the British Commonwealth countries, Ceylon. This is referred to in the ‘Far East Economic Review’ copies of which are available in the Parliamentary Library. It is true that China has the most powerful army in the world. But the Chinese army is equipped with small-scale weapons for defensive purposes. This was admitted by the Pentagon in an article in the ‘Far East Economic Review’ some 18 months or 2 years ago. It was pointed out in the same article that China had practically no air force, and what air force it did have was short of high octane fuel and spare parts. China has practically no navy. It has about 4 or 5 vintage Soviet submarines. What naval vessels it has are of shallow draft, to be used in shallow waters, not for carrying troops across the sea. This is the country that for many years has been held up as a great threat to Australia. When I was there I asked the Chinese people why they were arming themselves when they should give higher priority, I thought, to health and education. They pointed out that they had been invaded down through the centuries. They were building a defence force in case they were invaded again.

They said this to me in 1962. I think honourable members would admit, at least in private to their friends, that there was a move to invade North Vietnam and China by the Chinese lobby in the United States during the period of the Vietnam war. China is aware that she is virtually circumvented by American nuclear bases. Owing to her history, China is reluctantly pouring more money into defence than she would like to do.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Debate (on morion by Mr Reid) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 to 8 p.m.

page 353

AUSTRALIAN TRADE

Ministerial Statement

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Trade and Industry · Richmond · CP

– by leave - During the Parliamentary recess I undertook a visit to most of the major trading nations of the world. The timing of the visit was most appropriate, as this year could prove a watershed for world trade, and certainly for Australian trade. Total world trade has expanded quite remarkably since the war. Under the auspices of International Monetary Fund and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, there has been a diminution of barriers to imports and there has been an acceptance of the principle of multilateralism - that is, equal opportunity for all. The spectacular success has occurred in the field of industrial products with trade growing at 10 per cent a year. However, in the field of agriculture, the growth in trade has been relatively much slower and progress towards trade liberalisation almost negligible. In the circumstances, a nation like Australia, which in the late 1940s derived some 87 per cent of its export income from agricultural products, clearly had to adjust its trade. In this we have been successful. Agricultural products now represent only 52 per cent of our exports; manufactures have risen from less than 5 per cent in 1948-49 to 19 per cent now, and minerals have become a significant contributor to our exports. That is the pattern of the past. It would be unduly optimistic, in the light of my overseas experience, to believe that the future holds anything other than a continuing difficulty in increasing the share of agriculture in world trade and hence there is an increasing necessity for us to diversify.

One of the major factors which will impinge upon our trade over the next few years is the decision by the United Kingdom to seek to enter the European Common Market. This is not of course the first occasion when Britain has sought entry. However, it is the first time that the stage has been reached where conditions of entry have been agreed between ‘ the Six and Britain. It remains for the British Parliament to make a decision whether or not to accept the terms negotiated. This decision ‘ should be made in October this year. The decision is an important one for Britain, for Europe and the whole world. A united Western Europe should bring stability to an area which historically has been the origin of most major world conflicts. All Western countries have acknowledged the value to the future peace and stability of the world if the vision of a unified Europe can be realised. The problem which Britain’s entry causes for Australia arises principally from the fact that the EEC in the field of agriculture remains one of the most restrictive import markets in the world. Against this, Britain probably has been the largest free market for agriculture in the past, and it is the market to which most of Australia’s food exports traditionally have been oriented. The future policies on the British market are therefore of critical importance to many Australian agricultural industries. Therefore, I regard my visit to Europe as particularly useful in a number of ways.

I was able personally to become acquainted with my counterparts in the Governments of Britain and the EEC countries, especially those having direct responsibilities towards the negotiations for Britain to enter the EEC. I was able to find out at first hand just what had been agreed upon in the negotiations and what were the outstanding issues. I made certain that the Australian point of view on matters of vital interest to us was known to the parties to the negotiations. I was able to assess the significance for Australia of the terms that were likely to be agreed upon in the negotiations. Clearly, we must face the fact that the favoured position we have enjoyed for so long in the British market will disappear.

We will face new barriers for our products, raising quite serious problems for some industries. We will need to review the favoured position we currently accord Britain in our market. These matters will bring about quite significant changes in our overseas trading pattern.

As the honourable members who have followed the statements I made during the visit and upon my return will be aware,, there was one matter - a very important matter - which disappointed me greatly. This was the apparent lack of adequate arrangements to look after Australia’s trade interests in Britain during the transitional period. Over the years Australia has made known to the British Government, the Governments of the Member States of the Community and to the Commission of the EEC. the problems that would arise for Australian trade interests if reasonable conditions of entry for Britain were not achieved. Australia did not claim - as New Zealand could - that irreparable damage could occur to the national economy. I emphasised the point that some continuing access to the British market was needed during the transitional period in order to enable the Australian industries concerned to have time to adjust to the new situation inherent in Britain becoming a member of the Common Market.

In my talks with the British Government, I concentrated my representations on the lack of precise provisions for the phasingout over the transitional period .of the access provided for Australian exports to Britain by our Trade Agreement with Britain. When the Australian Government had previously informed the British Government of its concern about the effects of British entry on Australia, we had been told that Britain would seek in the negotiations, for Australia’s benefit, the longest possible transitional period. For example, Mr Rippon, Britain’s Ministerial negotiator, when in Canberra last September, after having had intense and concentrated consultations with the Australian Government, publicly stated at a speech to the National Press Club and I am quoting from the official release: 1 am well aware of how vital this matter is for some of your farmers in economic and human terms. I promise you that we shall treat it extremely carefully and seriously in close consultation wilh your Government. This is, when all is said and done, a matter of mutual concern. We have made it plain that we shall seek the longest possible transitional period in which to resolve these initial impact difficulties. It was therefore with some considerable dismay that in Europe I found that, during the negotiations in May, the British delegation accepted an arrangement which, while affording a transitional period for British agriculture and for raising food prices in Britain, faces Australia with the pospect of possible immediate exclusion from the British market for some of our traditional exports and harsh consequences for many others. Although problems for third countries are foreseen, no specific provision was made which would ensure any firm or predictable degree of access for Australia over the transitional period.

Up till the May negotiations, we had been told that the British were seeking a phasing-in of what is known as the principle of community preference. This principle is inherent in the full application of the Community’s common agricultural policy. It means that suppliers from the member states should be allowed to sell in each other’s markets at prices lower than those possible for supplier’s from third countries whose prices are held up to a threshold price level by the application of variable levies. This community preference is not a preference in the generally accepted sense of the word - for example, a tariff preference - because outside suppliers cannot overcome the disadvantage of the preference by lowering their prices. This would only mean an increase in the variable levies.

However, after the meeting in May, we were told that as part of the negotiations the British had agreed that upon entry to the Community - generally regarded as being 1st January 1973 - they would adopt the mechanisms of the Common Agricultural Policy and would apply in full the principle of Community Preference. Furthermore, British quantitative import restrictions, which give some assurance of access for outside suppliers of some products, would be terminated from that date.

This means that for products subject to the Common Agricultural Policy, Australian exports to Britain will face variable levies right from the beginning of the transitional period. Community suppliers will be able to undersell Austraiian pro ducts because of the operation of Community Preference. Quantitative restrictions which have assured access for Australian butter, cheese and apples will be abolished right from the beginning of the transitional period. The one exception is sugar, where Britain had already committed herself under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to continue as contracted until 31st December 1974. After that, Australian exports will be subject to transitional arrangements which have not yet been fully worked out. Britain’s adoption of the CAP for sugar also has far-reaching implications of the International Sugar Agreement.

For products which are to be subject to the Common External Tariff, rather than the CAP, the transitional period will provide some relief for Australian exports to Britain, but within 12 months of the operation of the transitional period, supplies of most of the products concerned originating from the members of the Community will receive a preference over outside suppliers.

When I stressed the serious implications these provisions would have for Australia’s exports of primary products, particularly for products like butter and sugar, the British pointed out that, in agreeing to the arrangements I have just mentioned, they had obtained from the Six an understanding in relation to a safeguard clause to be used in the event of a disruption or threat of disruption of the trade of third countries. This safeguard clause provides that, if circumstances arise during the transitional period in which significant volumes of trade risk serious disruption, the enlarged Community will take effective action to deal with the situation. I have been given to understand this to mean that the enlarged Community would so manage its complicated protective system as to avoid too big or too sharp reductions in the trade of third countries.

The British Government asserts that the safeguard clause will be better from the point of view of protecting Australian trade interest during the transitional period than provisions for the gradual phasing-in of community preference together with a gradual phasing-out of quantitative restrictions. Honourable members will recall that whilst in London I referred publicly to the disappointment I had when I learnt of the terms that had been agreed upon in the negotiations. Australia was not party to the negotiations and there was little else to be done. I made strenuous efforts to see whether changes could be made and I also expressed grave concern that we were told of the change in the British negotiating position only after they had agreed to the terms so that we had no chance of influencing the course of the negotiations on this point.

This must all be accepted as history. We must now look to the future. Trie safeguard clause is what we have to protect our interests. The Australian Government accepted in good faith the statements from the parties to the negotiations that the transitional period would provide for the gradual adjustment by third country suppliers like Australia to the full conditions of access implicit upon Britain joining the Community. Britain has negotiated with the Six the safeguard clause as the way of achieving this. From now on Australia will be taking all possible steps to ensure that if a situation of the kind envisaged by the safeguard clause is developing, the enlarged Community will take prompt and effective action to remedy the situation.

In my discussions overseas about Britain and the EEC I also reiterated the point previously made that measures should be adopted to ensure that exports from the Territory of Papua New Guinea are not placed at a disadvantage relative to imports into the enlarged Communities from other developing countries receiving special treatment. I have already said that Australia could not claim, as New Zealand did, that her economy was dependent on continued access to the British market for one or two primary commodities. By hard perseverance with Britain and the Six, New Zealand was able to persuade Britain to negotiate arrangements for continued, but decreasing, access for dairy products into Britain during the transitional period at least. I think that it should be recognised by all concerned that Australia had decided not to take any action which would hamper the New Zealand Government in obtaining recognition of the very special need to safeguard New Zealand’s trade interests.

We recognised that the decision to join the European Economic Community is for Britain and the other parties to the negotiations to take. We have stressed that in negotiating the terms for British entry and afterwards, the members of the enlarged Community should see to it that the Community plays a full and responsible role in international trade matters consistent with its position of the world’s largest trading entity.

If and when the expanded EEC becomes a reality, it, together with those countries which are likely to be associated wilh it, will account for something like 40 per cent of the world trade, covering in all about 70 countries. This will be the most significant factor in the future of world trade which could operate in bringing about a new era. The responsibility is a heavy one, and as yet the EEC as such has shown no real signs of acknowledging that responsibility. Amongst the commissioners and staff of the EEC. and indeed amongst the governments of the Six, I did find an awakening recognition of the significance of the EEC for world trade and the fact that so far the EEC has created particular problems for trade in agricultural products. However, during the formative years the internal problems of constructing such a vast enterprise have tended to concentrate the attention of the countries on their own interna] problems. This means that despite the liberal outlook that individuals might have, the decision-making processes of the EEC have resulted so far in inward-looking decisions. It is important to the future of all world trade that, as time goes on, the liberal forces within the EEC make themselves felt more and more, resulting in the adoption by the expanded EEC of more outward-looking policies than in the past.

In the United States I also found a concern for the future of world trade related to the policies of the EEC both in protection for agriculture and the spread of new preferential agreements. The other particular concern in the United States is with the protective policies of Japan. These reflect the continuing problems which the United States has been experiencing in its balance of payments which have led to the serious measures which were announced by the President this week. These measures, oh the trade side, included the imposition of a temporary import levy of 10 per cent on about half of United States imports: Happily for Australia, some of our major exports to the United States-*-beef, sugar, alumina, beach sands, totalling about - 70 per cent of our exports - are exempt from the levy. However, the measures will have a marked effect on the trade with the United States of other countries such as Japan, and Australia’s exports of raw materials which are processed in Japan for re-export to the United States could be affected.

The one pleasing feature of the United States measures is that they have been clearly announced as temporary, to be removed when the causes of the current problems disappear. It had been feared that the rising protectionist sentiment in the United States, which arose because of the pressures on the United States trade balance, might result in the erection of permanent barriers to trade. This would be a setback to the whole trading world. Since the war the United States has been a leader in all the moves towards freer trade. The obvious answer now to the increasing protectionist sentiment would be a major international move designed to remove the current causes of friction. However, until the immediate and pressing problems are overcome the United States Administration would not be prepared to undertake to seek from Congress a mandate for such a major international move. Indeed, the climate in the United States is such that it would be difficult for any Bill designed to free trade to succeed.

While in the United States I explored the possibility of reopening the question of the United States wool duty which has so long been a thorn in the side of our own trade with the United States. Whilst I received a sympathetic hearing on the difficulties of the Australian wool industry and on the importance for us of some movement in the United States wool duty, I was given clearly to understand that in the current circumstances there was no prospect of legislative action designed to open the way for an agreement leading to the reduction of the wool duty.

I have mentioned the problems which the United States Government feels with the protection used by Japan against its goods. Japan is our most important trading partner and it does maintain protective devices which restrict the imports also of a number of Australain commodities. Although Australia-Japan trade has been growing rapidly in recent years, our two

Governments are agreed that there are prospects of further increasing that trade through co-operation and mutual consultation. Whilst in Japan I agreed with the Japanese Government to the establishment of a consultative committee dealing with economic matters, primarily trade, which will meet on a continuing basis and a: ministerial level to discuss the issues which arise between us. If we face the restriction on our markets in Europe following the entry of the United Kingdom into the EEC, we will need to place increasing reliance on our established ties with Japan, and we must attempt to ensure that this relationship is developed as much as possible.

Whilst overseas I also attended a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development at which Australia was invited to become a member. At that meeting it was agreed to establish a high-level study group consisting of a small number of very experienced and skilled men to prepare a study on the whole future of world trade. The mere fact that this study group has been established is a recognition that the main trading nations of the world recognise the dangers of the current situation and show a determination to look towards finding solutions in the future. We would expect the study group to report its findings within a year or so and this should be a blueprint towards the future development of international trading relations. It is therefore difficult now to ascertain where world trade policies will lead us in th2 future. One thing is clear. If the United Kingdom join the EEC then Australia will be on its own. We will no longer have our special trade relationship with the United Kingdom which has proved so valuable to us since the 1930s. I am sure that this country can stand on its own feet.

There is a clear prospect of disruption to some of our great primary industries through the complete or partial closure of their traditional market. This prospect gives us renewed incentives to continue to look elsewhere to develop markets in a world where consumption is expanding, and challenges us to find new ways of dealing with old problems. We may have to look to structural readjustment in some of our industries - a task which requires the joint effort of governments and the industries concerned. 1 am acutely conscious that such adjustments involve people - families and communities which have contributed their share to Australia’s prosperity and wellbeing for many years. lt may be seen as part of the process of change which in the last quarter )f a century this country has been able to accommodate itself to iri such a way that people - individuals - have not had to carry the burden alone. If the reshaping of Europe forces us to that kind of adjustment, it also holds out to us prospects for prosperity.

Since the EEC came into existence its trade with the rest of the world has grown, though not always in the area which we would have preferred; but it has grown nevertheless. Imports into the EEC have grown at the average annual rate of 9 per cent. The British, whose market is still enormous, argue that when they and the other applicants join the Community, their influence will be felt by an acceleration of growth of the total Community and and that this in turn will have a stimulating effect on world trade.

Though, as I have said, I have reservations about the effect of this union on world agricultural exports, and hence on ours, if the British are right then we as one of the world’s big traders must be among the biggest beneficiaries. We have the raw materials which that vast market accounting for something like 40 per cent of world trade will be looking for. Moreover, if we can sell over $120m worth of manufactures on a straight competitive basis in a vast manufacturing country like the United States- as we did in 1969-70- and nearly $800m to all world markets, we should not be pessimistic about our ability to be competitive also in Europe.

Because the enlarged Community will account for about 40 per cent of world trade, we must come to trading terms with this Community. I am confident that we can find ways of doing so even if it has to be in a somewhat different range of products from those which traditionally we have sold to Britain. Whilst I do not attempt to hide the fact that we will have to face increased barriers to trade in these products and make consequential adjustments, I am not letting that fact blind me to the possibilities that exist for Australia in the new European situation. Whilst Australia has so far not got much for its relentless pressure over the last 20 years for liberalisation of agricultural trade, it may well be that a change of the kind that is about to occur was needed to get the results in international organisations, like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and OECD, which have been eluding us for the last decade or more. I present the following paper:

Australian Trade - Ministerial statement, 19th August 197].

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 358

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to implement a scheme for the stabilisation of returns to apple and pear growers for a period of 5 years commencing with the 1971 crop. Industry leaders, after consultation with the industry generally, have indicated their very strong support for the scheme to which legislative expression is now sought to be given through this Bill and the associated Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Bil) 1971, the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Bill 1971 and the Apple and Pear Organization Bill 1971.

As honourable members well know, this Government never seeks to impose an orderly marketing or stabilisation scheme on an industry. The proposals for such a plan must be developed through a well tried and proven system of consultation and negotiations between the Government and an industry so that, when they are presented to the Parliament, it can be confidently affirmed that the proposals conform to the requirements of the Australian Constitution and to our responsibilities in the field of international trade; that they are legally and practically realistic and that their implementation is sought by the industry concerned. That it is possible today to bring down in this House a Bill to implement a scheme for the stabilisation of returns to apple and pear growers is a tribute to the common sense and spirit of co-operation which have marked discussions and negotiations between industry leaders and representatives of the Commonwealth for well over 3 years and which have led to the present position being reached.

When, those years ago, industry leaders and officers of my Department came together in this matter for the first time it was appreciated that there were many hurdles to be surmounted before a stabilisation scheme which would be fair to all parties and which could be presented to this Parliament could be evolved but the parties set to with a very definite aim of reaching agreement on the basis of such a plan if it could be found to be constitutionally, legally and practically possible. After discussions at the level of industry representatives and departmental officers had gone as far as they could go the industry leaders met with my predecessor, now the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) and subsequently with me, and the outcome of all these deliberations is the Bill which is presently before the Parliament.

It has been estimated that the scheme is likely to cost the Commonwealth in the order of $10m over the 5 years of its life and this gives some idea of the unfortunate position in which this industry finds itself. Because of this unfortunate position it is true that this stabilisation scheme and the likelihood of the subvention by the Commonwealth under the scheme of this $10m over 5 years will not provide solutions to all the industry’s problems. However, it is intended that the scheme will give a considerable measure of stability to the industry to assist it to examine its other problems and to take steps to meet them.

It is unusual in speaking to a Bill which will have application to the affairs of an industry which is spread over Australia to elaborate upon the particular circumstances of one State. However, I think that in the present context of the scheme proposed under this Bill I should perhaps draw attention to the particular importance of the apple and pear industry to Tasmania and in saying this I am not attempting to take away from the relative importance of the industry in some other States.

However, when I point out that the industry has a history of over a century in Tasmania and has been developed, since the introduction of refrigerated shipping, principally for export and that the value of the industry to the State’s economy has been in recent years between $16m and $20m annually, it will be appreciated just what the industry does mean to the island State. It is understood that the industry in Tasmania provides between 45 per cent and 60 per cent of agricultural earnings of the State and 12 per cent to 15 per cent of total income from rural primary industries including timber and mining. On average over the last 10 years Tasmania provided 36 per cent of Australian production of apples, but 71 per cent of exports; 7 per cent of production of pears, but 27 per cent of exports.

The scheme outlined in the Bill presently before the House breaks new ground in some of its aspects. This is because it is specially framed to assist the most vulnerable section of the industry: That section engaged in export on open consignment, sales afloat, or on consignment against a guaranteed advance payment. These classes of exports are usually referred to as ‘exports at risk’. Both the industry itself and the Government recognise that exports sold forward at firm prices, at or above the minimum prices set by the Australian Apple and Pear Board, are not in need of the same kind of assistance and the scheme has been framed accordingly. The scheme will be intergrated with the industry’s private enterprise system of marketing as regulated by the Australian Apple and Pear Board, and the Board will be responsible for the overall administration of the scheme.

I would now briefly explain the way in which the scheme proposed in this Bill will work. Separate stabilisation funds will be set up for the different varieties of apples and pears, and average export support prices will be set for each variety each season. In the determination of the average export support prices for a season other than the first season, regard will be had to established movements in cash costs. If the average export return of a season for a variety falls below its average export support price, then a payment will be made from the relevant fund to the owner of the fruit. If the average export return for a variety exceeds the support price, then owners will be levied to make a contribution to the relevant fund.

If, at any time, the balance in a stabilisation fund is insufficient to make the necessary payment to owners, the Commonwealth Government will meet the deficiency. The contribution to the appropriate varietal fund by the owner of the fruit, where a contribution is called for, will be on a sliding scale up to a maximum of 80c per bushel. The Commonweath’s aggregate liability in respect of the fruit of a season will be related to the total quantity of fruit of that season exported at risk. The basic limitation is a total quantity of 4.4 million bushels, which could attract a maximum payment of 80c per bushel. As the quantity exported at risk goes above 4.4 million bushels, the maximum rate of payment per bushel will bc reduced pro rata, although the. aggregate amount involved would remain at a fixed level, that is 4.4 million X g0c = 53,520,000. For example, at 6.6 million bushels the maximum rate of payment would be 53.3c a bushel and at 8.8 million bushels it would be 40c a bushel.

I mentioned previously that the scheme now proposed breaks new ground in some aspects. 1 have already mentioned one such aspect, that is, that this scheme does not cover all production or all exports but only particular classes of exports, that is exports on consignment, sales afloat, or on consignment against a guaranteed advance payment, all of which classes we may refer to loosely as consignment sales. Firm sales made ahead of export are not included in the scheme although - and this brings me to the second unconventional aspect of the scheme - proceeds from forward sales will be brought into the calculation of the rate of return per bushel from export sales against which the Government’s guarantee on consignment sales is to be matched.

The explanation for this arrangement is that the guaranteed price per bushel under the scheme has been set at a level - on the assumption of returns from all sources being brought to account to determine an average export return per bushel - that is higher than would have been the case if only proceeds from ‘risk sales’ were to be brought to account. The arrangement adopted, while yielding the same overall result, is easier to administer than one under which both the guaranteed price and the average return of a season were established on the basis of consignments sales only.

I would now comment on certain specific provisions of the Bill. I would remind honourable members that the scheme covered by the Bill provides for the determination of an average export return for a season in respect of a variety by bringing to account proceeds from (a) forward sales, that is sales made before export, and (b) sales of risk fruit, that is fruit sold after export. In respect of (a) the Australian Apple and Pear Board can and does control such forward sales by the powers given it already under the Apple and Pear Organization Act 1938-1966. Clause 18 of the present Bill provides that the Board, in exercising its powers in this regard under the Organization Act, shall comply with any direction of the Minister in making any minimum price determinations in respect of forward sales. Further, that the Board will take all action that it lawfully can to ensure that fruit to which such a determination relates is not sold overseas at a price less than the price applicable under the determination.

I must make it clear to honourable members that there is absolutely no intention of the Government, through this provision, to involve itself in the affairs of the Board under normal circumstances. It would be only where the Commonwealth’s liability under its guarantee to the industry appeared to be threatened by some action or failure to act on the part of the Board - and such a situation I cannot possibly envisage occurring - that the provision would be used. Similar provisions exist in other legislation but, to the best of my knowledge, have not needed to be used in the case of those other industries. That the Commonwealth’s position must be protected is beyond doubt and so clause 18 must be in the legislation. However, I would not anticipate that action would ever need to be taken under it

Complementary to clause 18 are subclauses (4.) and (6.) of clause 6 which deal with a more complicated situation. Clause 18 covers the situation of fruit which is sold forward. Sub-clauses (4.) and (6.) of clause 6 have regard, on the other hand, to fruit exported on consignment. Again, these provisions, like clause 18, are to protect the Commonwealth’s position under its guarantee and would not be used unless that position were threatened by some irresponsible selling of fruit by a party altogether out of line with the more responsible commercial selling of the bulk of Australian exporters. Sub-clause (5.) of clause 6 ensures that regard will be had to the views of the Australian Apple and Pear Board should any action be contemplated under sub-clauses (4.) and (6.) of clause 6. Clause 14(1.) provides that the Minister may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, enter into an arrangement with the Australian Apple and Pear Board to perform the functions of making stabilization payments on behalf of the Commonwealth and, while such an arrangement is in force, the Board may do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done by it in pursuance of the arrangement.

In the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Bill, which honourable members are also to consider, authority is given to the Minister to enter, on behalf of the Commonwealth, into an arrangement with the Board to do all the things that are necessary or convenient to be done by it in respect of the collection of export duty and provisional export duty and associated matters. Hence it will be seen that it is intended that the Board will constitute the central body through which the stabilisation scheme will work, both in respect of collection of export duty and disbursement of stabilisation payments.

I said previously that the Commonwealth’s liability in respect of the fruit of a season will be related to the total quantity of fruit of that season exported at risk. That total quantity embraces both apples and pears and there are not separate specific quantities for each variety of apples and pears. In the light of this fact the industry has asked for an assurance by the Government that should any major anomoly (such as an imbalance in the relativity between apples and pears) be so evident as to affect seriously the scheme at any stage in its lifetime the Government will be prepared to discuss the matter with the industry to see if it is necessary to amend the arrangements under the plan and the legislation. I am happy to be able to give the industry such an assurance.

I said earlier that this stabilisation scheme will not solve all the industry’s problems. However I believe it is a fair and just scheme and will give the industry considerable assistance. The industry shares that view. The Bill itself is an extremely complex piece of legislation and if honourable members seek an explanation of the detail of it or in its application I would be happy if they contacted me and I shall try to arrange for an officer of my Department to be available so that he might explain the legislation. Having tried to explain it to some of the Government members I do not doubt that such explanation might be necessary. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 361

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION EXPORT DUTY BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to impose export duty, under certain conditions, on apples and pears exported on consignment. This arrangement is for the purposes of the stabilisation scheme referred to in my second reading speech on the Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill 1971. This Bill is complementary to the Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill 1971, the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Bill 1971 and the Apple and Pear Organization Bill 1971. The Bill provides in clause 6 that, where the average export return for a season in respect of a variety of fruit exceeds the support price for that season in respect of that variety, export duty will be imposed on the exportation on consignment during the season of fruit of the season.

Clause 7 prescribes the formula under which the export duty will be charged. Paragraph (d) of sub-clause (2.) of clause 7 provides that the maximum rate of excise duty which can be charged is 80c per bushel. Clause 8 renders the exporter of the fruit liable for payment of the export duty (but it might be noted here that clause 14 of the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Bill 1971 provides that where an exporter has paid export duty in respect of fruit of which he is not the owner he is entitled to recover an amount equal to that export duty from the owner of the fruit as a debt due to the exporter from the owner.) The Stabilisation scheme is framed to operate on the basis of 5 succeeding seasons each of which shall commence on the 1st day of October in each year. Hence clause 9 of this Bill provides that export duty imposed by the Bill is not payable in respect of fruit that is not sold after it is exported and before the end of the season in which it is exported. Clause 10 of the Bill imposes provisional export duty in accordance with the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Act 1971. I shall refer to the operation of that provisional duty in my second reading speech on that Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 362

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION EXPORT DUTY COLLECTION BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is complementary to the Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill 1971, the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Bill 1971 and the Apple and .Pear Organization Bill 1971. The Bill provides the machinery arrangements for the payment and collection of provisional export duty and export duty to be imposed by the Apple and. Pear Stabilization Export Duty Bill 1971. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that the Minister is authorised to declare provisional, export duty which shall be payable on the export of fruit on consignment. The clause authorises that a rate of provisional export duty may be fixed by regulation and prescribes the time limit in which the provisional export duty shall be paid. However, sub-clause (11.) of clause 4 provides that where a person has made arrangements that, in the opinion of the Minister or an authorised person, are adequate to ensure that any export duty that may become payable by that person will be duly paid, the Minister or the authorised person, may, by writing under his hand, exempt that person from liability to pay provisional export duty.

In practice, as explained in my second reading speech on the Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill 1971, it is proposed that the Australian Apple and Pear Board will act as the central body through which export duty will be collected from the industry and stabilisation payments made to the industry. To the extent therefore to which exporters in this industry may make satisfactory arrangements with the Board in respect of such collections and payments it is envisaged that provisional export duty will be waived. It is understood that all exporters will operate through the Board in respect of the stabilisation arrangements and thus secure exemption from payment of provisional charge. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 362

APPLE AND PEAR ORGANIZATION BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Apple and Pear Organization Act 1938- 1966 in a couple of respects. The Apple and Pear Organization Act 1938-1966 is the Act which establishes the Australian Apple and Pear Board and under which the Board controls the export marketing of apples and pears from this country. Although the legislation to give expression to a scheme for the stabilisation of returns to apple and pear growers for a period of 5 years commencing with the 1971 crop is largely contained in the Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill 1971, the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Bill 1971 and the Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection Bill 1971 there is need also to amend the Apple and Pear Organization Act 1938-1966 in respect of the scheme. Opportunity has also been taken to propose the amendment of that Act in respect of an incidental marketing matter at the same time. The Constitution of the Australian Apple and Pear Board as presently laid down in the Apple and Pear Stabilization Act 1938-1966 includes a member to represent the Commonwealth Government and this member is mandatorily the Chairman of the Board. The position is a parttime one and the occupant has traditionally not been a public servant.

Somewhat similar arrangements previously obtained in respect of some other boards until such times as there were introduced in the particular industries concerned Government-backed schemes, the operations of which had financial and policy implications for the Government. Once that stage was reached the Parliament agreed, in the cases of those boards, to amendment of the relevant legislation so that the position of Government representative on each board concerned could be filled by a departmental officer and separate arrangements were made for the appointment of a person other than the Government representative as chairman of the board. These changes were made in the light of the Government’s recognition of the need to have the closest liaison between the Government and the board in view of the operation of the particular Governmentbacked stabilisation or other schemes. It is proposed to adopt a similar procedure on this occasion and the Bill before the House contains the provisions in this regard.

The net effect of the proposed new arrangements is that, in lieu of the present single member of the board who is both representative of the Commonwealth Government and the board chairman, there shall be 2 members, one of whom is the representative of the Commonwealth Government but who is not chairman and the other of whom is a member and chair man of the board but is not the representative of the Commonwealth Government. Both appointments will be made directly by the Minister. Clause 6 of the Bill proposes an amendment of Section 19 of the Apple and Pear Organization Act 1938- 1966 so as to permit the Board to make payment out of the Export Fund of the expenses incurred by the board in respect of what it may be required to do in connection with the stabilisation arrangements.

The incidental marketing matter to which I referred previously is that clause 7 of the Bill provides that section 21 of the principal Act is repealed. Section 21 of the Apple and Pear Organization Act 1938-1966 provides that:

Cheques drawn on any account referred to in the last preceding section shall be signed as prescribed.

Statutory Rules 1961 No. 54, the Apple and Pear Organization (Banking) Regulations prescribe these signatories.

It has been felt for some time that it is unnecessary to so limit a responsible authority like the Australian Apple and Pear Board. The purpose of the amendment therefore is that section 21 and, consequently, the Apple and Pear Organization (Banking) Regulations should be repealed and that the manner in which the board’s cheques should be signed will be left to the discretion of the board. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 363

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY

Bill presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964-1968 to provide for the extension, for a further period of 3 years, from 1st January 1972 to 31st December 1974, of the special levy on livestock slaughterings imposed initially in January 1969 to provide finance for the operations of the meat industry service and investigation section of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. The rates of levy are to remain unaltered at lc per head on cattle (over 200 lb dressed weight) and one-tenth of a cent per head on sheep and lambs. The levy is payable by the owner of the livestock at the time of slaughter and in contrast to the levy used to finance the operations of the Australain Meat Board and the Australian Meat Research Committee may not be passed back to producers.

The initial proposals for this levy were submitted by the Australian Meat Exporters Federal Council and fully supported by the Meat and Allied Trades Federation and the Australian Meatworks Federal Council. These organisations have agreed to the continuation of the levy for a further 3 years. The service and investigation section of the Commonwealth sicentific and Industrial Research Organization has used the funds obtained from the levy, together with a matching Commonwealth contribution, to assist meatworks in many fields including quality control, sanitation and hygiene - all of which are assuming increasing importance in the meat trade. The section has also published reports and information newsletters on its work and findings and conducted schools for meatworks management. Funds from the levy should, on current estimates, provide finance to allow a continuity of operations over a period in excess of 3 years. I commend the Bill to the honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 364

LOAN (WAR SERVICE LAND SETTLEMENT) BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP

– I move:

This Bill provides for the raising of loan moneys amounting to S4m for war service land settlement in the States of South

Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania during the 1971-72 financial year. As honourable members are aware the Commonwealth is responsible for the provision of the whole of the capital moneys required for the scheme in those 3 States. It is anticipated the money will be made available in the following approximate amounts: South Australia $1,683,000; Western Australia $1,600,000; Tasmania $717,000.

As has been stated in previous years when similar Bills were introduced to Parliament, the greater proportion of this money is required to make advances to settlers to provide adequate working capital to cover current working expenses and the purchase of stock and adequate capital funds for replacement of plant. Most settlers under the war service land settlement scheme started on their holdings with little or no capital of their own. Adverse seasonal conditions have, from time to time, affected income in various areas where settlement has taken place. Some have experienced, and are still experiencing a cost price squeeze. It will be appreciated these various factors have operated against a proportion of settlers, particularly those on the later allotments, being able to build up sufficient financial reserves and working capital to .enable them to carry on without further borrowing. Consequently the demand, under prevailing economic conditions in the rural sector generally, for financial assistance from settlers affected, is expected to be not less than in the previous year. For such settlers, access to the credit arrangements of the scheme is a great advantage, particularly the concessional rate of interest applying to advances.

Expenditure on development is mainly on continuing work on block drainage for irrigated horticultural holdings in the Upper Murray region of South Australia and on the irrigation headworks, including channels and pipelines, which supply water to settlers on holdings at Loxton in South Australia. Some drainage work is also to be carried out in Tasmania. A small sum is required for some reconstruction work to bring a few of the later developed farms to the planned level of productive capacity. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 365

STATES GRANTS (ADVANCED EDUCATION) BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Fairbairn, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence and Minister for Education and Science · Farrer · LP

– I move:

The main purpose of the Bill before the House is to appropriate additional grants in order that the Commonwealth might meet its share of the cost of the new levels of academic salaries in colleges of advanced education under the accepted matching formula. The need to provide these supplementary grants has arisen from the salary increases awarded in the 1 970 national wage case. The opportunity is also taken to incorporate in the Bill some minor machinery provisions which bring up to date the recurrent grants schedule in the light of certain reallocations of funds which have been approved at the request of the States, to make similar adjustments in the capital programme for 1970-72, and to take into account changes in the name of some institutions.

The Commonwealth has accepted the principle that it should provide its share of increases in approved academic salaries. For 3 colleges of advanced education in New South Wales the Bill also provides for matching recurrent grants to the States for approved academic salary increases other than those flowing from the national wage case. One State, Tasmania, has advised that no additional grant will be required to finance the cost of increases in academic salaries in its college of advanced education as this may be met by savings effected elsewhere within the current triennial programme.

The total additional cost to the Commonwealth in the current 1970-72 triennium of all increases in academic salaries provided for in the Bill will be $1,060,140. The cost in the financial year 1971-72 will be $794,000. The principal Act contains provision for the transfer, on request from a State, of recurrent funds between colleges and between years of the triennium. This affects only the distribution of grants and not the total level of grants available to a State. Two States - Victoria and Queens land - have made use of this provision and the new Schedule in the Bill has been updated in respect of transfers of recurrent funds that have been approved. The Second Schedule to the Bill effects minor adjustments to the capital programme for 1970-72 for a small number of colleges in several States. These adjustments are being made at the request of the States concerned; they do not increase the total capital grants provided in the current triennium.

The Bill also provides for the up-dating of the names of certain institutions. The new names of these institutions are incorporated in the First and Second Schedules and are specified separately in the Third Schedule. Honourable members will recall that in the Budget Speech the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) mentioned the willingness of the Government to join with the States in providing further supplementary grants to colleges of advanced education in recognition of exceptional increases which have occurred in non-academic salaries. This matter is under discussion with the States and when details have been agreed the Parliament will be invited to approve further supplementary provisions. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 365

SUPERANNUATION (PENSION INCREASES) BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Peacock, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Kooyong · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to increase existing pensions payable under the Superannuation Act in accordance with the decision announced in the Budget. Honourable members will be aware that the Superannuation Fund is a contributory pension scheme for the Commonwealth’s own employees. The Fund, which is built up from the contributions of the employees, menu a part of each pension payment and the Commonwealth as the employer provides the balance from consolidated revenue. In the case of pensions paid to former employees of Commonwealth authorities outside the Budget each authority meets the employer’s share from its own resources. The last adjustment of pensions payable under the Superannuation Act was made in 1967. In the intervening period there have been significant changes in the cost of living which in particular have affected adversely the purchasing power of those pensions in existence at the time of the last increase.

It is proposed once again to determine the increases in pensions by what has become known as the notional salary method. Under this method of adjustment, the employer’s share of each pension in existence at 30th June 1971 will be increased to the amount that it would have been had the pensioner retired on that dale, taking into account changes since his retirement in the salary he then received. As on previous occasions the proportionate reduction principle will apply to the increases received by those pensioners who, for one reason or another, retired on pensions that were less than their full entitlement.

Provision has been made in the Bill to increase, as appropriate, a pension that became payable, on or before 30th June 1971, to a person who elected to have the preservation provisions of the Superannuation Act 1971 apply to him and who took his preservation benefit in the form of a deferred pension. As on previous occasions, a widow will receive the appropriate proportion, five-eighths or one-half, of the increase that her husband would have received had he been alive and in receipt of a pension on 30th June 1971. Certain orphans will also receive increased pensions. Nevertheless, the position of orphans and children will be given special consideration when the results of the quinquennial investigations of the Superannuation and Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Funds become available during the next 12 months.

The increases resulting from adoption of the notional salary method will for many pensioners be substantial, particularly for those longer standing pensioners who, perhaps at some sacrifice, maintained fully their contributions to the Superannuation Fund until their retirement. The Govern ment now has serious reservations about the results produced by applying the notional salary method but decided to adopt it again as pensioners, and others on their behalf, had indicated on many occasions that they favoured this method and had every expectation that it would again apply. The method is however complex in its operation and close examination has shown that it generates anomalies and inequities between pensioners. The Government proposes, therefore, to examine simpler methods of adjustment which would produce more equitable results with a view to future application on a regular basis. I have arranged for circulation to honourable members of an explanatory memorandum on the effects of the Bill on pension entitlements. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 366

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS (PENSION INCREASES) BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Peacock, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army and Minister assisting the Treasurer · Kooyong · LP

– I move:

This Bill which is a companion measure to the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill that I have just introduced, gives effect to the Government’s proposals to provide increases in certain defence forces retirement pensions.

As with pensions paid from the Superannuation Fund, pensions payable under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act were last increased in 1967 when the notional salary method of adjustment was used. The Bill provides for the same method of adjustment to be used on this occasion. The pensions of persons who retired on their full pension entitlement will therefore be increased by five-sevenths of the difference between the actual pension and the pension they would have received had retirement occurred on 30th June 1971. Those who retired on less than their full entitlement or who, after retirement, commuted part of their pension for a lump sum will receive an appropriate proportion of this increase.

Deferred pensions that may have become payable before 30th June 1971 in accordance with the preservation provisions of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1971 will be adjusted as appropriate. Increases will also be payable to widows and to certain orphan pensioners. The Bill provides for increases in the pensions payable to 2 other small groups of pensioners. The first group comprises invalidity pensioners who, at the time of their retirement, were under 18 years of age and were not able to contribute to the DFRB Fund. The second group consists of pensioners who receive pension based on the entitlement for which they were contributing under the Superannuation Act in 1948, immediately prior to their being transferred to the DFRB Fund. Examples of increases provided by the Bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum to be circulated to honouraable members.

As f have already said when introducing the Superannuation (Pension Increases) Bill, the Government will be examining simpler methods of adjustment which would produce more equitable results than the notional salary method of adjustment adopted in this Bill, with a view to future application on a regular basis. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 367

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES (INCREASES) BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Peacock, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army and Minister Assiting the Treasurer · Kooyong · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to increase existing parliamentary and ministerial pensions payable under the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act in accordance with principles similar to those incorporated in the two Bills already introduced into the House providing for increases in existing superannuation and defence forces retirement benefits pensions. The increases provided by the Bill will result in the consolidated revenue component of existing pensions being raised to the level that prevailed for a member retiring on 30th June 1971. But, because the rates of pension applying to members and office-holders currently contributing to the parliamentary and ministerial retiring allowances funds have remained unchanged since 1st December 1968. The effect of the Bill is to increase only those pensions in relation to persons who qualified prior to that date.

The Bill also increases by one-half the Prime Ministerial pensions payable to the widows of two former Prime Ministers who died before the commencement of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act in 1948. These rates of pension have remained unchanged since 1959. Information regarding the new rates of pension provided by the Bill’ is contained in the explanatory memorandum being distributed to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 367

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1971

Bill presented by Mr Chipp, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The Customs Tariff Bill now before the House provides for amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1971 to operate from 1st July 1971 and relates to changes arising from the joint exercise conducted by the Departments of Trade and Industry and Customs and Excise to simplify the Customs Tariff. The alterations included in this Bill are essentially for simplification and, except where the volume of trade is not significant or where, primage has been removed, the changes do not vary the existing rates of duty by more than 2i per cent of the value of the goods. All proposals for these tariff changes were published and widely circulated and Australian manufacturers and importers were invited to examine the proposals. Requests for alterations were considered and resolved before the proposals were finalised.

Honourable members will be glad lo know that that the changes included in this Bill will reduce by 1,025 the total number of classifications in the Customs Tariff, that is from 4,039 to 3,014 classifications. This reduction of over 25 per cent of the classifications must mean a substantial saving in time and cost tor all users of the document. Comprehensive summaries setting out the changes and the duty rates are now being distributed to honourable members for use during the debate. I hope the House will give a speedy passage to the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 368

SULPHURIC ACID BOUNTY BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Chipp, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill now before the House extends the operation of the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Act 1954-1970 until 31st May 1972. Under the existing Act bounty ceased to be payable after 31st December 1970. The Pyrites Bounty Act 1960-1970 also expired on 31st December 1970 and I shall shortly introduce a similar Bill to extend that Act for a further period until 31st May 19/2. As the House is no doubt aware the pyrites and sulphuric acid industries are closely allied. Bounty is paid on iron pyrites delivered into a sulphuric acid manufacturer’s premises for the purpose of being used in that manufacture and is also paid on the sulphuric acid produced from the iron pyrites. In addition . bounty is paid on the acid produced from lead sinter-gas. Because of this close alliance I shall deal with the reason for the extension of both Acts in this speech.

The Tariff Board in its report which was released on 20th May 1971 recommended that the Government’s obligation to the sulphur and sulphuric acid industries could be most appropriately fulfilled by payment of lump sum compensation. The Government has decided to accept the Board’s recommendation. However in order to give the industry a reasonable period of time to plan to meet the new circumstances it has also decided that bounty shall continue until 31st May 1972, after which date compensation will be paid. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 368

PYRITES BOUNTY BILL 1971

Bill presented by Mr Chipp, and read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is proposed to extend the operation of the Pyrites Bounty Act 1960-1970 until 31st May 1972. The purpose of the Bill is to implement this proposal.. I have already outlined the reasons. for this extension in my speech concerning the extension of the Sulphuric Acid Bounty Act. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.

page 368

AIR NAVIGATION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– I move;

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation of 1944 provides for the establishment of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICOA) which was founded in 1947 and is a specialised agency of the United Nations. The permanent governing body of ICAO is the Council, which has contributed in a very important way to the development and adoption of international standards and recommended practices (incorporated as annexes to the Chicago Convention) which assist considerably in making air travel a safe and reliable mode of transport. The Council was originally composed of 21 contracting States elected by the Assembly of the Organization at which all contracting States are entitled to be present. The size of the Council was increased from 21 to 27 in 1962. Australia has been an elected member of the Council since ICAO came into being.

At the 17th (Extraordinary) Session of the Assembly held at New York on the 11th and 12th March 1971 ICAO unanimously adopted a Protocol amending Article 50(a) of the Chicago Convention to increase the number of members of the Council from 27 to 30. The amendment requires ratification by 80 States out of the total membership of 120 before it comes into force. The primary purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for Australia to ratify this Protocol. The Air Navigation Act 1920-1960 sets out in Schedules the Chicago Convention which was ratified by Australia in 1947 and two Protocols amending the Convention in minor respects. This Act has been amended in 1961 and 1963 to approve the ratification of other minor amendments to the Chicago Convention including that increasing the size of the Council from 21 to 27 members, these amendments being set out in further Schedules to the Principal Act. The present Bill continues the practice by inserting the new Protocol as the 7th Schedule to the Principal Act.

The Australian Delegation to the Extraordinary Session of the Assembly supported the increase in the membership of the Council for three major reasons. First, it was the wish of the majority of member States for an increase of three members. Secondly, an increase of three could not be considered unreasonable in the light of the fact that the total membership of ICAO had grown from 84 in 1961 to 120 members in March 1971. Thirdly, proportionate increases have been made over the years in the size of the executive bodies of other specialised agencies of the United Nations. The Australian Government welcomes the participation of an increased number of States in the work of the Council. The increase being limited to three new members should improve the functioning of the Council without impairing its efficiency. Membership of the ICAO Council has been of considerable value to Australia’s civil aviation interests and I feel that, as a country which has an important status in world aviation, Australia has been able to make a worthwhile contribution to the Organization by maintaining Council membership. The addition of three members is expected to add little, if any, to the administrative costs of the Organization. The costs of provision of secretarial services should be absorbed in the normal provision of these services and there could be offsets as ICAO will be paid rentals by the new members for the use by their delegations of offices in the ICAO Headquarters Building.

The Bill also seeks to repeal section 6 of the Air Navigation Act 1920-1966 which was inserted in 1960 to confer legal capacity on ICAO in Australia and to confer on it the privileges and immunities necessary for the independent exercise of its powers and performance of its functions in Australian territory. The International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 was passed to specify the privileges and immunities in Australia of international organisations including such specialised agencies of the United Nations as ICAO. The privileges and immunities of ICAO are set out in detail in the International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities of Specialised Agencies) Regulation 1962 which were continued in force by that Act. Accordingly, section 6 of the Air Navigation Act no longer serves any useful purpose and the opportunity is being taken to include a clause in the Bill repealing this section. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Mr Charles Jones) adjourned.

page 369

ADJOURNMENT

International Affairs - Wine Excise - Political Parties - Psychiatric Hospitals

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– Tonight on the adjournment I want to raise the matter of an insult that was offered by the former Foreign Minister who has just stepped down, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), to a country which is a part of our own history and to 34 million Australians who have links with it in blood and sentiment. I want further to accept the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) during question time yesterday to bring him up to date on the proceedings of the Parliament as they relate to the wine excise, in which he was briefly interested yesterday.

Last night many honourable members were shocked to hear the insult offered by the honourable member for Wentworth. I have no brief or time for the primitive name-calling of one group by another whether on racial, religious or colour grounds which is still indulged in by the xenophobic few in our country. In the past 20 years racial name-calling in Australia has been reduced and the bigots have been forced beneath the national floor boards. Because of this it was all the more distressing to hear the erstwhile Foreign Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia offering what was obviously a gratuitous insult to an entire people with whom we are linked by blood and sentiment. Speaking in the course of the debate on peace in the Indian sub-continent, the honourable member for Wentworth last night said, inter alia:

Some very brutal, horrible things have been done. . . . Some of the West Pakistan troops have undoubtedly perpetrated a good many horrors. . . . Such people are worse than the Irish.

What an insult to offer to any people- -to suggest that the horrible and the brutal is the norm in Ireland and amongst Irish people. What a sad comment at a time when we should be setting an example of tolerance and community peace in the face of tragic events in one or two Irish cities. It is certainly at variance with the views expressed the other day by the Prime Minister of Ireland, Mr John Lynch, who said:

It is not the wish of the Government to be in any way a cause of an escalation of an already grave situation or to see any addition to the toll of death, injury and destruction. The Government cannot therefore condone any actions which will lead to an escalation and cannot and will not support any armed activity which will inevitably cause further suffering and death.

That is the voice of Ireland, and surely the honourable member for Wentworth has no entitlement to bring forth such a scurrilous attack on an entire people. We are left wondering whether the comment represents the view commonly held in Government circles, whether it is perhaps a throw-back to something in the honourable member’s own background; but whatever it is I find it shocking and insulting, and I ask the former Foreign Minister to repudiate it without delay and to apologise to the millions of people both here and in the Emerald Isle, and indeed in every corner of the world, whom he labelled so savagely in the House last night as brutal and horrible.

Turning to the Prime Minister, I suppose it could be said that I was defending the patrimony of the Prime Minister. Having rescued his family and his ancestors from the insults of his colleague, I want to thank him for what I am sure was his kindly if confused reference to the interests of myself and the electorate of Riverina in the wine excise. He might remember that the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles), who voted in favour of the excise and who then said that if it was hurtful to the industry he would vote against it, had asked him what progress the Government’s committee was making, lt might be remembered that the Government committee was set up to examine the effects of the wine excise. I am glad that the honourable member for Angas at least did npt have the humbug to oppose it. The question asked by the honourable member for Angas yesterday was silly because only the night before the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) had told us that the excise was still on. The honourable member for Angas knew that. He knew that it would stay. He did not protest but that is his affair.

Let me speak of my concern for the wine’ industry. The Prime Minister, if he consults the records, will find that I first raised the matter before - I repeat ‘before’ his Government imposed this stupid tax.

Mr Armitage:

– He does not worry about the truth.

Mr GRASSBY:

– Well, I draw attention to the exact position. My forecast before the last Budget was proved regrettably correct. I then raised the matter in the Parliament on 13th October 1970 when I pointed out that the only study had shown the fallacy of the excise. I referred to the tax again and pressed for its removal in the debate on the Appropration Bill (No. 1) 1970-71 on 1st September 1970. Then on 6th April 1971 I placed a question on notice, trying to find out what the Government was doing and asking, in effect, for action, not words of sympathy. The day afterwards, the honourable member for Angas - whom I am delighted to welcome back to the chamber - who had been reminded of his responsibilities by members of the Wine Board then visiting

Canberra, rose to ask the same question. The Speaker very properly sat him down and directed his attention to the fact that I had already put the question on notice the day before.

I would commend to the Prime Minister an examination of the submissions already made in the Parliament, to the unanimous submissions of the wine industry in ail its parts and to the summing up of the Government’s action by the President of the Australian Grapegrowers’ Council who said that it implied that the Government wanted to ruin the industry. To point out the procrastination in this matter, I might mention that 1 month to the day after I asked the question on notice on 6th April, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) sought to give the impression of quick action by the Committee. He indicated in his reply in all his nice rounded terminology that something was being done and that there would be a speedy resolution of the matter. That was the impression that his reply conveyed and was meant to convey. But that was 6th May; it is now 19th August. Is that quick action? Well, I have done my job. I hope the Prime Minister now does his.

If the Prime Minister does not want to ruin an entire industry and have more mendicants in the countryside created by government decisions and Government action, he will drop this stupid tax. All he has to do is to check with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. In fact, the only officer who was called upon and who did carry out a survey and an inquiry and an investigation into the effects pointed out what would happen. His paper was available to the Government before it imposed the tax and it is still available to the Government. In his paper he pointed out that the tax would not result in more net revenue but would cause hardship and difficulty and would mean that the Government would be called upon to find cash, handouts and assistance for the farmers and growers whom it had hurt by its own actions. This is what the Prime Minister, following his reply to me yesterday, could well do if he has this great interest. He did say very kindly to me that I should draw his attention to the matter. The records of the Parliament bear witness to the attention drawn to the submissions which have been made already. I point out that the excise was imposed more than 1 year ago. Despite every protest it was indicated that it would be retained. That matter was determined in the Budget that has been brought down this week. What has happened is that the Government has brought into difficulty the one primary industry which had asked nothing of the Government. It sought nothing from the Government and was doing quite well. So the Government took this one industry that had been pointed to as a shining example of self-sufficiency, independence and stability and kicked it in the most hurtful place possible. I leave it to the House to determine where that might be. What happened was that the predictions of the officer of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Dr Tapman, were proved exactly correct. There has been a reduction in the rate of expansion of wine sales. There has been real hardship and there would have been greater hardship this year. In one area in my own electorate - the little town of Euston in the Riverina - there were people who let grapes rot because of an action of a Government which had not heeded the advice of its advisers. I suggest to the Prime Minister tonight, following his invitation to me yesterday at question time, that he apply himself to the submissions that have been made and read the records of the Parliament. I might say that he can come to but one conclusion and that is that it was a stupidly imposed tax. It was imposed wrongly from everyone’s point of view and it should be lifted as soon as possible.

Mr STALEY:
Chisholm

– This week we, the people’s representatives, met again in this national Parliament for the first time after the winter recess. I was ashamed because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) with all the considerable pettiness of argument that he could muster played on personalities and put the great issues which trouble the people of Australia to one side. Not only wasI ashamed but also was I surprised because the personal differences which we have in our Party are knocked into a cocked hat by the deep personal animosities and even hatreds which are built into the Opposition.

It is no exaggeration to say that there are many in the Australian Labor Party who would rather go down to defeat than win with the present Leader of the Opposition. How far was the wish from the thought when the immediate past Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), told his colleagues yesterday that the Liberal Prime Minister might be here longer than they think? The immediate past Leader of the Opposition is admired, respected and loved by countless Australians. He is a man who understands and loves the Australian Labor Party from the grass roots up. He knows that the Australian Labor Party is a Party which was built by and for the unions.

As recently as 1969 he said:

The Labor Party is the same today as when 1 joined it 52 years ago.

He said also:

There is a pathetically small group of lower middle class Parly misfits and dissidents in Victoria who are trying to reform the Labor Party - as if you could reform the Labor Party! They want a new image Labor Party, but a new image Labor Party is a silly myth, a child-like variant of Grimm’s fairy tales.

The former Leader of the Opposition has pointed out - and he is right - that there is no such thing as private judgment in the Labor Party. There is neither private judgment for the individual Labor member of Parliament nor certainly private judgment for the man who should be given the proper power to judge how he should lead the Opposition.

A Labor leader is not free to act decisively. He is not free to judge how he should lead the Australian people or to judge how he should lead his Cabinet or this Parliament. He and his colleagues in the Parliament are not free to heed public opinion, or the Press or the Australian people. In reply to those honourable members opposite who are trying to interject, I point out that he is not even free to heed Sir Frank Packer. Labor parliamentarians are bound hand and foot to the unions of Australia which built the Labor Party for their own ends. The unions to this day hold at least 60 per cent of the positions on the Australian Labor Party conferences and councils throughout Australia. These councils and conferences dictate policy to the Labor members of Parliament who therefore are denied the basic democratic right of representing in this Parliament al) the people.

It is no wonder that Mr Hawke lately has asserted his leadership of the Labor movement over the Leader of the Opposition, for that leadership is a natural consequence of the domination of the unions over the ALP which lasts to this day. Today as much as yesterday, the Labor Party is dominated by outside vested interests, by Party and union bosses who can lay no claim to represent the people of Australia and who will not let the Leader of the Opposition do so either. Only yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition was bravely waging war on these outmoded, irrelevant and anti-democratic ideas on which his Party is based. He declared in 1969:

The Australian Labor Party is absurdly authoritarian and disciplined. The vested interests in the Labor Party are a few people on the pay rolls of the Party and the unions in the capital cities of Australia.

He vowed that he would reform the Labor Party. He said that he could not take time off in the election year of 1969 to do so, but he said: ‘I am determined to do so’. Someone asked him: ‘What if you find you cannot reform the Labor Party?’ The Leader of the Opposition said: if I find 1 cannot reform the Labor Party, then I will cut my losses and get out’. Then in 1970 on the ‘Four Corners’ television programme, speaking of reform he said: ‘We will no longer be run in Victoria’ - 1 repeat the ‘word ‘run’ - ‘by an autocratic intolerant junta’. ft is true that in all fundamental respects the Labor Party today is the same as it. was yesterday. As Mr George Crawford, the man who represents the Socialist left in Victoria, who was the president of the Labor Party in Victoria and who is today the chairman of the Labor Party in Victoria said, at all times the Party must remain dominant over its members of Parliament who should be there to represent it in a way that the Party sees fit. Once again, we think of the remarks of the immediate past Leader of the Oppositionas if you could reform the Australian Labor Party’. What, then, still stands? The. outside control of the Labor Party still stands so that the power is officially still vested in the hands of the organisations outside Parliament. The trade union domination of those outside branches is to the extent of 60 per cent plus. There is still no private judgment in the Australian Labor

Party. The Labor member pledges to obey a majority decision of his colleagues and has no right of conscience. The socialisation objective still stands. It is unbelievable that the socialisation objective could still stand in the platform of a political party in Australia in 1971. The other day, one of the new creatures of the Labor Party in Victoria, the new Labor Council, almost unanimously called on young Australians to refuse to obey the laws by refusing the draft. This, of course, echoes the Leader of the Opposition who said that when young men were told to go to Vietnam they should refuse to obey. A new image Labor Party is a silly myth. In the words of the immediate past leader of the Labor Party, it is a silly myth, a childlike variant of Grimms fairy tales, a fairy tale which has become a nightmare.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– 1 would ask the House to have a little sympathy for the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley) because the Liberals have had a very trying week. Therefore, tonight he has given expression in this Parliament to the thoughts that he would have loved to express in the caucus, but was not game to express. Tonight in this Parliament he has tried to impress everybody under the silly impression that the Prime Minister picks men on ability. Everybody knows that nothing is further from the Prime Minister’s thoughts. Tonight honourable members have heard a former lecturer in political science at the University of Melbourne and Monash University, so they cannot blame the students from those universities if they go around the bend occasionally. The honourable member says that we are bound by caucus decisions; that we are bound to vote as the Party tells us. We gave the opportunity to the greatest rebels of our time the other night in this Parliament - the former Prime Minister, the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes), and the honourable member for Moreton - Killen the magnificent. These men who can vote as they like, do what they like, speak as they like, of course as long as they do not vote the Government out, sat there silently and swallowed the words they had uttered all the week. This is a lot of hypocrisy.

I wonder what Mr St John thinks tonight as he listens in to the freedom of thought of the Liberal Party. Of course, everybody knows that it is a fallacy and a myth. The honourable member for Chisholm is just coming to his senses in this place. I suggest that he try out his theory on the eve of the next preselection and very shortly after that we will welcome a new honourable member for Chisholm. Fancy the honourable member talking about outside influence. My information is that the executive of the Liberal Party now comprises Sir Frank Packer, Sir Reginald Ansett and the Prime Minister. What is more, they say that the Prime Minister has not got a vote. That is the situation at this time in this Parliament.

We heard the other night how the Liberal Party is limping to disaster. We heard also of how it is leaking like a sieve. The Leader of the Country Party (Mr Anthony) says that they are like an iceberg - there is only a bit above the water. No wonder the honourable member wants to attack the Labor Party. Why would he not? Any member of a party that had the sordid record that that Party gained in the last couple of weeks would talk about anything but the Liberal Party. We have so many Ministers in this Parliament that we have a first, second and third eleven. This Government does not muck around. We have an ex-Prime Minister who is on the back bench, and he is leading it. Over on the back bench there is the right honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) who is a former Country Party Minister for Primary Industry, there is a former Prime Minister, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, a former Leader of the House and Minister for Air, a former Minister for the Army and for Defence, a former AttorneyGeneral, a former Minister for the Navy, the right honourable member for Moreton who was also another former Minister for the Navy and a former Minister for the Army. Now, that is the third eleven. Let me be honest with honourable members. On ability, would you not say that they have it over the first eleven? We on this side of the Parliament do not know to whom we should address questions for the simple reason that we think the former Prime Minister is much brighter than the present one. Must not people be confused? We have a ministry of 27 and 9 reserves. Must not they be a weak lot that could not get into the 36? That is why the honourable member opposite tonight spoke about the Labour Party. I was saddened this week to see the sordid, disreputable intrigue of honourable members in the Liberal Party, hovering around corners, sneaking, not wishing to be seen, not daring to speak to the former Prime Minister. Former respectable, open minded Liberals were afraid to look sideways in case they were listed. Why, Mr Speaker, the situation appalled even you, I am sure, with your great knowledge of politics. This is the Party that tells us in this side of the Parliament what we are tied down to. Ministers come and go like trains at Central Station. I am annoyed, as are other honourable members. We have to represent our constituents. We just get to know a Minister and his staff, we walk around one Monday and they say. ‘Sorry, changed him on Saturday.’ This is the situation. Why, you cannot make representations on Health matters. Every week you walk in, there is a new Minister for Health. We have had 3 in 3 months. From what I can gather from the public, the Government could do with another half dozen. None of them have done any good at all. Why would not the Government want to get away from this background? Yesterday there were so many nominees for the Deputy Leadership that the only thing that prevented a bigger field was that the track was too small. Everybody wanted to get elected to the position because in that way it was thought that the Prime Minister could not shift him. This is the Government which is supposed to be running the country. The Prime Minister does not want men of ability, and the public should realise it. Undoubtedly there is a new look Liberal Party. Ministers are changed almost daily, rank and file members do not know what is happening, people of ability are discarded and personalities matter more than anything else. Yet despite, this situation the Government seeks the confidence of the people and attacks members of the Opposition as being disunited and for sticking to party policy. The fact of the matter is that on the Government side of the Parliament there is dissension of a kind that has not been heard of before. .

Even the Country Party has . become involved. It is pleasing to note who is keeping the Government afloat at this time. Only the other day the Deputy Prime Minister issued a statement in Canberra. I think it was the best statement of the week. The report was headed ‘Government on Firm Course’. The article stated:

The Deputy Prime “ Minister, Mr Anthony, said in Canberra today that last week’s political events had obscured the fact that the business of governing the nation was continuing on a firm and normal basis.

Heaven help us if it gets subnormal, lt will be a really exciting week when the business of governing becomes subnormal. The article continued:

He said the solidarity and stability of the Country Party were important elements in supporting the Prime Minister -

There is no doubt about its solidarity when one looks at the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull). - and in the Government’s capacity to do its job despite temporary distractions.

I draw attention to the extra Ministry on the Government back benches. It comprises the former deposed Prime Minister and 3 or 4 other deposed Ministers. That is a minor distraction! This is the way the Government runs this country. If the new member who spoke realises what is going on I congratulate him on his wisdom in talking about the Labor Party instead of the Liberal Party. The article continued:

Mr Anthony said: ‘The Government is a bit like an iceberg -

There is no doubt about that either. That is pretty true. - there is a part visible at the top, with people chipping away at it.

This article is good enough for a Laurel and Hardy picture. People are chipping away at the iceberg. I suppose they are using ice picks, because we have been told that the Cabinet leaks like a sieve. The article continued:

But underneath there is a great force of people who continue their task relatively free from the passing storms.’

Presumably they are the underground engineers of the Liberal Party - the ones who will sink the iceberg. The article continued:

I suppose it is only natural that public attention should be focused’ on the personalities involved In events like those of last week.’

There is no doubt about that either. Why should not public attention be focused on such events? It is not often that Prime Ministers disappear in the dead of night, as it were. The former Minister for the Navy, the honourable member for Moreton, was deposed. He was one of the few Ministers for the Navy who did not have an accident while he ran the Navy. The few ships that the Government keeps for the Navy were always at sea and except for a collision with a ferry on one occasion the career of the honourable member for Moreton was free of any incident. Yet he has been dismissed to the back bench. What more could the man have done? As if that insult were not sufficient the Government put a sky pilot in charge of the Navy. The fact of the matter is that this is a situation which honourable members opposite wanted to avoid.

The time allotted for my speech is limited and although I have spoken in a somewhat light vein this evening there is great seriousness for the public in what I have said, because it reveals the disunited rabble which is supposed to be running Australia. Members of the first, second and third elevens are fighting for positions. About 30 or 40 other members behind them are not good enough to occupy any of the Ministries. Quite honestly I did not think I would ever have to say this, but the former Prime Minister must have had a good look around him and said: T could not get anywhere with these men; it is better to get away’. That could well be his feelings deep down.

Mr Speaker, I regret having had to say this in your presence tonight, because you are one of the few reputable members of the Liberal Party, one whom I respect, but when I hear speeches like that made by the honourable member for Chisholm I believe that someone has to lecture, probably from the university of hard knocks, because the political lecturers live in a world of fantasy and do not appreciate the realities of the situation. They do not come face to face with the problems of politics.

Mr BROWN:
Diamond Valley

– I, for one, am grateful to the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) for bringing a little sunshine and fun and games into our otherwise sombre lives. I heard a story the other day about the honourable member for Grayndler. It is associated with the memoirs of the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell). I was told that the only reference to the activities of or statements made by the honourable member for Grayndler would be found in the section devoted to comedy. I can well understand that, having heard what he said tonight. But, of course, it is a very good ploy, when there are so many great national issues at stake in this country today and when there are so many matters of great seriousness, to put on a humorous act to divert attention from them.

One of the greatest comedy turns seen in Australia over the last few months was the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party in Launceston in June. It seems to me that one can hardly take some of the motions that were passed at the Conference in anything other than the lighthearted vein in which the honourable member for Grayndler spoke. However, they involved serious matters and I want to draw attention to one or two of them tonight. I am a lawyer. Legal matters, of course, were involved in the meeting of the Labor Party’s Federal Conference. Some extremely relevant and pertinent matters were considered by the Conference in June. It seemed to me that on that occasion some of the most basic principles concerning the enforcement and administration of law, order and justice in Australia were subverted. One of these principles - I venture to suggest that there is no principle more basic than this in the administration of law and justice in Australia or, indeed, in any civilised society - is that judges and persons holding judicial positions should be free of the fear of being removed by any government of any particular political complexion. I suggest that the principle would go further and would say something like this: ‘Judges are impartial; they should be impartial; they should be able to reach decisions on evidence that is placed before them in a court in a hearing involving people who have different interests that they want represented before that tribunal; and the judge or other person holding judicial office should be able to reach an impartial decision’.

That principle has been subverted by a significant resolution which was passed by the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party in Launceston. That resolution said that there should be fixed terms of appointment for members of the Arbitration Commission and for conciliators appointed to that Commission. The resolution did not say that they should be appointed for life or that they should be appointed until they reach the age of 70 years or some other age but that they should be appointed for fixed terms.

Mr Armitage:

– What is wrong with that?

Mr BROWN:

– I. will tell the honourable member. Because it goes quite contrary to the elementary and basic principles of the administration of law and justice.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the honourable member for Chifley does not take heed of the warning that I gave him earlier today I will deal with him.

Mr BROWN:

– lt is not as though this resolution passed through the Conference by a narrow majority; it was passed by a majority of 38 to 4. There were 38 people who voted in support of the resolution that members of the Arbitration Commission should be appointed for fixed terms. It is obvious why this resolution was passed. Indeed, one need go no further than the statement that was attributed to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) who explained why it was done. He said:

It is time members of the Commission were told that if they act in ways contrary to the best interests of the working people they may not be reappointed.

I should have thought that this was a clear statement. What the honourable member for Hindmarsh was saying and what the Labor Party Federal Conference said was that members of the Arbitration Commission and, indeed, judges, had better watch themselves; had better behave themselves and had better hand down decisions favourable to those interests represented by the Labor Party or look out because when the axe falls - the axe meaning a change of government - those judges and members of the Arbitration Commission will not be reappointed. As I said, a basic principle is involved. That principle has been subverted by that resolution, and it is indeed a very serious matter. It means that if that were the law of this country, it would be an end to the impartiality of the judiciary, it would be an end to judges’ independence and it would be an end to the freedom which they now have to reach decisions based on the evidence and on the arguments that are put before them.

That principle has at last been recognised by this Government because the Conciliation and Arbitration Act itself provides that members of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission have the immunities of judges. The resolution that was passed at the Labor Party Conference, if it were made law, would mean that they would have no such immunity. As if that were not enough, there is another matter of equal significance and again it concerns the honourable member for Hindmarsh. He indicated to that Conference that immediately this House resumed he would move for the impeachment of a judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court; not that he would look into the matter or investigate it, but that he would move for an address of both Houses of this Parliament to have that judge removed. Why was it? No suggestion was made that the judge was incompetent; no suggestion was made that he was not performing the function for which he was appointed. The suggestion was that he was reaching decisions which are unacceptable to the honourable member for Hindmarsh; that he was giving rulings which the honourable member for Hindmarsh and apparently others thought were wrong.

This again goes contrary to one of the most elementary principles of the administration of law and justice: That judges should not be criticised; that judges should have arguments addressed to them in court; that they should not be threatened with blackmail, because that is what this amounts to; that they should not be threatened that if they do not behave themselves attempts will be made to remove them from the bench. That indeed is a very serious matter. But of course in the Constitution there is the right to remove a federal judge by an address of both Houses of this Parliament. But what I say is that if it is going to be done, then what you do not do is to say that when the Parliament resumes you will take steps to have such an address of both Houses passed, and then do nothing about it. What you do not do is to put a judge in the position where he knows that members of Parliament or others are going to threaten to have him removed; you do not put him in the position where he has his impartiality in doubt; you do not put him in the position where he may think that if there were a change of government his position would be in jeopardy. That again is another very basic principle of the administration of law and justice in any civilised society.

I venture to say that both of those principles have been broken and subverted by those resolutions of the Labor Party Conference. But of course it is not as if they were just specific isolated examples. It is a part of the general lack of respect that is shown by some members of the Opposition for the established institutions of law and order. One finds resolutions passed in the Victorian State Council of the Labor Party encouraging people to break the law. When there is an amendment moved at that Council, advocating that the Labor Party should dissociate itself from law breakers who are just masquerading under the guise of legitimate demonstrators, one finds such an amendment being defeated. One finds a complete attack on the whole established system of the administration of law and justice. I do not trot out the old phrases about law and order as if they were just hackneyed, empty statements. This goes to the very root of the administration of any organised, civilised society. As I have said, from those examples that I have quoted - and indeed there are many others which one could quote - what some members of the Labor Party have done is to subvert those very basic principles of the administration of law and justice.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– The honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) ought to stand up in this chamber at the very next opportunity that is afforded to him under the procedures of this House and dissociate himself from the remarks of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden). I say that because the Treasurer, when he was Minister for Labour and National Service, consistently attacked, in this chamber, the decisions and the judges - even the President - of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, as a result of the 6 per cent increase awarded by the Commission in the last national wage case. Am I right or am I wrong in that? The honourable member for Diamond Valley knows perfectly well that I am right. Why docs he not, as an honest, upstanding member who was recently elected to this chamber, as I was, have sufficient honesty and straightforwardness to stand up here tomorrow, or even tonight if he is afforded the opportunity, and dissociate himself from the remarks of the Treasurer?

Tn addition to that, the honourable member has stood on his high legal horse. He said that he is a lawyer.I suppose that he is still getting a quid out of the law, otherwise he would not have carried on in the way he did tonight. I want to remind him that lawyers in his Party, in this Parliament, are not above being given the sack. The honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) knows that. Is he not a lawyer? Was he not deposed by the system that operates within his Party? The honourable member for Diamond Valley ought to have a look at himself in the mirror occasionally, apart from the times when he does so as he is shaving in the morning. The honourable member did not even mention the judge’s name. I wonder who it was. Who was the judge?

Mr Jess:

– That is what Cameron should have said.

Mr FOSTER:

– But honourable members opposite will not say it, either. Where is their courage in these matters?I do not want to waste any more time on what honourable members opposite think that the Labor Party ought to do. Honourable members opposite have held conferences over the last few weeks, but they have not got the courage to take the electors of Australia into their confidence. They hold their conferences behind closed doors. Honourable members opposite coined a phrase about the 36 faceless men at the time when the F111 aircraft were ordered in 1963. Of course, they were untruthful about both of those matters. But if ever the phrase about faceless men can be brought home and used correctly, it can be applied to honourable members opposite today. They think that they have the right to stand up and address this chamber as individuals. Whom do they think they are conning? They stand up in this chamber tonight and say that what the Labor Party has been doing over the past few weeks in fact is designed to draw people’s minds away from the issues of the day. They backed the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in dragging the South African rugby team to Australia. Probably the Prime Minister has not got the courage to refuse to allow the South African cricket team to come to Australia. He wants to divide and create discrimination amongst the Australian people and draw their minds away from the real issues of the day.

Honourable members opposite have sat in this chamber as members of Parliament in the last few weeks as a result of the election promises of the previous Prime Minister, John Gorton. One of the promises which the Government gave during the last Senate election campaign was that child minding centres would be established. But honourable members opposite sneaked into the the Parliament hoping that the statement which they made, in which they said that they were not going on with the establishment of child minding centres, would not be heard by the Press gallery.

In this chamber last night honourable members opposite referred to the question of national development. Where is their sense of pride as a Party? Where is their sense of pride as Australians? Where is their sense of pride as citizens of Australia? They know full well that they are not doing the things that they ought to be doing. The Government is spending thousands of millions of dollars on defence, but we are the most defenceless area in South East Asia. In addition to that, the Government has been so hypocritical that it does not matter. One of the greatest areas of need is to be found amongst the sick and the aged in this community. A shocking situation has been created by the lack of understanding by honourable members Opposite who have 2 and 3 jobs. The Government will not increase the subsidies for beds in nursing homes. It ought to accept some responsibility in this area, but not one cent has been provided in the Budget by the guilty men opposite for increased subsidies for beds in nursing homes.

Some honourable members opposite had the hide to stand in this chamber tonight and deliver an oration because they knew full well, as the Government Parties are in charge of the business of the House, that time was to be provided for a long adjournment debate tonight. The word came to me before the suspension of the sitting for dinner that honourable members opposite were going to do some stirring tonight. That is fine. We on this side of the chamber welcome it. Honourable members opposite can keep it going until 4 o’clock in the morning as far as we are concerned, but on each occasion that one of them rises and speaks he will be knocked down completely by quite good argument from this side.

What is the Government prepared to do about education? I have in my hand at the moment a document which tells me that on Friday morning the GovernorGeneral is to swear in a number of Assistant Ministers. They are Mr Street, Mr Dobie, Mr Robinson, Senator Marriott, Mr King and Mr McLeay. God almighty - how many more goes are they to have? This is the list of names that you fellows do not know of yet. Members opposite, by the expressions on their faces, are stunned. They do not even know that their Prime Minister has had the document circulated to the Press. The honourable member is holding up a sheet of paper on which presumably there are names. That is not the same one as I have: The fact is this: There are so many honourable members opposite who do not know what is going on in their Party that it does not matter. But I want to deal with education.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I can understand that tonight some members on both sides have been under some provocation. But there is no need for members continually to make personal interjections. I suggest that the House come to order.

Mr FOSTER:

- Mr Speaker, in case some honourable members opposite do not know, I tell them that the names on the paper are: Mr Street, Mr Dobie, Mr Robinson, Senator Marriott, Mr King and Mr McLeay. So much for that.

The Minister for Education and Science, of course, has held this portfolio before. Let us hope, that he does more than the Minister who has just recently been appointed to another portfolio. The new Minister for Education and Science is the one and only honourable member for Wannon. This is protection, of course, against certain political opposition during the course of the next election, no doubt in Victoria. I only hope that the previous Minister, the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn), will adequately and properly convey to the new Minister for Education and Science the vast area of need for South Australia. 1 hope he will remind the new Minister of the fact that thousands of people gathered at a meeting in the Norwood Town Hall which was organised by the South Australian Institute of Teachers and parents and teachers organisations and that this meeting spelt out quite clearly the responsibility of a Federal Minister for Education and Science. The previous Minister dodged the inspection of actual school sites, school conditions and temporary accommodation in South Australia during the course of his last visit there. While going out the door after an inspection he said he would give consideration to the various requirements. I make this offer to the honourable member for Wannon: If he will come to the federal division of Sturt I will accord him every courtesy and opportunity to look at some df the shocking conditions that children and teachers have to put up with as a result of mismanagement, lack of understanding and lack of foresight. This is the mess made by this Government. The whole lot of you have not had the ability to read the signs.

Mr Katter:

– It is the responsibility of the State governments.

Mr FOSTER:

– Now here it comes. The honourable member for Kennedy says it is the responsibility of the State governments. This is one thing that the newly appointed Minister will say after Friday. He will say that the Commonwealth gives the States a growth tax and therefore they can look after education. The cockies sit in their corner and try to avoid questions about wheat quotas. It is a matter for the States, they say.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The correct title is the ‘Country Party’.

Mr FOSTER:

– Thank you, Mr Speaker. They will sit there, as they do, muttering and mumbling. They say: ‘It is a State responsibility’. I say to them: Any one of those State governments which has accepted the responsibility on behalf of the Federal Governmentto go cap in hand to the farmers in respect of the rural reconstruction scheme has indeed been foolish. The Labor Party in South Australia was not as wise as I expected it ought to be. It shouldnot have had a bar of the scheme. It should have pinpointed the blame to the guilty men sitting in this chamber. The guilt is their. The guilt is that of the Country Party.

I spoke last night about freights. I shall continue to hammer the matter until the Government has the courage to set up a committee in an effort to do something. Another matter which I want to mention concerns constitutional reform. Honourable members opposite expected to raise this tonight but they could not even stickto their lines regarding industrial affairs in the country. Let them have the courage to stand in this House and do something for the expenditure of the $250,000 thatwent into the production of this report on reform more than 10 years ago. Mismanagement, miscarriage - call it what you like. Honourable members opposite are absolutely incompetent; they have lost the will to lead, if they ever had it.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr ROBINSON:
Cowper

-I rise to say a word or two on the question of where political parties stand in respect of important public issues. I want to ask where the Opposition stands in relation to primary industry support.

Mr Kennedy:

– Oh, this is a tough one.

Mr ROBINSON:

– Yes, it is a tough one. I want to refer to statements made in the last few months and in particular by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). The honourable member was in the chamber a moment ago, but he has gone out. He has echoed similar statements by the honourable members for St George (Mr Morrison), Kingston (Dr Gun) and others. It is understandable that in the face of these statements the honourable members for Dawson (Dr Patterson) and Riverina (Mr Grassby) have shown very great concern - concern bordering on near panic if one reads the statements made by the honourable member for Dawson on 22nd June last on the programme ‘This Day Tonight’. On that occasion reference was made to the statements - I think they were on that day or on the day before - by the honourable member for Oxley, who referred to the Launceston conference of the Australian Labor Party. In so doing he said that Labor did not have a primary industry programme that gave a comprehensive, integrated approach.

Mr Grassby:

– Who said that?

Mr ROBINSON:

– The honourable member for Oxley.

Mr Grassby:

– I am sure he did not.

Mr ROBINSON:

– Well, wait for a moment. The honourable member went on to say: ‘What we have is a loose patchwork, totally unrelated proposition’. As the Labor Party spokesman for primary industry, the honourable member for Dawson retorted on the programme ‘This Day Tonight’: ‘I have read the paper and I find the statement incredible’. Of course he would find lt incredible because it really was incredible. But I believe it is the true ALP policy. It obviously came straight out of Launceston. It is entirely another matter for the honourable member for Dawson to try to deny it.

The honourable member for Dawson went on to say: it shows the colossal ignorance of a person who should know better’. He obviously was referring to the honourable member for Oxley. The honourable member for Dawson was obviously serious and meant what he said. I believe that the honourable member ought to clear this matter up in the House and so too should the honourable member for Oxley. Then we would know where the Opposition stood on these important issues.

Of course, the matter went further. When asked if it was felt that the views of the honourable member for Oxley had found favour at the Launceston conference the honourable member for Dawson said: I find it very hard to believe except that perhaps there are only a few members of the conference that know anything about rural matters’. Of course that is pretty true, too. I am sure there is plenty of evidence of that. Then he went on to say: i can illustrate by this that there has been a lot of discussion recorded in the papers and so on on various rural matters. It amazes me. This is part and parcel of Labor policy.’ So straightaway there is a virtually contradiction of what had apparently been authentic comments made on the decisions of the Launceston conference.

As the interview proceeded, in an effort to get the facts of this matter, the honourable member for Dawson said: T find the statement by the honourable member for Oxley very dangerous indeed’. He went on to say: ‘He seems to be the free trader.’ Of course these are very, very serious matters. It is put to us that the Country Party and the coalition Government have not been looking after the interests of the primary producer in this period of crisis. That is a very, very stupid challenge to be thrown out by a Party which has no policy. I just want to remind the honourable member for Dawson, who I am pleased to see is in the chamber, that he has a few things that he needs to clear up, as has the honourable member for Riverina, in these important matters.

If we look at the record and their statements in this House, we find members of the Labor Party day after day crying about the plight of rural industries and saying what the Government should do. They fail to recognise what the Government has done and is doing - the very practical approaches that it has made and the tremendous effort that has been put into rescuing primary industry. This effort is unprecedented in this nation. They go around sowing the seeds of despair and gloom and all the rest of it without any policy at all to back them up. I believe it is timely that the nation should know this. I believe that this Parliament should know it because it is a very serious matter indeed. If the alternative government of this country in fact does not have a rural policy - and this is on the admission of the honourable member for Dawson - it is time it got one. But of course it might be pretty difficult for it to achieve this. The decisions made at Launceston are very binding.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Bendigo is, firstly, out of his seat; secondly, he is continuing to interject. He is listed to speak and I would suggest that he restrain himself or I will have to warn him.

Mr ROBINSON:

– I was saying, Mr Speaker, that the decisions of the Launceston conference are binding and on the admission of the honourable member for Dawson Caucus itself could not change these decisions.

Mr Keating:

– You do not know what they are.

Mr ROBINSON:

– Of course, a very new member of this House says that we do not know what they are, but they were expressed to the world at large by the honourable member for Oxley, and if they are not true-

Mr Grassby:

– That is not-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I warn the honourable member for Riverina..

Mr ROBINSON:

– Let the honourable member for Riverina and the honourable member for Dawson come clearly out in the open, state the facts and expose the honourable member for Oxley. If they are not prepared to do that they are not looking after the interests of the people in their rural constituencies whom they pretend to represent. We noticed that near panic gripped the honourable member for Dawson at the time he made these statements and he went on to say that it would be very difficult indeed for opposition members in marginal rural seats - of course, they are not truly rural seats except in one or two instances - to hold their seats if this in fact were the true position. Tonight is the first opportunity I have had to mention the subject in the House since 22nd June when this matter blew up and presented a very clear picture to the nation of the attitude of the ALP in the sphere of primary industry. The Opposition has every opportunity in this House to clear the matter up, either to expose the honourable member for Oxley for being wrong or, if this is not the case, to admit that it docs not have an effective and proper approach to rural problems, that it does not have a policy at all and certainly that there is a majority of opposition in the ranks of the Labor Party so far as assistance to rural industry is concerned.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– The other day I was in the electorate of Cowper and 1 was speaking to one of the member’s constituents. He asked me what 1 thought of his member.

Mr Birrell:

– Who is he?

Dr KLUGMAN:

– As a matter of fact, I could not remember who it was and then it suddenly came to me that - it was Mr Sinclair. 1 said: ‘What do you think of him?’ He said: ‘We call him the mirror.’ I said: ‘Why do you call him the mirror?’

Mr Robinson:

– He is not the member for Cowper.

Dr KLUGMAN:

- Mr Robinson, rather. It was in your electorate. He said: ‘They call him the mirror because no matter what representations we make to him he just goes away and says: “I will look into it.” ‘ Tonight, however, I would like to deal with a more important matter than the propositions that have been discussed so far. I want to deal with the disabilities suffered by the many people who are inpatients in psychiatric hospitals all over the Commonwealth. The total number of such inpatients in the Commonwealth for the last year for which I have figures was 68,000, and in New South Wales there were 28,000. What does the Commonwealth Government do? We all know that the Commonwealth does very little even in regard to public and private general hospitals for which the Commonwealth subsidy runs out at $2 per bed per day. This subsidy has not increased for the last 12 years or so. As honourable members know it is possible to contribute to private hospital funds so that when one goes into hospital one can be covered for one’s expenses. However, this does not apply in the case of psychiatric hospitals.

For some reason or other in 1956 the Commonwealth Government cancelled the system of Commonwealth subsidies for psychiatric hospitals, a system - that had been introduced by the Chifley Government and. which seemed extremely reasonable in the sense that there was no point in treating psychiatric patients any differently from any other patient in this community. Now, let us see what happens to people who are admitted to psychiatric hospitals in New South Wales. Whether one is a private or public patient, or even a pensioner patient, one is charged a fee of just over $10 a day, a total of just over $70 a week or $306 a month. The pensioner patients will not be rendered an account immediately but the account is rendered to the Master of Protective Custody. He is the person in whom all the property of psychiatric patients rests. When that patient finally dies the total amount charged is deducted from the estate of those people on probate. This is an amount of some $3,600 a year and if a patient has been in hospital for some 2 or 3 years and if he or she did own a home the whole of the property goes to the State of New South Wales. There is no attempt made by the Commonwealth Government to help, nor is there any attempt made by the State of New South Wales to help. All that the State Government does is to carry the amount until the death of that patient. Pensioners and others are treated in exactly the same fashion.

If the honourable members think that this is exaggerated and in fact only a small number of people would be in those hospitals for a short period of time I have a breakdown of the period over which people had been in psychiatric hospitals on 30th June 1967. These are the latest figures available. In Victoria at that time there were some 23,000 people as inpatients. Only 22 per cent of them had been there for less than 1 year, 9 per cent for between 1 and 2 years, 6 per cent for between 2 and 3 years, 10 per cent for between 3 and 4 years, 14 per cent for between 5 and 9 years, 9 per cent for between 10 and 14 years and so on. Some of them had spent over 50 years in hospital. The cost to those people accumulates at present at the rate of $10.05 a day. This is a fantastic amount of money when one thinks of the rate at which it is accumulating.

This again is an area in which this Government discriminates. It discriminates in the first instance against the psychiatric patients - a large number of whom are elderly - and, secondly, it discriminates against the not so well off people in the community. What happens to those members of the community who are very well off? They never enter psychiatric hospitals, not because they do not suffer from the conditions which lead others to be admitted but because they are admitted to private psychiatric hospitals which are not declared to be psychiatric hospitals. They are declared to be ordinary private hospitals and the patients then become eligible for refunds through the hospital benefits scheme. The former Minister for Health, now the Minister representing the Minister for Health in this chamber is in the chamber now. I hope that he will be able to give us some assurance that the Government has thought about this issue. As 1 have pointed out before a large number of people - it was 68,000 a year and is probably more by now - are affected by this. There is no attempt made to help them. What happens to these people in New South Wales? The New South Wales Government tries to get rid of them. As soon as they become non-dangerous either to themselves or to other people they are discharged into convalescent homes. All over the areas surrounding psychiatric hospitals we see the conversion of large homes into convalescent hospitals. The State Government urges the people in charge of the psychiatric hospitals to transfer all these elderly people to these convalescent homes. As soon as they are transferred into a convalescent home they become eligible for a $2 per day bed subsidy and in some cases when intensive care is required they become eligible for an additional $3 per day. That is a total of $5 per day. Once they are transferred into a convalescent hospital they become eligible for a subsidy of between $14 and $35 a week. In addition to that in many cases the patients have a pension and it is possible for the State government to wash its hands of these people. Once these people are admitted to a convalescent hospital they receive for all practical purposes no treatment. They are discharged with some tablets, usually tranquillisers. They can be seen sitting and vegetating. No attempt is made to cure them. The only reason for this is that the Commonwealth Government - this Government which claims to have some sort of a social welfare policy - has an absolute contempt for people who are psychiatric patients. This Government banks on the fact that there is still some feeling of guilt in the community about people having a relative in a psychiatric hospital and the relatives of the patients take no active or aggressive steps to do anything about it. If these people banded together and put political pressure on this Government, as they should be doing, it would be possible for them to obtain perfectly reasonable treatment. In other words, whenever a psychiatric patient is admitted to a psychiatric hospital or to any other hospital he should be treated in exactly the same way, as far as Commonwealth subsidies are concerned, as other patients.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I had not intended to speak in this debate but certain things have been said tonight which are, to say the least, irresponsible statements which could mislead any person who may subsequently be looking through the parliamentary debates - if there is such a person. The honourable member for. Cowper (Mr Robinson) made great play about the Australian Labor Party’s policy on primary industry. The honourable member suggested that people who live in country areas would be worse off under a Labor government. I point out to him that any of the farmers in our community who recall the situation with regard to farm incomes at the time when these much vaunted protectors of the country people took office in 1949 will be pleased to recognise one fact which emerges from an examination of the situation after 20 years of Country Party assistance. The farmers are bankrupt now but they were prosperous in 1949. If this is the type of support that Country Party policy gives to the farmers then the sooner someone without that sort of policy gets into office the better off the farmers will be. 1 want to deal with some matters about which I thought the honourable member for Chisholm (Mr Staley), who is supposed to be an expert on matters relating to conferences, would have been aware. The honourable member made some very serious allegations and said that Labor Party supporters agree to support majority decisions. The honourable member appeared to suggest that this was an undemocratic practice. I believe that it is an absolutely democratic practice. The honourable member said that there was something wrong when a person went to the people and asked them to elect him on the basis of the policy of a political party and then to accept that Party’s policy. I suggest that no Liberal Party or Country Party members would be in this House if their parties had not endorsed them. This is one of the facts of political life and those people who would deny it are plainly dishonest. If those people who come into this place on the platforms of those 2 parties are not prepared to support those platforms they should at least have the honesty to tell the organisations which they purport to represent and the electors whose votes they sought on the basis of supporting particular policies that they are not prepared to be Liberal Party candidates or Country Party candidates and that they will run as independent candidates.

It is plainly dishonest for honourable members on the other side of the House to suggest that they come into this place as anything but representatives of a political party. They are not big enough to get up and say that they could not have been elected without the support of a party.

They try to kid themselves that the are something special but when the crunch comes they vote as they are told. We have seen today an indication of exactly how they perform and how their policies are formed. Their policies are formed in exactly the same way as those of the Communist Party or the Fascist Party. The leader of the party writes down his thoughts and his followers stand up one after the other and spruik them in exactly the same manner. When we look at the personnel of the new Ministry and the array of former Ministers we can be sure that we are in for a Red-baiting session.

The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has decided that only those people who are prepared to support extreme right wing ideas will gain his support because the Liberal Party is such a democratic organisation that its members have absolutely no say in who will run the Party and no say in what policies will be finally formulated. I am talking about the policies which come into this Parliament in the form of Bills, not the myths from conferences which arc held and where members can let off steam but have no actual say in the policies of the Party. The members of the Government’s policy making body are not elected and members of that Party have no say in who becomes a member of that body. The fact of the matter is that one man is elected leader and to him, as with Allah, all wisdom is attributed. I suggest that no man in Australia has that sort of wisdom. 1 think that the events which have taken place’ in recent months have proved how wrong the Government parties have been in trusting all their eggs in the one basket. If the idea of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen) - an idea which h.;s been proposed by other honourable ‘members - were adopted whereby members of (he Party elected the ministry, that Party could talk about democracy.

At the moment the situation in the Government parties is that the Cabinet governs the country. Members of the Cabinet are selected. It is not an elected body. There are more people appointed to offices in the Liberal Party by the Prime Minister and who hold their tenure of office bv the grace of his goodwill than there are persons not appointed to office. I think someone on the back bench on the Government side who has not at this time any such appointment should think about this. They are outnumbered by the Prime Minister’s personal appointees. They are outnumbered by those people who owe an allegience to the Prime Minister because of the grace of their office. This Parliament is the place where the Government of the nation is supposed to take place. I think the events of today, particularly this evening, suggest we are in for a session of Parliament during which honourable members opposite will be trying to prove just how extremely right wing they are in order to curry favour with the Prime Minister. This is the real crux behind the remarks of the honourable member for Chisholm.

We heard tonight the honourable member for Diamond Valley (Mr Brown) make a not dissimilar type of speech. The honourable member for Diamond Valley obviously recognises the fact that if he is not extremely careful he will not gain preferment at some future date. As both those honourable gentlemen probably think they have sufficient ability to justify their eventual appointment as Ministers, they are placed in the unfortunate position of having to curry favour by crawling to the Prime Minister if they want to receive a promotion. If they are not prepared to do this they will find themselves in the same position as the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) and, as I understand it, the position in which the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Chipp) would have been had it not been for the intervention of the Prime Minister’s wife. This is a dangerous situation and one which is of no use to this Parliament and more impor tantly of no use to this nation. I say this because it is only by a concensus and a blending of ideas and a cultivation of opposition within the organs of government where arguments are put for and against propositions that real decisions can be made. If all the people in any organisation are of like mind then that organisation will wither and die because it lacks the ability to renew itself. That is what is wrong with the Liberal Party at the moment. That is what is wrong with the Government at the moment. It is being crucified on the altar of uniformity. If it had a few more differences on ideological grounds and fewer differences on personal grounds the Government of this country would be much sounder and the future of the country would be in better hands.

I suggest that what we have heard tonight is the start of the collapse of any ideas of the Australian Government and the start of a serious smoke screen. This Parliament should look very seriously at the situation where a man who holds the ideas, and has professed those ideas in this Parliament, that the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) holds, is now in a position of authority in this Parliament. There is no person in this Parliament, and I doubt whether there are many people in Australia, holding the extreme ideas that this man holds, and for these ideas he is rewarded. It is quite obvious that the majority of members of the Government accept the position of apartheid and all it stands for.

Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.

page 385

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Telephones (Question No. 3115)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. ls the maintenance of Victa Red telephones performed by technicians of his Department?
  2. If so, from whom is the payment received by his Department for this service?
  3. What is the level of this payment?
Sir Alan Hulme:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The rental for a normal telephone service contains a component to cover maintenance of the telephone instrument. Therefore, as the Post Office does not have to provide telephone instruments for Victa Red services and as normal rentals are charged for services with which Victa Red telephones are associated, the agreement with V.T.C. Pty Ltd- the suppliers of the Victa Red units - makes provision for a certain number of maintenance visits to-be made each year to the premises of subscribers leasing Victa Red telephones without charge to the Company. However, the Company is required to pay $4 for each maintenance visit in excess of the number which the Department has agreed to make without charge. Under the agreement the Company is required to supply free of charge parts required for maintenance purposes and to meet the actual costs incurred by the Post Office when units require complete overhaul. The performance of Victa Red telephones has been such that there has been no need to date for maintenance payments to be made by the Company.
  3. See answer to (2) above.

Clutha Development Company (Question No. 3155)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. What is the (a) supply source and (b) the annual tonnage of coking coal which Clutha Development Pty Ltd is permitted to export under the provisions of the New South Wales Clutha Development Pty Ltd Agreement Act 1970 which was assented to on 9th December 1970?
  2. Will these proposed exports make serious Inroads into the known reserves of coking coal in southern New South Wales and place in jeopardy in the foreseeable future the steel making industry in the Wollongong-Port Kembla region?
  3. What are the known reserves of good quality coking coal in southern New South Wales.
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (a) and (b) The agreement between the New South Wales Government and Clutha Development Pty Ltd, which is authorised by the

Clutha Development Pty Ltd Agreement Act, 1970, is set out in the Schedule to the Act. The Act referred to does not deal with the matter of permits to export coal. Clause 4 of the Agreement provides that the railway and offshore loading installation shall be designed to transport and load coal from the South Clifton Colliery holding and from mines in or near the Burragorang Valley or near the towns or villages of Picton, Thirlmere, Tahmoor or Bargo or any nearby localities which are presently owned or operated by Clutha Development Pty Ltd or any associated company or which are in the future opened by the company or any associated company and owned or operated by either the company or an associated company.

  1. While the proposed annual level of exports from the operations of Clutha Development Pty Ltd in southern New South Wales have not as yet been specified, the company is understood to have based its feasibility studies on a minimum export figure of 7 million tons of coal per annum. It is the policy of the Government of New South Wales to ensure that adequate reserves of both steaming and coking coal will be available to meet the long term requirements of the steel industry and certain areas have been reserved for this purpose.
  2. The Bureau of Mineral Resources and tha Joint Coal Board independently have recently estimated the recoverable reserves of high quality coking coal in the South Coast of New South Wales and the Burragorang Valley at approximately 1,600 million tons.

Clutha Development Company (Question No. 3158)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Have any studies been undertaken to ascertain possible adverse effects on the Maddern Plains telephone repeater station by the offshore coal loader, associated coal stock pile and private railway proposed to be constructed by Clutha Development Pty Ltd in the Burragorang Valley and Coalcliff area of New South Wales?
  2. If so, would serious and continuing contamination by coal fines render this important communications facility inefficient to the point where its replacement would be necessary?
  3. What was the capital cost of the Maddern Plains telephone repeater station?
  4. What telephone and television links are provided through the station?
  5. What would be the cost of relocating the station if its removal became necessary?
  6. Would the cost be borne by the Commonwealth or Clutha Development Pty Ltd?
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. To date it has only been possible to carry out a preliminary study of possible adverse effects which the Clutha Development project could have on the operation of the Post Office microwave repeater at Maddern Plains. Detailed studies will be carried out by the Post Office when Clutha has completed its feasibility studies and developed firm proposals for the execution of its project. In the meantime, the Post Office is watching developments on the project through contact with the New South Wales Department of Mines.
  2. The preliminary Post Office study indicates that the Clutha project could possibly cause interference to the operation of equipment at Maddern Plains and require the repeater to be transferred to another location.
  3. The capital cost ot the Maddern Plains repeater was in order of $300,000.

  4. The following communications are at present passing through the repeater:

    1. A relay of the National Television programme to serve Canberra, Wollongong, Cooma/ Bega, Wagga, and Griffith regions.
    2. Two both-way interstate television relay channels between Sydney and Melbourne.
    3. Three broadband communications channels which carry trunk telephone channels, data links, sound programme channels, telegraph services, and private lines between Sydney, Wollongong, Canberra and Melbourne. The broadband channels also carry international traffic from Sydney to the OTC earth station at Ceduna (South Australia) for satellite transmission to Europe. In all, some 1,500 services are simultaneously carried by the repeater.
  5. The estimated cost of. re-locating the station would be between $0.5m and 51 -Om.
  6. At this stage it is not possible to give an answer to this question. The question of compensation will require examination when details of the scheme arc known.

Telephone Directories (Question No. 3194)

Mr Berinson:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What will bc the charge for a half-inch single column advertisement in the pink pages of each telephone directory to be issued in 1971?
  2. What will be the approximate number of subscribers in each directory?
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. The cost of a half-inch single column advertisement in the 1971 telephone directories is:
  1. The number of subscribers in each directory is not recorded as a statistic but the Department does record the number of exchange lines and telephone instruments installed in the area covered by each directory. The new rates for telephone directory advertising vary according to the potential market for an advertiser in :i particular directory in terms of the number of telephones in the area covered by that directory.

Each area covered by a telephone directory comprises one or more telephone districts. Some directory areas cover as many as nine such districts. In recognition of the fact that not all districts may have equal market potential for advertisers, only a proportion of the telephones in districts other than the main district of advertising rates should be applied. For purposes of this answer, the number of telephones used to determine the scale of advertising rates to be applied will be referred to as ‘effective advertising circulation’.

There are twelve ranges of effective advertising circulation. These are:

Telephone Directories (Question No. 3195)

Mr Berinson:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Which firm has been granted pink page advertising rights for the Western Australia telephone directory in each of the last 5 years?
  2. What benefit accrues to the Post Office from this advertising?
  3. What criteria are applied in determining whether approval should be given to proposed advertising rates?
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. From 1966 to 1969 the contract for advertising rights in the Western Australia telephone directory was held by R. H. Cook Pty Ltd trading as Pink Pages Publicity (W.A.). During 1969 the contract, which expires after the issue of the 1972 directory, was, with the approval of the Post Office, taken over by a newly formed company named Pink Pages Publicity (W.A.) Pty Ltd.
  2. It is the practice to invite public tenders for the right to sell advertising space in the telephone directory for a period of 7 years. A contract is awarded to the tenderer who offers the Post Office the highest proportion of the value of the gross sales achieved provided, of course, the Post Office is satisfied that the tenderer has a selling capability which should ensure the best return to the Department over the contract period. The successful tenderer retains his share of the advertising sales revenue and pays the balance to the Post Office according to the terms of the contract.
  3. The rates for advertising space in telephone directories are fixed by the Post Office. They are designed to give advertisers good value for money in terms of the coverage secured by means of directory advertising and compare favourably with the rates charged for other advertising media and those charges for advertising space in comparable telephone directories overseas. The costs incurred by the Post Office in publishing and distributing telephone directories are also taken into account.

Interdepartmental Committees:

National Development (Question No. 3215)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. What departments other than his Department are represented on the interdepartmental committees established to consider (a) the functions and establishment of the Bureau of Mineral Resources, (b) northern development, (c) development projects other than projects in northern Australia and (d) natural resources?
  2. What are the terms of reference of each committee?
  3. When was each committee established?
Mr Swartz:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (0, (2) and (3). lt is not usual practice to disclose the type of information sought in respect of interdepartmental committees.

Navy Personnel in Civilian Gaols (Question No. 3227)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

How many Navy personnel are at present in civilian gaols?

Dr Mackay:
LP

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

Telephones (Question No. 3231)

Mr Morrison:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has the reduction in the funds available to his Department instituted by the former Prime Minister resulted in a cut in the vote for the maintenance of telephones in public telephone booths?
  2. Is it a fact that a number of telephones in public telephone booths in the Electoral Division of St George is out of action because of lack of maintenance?
  3. If so, will he take steps to ensure that economies required by, the Government are not made at the expense of this important community service.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. There has been no reduction in maintenance expenditure on telephones in public telephone booths following the action of the former Prime Minister in altering the funds allocated to various Departments.
  2. No public telephones in the St George Electoral Division are out of action for unduly long periods because of lack of maintenance. The inservice time of public telephones in this electorate has shown a substantial improvement over the last 12 months as a result of improved maintenance techniques.
  3. Ever effort is made to ensure that public telephones are maintained in proper working condition, in spite of funds restrictions.

Aborigines (Question No. 3235)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to a recently completed 5-year survey into law enforcement practices affecting Aborigines in Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria by Dr Elizabeth Eggelston, a lecturer in criminal law at Monash University, Melbourne?
  2. If so, do Dr Eggelston’s findings indicated gross discrimination against Aborigines in law enforcement?
  3. Can he give brief details of the significant points Dr Eggelston makes in her report bringing out these facts?
  4. Has he yet undertaken any steps to eliminate, as soon as possible, this racial discrimination; if so. what were the steps and when were they taken7
  5. Does he propose any action in the future; if so, what and when?
Mr Howson:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes. It is, however, not accurate to describe Dr Eggleston’s thesis as a 5-ycar survey. Her statistics refer mainly to the year 1965, and her field work, was carried out during 2 months in 1965 and in the year March 1966 to March 1967.

  2. and (3) Dr Eggleston’s findings cannot, I believe, be said to indicate gross discrimination against Aborigines in law enforcement in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Some instances of discrimination on the grounds of race are cited and 1 certainly see these are a matter for concern; but the study also indicates some aspect in which Aborigines find themselves in a favoured position. Dr Eggleston’s general conclusion is that many Aborigines, in common with other people of low social and economic status, are in various ways severely disadvantaged in dealings with the legal and judicial system. One example may indicate the complexity of the question. Statistics from Western Australia in 1965 showed that the Aboriginal population was disproportionately, represented in prisons. Dr Eggleston however offers various reasons which could account for this such as:

    1. The fact that the most common charge against Aborigines was drunkenness, whereas traffic offences represent more than half the charges against non-Aborigines, and that prison sentences are more often imposed for drunkenness than for traffic offences;
    2. that the bail system favours the wealthy and bail sometimes constitutes a fine as an alternative to imprisonment;
    3. that in country areas where most of the Aboriginal population lives lower courts tend to deal with most Aboriginal offences and tend to impose harsher sentences than higher courts.
  3. and (5) The Office of Aboriginal Affairs has been able to advise on police training courses in relation to Aborigines and officers have given talks at police colleges to develop a greater understanding of the special problems of Aboriginal people in relation to the law. The Office has provided information to Aboriginal organisations about the available booklets of advice on citizens’ rights and police powers and I understand that the Victorian Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs is planning the distribution of a special booklet of this kind for Aboriginal people. A grant was recently provided for the establishment of an Aboriginal Legal Service by an organisation in New South Wales. This Service has a strong educational emphasis as well as providing legal aid. If it proves effective, the encouragement of similar services in other States will be considered.

Aborigines (Question No. 3261)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What was the Infant Mortality Rate for Aboriginal children in Central Australia during the last 12 months?
  2. Did the rate increase by over 100 per cent compared with the previous Vear; if so, why?
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Provisional data for 1970 shows that there were 272 live Aboriginal births in the southern division of the Northern Territory (i.e. below tb, 20th parallel) and that during this period 50 children died before they reached 12 months. Corresponding figures for 1969 were 287 live Aboriginal births and 27 deaths under 12 months.
  2. Although there are periodic swings in the Infant Mortality Rate in the southern division, the level is a matter for real concern and investigations are being made into the reasons for this.

It is not clear why there has been an increase in the Infant Mortality Rate in 1970 as compared to 1969 and this is being investigated. However, the attitudes of the Aborigines themselves to normal concepts of hygiene, the implications of the life style which most Aborigines choose to follow and the absence of family planning leading to the inadequate spacing of children are significant contributing factors to the Infant Mortality Rate.

The health of Aborigines is of major concern to Government and special health and hygiene services including infant welfare clinics are provided in Aboriginal communities.

While communal feeding services provide free planned meals for infants, Aboriginal parents frequently have to be reminded of the desirability of regular and adequate feeding for their children.

In addition the Department of Health undertakes surveys, provides special assistance as required and evacuates cases of particular concern for intensive care and treatment in base hospitals.

Aborigines (Question No. 3262)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

What action is being taken to assist the Brinken and Waigat Aboriginal tribes in the area west of Darwin who are concerned with the intrusion of stock onto their reserve from the adjoining grazing lease held by the Tipperary Land Corporation?

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

There has been a complaint about cattle from neighbouring pastoral properties straying onto the Waigat Reserve.

Natural land features and seasonal flooding make fencing difficult in this area but investigations are being conducted to see what might be done to mitigate the problem.

Aborigines (Question No. 3263)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has a request been received from the Brinken and Waigat Aboriginal Tribes for the return of their trial lands in the area west of Darwin?

    1. If so, what was the nature of the request and what consideration has it received?
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. and (2) No.

Naval Recruiting Campaign (Question No. 3294)

Mr Keogh:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. During each of the last 10 financial years (a) what was the total amount spent on advertising for Navy recruiting campaign purposes in Australia, (b) how many Navy personnel were employed on the campaign, (c) what was the total cost of the campaign including salaries, and (d) how many recruits joined the Navy?
  2. Was a recruiting campaign conducted in other countries during the same period?
  3. If so, (a) what was the total amount spent on advertising, (b) how many Navy personnel were employed on the campaign, (c) what was the total cost of the campaign including salaries and (d) how may recruits joined the Navy in respect of each country?
Dr Mackay:
LP

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

Australian Broadcasting Commission (Question No. 3299)

Mr Keogh:

asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. What are the names of the persons, other than employees, who have been interviewed or have taken part in the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Current Affairs programmes ‘Four Corners’ and ‘This Day Tonight’ since 1st January 1970?
  2. What were the qualifications of and what fee was paid to each person interviewed?
  3. In what States was each programme shown?
  4. During this period was the Commission subjected to pressure from any person or organisation to persuade it to emphasise any particular point of view on the subject matter covered?
  5. What steps are taken to ensure that conflicting views on any subject are adequately and fairly presented?
  6. Is the Commission satisfied with the impartiality of those who arrange the programmes?
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Several thousand persons other than A. B.C. employees have been interviewed or taken part in the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Current Affairs programmes ‘Four Corners’ and This Day Tonight’ since 1st January 1970. It would be a major task to provide the names of all the persons concerned who come from many parts of Australia and the A.B.C. regrets that it is not at present able to divert staff to undertake the detailed research that would be necessary. Many of the persons interviewed or taking part in these programmes are not paid a fee. However, where a fee has been paid this would range from $10 to $50 depending on the contribution and expertise of the person concerned.
  2. ‘Four Corners’ is shown in all States on Saturday evenings and repeated on Sunday afternoons. On Monday to Friday evenings each week a ‘This Day Tonight’ programme is broadcast simultaneously in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania have their own ‘This Day Tonight’ programmes which also are broadcast on Monday to Friday evenings each week. (The programme is called Line Up’ in Tasmania). Items shown in one State can be subsequently broadcast in other States.
  3. No.
  4. Where conflicting views are involved, every effort is made to find persons for interview so that a balance of opinion is adequately presented.
  5. Yes.

Telephones (Question No. 3302)

Mr Armitage:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What revenue was received from public telephones in New South Wales over the last 12 months.
  2. What was the cost of the upkeep of public telephones in New South Wales over the last 12 months.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. $5,260,368.
  2. The public telephone service is not costed out as part of the financial accounting system. However, special studies are undertaken as necessary to obtain such information. From these studies for 1969-70 the costs for New South Wales are approximately $6. 6m.

Broadcasting and Television Advertising (Question No. 3319) Dr Klugman asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. What is the percentage of advertising time allowed under the Broadcasting and Television Act?
  2. Doss this time include the use of advertising signs and slogans during the actual performance of live shows.
  3. Does the Australian Broadcasting Control Board enforce the limit on advertising; if not, can it be asked to do so?
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. The requirements relating to advertising permitted to be transmitted by commercial broadcasting and television stations are as laid down in the Broadcasting Programme Standards and Television Programme Standards issued by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board pursuant to Section 100 of the Broadcasting and Television Act. The amount of advertising time permitted is as follows: Broadcasting On weekdays, and on Sundays before 6.00 a.m., and between 12.00 noon and 12.00 midnight, not more than 18 minutes of spot advertising or 12 minutes of sponsored advertising may be broadcast in each hour. On Sundays between 6.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, and on Christmas Day and Good Friday, advertising content, whether spot or sponsored, may not exceed 6 minutes in the hour.

Television

On weekdays between 7.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m., not more than 11 minutes in the hour of advertising may be televised. At other times on weekdays the permissible limit is 13 minutes in the hour. On Sundays between 6.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon, advertising content is limited to 6 minutes in the hour and at other times on Sunday to 9 minutes in the hour. Advertising is not permitted before 6.00 p.m. on Christmas Day and Good Friday; after 6.00 p.m. on these days the limit is 9 minutes in the hour.

  1. For the purpose of the Television Programme Standards, the term ‘advertisement’ includes all advertising matter relating to goods or services whether by means of the visual or sound components of television, or both, and whether in the form of direct or superimposed announcements, slogans, descriptions or otherwise, and music, as well as any identifiable reference in the course of a programme to any goods or services, whether of the advertiser or not. Where such material is incidental to the programme, it is not included in advertising content. If such material is in any way obtrusive, however, it is counted.
  2. Yes; whenever breaches df the advertising time standards are observed by the Board’s monitoring staff the matter is taken up with the stations concerned, and in all cases appropriate action is taken to rectify the matter. Similarly, when complaints arc received from the public the Board takes steps to investigate the position.

Indo-China (Question No. 3307)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to an American Friends Service Committee white paper entitled Indo-China 1971?
  2. If so, will he make an early statement on the allegations quoted in the white paper on pages 23 and 24 that United States policy has betrayed hill tribes in northern Laos by fostering their hopeless opposition to the North Vietnamese and then deserting them, contrary to Australian and allied stated policies not to jettison beleaguered minorities requesting our support?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. lt would not be appropriate for the Australian Government to comment on allegations by a private organisation in the United States relating to aspects of United States policy.

The honourable member’s question does, however, afford me an opportunity to state that the Australian Government holds in high regard the loyal and courageous hill people of Laos, the Meo, who have worked in close harmony with the Royal Laotion Government in a united resistance to the aggression by North Vietnam against their country.

The Australian Government shares the honourable member’s concern about the fate of beleaguered’ peoples who have requested our support It is precisely this concern that has informed the Government’s policy towards the Republic of Vietnam.

Tibet (Question No. 3330)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What nation does Australia recognise as having administrative responsibility for the Tibetan region?
  2. Can he say whether the Peking Government expressed a desire to restore civil order in Tibet after overthrowing civil authorities there by force?
  3. Does the Government welcome these expressed aims and the expressed aims of the dictatorship in Pakistan?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The present facts of the administration of Tibet are that Tibet is an autonomous region within the People’s Republic of China and is administered by a revolutionary committee responsible to the government of the People’s Republic of China.
  2. In October 1950, Communist Chinese troops moved into Tibet to establish the authority of the then recently established People’s Republic of China. On 23rd May 1951, an Agreement between the authorities in Peking and in Lhasa was signed. This Agreement stated that: the Tibetan people have the right of exercising national regional autonomy under the unified leadership of the Central People’s Government.’

A rebellion in Tibet in March 1959 was put down by the PRC Central Government, which issued an Order on 28th March dissolving the Tibetan local government and establishing in its place a ‘Preparatory Committee of the Tibetan Autonomous Region’. This order expressed the hope that the Committee would ‘lead all the people of Tibet . . to unite as one and to make common effort to assist the People’s Liberation Army to put down the rebellion quickly, to consolidate national defence, to assert the interests of the people of all nationalities, to declare social order and to strive for the building of the new democratic and socialist Tibet’.

  1. On 9th April 1959, the then Acting Minister for External Affairs, Sir Garfield Barwick, stated with reference to the Tibetan people: They have our utmost sympathy and we sympathise also with our Asian neighbours who are living under like threat of fear of suppression or aggression.’

As to the expressed aims of the Government of Pakistan, President Yahya Khan said in a broadcast on 26th March: ‘ … my main aim remains the same, namely, transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people. As soon as the situation permits I will take fresh steps towards the achievement of this objective.’

In answer to a question in the House of Representatives on 22nd April, the Prime Minister outlined the Australian Government’s attitude in the following terms: ‘We regard this as a matter for the Pakistan Government itself, as the legitimate Government of both East and West Pakistan . . We also welcome the statement by the President of Pakistan that he will try to ensure that civil power is resumed as soon as possible. We hope that he can very quickly put his statement into practice and, above all, we express the view that there should be no more loss of life and that the leaders of the Awami League should be given full authority, civilly, to represent their people in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.’

Taiwan: Mongolia (Question No. 339v)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did Australia send an ambassador to Taiwan for the first time in November 1966?
  2. Did Australia recognise the Mongolian People’s Republic in February 1967?.
  3. Has Australia accredited an ambassador or minister to the Mongolian People’s Republic?
  4. Does Taiwan recognise the Mongolian People’s Republic?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. No.

Bougainville Copper (Question No. 3405)

Mr Jacobi:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Conzinc Riotinto Bougainville copper project, will cost $400m; if not, what is the estimated cost?
  2. Is it anticipated that 160,000 tons of ore and waste will be extracted per day; if not, what is the estimated production tonnage per day?
  3. Is it a fact that the production of copper will be approximately 160,000 tons per year for the next 25 to 30 years?
  4. If not, what (a) is the estimated tonnage to be extracted each year, (b) is the estimated period of profitable production and (c) are the total estimated deposits?
  5. Is it a fact that the production of gold will be half a million ounces per year; If so. are these deposits regarded as one of the largest in the world?
  6. If not, what (a) is the estimated extracted yield per year, (b) is the estimated period of profitable production and (c) are the total estimated deposits?
  7. Is the whole project supported by a series of 20-year sales contracts for the copper ore with a floor price of 35 cents a lb, and other invisions to insulate the project against fluctuations in the price of copper?
  8. If not, what (a) are the details of the contracts, (b) rate is set as the floor price and (c) fluctuations are envisaged and what are the estimated effects of those fluctuations?
  9. Is it a fact that a modest movement of the floor price of 35 cents a lb will have a significant effect on profit?
  10. Is it a fact that a modest improvement in the ore grade or 0.47 per cent, on which the projects viability was established, could significantly increase profit?
  11. Is it a fact that the ore body ls a fractured one, and the ‘ first 230 million tons of reserves proved were 0.63 per centum copper; if not, what were the assay reports?
  12. What sales contracts have been made, or are being negotiated, regarding the sale of gold deposits?
  13. What contracts has C.R.A. entered Into indicating the countries and companies concerned, for the sale of copper, gold and other minerals, and what is the total estimated value of these contracts?
  14. Is it a fact that at the base price, the revenue of the project will pass the total capita! investment inside 3 years from the date of commencement of production; if not, what is the estimated date at which the net return will equal capital Investment?
  15. What will be the total tonnage extracted during the estimated life of the mine in terms of copper, gold and other minerals?
  16. Will other types of minerals md byproducts be extracted from this project; if so. what are they and what ls the market potential and estimated capital return in each case?
  17. ls it a fact that C.R.A.’s share of the profit is 40 per cent; if not, what is the company’s share?
  18. What percentage of net profit wilt te paid to the Territory of Papua New Guinea (a) before tax and (b) after tax?
  19. Is it a fact that the Territory of Papua New Guinea holds 20 per cent of the equity in the project; if not, what equitay is held bv the Territory, and what rights has the Territory to possible new share issues?
  20. Will royalties be paid to the Territory; if so, at what rate and what Is the estimated total return?
  21. Is it a fact that exports from the project are expected to more than double and that the total revenue is estimated as between $200 and $300m during the first 10 years of operation: if not, what is the estimated revenue from ‘be project over this period?
  22. Is it a fact that the people of Rorovana were given $37,000 and the right to subscribe at par in the issue of shares in the project; if noi. v.hat are the details?
  23. Is he able to say what percentage of the share capital of C.R.A. is held by Rio Tinto Zinc and what percentage of the share capital of Rio Tinto inc is held by Australians?
  24. What steps is the Government taking to ensure that in future development of the Territory the capital investment and profitability of major projects will accrue increasingly to the indigenous people by public and private acquisition and control of their own resources and industries?
  25. Are Australia’s trusteeship powers sufficient to have allowed public development of Bougainville copper on behalf of all inhabitants by means of a statutory corporation, commission or similar body?
  26. ls Australia’s access to overseas capital and other domestic resources sufficient to have allowed development of Bougainville copper with the same capital investment, recoverable in the same period as under the existing private enterprise initiative?
  27. What were the terms of the two bans raised by the Territory of Papua and New Guinea during 1969-70 and 1970-71 referred to in his answer to question No. 2351 (Hansard 1st April 1971, page 1406)?
Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. Approximately 143,000 long urns (160,000 short tons) of waste and ore will be mined per day.
  3. No.
  4. (a) Production of copper contained in oucentrate will average 150,000 long tons P:i annum in the first 10 years of the life of the project. In the initial production years, mining will take place on zones of higher grade ore. Thereafter, copper production will diminish as lower grade ore zones are worked, (b) Ore reserves are currently estimated to be sufficient for a period of at least 30 years of profitable production, (c) Ore reserves within the limit of the planned open pit are estimated to be approximately 900 million tons of ore averaging 0.48 per cent copper and 0.36 dwt gold per ton.
  5. Production of copper concentrates is expected to contain an average of 500.000 oz of gold per annum for the first tcn years. The amount of gold in the ore is directly related to the copper content (see (4) (a) above).

The ore body is one of the world’s largest deposits of copper sulphide and gold will be produced as a co-product of copper in the refining process. In comparison wilh the grade of ore mined in Australian gold mines, the gold content of Bougainville ore is low.

  1. See (4) and (5).
  2. No. over fifteen years with a vendor’s option to sell
  3. (a) Contracts have been concluded for the Japan a further 82,500 tons of copper. Details of sale of 1,992,500 tons of copper in concentrates the contracts are as follows:

Purchasers

Japan: smelters and trading companies Dowa Mining Co Ltd Fu ru kawa Mining Co. Ltd Mitsubishi Metal Mining Co. Ltd. Mitsui Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd Nippon Mining Cb. Ltd Sumitomo Metal Mining Co. Ltd Toho Zinc Corporation Ltd Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd Mitsui and Co. Ltd.

F.R. Germany: smelter Norddeutsche Affinerie.

Spain: Smelter

Compania Espanola de Minas de Rio Tinto S.A. 8 (b) A floor price of 30 cents (US) per lb of contained copper will apply to the greater part of the concentrate delivered during the loan repayment period.

  1. The main cause of fluctuations in export revenue from the project will be movements in the price of copper. In the last five years, the price of copper (i.e. the London Metal Exchange cash price for electrolytic wirebars) has averaged approximately SHOO per long ton with substantial year to year variations. Since 1970, the price has continued to ease and future variations may be expected to depend, on the one hand, on the rate of growth of copper consumption which is closely related to the growth of industrial production in the principal developed countries and, on the other hand, the rate of increase of production in the main producing countries - U.S.A., Zambia, Chile and Canada, with some allowance for time lags. Copper price fluctuations will affect project revenue, dividend and royalty payments and Administration taxation receipts.

    1. A movement in the guaranteed minimum price (see (8) (b) above) will not affect profits providing the market price (see (8) (c) above) remain, above the guaranteed minimum price of concentrates.
    2. Yes: lt would also increase the returns from the project to Papua New Guineans. The profitability of the project will be increased nol only an improvement in the grade of ore mined but also bv a reduction in the cost of establishing the project, lower operating costs, increased throughput of the concentrator and improved rates of metal recovery from the treat ment processes. The feasibility of the project was established on the basis of 80,000 long tons of ore treated per day, a capital cost of about $350m and 0.48 per cent copper grade. An assessment of the effect of variations in any of the above factors on profitability is hypothetical until production commences in mid 1972.
    3. Yes. The ore minerals, mainly chalcopyrite and some bornite, occur principally in fine fractures and quartz veins up to several inches wide. Gold and silver occur essential)? ‘.a i! copper minerals. The first 230 million tons of reservos were reported to be of an average grade of 0.63 per cent copper and 0.45 dwt per ton gold in the Conzinc Rio Tinto Australia Ltd. Annual Report, 1967, page 22.
    4. Copper, gold and silver will be sold t> smelters (see (8) (a) above) in concentrates at free market rates on the basis of contained recoverable copper, gold and silver less predetermined refining and smelting charges, (Seduction for impurities, excessive moisture content and freight charges to European buyers. Sales to Japan will be on an f.o.b. basis.
    5. The estimated value of these contracts wilh Bougainville Copper Pty Ltd (see (8) (a) above) is approximately $2.000m assuming an average copper price of $900 per long too over a period of 15 years. (1.4) No. The period to recover the total investment including interest on debt finance with the most rapid form of debt repayments will depend primarily on the level of copper prices operating during the initial production years and the total debt incurred during the construction period. It has been estimated that at an assumed price of copper of $900 per long ton a period of 5-6 years would be required to recover total investment.
    6. lt is expected that total announced reserves will be mined. These reserves are estimated to contain approximately 4.32 million tons of copper, 16.2 million fine ounces of gold and 75.6 million fine ounces of silver.
    7. In addition to copper, gold and silver, the deposit contains disseminated magnetite and molybdenite. The average magnetite content is estimated to be 2.5 to 3 per cent. Further studies are being undertaken which may suggest economic means of recovery of magnetite. Production of molybdenum does not appear economic due to the small amount of the element. There are no other elements in sufficient quantity to be of economic importance.
    8. and (18) Distribution of net profits by Bougainville Copper Fry Ltd to private and public interests under the terms of the Bougainville Copper Agreement is as follows:

  1. Tax holiday and capital expenditure write-off period, production years 1-7, depending on the price of copper. (b) After allowing for taxation exemption of a portion of income from mining, a base tax rate of 224 per cent on taxable income (initial tax stage) will increase over 4 years to 50 per cent of taxable income (full tax stage). (c) Capital Mines Pty Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Conzinc Riotinto Australia Ltd (two-thirds) and New Broken Hill Consolidated Ltd (one-third).

    1. Yes. The Administration holds 20 per cent of the equity capital of the project on behalf of the people of Papua New Guinea. The Administration has the same rights to new share issues as the other shareholder, Bougainville Mining Ltd, in Bougainville Copper Pty Ltd.
    2. Under the Bougainville Copper Agreement, Bougainville Copper Pty Ltd will pay royalty at the rate of U per cent of f.o.b. revenue from sales of ores of copper, other minerals or gold, to the Administration. It is estimated that royalty payments to the Administration will be approximately $2.0m per annum. 3 per cent of this amount will be paid as royalty to the landholders.
    3. Exports of concentrates from the project are expected to more than double the expected exports of Territory goods and services in 1973-74 - the first full year of concentrate production. Total Administration revenue is expected to amount to between $200m to $300m during the first ten years of exports at an assumed copper price of $900 per long ton.
    4. The final settlement between the Rorovana people, Bougainville Copper Pty Ltd and the Administration for the leasing of Rorovana land for mining purposes included an immediate payment by Bougainville Copper Pty Ltd of $37,000 which comprised $7,000 as an annual rental fee to be reviewed at intervals of seven years and $30,000 for the loss of use of their land. In addition, an offer of 7,000 shares in Bougainville Mining Ltd at issue price was provided for in the settlement.
    5. In a statement to shareholders on 25th March 1971 the Chairman of Directors of Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd said that C.R.A. Holdings Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation Ltd) has an 80.65 per cent shareholding in Conzinc Riotinto Australia Ltd. The percentage of the share capital of Rio Tinto Zinc held by Australians is not known.
    6. Legislation has been passed by the House of Assembly for the establishment of the Investment Corporation of Papua New Guinea. The object of the Corporation will be to provide a means of obtaining a share in the ownership and control of major investment projects in the Territory financed by overseas capital where such equity would not otherwise be taken up. The corporation will hold the equities acquired in enterprises for future sale to eligible Papuan and New Guinean persons, enterprises or institutions. It will also assist eligible persons to take up directly equity shares in overseas investment in the Territory.
    7. lt is thought that Australia’s legal powers under the Trusteeship Agreement could have enabled a statutory corporation, commission or similar body to have been established to undertake the public development of Bougainville copper.
    8. For a project of the size of that being undertaken on Bougainville the availability of overseas and domestic capital depends largely on whether prospective lenders and shareholders are confident that it will be a successful venture. The project is being undertaken by a major inter.national mining company with a great deal of experience and expertise in such operations at a time when such development is of great importance to the Territory. Whether, if CRA had not initiated the project, it would have been undertaken by other equally efficient interests can only be a matter for conjecture. In general the Government believes that ventures of this nature should be undertaken by private enterprise provided that local interests as a whole are safeguarded. This condition has been met in the case of the Bougainville copper project.
    9. The first loan offered securities with an interest rate of 7.73 per cent and maturities of 12, IS, 20 and 25 years. The second loan offered the same interest rate for securities with maturities of 12, 15 and 18 years. Both loans were issued at par.

Airmails (Question No. 3406)

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Australian Capital Territory Police (Question No. 3419)

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Which of the recommendations of Mr Justice Bright on the South Australian Police Force are considered relevant to the Australian Capital Territory Police Force?

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

While not directly related to procedures and practices in the Australian Capital Territory, the following recommendations have some relevance to the Australian Capital Territory Police Force:

System of acquainting authorities with intention to march. Police identification.

Which airlines carried Australian (a) inward and lb) outward mail in each of the years 1968, 1969 and 1970?

What amount was received by each airline for these services in each of those yea rs.

Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (l)and (2) In the last complete financial year 19 airlines carried overseas airmail to Australia and 15 airlines carried overseas airmail from Australia. The names of the airlines concerned, together with details of the amount of overseas airmail each airline carried, in the 3 financial years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 are shown in the attached table.

Northern Territory Police (Question No. 3420)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Which of the recommendations of Mr Justice Bright on the South Australian Police Force are considered relevant to the Northern Territory Police Force?

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

While not directly related to procedures and practices in the Northern Territory, the following recommendations have some relevance to the Northern Territory Police Force:

Control of traffic during demonstrations. (Recommendation 1.)

Action to be taken in relation to police bail. (Recommendation 3.) Police identification. (Recommendation 7.) Availability to public of dangerous gases. (Recommendation 8.)

Australian Capital Territory: Taxis and Hire Cars (Question No. 3432)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) taxis and (b) hire cars are there in the Australian Capital Territory?
  2. How many (a) taxi and (b) hire car third party insurance policies exist in the Australian Capital Territory?
  3. Are records kept by his Department of sedan type motor vehicles fitted with two-way radio in the Australian Capital Territory?
  4. If so, how many of these types of vehicles are so equipped?
  5. Is he able to say whether vehicles which are not registered as hire cars or taxis are used as hire cars or rental cars in the Australian Capital Territory ‘with a consequent reduction in the amount of work available to registered taxis and hire cars?
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. and (2) There are 79 taxis and 6 hire cars in the Australian Capital Territory and the appropriate third party insurance policy is in existence for each vehicle.
  2. and (4) No.
  3. Under the Australian Capital Territory Motor Traffic Ordinance a taxi or hire car licence specifies the vehicle which may be used for the purpose. The Department is not aware that any vehicles not so specified are being used as hire cars. The Ordinance does not require a person to be specifically licensed to operate a rental car. The Department is aware that a number of Australian Capital Territory registered vehicles are operating as rental cars in the Territory.

Fire-fighting Equipment (Question No. 3446)

Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many sizes ot tap threads are in use by civil authorities in Australia?
  2. What efforts are being made to achieve standardisation of couplings among fire brigades and civil defence units?
  3. What priority does this project have in civil defence planning?
Mr Hunt:
CP

– The Minister for Works has advised me that the answers to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. There are eight types of fire hose couplings used by the various State authorities in Australia at the present time.

With the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland, which have standardised on one type, every other State has more than one type of coupling in use. The attached schedule lists the types of couplings presently in use in each Australian State.

  1. The type of hose coupling used in any State is a matter for the authority concerned.

Fire Brigades serving towns on either side of a State boundary carry adaptors to allow use of their equipment in either locality.

Commonwealth Service Departments and the Department of Civil Aviation have adopted the British instantaneous coupling for their mobile equipment and carry adaptors for local fittings.

The Commonwealth Fire Board has received support for and agreement with the principles of standardisation but no acceptable arrangements can be made to finance the cost for the conversion.

A coupling with a 5 millimetre pitch Whitworth form thread was developed by the Commonwealth Fire Board in 1952. The coupling has been adopted for use in the Northern Territory; also it will fit both the 5 turns per inch and 5i turns per inch Whitworth form thread couplings used in various States of Australia.

In addition an adaptor was developed by the Commonwealth Fire Board in 1965. The adaptor will connect threaded couplings used in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria. The implementation of this adaptor was deferred due to financial reasons.

At the present time no active effort is being made to promote standardisation of hose couplings throughout Australia.

  1. The Directorate of Civil Defence appreciates the need for standardisation so that all available equipment could be used in a major disaster and to this end the Directorate co-operated with the Commonwealth Fire Board in producing the adaptor in 1965. However, the finance required to standardise couplings throughout Australia is not available from the resources allocated to Civil Defence.
*Answers to Questions* 19 August 1971 *Answers to Questions* 397 SCHEDULE OF HOSE COUPLINGS USED FOR FIRE-FIGHTING EQUIPMENT IN AUSTRALIA * The 2 turns per inch round thread couplings used in South Australia, New South Wales (Broken Hill) Queensland, Tasmania, and Northern Territory are not completely interchangeable. {:#subdebate-37-22} #### United Nations Charter (Question No. 3423) {: #subdebate-37-22-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister [or Foreign Affairs, upon notice: In submitting proposals to the Secretary-General regarding the review of the United Nations' Charter, which are required before 1st July 1972, will the Government give consideration to the need to move for (a) negotiating an international exchange of press space and broadcasting time, (b) representation for China and Tibet separately (as for the Soviet Union, the Ukraine and Byelorussia) to encourage China to accept de facto representation for Taiwan, and separate representation for contending regimes in other divided countries, (c) universal suffrage in developing nations as a step towards democratic representation at the General Assembly or an associated House of Deputies and (d) growing legislative, judicial and executive powers for the United Nations as a pre-requisite for total disarmament, co-ordinated world development and control of the environment, subject to safeguards for national sovereignty in purely national matters? {: #subdebate-37-22-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The subjects suggested by the honourable member will be taken into account when the matter is being considered. {:#subdebate-37-23} #### United Nations Charter (Question No. 3422) {: #subdebate-37-23-s0 .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Government received a request from the United Nations for suggestions, to bc forwarded by 1st July 1972, for a review of (he Charter of the United Nations which was supported by the Government in December 1970? 1. Will the Government make an early statement of the proposals recommended for study and discussion by interested persons in accordance with his predecessor's reply to question No 984 (Hansard, 21 May 1970, page 2622)? {: #subdebate-37-23-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer ro the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. In general, the Australian Government has believed that the effective functioning of the United Nations might have requirements different from and deeper than Charter review. In bis statement to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 23rd September 1970, for example, the then Foreign Minister said that it was noi basically the Charter which was at fault, but that it was necessary for all Member States to use the Organisation and apply the Charter. The Government is nevertheless continuing to keep the matter under review especially in the context of the Secretary-General's request to Members to submit suggestions by 1st July, 1972. A decision as to whether Australia will submit proposals will be taken nearer that time. As indicated in the answer to question 984, the Government appreciates that serious and informed public discussion, voluntarily undertaken by persons who are interested in the study of the United Nations' Charter and the functioning of the United Nations system, could serve a useful purpose. The proposals which Member States submit to the Secretary-General by 1st July 1972, in response to his request, will subsequently be available in a United Nations' document and will then be the basis for further consideration of this subject. {:#subdebate-37-24} #### Polish Weekly9 (Question No. 3376) {: #subdebate-37-24-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say who are the publishers of a publication called 'Polish Weekly'? 1. Is it an English language publication? 2. What is its approximate circulation? 3. Who is current the Consul-General of the Polish People's Republic in Sydney, 4. Has he any information that the ConsulGeneral has sought to influence the economic viability of the 'Polish Weekly' by counselling certain regular advertisers in the publication to withdraw their advertising? 5. If so, is it possible to determine the correctness of allegations that the reason for this action is to attempt to stifle or restrict the policy of the publication? 6. Does diplomatic imlunity prevent any effective rebuke if the position is as stated in Parts (5) and (6)? {: #subdebate-37-24-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. R. Gronowski 1. No- a Polish language publication. 2. Approximately 6,000. 3. **Mr Edward** Malczyk 4. and (6) I understand that the Polish Consulate-General in Sydney has written to some Australian agencies of a Polish Government Bank, requesting them to discontinue placing advertisement in the 'Polish Weekly'. The stated ground for the request was that the 'Polish Weekly" was pursuing an editorial policy contrary to the trade publicity policy of the Bank. 5. The action of the Polish Consulate-General was not contrary to Australian law and it would not seem appropriate for the Australian Government to intervene in the matter. {:#subdebate-37-25} #### Australian Capital Territory: Housing (Question No. 3427) {: #subdebate-37-25-s0 .speaker-8H7} ##### Mr Enderby: asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many families in Canberra with more than four children were waiting for transfers from (a) 2-bedroom and (b) 3-bedroom government houses to larger government accommodation at 30 April 1971? 1. What has been the waiting time in each case? 2. What is the approximate average waiting period in these cases and is there any indication that it will be reduced? {: #subdebate-37-25-s1 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) Four, (b) Forty-eight. 1. The waiting times in individual cases vary from 11 years to 12 days depending on the extent of overcrowding and the tenants' preferences for locations and types of dwellings. Some tenants have received offers of transfers and have declined to accept them. 2. The average waiting time is 30 months for 2-bedroom and 40 months for 3-bedroom transfers. There is no indication that it will be reduced. {:#subdebate-37-26} #### Diplomatic Missions and Consular Posts (Question No. 2977) {: #subdebate-37-26-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >What has been the cost of (a) repairing and (b) protecting the premises of diplomatic missions and consular posts in Australia in each of the last 5 years? {: #subdebate-37-26-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Because of the scope of the question and the necessity to approach other Commonwealth Departments and State Authorities, complete information regarding the cost of protecting premises is not yet available. > >The following particulars can, however, be supplied at the present time: > >Cost of Repair 1966- 67 Nil 1967- 68 Nil > >1968- 69 $5,270 > >Repairs to the Embassy of the USSR and removal of paint slogans from the Spanish Chancery, Canberra. > >1969- 70 $597.91 > >Replacement of light fittings at the Embassy of the USSR and the restoration of footpaths. > >1970- 71 $4,461 > >Representing replacement of damaged Yugoslav furniture and fittings of the Yugoslav Consulate-General in Melbourne, ($4,100) and the removal of paint graffiti from the walls of Embassies in Canberra as follows: > >South African Embassy $174.00 British High Commission 32.00 Embassy of Portugal . . 155.00 1971- 72 $26,313 (to date) > >Repairs to Embassy of the USSR and replacement of furniture and finings. $25,000 > >Repairs in the Yugoslav ConsulateGeneral, Melbourne. $40.00 > >Painting out graffiti on walls of the South African Embassy. > >Cost of Protection > >In respect of Embassies in Canberra, separate guarding - costs for each year are not available, but the overall cost to 2nd May 1971, was $173,506. Present weekly costs are $7,284. > >In respect of Consular Posts in the various Stales, detailed estimates of guarding costs are not yet to hand. However, facilities provided by the Western Australian Police have cost $220 over the past 3 years. In Victoria the costs of the Victorian Police of guarding Consular premises have been: 1966 No figures available > >1967 $2,610 > >1968 $2,714 > >1969 $2,919 > >1970 $15,179 > >1971 $16,359 (to 2nd May 1971). > >The Commonwealth Police in Melbourne expended $9,860 in 1970-71 on protecting the Yugoslav Consul-General {:#subdebate-37-27} #### Naturalisation (Question No. 3110) {: #subdebate-37-27-s0 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: >How many persons of Asian origin have become naturalised within 5 years of taking up permanent residence in Australia? {: #subdebate-37-27-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Statistics which have been maintained only since 1st January 1963 show that between that date and the 31st December 1970, 1,581 persons of Asian origin were granted Australian citizenship by naturalisation within 5 years of their arrival in Australia. {:#subdebate-37-28} #### Migration: New Zealand (Question No. 3337) {: #subdebate-37-28-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: >On what occasions and with what results have discussions taken place on migration from New Zealand (Hansard, 12 June 1970, questions Nos 1120 and 1121 pages 3643-44, 1 October 1970, questions Nos 1478 and 1510 page 1992, 30 October 1970, question No. 2022 page 3154 and 2 April 1971, page 1414) and each other Commonwealth country in the South Pacific? {: #subdebate-37-28-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Australian and New Zealand Government Officials met in Canberra in November 1966 to discuss matters relating to documentation for direct travel between Australia and New Zealand of citizens of the two countries. This matter was the subject of discussions also between the then Minister for Immigration the Hon. P. R. Lynch and the High Commissioner for New Zealand in Canberra in February 1971. > >These discussions led to a careful study of the requirements by the Government which decided that there should be no change in the existing requirements as to the entry to Australia of citizens or residents of New Zealand. > >The Government's decision means that the documentation requirements for direct travel between Australia and New Zealand remain as indicated in the answer provided to the honour able member's question No. 1121 (Hansard, p;i:;. 3644 of 12 June 1970). > >No discussions have taken place with other Commonwealth countries in the South Pacific on specific questions relating to migration to Australia. {:#subdebate-37-29} #### Migration: South Pacific (Question No. 3338) {: #subdebate-37-29-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: >How many applications from indigenous inhabitants of each (a) Australian, (b) British, (c) New Zealand and (d) United States territory in the South Pacific for permits to travel to Australia, for residence or visits, were (i) received, (ii) approved and (Hi) rejected in the latest year for which statistics are available? {: #subdebate-37-29-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 1 residene I visit. (b) Statistics not maintained. (c) Not known. (d) 55 residence, 1,594 visits. (e) 6 residence visits not known. Statistics have not been maintained for other New Zealand or United States); but application {:#subdebate-37-30} #### Naturalisation (Question No. 9365) {: #subdebate-37-30-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP ns asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many migrants in Victoria between 1945 and 1970 (a) applied for naturalisation, (b) were unsuccessful in their applications for naturalisation and (c) have not had their applications granted, their applications being currently deferred or pending? 1. How many migrants in each category were (a) Greek born and (b) Italian born? {: #subdebate-37-30-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- -The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Statistics showing the number of applications f0 naturalisation by residents of Victoria have been maintained only from 1953. A breakdown according to nationality is available only from 1960. The figures are: > >Statistics of refusals and deferments have been maintained only on an Australia wide basis. Separate figures are not available in resepect of Victoria. The following table shows the total number of applications refused or deferred in the years 1949 to 1970, together wilh the number of Greeks and Italians in this category during the years 1960-1970. The number of applications for naturalisation by residents of Victoria in which: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. citizenship has been approved but has yet to be conferred at public ceremonies throughout the State; and 1. inquiries or administrative action have noi been completed is: {:#subdebate-37-31} #### Naturalisation (Question No. 3391) {: #subdebate-37-31-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. For how many years must migrants from various countries and in various categories live in Australia before they can (a) seek or (b) acquire Australian citizenship? 1. When was consideration last given to reducing the period of residence required? {: #subdebate-37-31-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) The normal residence requirement for the grant of Australian citizenship by naturalisation to aliens is 5 years. The answer to Question 3107 (Hansard of 22 April 1971, page 1965) lists the circumstances in which citizenship may be granted to aliens without being required to complete the normal period of 5 years residence. Persons required' to meet the normal 5 years residence requirement may lodge applications up to 6 months before completing 5 years residence. Persons referred to in (a), (c), (e) and (g) of paragraph 1 of the answer to Question 3107 may also apply 6 months before completing the required period of residence. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The normal residence requirement for the grant of citizenship by registration to citizens of other Commonwealth countries and Irish citizens is 1 year. The classes of persons referred to in (b) and (d) of paragraph 1 of the answer to Question 3107 may be granted citizenship by registration in accordance with the conditions mentioned. Minors over the age of 16 years may also be granted citizenship without satisfying any, specified period of residence. In all cases citizenship by registration may be sought when the residence requirement has been met. 1. The residence requirements defined in the answer to Question 3107 and in paragraph (b) above apply to all persons except those admitted under the Government's decision of March 1966 referred to in the answer given to Question 3108 (Hansard of 22nd April 1971, pages 1965-1966). {: type="i" start="2"} 0. (i) The question of the reduction in the general 5 years requirement for naturalisation was considered in 1969 when the Government decided to reduce to 3 years the residence requirement for aliens who can read and write English proficiently. This was embodied in the 1969 Citizenship Act. 1. The residence requirement for persons admitted under the March 1966 decision was considered by the Government in June 1969 and February 1971. {:#subdebate-37-32} #### Migrants (Question No. 3408) {: #subdebate-37-32-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many migrants were brought to Australia by (a) sea and (b) air in each of the years 1968, 1969 and 19707 1. Which airlines carried the migrants and at what cost? {: #subdebate-37-32-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Migrants come to Australia either by paying their own fares, without any subsidy from the Commonwealth Government, or under assisted passage schemes. Assisted migrants accepted under bilateral schemes or other arrangements travel to Australia with transport provided by the Commonwealth or by the Intergovernmental Committee f0 European Migration. Some assisted migrants approved under the unilaterally administered Special Passage Assistance Programme (SPAP) make their own travel arrangements. The following figures relate to all arrivals in Australia during the calendar years 1968, 1969 and 1970. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Airlines which carried assisted migrants to Australia under arrangements made by the Commonwealth or by ICEM during the years in question, and the amounts paid to those airlines in respect of transportation costs were as follows: (a) Migrants moved from the United Kingdom, Turkey and Europe on charter and commercial flights arranged by the Commonwealth. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Migrants from Europe moved by ICEM. It is not possible to indicate which airlines brought unassisted migrants to Australia or the transport costs involved. No figures are available to show the amounts paid to various airlines by assisted migrants approved under SPAP who arranged their own travel to Australia. {:#subdebate-37-33} #### Australians of Former German Nationality (Question No. 3417) {: #subdebate-37-33-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is be able to say whether many naturalised Australians of former German nationality now nearing or having reached retirement age are not receiving superannuation payments due to them from German sources? 1. Can he say whether these claims have been recognised but cannot be paid until the Australian Government negotiates on behalf of these new citizens? 2. Is he able to confirm that Canada is undertaking negotiations on behalf of Canadian citizens of former German nationality and that final talks with German authorities will be held this month? 3. Will he take urgent action to initiate negotiations with the German authorities to obviate a major cause of concern and hardship to those new citizens? {: #subdebate-37-33-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. However some individual cases have come to the notice of my Department and the Department of Social Services. 1. It is not possible for me to state whether these claims have been recognised by the German authorities. However, I am advised that pensions provided by the Federal Republic of Germany are not payable to non-citizens residing abroad, except for those living in countries which have reciprocal agreements on social security with the Federal Republic of Germany. 2. No. However 1 am informed that a social security agreement has been negotiated between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany but that formal ratification is not expected to be completed for some time. Details of the agreement have not been made public. 3. The question of payment of German pensions in Australia is a matter for the German authorities. I understand that, while no formal negotiations have taken place between West Germany and Australia, the question whether there is a suitable basis on which reciprocity on social security might be approached is being examined by my colleague, the Minister for Social Services, as part of an exercise involving the possibility and implications of social security arrangements with other countries. {:#subdebate-37-34} #### Immigration (Question No. 3447) {: #subdebate-37-34-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that the Italian Under-Secretary for Immigration, **Mr Bemporad,** during a recent visit to Australia said that many provisions of the Immigration Agreement between Australia and Italy were inadequate and provided little security for Italian migrants and requested that it should be brought up to date? 1. Is it also a fact that a mixed committee has been formed to settle the problems and recommend changes? 2. Did **Mr Bemporad** state that the Italian Government was dissatisfied with the methods of the Australian Department of Immigration and had sought assurances that information on living and working conditions be accurate and reflect more closely the local situation? 3. Did **Mr Bemporad** criticise the failure of Australia to recognise trade and professional qualifications. suggest that more overseas qualifications should be recognised, and request that English courses both in Italy and Australia be expanded and improved? 4. Was **Mr Bemporad** critical of the failure of the Australian Government to transfer age and invalid pensions to migrants who desire to retire to their native country? 5. What were the reasons which prompted the criticism by **Mr Bemporad** and what action has been taken by the Government in these matters? {: #subdebate-37-34-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Important discussions were held with **Dr Bemporad** on the Australian/Italian Migration and Settlement Agreement. In particular, agreement was reached to proceed . with the establishment of the Joint Commission as provided for in Article 37 of the Agreement. Exploratory talks have since begun between the two parties on the composition of the Joint Commission and the tasks to which it might first direct its attention. 1. No. In fact in a joint communique issued on 26th March **Dr Bemporad** expressed his satisfaction with the way in which Italian settlers were integrating into the Australian community and establishing themselves as prosperous and productive members of the community. Hie Italian Government confirmed its willingness to co-operate in the teaching of English to prospective migrants and responded favourably to the Australian request that Italian Labour Offices assist with the distribution of pamphlets to prospective migrants, informing them of the possibilities open to them for learning English as well as about working and living conditions they will find upon their arrival in Australia. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. The initial settlement problems of migrants and particularly their difficulties in learning English and obtaining recognition for professional and trade qualifications were discussed. On the matter of recognition of professional and trade qualifications, Ministers agreed on the importance of the results of the Australian Tripartite (Tregillis) Mission and of the National Conference of Training for Industry and Commerce, which was held in May this year in Canberra. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Discussions with **Dr Bemporad** also covered Article 35 (Social Security) of die Migration and Settlement Agreement which requires the two Governments to study the possibility of entering into a reciprocal agreement on the "payment of the benefits contemplated by the respective social security systems. After reviewing problems relating particularly to age pensions and invalid pensions there was agreement to exchange further detailed information on the social security systems in each country, lt was further agreed that following this the subject would be re-examined at the expert level. {: type="1" start="6"} 0. See answers 1 - 5 above. {:#subdebate-37-35} #### Immigration (Question No. 3442) {: #subdebate-37-35-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: >Will he provide a statement in tabular form showing in adjoining columns the number of (a) pure blood and (b) mixed-blood people from each Asian and African country who have been admitted to Australia in each of the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70? {: #subdebate-37-35-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Until recently the annual arrival statistics of people of non-European descent were dissected according to their nationality, not the country from which they came. The detailed nationality statistics relating to people of non-European and of part European/part non-European descent who have been admitted to Australia for residence or who were granted resident status after initial entry for temporary residence during the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 are: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. In view of the small number of non-European people arriving *<n* Australia as migrants from Mauritius and South Africa they are not recorded separately for statistical purposes but are included with the miscellaneous group under the heading of "Others". {:#subdebate-37-36} #### Immigration: Expenditure (Question No. 3443) {: #subdebate-37-36-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: >What amount was spent on Immigration programmes in each of the years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70? {: #subdebate-37-36-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The question has been construed as referring to expenditure incurred for all immigration purposes as distinct from the costs involved directly in recruitment of migrants and passage assistance only. Details of such expenditure, together with revenue received by the Department of Immigra- and other sources, are shown in the following tion from migrant contributions to passage costs table: Notes on table: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. Part of the total expenditure is incurred on functions such as temporary entry control, citizenship, passport, etc., that are not related directly to the immigration programme. 1. The figures exclude expenditure brought to account by other departments under the 'common services' arrangement, which operates at overseas posts where two or more Commonwealth Departments are accommodated in the same premises. In such cases, the costs of shared staff and facilities are charged to the appropriations of the host department - usually the Department of Foreign Affairs. In Britain, office accommodation costs and the salaries of other than Australia based staff arc carried by the votes of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet 2. Costs associated with the provision and general maintenance of Commonwealth owned office buildings in Australia are not chargeable against Department of Immigration votes anl do not appear in the figures given in the table. {:#subdebate-37-37} #### Trade Practices: Narrandera Brewery (Question No. 2297) {: #subdebate-37-37-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: >Can the Minister take action under the Trade Practices Act to ensure that brewery monopolies will not be permitted to stifle or interfere with the desirable decentralised development plans to establish a co-operative brewery at Narrandera? {: #subdebate-37-37-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer provided by the Attorney-General to the honourable member's question is as follows: >Any action under the Trade Practices Act would need to be taken by the Commissioner of Trade Practices, whose attention has been directed to the question. Before taking any action the Commissioner would need to be satisfied of the existence of an examinable agreement or examinable practice and that the agreement or practice was contrary to the public interest. Trade Practices: Petroleum Industry (Question No. 2298) **Mr Grassby** asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he have carried out an investigation ot the petroleum industry to ensure that restrictive trade practices have not been and will not be Instituted to destroy independent traders in petroleum products who refine and sell fuel? 1. ls the petroleum industry increasingly influenced by monopoly and restrictive practices; if so, do the activities of independent traders ensure a modicum of competition? {: #subdebate-37-37-s2 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP en - The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. The Trade Practices Act makes specific provision for inquiries by the Trade Practices Tribunal into whether persons are engaging in restrictive trade practices and whether those practices are contrary to the public interest Any such enquiry has to be instituted by the Commissioner of Trade Practices whose attention has been directed to this question. 1. For the reasons mentioned in the answer to part (1) of the question, it would be inappropriate to provide an answer to part (2). {:#subdebate-37-38} #### Trade Practices Legislation: South Australia (Question No. 2467) {: #subdebate-37-38-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: >What action have the Australian and South Australian Governments taken on trade practices legislation since the then Attorney-General's discussion with the South Australian AttorneyGeneral at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in October 1970 (Hansard, 19th October 1970, page 2376)7 {: #subdebate-37-38-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer provided by the Attorney-General to the honourable member's question is as follows: >In November 1970 the South Australian Government introduced The Commonwealth Powers (Trade Practices) Bill 1970, the purpose of which was to give the Commonwealth plenary power to legislate with respect to trade practices in South Australia. The South Australian Government consulted with the Commonwealth in the course of the preparation of the Bill. The Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly of the South Australian Parliament, but certain amendments were made to it by the Legislative Council, as a result of which the Bill was not proceeded with. {:#subdebate-37-39} #### Air Force Personnel: Traffic Accidents (Question No. 2813) {: #subdebate-37-39-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many vehicles driven by Air Force personnel, but not owned by the Air Force, were involved in accidents in (a) 1968, (b) 1969 and (c) 19707 1. How many (a) civilians and (b) Air Force personnel were (i) injured and (ii) killed in these accidents? 2. How many Air Force personnel were charged with offences arising out of these accidents? {: #subdebate-37-39-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There are no Departmental records to show the number of private motor vehicles driven by Royal Australian Air Force personnel, that are involved in accidents. 1. (a) (i) Not available. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Not available, {: type="a" start="b"} 0. (i) The only statistics kept for 1968, 1969 and 1970 in regard to accidents involving RAAF personnel in privately owned vehicles are those relating to injuries sufficient to cause hospitalization or loss of time from work or both and these are as follows: 1968- 206 1969- 233 1970- 230 {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. The following number of deaths of RAAF personnel arose from private motor vehicle accidents in the respective years: 1968- 33 1969- 14 1970- 21 {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Accidents in private motor vehicles involving RAAF personnel normally occur in off-duty hours and charges would be laid and recorded by civil authorities. {:#subdebate-37-40} #### Trade Practices (Question No. 2854) {: #subdebate-37-40-s0 .speaker-KGH} ##### Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to *a* report on page 1 of Retail World of January 1971 regarding a dispute between a chain store operator **Mr Hank** Brink of Sydney, and Bonds-Wear Pty Ltd? 1. If so, is he able to say whether the action taken by Bonds-Wear Pty Ltd, in refusing to supply goods unless they are sold at a recommended price, is in the nature of a restrictive trade practice? {: #subdebate-37-40-s1 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer provided by the Attorney-General to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I have seen the report referred to in the question. It would be inappropriate for me to express a legal opinion in relation to the matters mentioned in the report. However, I draw the honourable member's attention to section 66b of the Trade Practices Act, which defines resale price maintenance so as to include a refusal to supply goods unless they are sold at a recommended price. Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Acts (Question No. 2974) **Mr Whitlam** asked the Attorney-General, upon notice: >In giving his answer on the matters discussed at the meeting of the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral on 7th March 1969 (Hansard, 24th September 1969, page 1922), why did he omit information on the decision to amend the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Acts (Hansard, 17th March 1971, page 1063)? {: #subdebate-37-40-s2 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP en - The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >I understand that my predecessor had regard to the following considerations: > >The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Acts are administered by the Mines Ministers; > >The agreement of the Standing Committee to the proposed amendments was expressly subject to concurrence of the Mines Ministers; > >Recognizing the responsibility of the Mines Ministers, the Standing Committee had not referred to the matter in its press statements, nor, when the answer of 24th September 1969 was given, had the amending legislation been introduced in any jurisdiction. Meat Wrapping at Alice Springs (Question No. 3254) {: #subdebate-37-40-s3 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: >Is he able to say whether, in butchers' shops at Alice Springs, newspaper wrapping is used for purchases by Aboriginal people and brown or grease proof paper for purchases by others; if so, what action can be taken to end this discrimiation? {: #subdebate-37-40-s4 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The relevant legislation requires that meat sold for human consumption be wrapped . so that it cannot come into contact with paper or other material which is not clean, or with any writing or printing upon any paper or other material. Recent inquiries made by welfare officers of Aboriginal shoppers have also indicated that there is no substance to this allegation. Aborigines: Service in Hotels (Question No. 3255) {: #subdebate-37-40-s5 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice: >Are Aboriginal people excluded from hotels in Alice Springs, and some other towns of the Northern Territory; if so, what action can be taken to end this discrimination? {: #subdebate-37-40-s6 .speaker-GH4} ##### Mr Hunt:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >My Department, which includes the Northern Territory Police Branch, has had no reports in recent times of Aborigines being excluded from hotels anywhere in the Northern Territory on the grounds of race. There have been instances on which both Europeans and Aborigines have been refused service in hotels on the grounds of being drunk, quarrelsome or disorderly; it would, however, be an offence under the Northern Territory Licensing Ordinance for a publican to refuse service to any client on the grounds of race. Royal Australian Air Force: {:#subdebate-37-41} #### Recruiting Campaigns (Question No. 3292) {: #subdebate-37-41-s0 .speaker-KEI} ##### Mr Keogh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. During each of the last 10 financial years (a) what was the total amount spent on advertising for Air Force recruiting campaign purposes in Australia, (b) how many Air Force personnel were employed on the campaign, (c) what was the total cost of the campaign including salaries and (d) how many recruits joined the Air Force? 1. Was a recruiting campaign conducted in other countries during the same period? 2. If so, (a) what was the total amount spent on advertising, (b) how many Air Force personnel were employed on the campaign, (c) what was the total cost of the campaign including salaries and (d) how many recruits joined the Air Force in respect of each country? {: #subdebate-37-41-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The Minister for Ail has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. See attached schedule 'A'. 1. Formal recruiting campaigns are conducted only in Australia and the United Kingdom. 2. See attached schedule 'B {:#subdebate-37-42} #### Air Training Corps (Question No. 3448) {: #subdebate-37-42-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. is it a fact that economy cuts have been effected in regard to the Air Training Corps including the elimination of weekend training? 1. If so, will the Minister indicate in what way the activities of the Air Training Corps have been curtailed? {: #subdebate-37-42-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
CP -- The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Economies have been effected in the Air Training Corps. Weekend camps and bivouacs have been cancelled and the May school holiday camps have been deferred. It is hoped that the school holiday, camps can be run in August but this will depend upon the financial situation at that time. 1. There has been no curtailment of routine training commitments such as weekly parades and Air Training Corps with bands continue to practice at weekends. {:#subdebate-37-43} #### Ministerial Staffs: Telephones (Question No. 2563) {: #subdebate-37-43-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which Ministers' staffs have telephones located in their homes, the costs of which are paid wholly, or partly, by the Government? 1. What are the names of the staff in each case? {: #subdebate-37-43-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >I might first mention that official telephones are provided in the residences of key personnel whose responsibility for day to day administration requires that they be in a position to give immediate attention to official matters at all hours and whose immediate recall to duty is essential in an emergency. > >On this basis I propose to answer this question on my own behalf only and not for other Ministers. It is also not proposed to include the names of the officers concerned as the services are allocated to the occupants of particular offices. > >The reply to this question is therefore as follows: > >Private Secretary; Press Secretary; Assistant Private Secretaries. > >Not applicable. {:#subdebate-37-44} #### Ministers: Telephones (Question No. 2565) {: #subdebate-37-44-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: >How many Ministers have telephones located in their place of residence, the costs of which are paid wholly, or partly, by the Government? {: #subdebate-37-44-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >On the basis of the reply to Question No. 2563, the answer is that I have an official telephone service. {:#subdebate-37-45} #### Public Servants: Telephones (Question No. 2566) {: #subdebate-37-45-s0 .speaker-KXV} ##### Dr Patterson: asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice: >How many first and second division officers of the Public Service located in Canberra have their home telephone accounts paid wholly or partly by the Government? {: #subdebate-37-45-s1 .speaker-KIF} ##### Sir Alan Hulme:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >On the basis of the reply to Question No. 2563, there are no first or second division officers of my Department located in Canberra. {:#subdebate-37-46} #### Equal Pay (Question No. 2647) {: #subdebate-37-46-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Arbitration Commission adopt the submissions of the Commonwealth *on* the subject of equal pay? 1. If not, in what respects did the Commission reflect the Commonwealth's submissions? 2. In view of the anomalous position created by the criteria relative to equal pay advocated by the Commonwealth and adopted by the Commonwealth and which has the effect of excluding nursing sisters from entitlement of equal pay, will he modify the Commonwealth's opposition to equal pay for work that is essentially or usually performed by females? {: #subdebate-37-46-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The decision of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the Equal Pay Case 1969 was not attributed by the Commission to the submissions of the Commonwealth in those proceedings. In its decision the Commission stated: The fact that the Commonwealth Government itself supported the introduction of the principles of the State legislation is also a matter of some significance. The Commission on a number of occasions has indicated that it will not necessarily implement submissions put to it by the Commonwealth and will examine submissions made by the Commonwealth in the light of all the material presented. This we have done in this case.' (Print No. B4237 at page 12). {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Commission stated that the extent to which it was prepared to implement the principle of equal pay for equal work was to introduce into the award and determinations before it die principles of the virtually identical legislation on equal pay passed by four States, namely, New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. The Commonwealth supported the introduction of the principles of this State legislation in its submissions. 1. The Commonwealth has made it clear on numerous occasions that it considers the appropriate authority for determining principles of equal pay for male and female workers is Ure Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. {:#subdebate-37-47} #### Industrial Affairs: Statistics (Question No. 2801) {: #subdebate-37-47-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that his Department prepares its own statistics on some matters related to industrial affairs? 1. Is it also a fact that in some instances these figures are at variance with figures prepared by the Commonwealth Statistician? 2. Has an embargo ever been placed on the release of any of the statistical material compiled by his Department? {: #subdebate-37-47-s1 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr Lynch:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) My Department prepares statistical material on some matters relating to industrial affairs for my use and its own purposes, until such time as the corresponding official statistics prepared and issued by the Commonwealth Statistician become available. The departmental statistics are not fully comparable with the official statistics; they are confidential and are not made available to the public. Civil Aviation: Night Flights at Perth Airport (Question No. 2871) {: #subdebate-37-47-s2 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr Berinson: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has action been taken within the last 6 months to reduce the number of night flights into and out of Perth Airport? 1. If not, what action is contemplated in the future? {: #subdebate-37-47-s3 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The domestic airlines have been requested to restrict as far as possible the number of night flights in and out of Perth consistent with the need to provide sufficient capacity for the traffic seeking transportation. With regard to international operations, Perth, of course, is an intermediate stop on long haul routes and therefore the times of nights into and out of Perth have for operational reasons to be co-ordinated with the times of arrival or departure at other points along the routes. This results in a pattern of aircraft movements on regular services at Perth either late at night or early in the morning. Because Perth is an international stop and not a terminating point, it is not practicable to impose a curfew on the comparatively small number of international movements at Perth. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No action has been taken or is contemplated in relation to these international operations. You will be aware however that there has been a reduction in the number of calls at Perth following the withdrawal of Qantas services between Perth, Hong Kong and Singapore.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 August 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710819_reps_27_hor73/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant