House of Representatives
29 September 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 1611

PETITIONS

Lake Pedder

Mr UREN:
REID, 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 Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened withinundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area is of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received and read.

Contraceptives

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 ofthe 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, 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.

Lake Pedder

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

-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 Com. monwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.,

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area is of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area is inundated.

Your petitioners therefore humbly ‘pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of ‘Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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.

World Development Fund

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully, sheweth:

That arms races, in which Australia is involved, have war as their natural conclusion.

That peace movements have never succeeded except by general acceptance of a superior jurisdiction by previously independent sovereign regimes and their followers.

That the size of the supreme unit of government has progressed, along with increasing communications, bringing mutual understanding and the means for unified administration to nations consisting of units formerly alien to each other.

That for the survival of mankind and the lasting security of nations, sovereignty over the means of making war must be passed to the citizens of a unitary world.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray thai your honourable House will give leadership to other citizens by declaring adherence to the general principle of working for a democratic legislative, judicial and executive authority, with constitutionally, limited and adequate powers over armaments and disarmament, and over diversion of a proportion of war budgets to a world development fund.

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

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The bumble petition of the residents of the State of New ‘ South Wales respectfully sheweth:

The red kangaroo and many other marsupial, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy.

None of the Australian States have sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem.

H is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand bunting on such a concentrated scale, unless provision, is made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray that:

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

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

Petition received.

National Service

Mr HURFORD:
ADELAIDE, 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 electors of the Division of Adelaide respectfully sheweth:

That the determination as to which young men are required to undergo compulsory military setvice under the National Service Act 1951-1968 is arrived at by a ballot system, based upon arbitrary grounds as to their date of birth.

And that this procedure providing for selection by a method of chance is an unfair and arbitrary imposition on the human rights of a minority and discriminates against certain of the young male persons in the community in favour of others solely by reason of their respective dates of binh.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Section Twenty-six of* the National Service Act 1951-1968 be repealed.

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

Petition received.

National Service

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– -J present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned electors of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth:

That Charles Martin, a 24-year-old graduate in Building Technology, and Geoffrey Mullen, a 24-year-old graduate in Political Science, are serving a two year gaol sentence for failure to comply with the National Service Act. an Act which offends the conscience of many electors who are not directly touched by its provisions.

That their failure to comply with the Act was done as a matter of conscience, and that their imprisonment must therefore cause concern to all electors who oppose the National Service Act, and the decision to send conscripted troops to Vietnam.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray.

That the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will repeal the National Service Act. remove from the record all convictions made under it, and cause Charles Martin and Geoffrey

Mullen, and all others imprisoned under it, to be released and cease all further prosecutions under it.

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

Petition received.

Chemical Agents of Warfare

Mr FOSTER:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 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 XX1VA (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 riot-control’ agents.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray.

That the Parliament take note of the concensus 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.

Crime Prevention

Mr BENNETT:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray thai the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will seek to ensure that the Commonwealth Government will seek, the co-operation of the States and supply extra finance to the States to enable;

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

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

. the proper detention of and rehabilitation of criminals, and

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

Petition received and read.

Means Test

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

That the abolition of the. means . test, will give a boost to the economy by:

additional tax revenue .from pensions

swelling of the work force,- and

increased spending by pensioners.

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Eyre Highway

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we, the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, residents in the State of Western Australia do humbly petition and pray that all levels of Government responsible in Australia will take note’ of the wishes of we, the Citizens, in so far as we request:

That the Commonwealth co-operate with all authorities to ensure the early sealing of the one East-West road link, the Eyre Highway, and that urgent consideration be given to increasing the maintenance of the road in the intervening period and endeavour to curtail the dreadful road toll, injury and vehicle damage.

That the Commonwealth consider this road as a Defence Measure for the whole of Australia and road link connecting the two coasts of the Continent, and consideration to the sealing from the aspect of the increase of Trade and Tourism within Australia, thus encouraging the retention of the finance in Australia which is now going overseas. Consideration be given on the grounds of a better understanding between the people of all of the States of Australia, because of their improved ability to travel and meet one another.

That consideration be given to one of the most heavily taxed groups within the community, the motorist, and be given the opportunity to enjoy some of the tax fee as charged, by being able to travel with reasonable comfort and safety on the major highways of Australia.

That consideration be given to returning specifically for this purpose the increased revenue received from the increase in petrol tax.

We, the Petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in the Parliament Assembled would take immediate steps to ensure provision of funds to provide for the all weather sealing of this important highway, the Eyre Highway, linking East and West and your Petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aged Persons Homes

Mr BENNETT:

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Commonwealth Government give urgent consideration when making grants to aged persons homes that conditions of tenancy be imposed to protect the tenant who makes a donation to gain admittance to these homes which is very often their life savings.

That conditions of tenancy ensure that evictions do not take place without the intervention of an independent tribunal, such as appointed by the Minister’s Department.

That the Commonwealth ensure that these properties are not resold after a person is evicted but is let.

That all steps are taken that everyone is assured that no profit has arisen from an eviction.

That representatives of the residents are appointed to the Board of the home.

That annual elections are held for representatives of the residents on the board of management.

That an annual audited statement of accounts is submitted to the Social Services Department and is made available to the residents of the premises to ensure that all charges made and costs are to the satisfaction of the residents.

That Government give consideration to a total review of the conditions of grants to ensure that protection is given to the residents of these aged persons establishments and to the management.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled would take immediate steps to ensure that these requests are met so that people who have reached retiring age can enter these premises with dignity and peace of mind, and without fear of insecurity of the future in having to establish themselves- in other premises. The petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Capital Territory Education Authority

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 Australia Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That there is a likelihood that education in the Australian Capital Territory will in the forseeable 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 Enquiry, on which are represented the Department of Education and Science, institutions of tertiary education, practicing educators, and the Canberra community, be instituted to enquire into the form that an Australian Capital Territory Education Authority should take, the educational principles and philosophy that should underly it, and its mode of operation and administration.

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

Petition received and read.

Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinance

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 Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:

That the Australian Capital Territory 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 promote the 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 Australian Capital Territory Pharmacy Ordinances.

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

Petition received and read.

Lake Pedder

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– 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 Lake Pedder, situated in the Lake Pedder National Park in South-West Tasmania, is threatened with inundation as part of the Gordon River hydro-electric power scheme.

That an alternative scheme exists, which, if implemented would avoid inundation of this lake.

That Lake Pedder and the surrounding wilderness area is of such beauty and scientific interest as to be of a value beyond monetary consideration.

And that some unique species of flora and fauna will be in danger of extinction if this area ls inundated.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government take immediate steps to act on behalf of all Australian people to preserve Lake Pedder in its natural state. All present and particularly future Australians will benefit by being able to escape from their usual environment to rebuild their physical and mental strength in this unspoilt wilderness area. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received,

page 1615

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask the Minister for External Territories a question concerning reports that there has been variance between Mr Matthias To Liman and Mr Newman in the House of Assembly about a delay in introducing certain educational ordinances in Papua New Guinea. Mr Newman allegedly stated that there was no cause of delay in Canberra and Mr To Liman stated that the delay was caused in Canberra. I ask the Minister: Were these ordinances or regulations referred to the Ministry here and, if so, with what result?

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

– 1 saw a Press report regarding this variance of opinion between Mr To Liman and Mr Newman. It is difficult to understand how this came about. I think there is a great degree of misunderstanding. The subject matter related to persons employed in the teaching service, which is a public service and is responsible to the Minister for External Territories. There was no delay in this operation. In fact the ordinances were introduced yesterday. I think 2 of my officers were up in the Territory and were able to finalise this operation. But the important thing is that the people employed in the teaching service are responsible to the Minister for External Territories.

page 1615

QUESTION

KIDNEY DONORS

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that several hundred people are being kept alive by receiving treatment on modern kidney machines at some of our major hospitals? Is he aware also that most of these people could live normal lives if a kidney transplant was available to them? What publicity is being given to encourage would be donors to make it known that they are willing, in the event of their untimely death, to donate their kidneys, as a matter of urgency, to save the life of another person? Has any thought been given to including or has any suggestion been made to State transport authorities to include a voluntary form of consent for this purpose on all drivers’ certificates throughout Australia?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am aware, of course, of the shortage in Australia of donor kidneys for transplant purposes. Indeed, when I was the Minister for Health I did what I could to publicise the efforts of the Australian Kidney Foundation to bring this to public attention. The honourable member will probably remember that last year - I think it was in July - the Australian Kidney Foundation launched a large scale campaign to inform the public of the shortage of kidneys for transplant purposes and to encourage people to donate their kidneys in the event of death. The Foundation issued a large number of pamphlets and donor cards. From memory, over 400,000 were issued. In relation to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I am not aware whether any efforts have been made on the lines suggested by him, but I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Health, and no doubt he will discuss it as a very practical suggestion with our colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 1616

QUESTION

RETURNING MIGRANTS: ASSISTED PASSAGES

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Immigration a question. Has his Department calculated what percentage of returning migrants come from among those who have received assisted passages and what percentage come from among those who had not received assisted passages? In particular, I ask what percentage of settlers from Britain received assisted passages and what percentage of those who were born in Britain and who are returning permanently to Britain - these numbered 17,000 last financial year, according to figures released by the Commonwealth Statistician last week - received assisted passages?

Dr FORBES:
LP

– I am afraid that to get the detailed statistics for which the honourable gentleman asks, which I am sure will be available to my Department, I will have to ask him to put the question on notice. However, I know that the Commonwealth Statistician, who publishes the figures for settler departures from Australia, does not distinguish between assisted and non-assisted migrants to Australia. I might say on this general question of the departure of migrants from Australia that the figures for 1970-71 recently published by the Commonwealth Statistician which show that about 28,000 migrants left Australia or stated that they were leaving Australia permanently, have to be seen against the very high level of immigration that we have had in the last 3 years.

We have taken into this country over 500,000 migrants in the 3-year period up to the end of 1970-71; so we would have expected with that very high level of migration that the number of people departing would in fact increase. But the number of people departing has not increased disproportionately to the number of people migrating. I think that we have to expect that to some extent this will happen. There has been a most remarkable increase in the mobility of labour internationally in the post-war period. Many people - professional and others - believe that as part of their training they should move from country to country.

I think the House will be interested to know that we have calculated that provided a single migrant stays in this country for 9 months he will return to Australia by indirect and direct taxation as much as is provided to assist him to migrate to this country. However, the Government is not complacent about this question and I have asked the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, which undertook a previous study of settlers departing from Australia to undertake a further study to ascertain whether there is anything that we can do to reduce the rate of outflow of permanent settlers from Australia.

page 1616

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: DISCOUNT STORES

Mr ENDERBY:

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Interior. Is it a fact that there has for some time been a demand by discount stores to acquire premises in Canberra suitable for the conduct of their type of business? Is it also a fact that such discount stores are often able to sell their goods at prices as much as IS per cent, 20 per cent or even 25 per cent less than other stores? Is there not advantage to the people of Canberra if discount stores are not discouraged from trading in Canberra? Has a large building suitable for discount trading and located in Canberra Avenue been vacant since May of this year when it was constructed? Has the Minister been approached by a large discount store with a request that he not apply his veto to having the purpose clause changed so that it can lease the site and use it for discount trading?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member’s question is far too long and he is giving too much detail. I suggest that the honourable member ask his question.

Mr ENDERBY:

– Has the Minister refused the request? If so, why? Will the Minister give to the people of Canberra and this House his reasons?

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

– The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second question is yes. I have been approached by a group concerned and I am having a further look at the matters raised by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory.

page 1617

QUESTION

TROOP WITHDRAWAL FROM VIETNAM

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that the withdrawal of troops from an active combat zone is an operation of considerable danger? ls it a fact that a debate on the security of the Vietnam task force could not be effectively conducted without revealing troop movements and contingency plans, thus greatly increasing the danger to our troops? Will the Prime Minister consult the Leader of the Opposition to ascertain whether, in the interests of the safety of the troops involved, he is prepared to defer any debate on this subject until the troops have returned to Australia?

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

– lt is the maximum objective of the task force commander in South Vietnam to ensure that the safety of the Australian troops is protected and, as well, that the safety of the troops who are in close association with ours in South Vietnam is also looked after. I believe that the operations relating to withdrawal are probably as difficult, in military terms, as any other operation can be. The greatest effort must be made to ensure security not only as to the movements but also as to the timing and the size of the movements. 1 believe, and I am so informed by the highest military technical experts advising the ; Government, that any kind of a debate : which could be likely to disclose the method of withdrawal or the timing or other facts associated with the withdrawal could be only of harm to the security of the Australian forces. I can assure honourable members that even though the matter is to be debated no Government member will in any way prejudice the interests of the Australian forces and consequently will not give any information. As to the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition has heard the question. He is capable of answering on behalf of the Opposition if he wishes to do so. Frankly, I advise him to give an answer if he will.

Mr Whitlam:

– I rise to order, Mr Speaker. A couple of weeks ago when the Prime Minister himself put questions to me and I sought to reply to them you would not permit me to do so. When leave was sought it was refused. So 1 submit that in cases like this, Mr Speaker, you ought to ensure that purely rhetorical questions are not volunteered in this way.

page 1617

QUESTION

LAND SALES: SIMPSON DESERT

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question which is addressed to the Minister for the Interior is supplementary to the question asked yesterday by the honourable member for Capricornia concerning the alleged sale or negotiations for the sale of over 1 million acres of the Simpson Desert at 20c an acre. Can the Minister inform the House whether any land in the Northern Territory is under consideration for lease or whether this is just a furphy dreamed up by some irresponsible publicity hunter?

Mr HUNT:
CP

– The whimsical note in the question asked of me yesterday gave rise to an appropriate answer from me, but the whim of the honourable member for Capricornia has now taken on a more serious and in fact a very curious turn. This morning, on an Australian Broadcasting Commission programme, the honourable member suggested that anybody who wished to buy an acre of land in the Simpson Desert might send 25c to me and he would get it. So that good Australians will not be misled by the fantasy created in the mind of the honourable member, I wish to make the position very clear to the honourable member for the Northern Territory. The Simpson Desert in the Northern Territory is vacant Crown land. The only means by which a pastoral lease of such land can be obtained from the Commonwealth is by the Commonwealth inviting applications for it. No such applications have been invited and it is not intended that they shall be.

As far as the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory are concerned, there is no substance in the newspaper reports concerning the alleged negotiations. I think the report which I saw was in a Brisbane newspaper. It indicated that sale negotiations had been made by an agent for land in western Queensland. The Queensland Government, of course, is the appropriate authority.

I can assure the House that the Simpson Desert in the Northern Territory is not for sale. I hope that message gets across to anyone who might have been misled because I would hate people to be putting a 6c stamp on a letter containing 25c for a piece of land that is not available. This morning we were in touch with the estate agent named in the original newspaper report and said to be negotiating the sale. We were told that the leases concerned are hundreds of miles north of the Simpson Desert in the honourable member’s home State. I remind him - I am sure he would know this - that the part of the Simpson Desert which lies in Queensland is a national park and comes within the responsibility of the State Government.

page 1618

QUESTION

NATIONAL FRUIT MARKETING AUTHORITY

Mr BARNARD:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I preface it by reminding him that yesterday at question time the Prime Minister said he had referred to the Minister a request from the Premier of Tasmania for a single national fruit marketing authority. Is the Minister aware that delay in answering the Premier’s request has deferred action by the Government of Tasmania to set up a State fruit authority? Does the Minister think that a Federal authority is feasible? If so, how much would it cost and how long would it take to establish?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– As I recall the question yesterday it related to whether or not the Prime Minister had received an approach from the Tasmanian Premier as to whether the recommendations of the Grant Committee should or should not be implemented. The Grant Committee was commissioned by the Tasmanian Govern ment under the chairmanship of Professor Grant, who I think has the chair of economics at the University of Tasmania, to inquire into the circumstances of the apple and pear industry in Tasmania and to make recommendations about the present marketing methods and possible improvements to them. The Premier of Tasmania has approached the Prime Minister who, in turn, has referred the letter to me as he said in his reply to the House yesterday.

The Grant Committee has drawn attention to a number of alternative ways in which the apple and pear crop in Tasmania, and possibly in the rest of Australia, could be marketed. These include either a Federal export authority, a Federal marketing authority - which would involve marketing all fruit, not just exporting - a Tasmanian export authority or a Tasmanian marketing authority. The implication as far as a Federal marketing authority or a Federal export authority is concerned is that this is not just a consideration for the Commonwealth Government. If any Federal scheme were to be introduced it would be equally the concern of the other 5 State governments; they would need to consider the implications of this proposal with respect to their own fruit industry and their own present marketing techniques. This is a matter on which I have not yet made recommendations to the Prime Minister or the Government. It will involve very considerable and deep examination.

There are, of course, separately quite critical immediate problems facing the fruit industry in Tasmania. I had discussions on these problems not only with the Tasmanian Minister for Agriculture but also with the Ministers for Agriculture from Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria in Hobart last Monday, and as a result of those discussions I raised with producers and others at the meeting some of the difficulties that we face now in Australia in handling techniques by comparison with our competitors in, for example, New Zealand and South Africa. I believe that to solve the immediate problems of the apple and pear industry it is essential that those who are marketing the Australian crop take account of the improved methods of marketing and handling in those countries and ensure that some of those methods are introduced so that the very severe freight increase that has been requested for the cartage of the fruit this year can be offset. But I see that as an immediate problem and one which must perhaps predate any final conclusion on the recommendations of the Grant Committee.

page 1619

QUESTION

RADIO TRANSMISSION

Mr STALEY:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– My question to the PostmasterGeneral is concerned with the quality of radio transmission in Australia. Can the Minister tell the House when the Broadcasting Control Board’s report on the desirability of frequency modulation transmission will be tabled?

Sir ALAN HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I know that many honourable members, including the honourable member for Chisholm, are interested in this matter. I have recently been in touch with the Board. This afternoon I hope to table the Board’s report. There are some paragraphs in the Board’s annual report which refer to what appears to be some delay in relation to this matter. However, the Board has many responsibilities and, in recent times, has had additional responsibilities. It is preparing a report on this subject but is not able to make it available at the moment.

page 1619

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr CONNOR:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Prime Minister by reminding him that Australia is the largest market trading nation outside the Group of Ten and our foreign exchange holdings exceed individually those of 3 members of that group, including France. What action has he taken to ensure Australia’s admission to the Group? What further action, if any, does he propose? Is the impact of the present world currency crisis operating most severely in this Group, which must be responsible for an ultimate solution which will in turn, affect our economy? Why is Australia to be further disadvantaged by non-membership of this key world organisation?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I thank the honourable gentleman for giving me the opportunity to answer this question. As Treasurer, I personally took up with the governments of Britain, America and Japan and with other governments the question whether Australia would be admitted to the Group of Ten and also whether we could become a member of the Bank of International Settlement. In fact, I went to the Bank of International Settlement in order to achieve this object. I found, at the beginning, that while the British and the Japanese were quite forthcoming about agreeing to our admission to the Group of Ten, initially we could not get the approval of the United States Administration. I took the matter up again and I was able to obtain the consent of the United States Government. However, we then found that the Group of Ten was not willing that Australia should be admitted unless other countries that the Group regarded as of equivalent status to Australia were admitted at the same time.

We want to be admitted to the Group just as, over the years, we were willing, when I was Treasurer to become a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. We have achieved membership of the OECD. We will continue our efforts to become a member of the Group of Ten, but I doubt very much whether, in present circumstances, that will be agreed to. In other words, it is not within Australia’s capacity to force entry into the Group of Ten: It is up to those in the Group of Ten nations to accept our admission, if they are willing to do so.

As to the second part of the honourable gentleman’s question, I accept what he said about the difficult position which now exists as to the currency difficulties and the import surcharge which has been imposed by the United States. It is my belief that we should do all in our power, in cooperation with other nations, to ensure that the import surcharge is taken off as quickly as possible. We will co-operate with all other countries, particularly through the International Monetary Fund, to see what we can do in order to get a re-alignment of parities that is satisfactory to all nations and not to only one. The sooner we can get an answer to these problems, particularly the ones relating to changes in parities, the removal of the import charge and some better arrangement for freedom of trade, the better it will be for Australia and, I believe, for all underdeveloped countries.

page 1620

QUESTION

APPLES AND PEARS

Dr SOLOMON:

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that of 6 million bushels of Australian apples and pears loaded in 1970 at an overall rate sufficient to attract the maximum rebate of 7c per bushel, 3.9 million bushels were loaded at Hobart at an average rate of about 16,600 bushels a day, while Melbourne achieved an average rate of only 4,325 bushels a day? Does he see in this glaring discrepancy of achievement any possibility of relief for the Tasmanian section of the industry, the problems of which have so recently been put before him?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– As I understand the position, a markedly better loading rate is achieved in Tasmania than in Melbourne, for example. I cannot vouch for the figures provided by the honourable member in his question, but it is also true that the loading rate figures in New Zealand are nearly twice as good as those obtained in Tasmania. Concessions and rebates under the last agreement were applicable Australiawide and consequently for Tasmania there was a disadvantage in that there was a better performance by comparison with Melbourne. I understand that, in the present negotiations, industry had sought that the rebate should be payable on a State basis so that if negotiations had continued, Tasmanian exporters might well have been in a position to enjoy advantages comparable to those enjoyed by exporters who achieved better loading rates in other States.

I think the importance of a comparison is not as between States but as between Australia and other countries. In fact, the difference within Australia seems to be attributable mainly to the fact that in Tasmania ships come to port to load fruit and fruit alone. At mainland ports, fruit tends to be only part of the total loadings. Consequently, in those ports ships are forced to wait while fruit is brought along to the waterfront and takes its place with other commodities that are loaded on a particular vessel. In other countries - in New Zealand, for example - where fruit is handled largely in bulk and where different marks are not attributed as they are to each of the Australian exporter’s brands it is possible to achieve a very marked improvement in loading rates. At the moment industry has before it for introduction this season a number of improvements which I believe are essential. If industry does introduce these improvements, I believe it might well be possibly largely to offset the very substantial 24 per cent increase in freight rates that has been requested.

page 1620

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: DECENTRALISATION

Mr WHITLAM:

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. The Public Service Board’s annual report which he tabled in the last week we sat pointed out that nearly 10,000 central office staff were still located in Melbourne awaiting transfer to Canberra. Has the Board ever examined or is it authorised to examine the cost and convenience of transferring some of the remaining departments, such as the Department of Works, the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Bureau of Meteorology, to a mid point such as Albury - Wodonga, just as the British Department of Social Services has its headquarters not in London but in Newcastle-on-Tyne? Is the Public Service Board represented on the CommonwealthState Officials’ Committee on Decentralisation established 7 years ago?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– The answer to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question is no, but I believe that we will soon be receiving a report from the authorities concerned in regard to decentralisation and I will then ensure that it is quickly considered by the Government. I have not received it yet. As to the first part of the honourable gentleman’s question, the answer is no, but I will make inquiries from the Chairman of the Public Service Board to find out whether he thinks it is desirable to have the kind of analysis made.

page 1620

QUESTION

WOOL SALES TO CHINA

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether the Government or the wool selling organisations have made contact with the People’s Republic of China concerning sales of Australian wool? Is there a possibility of trade in this commodity? Can the Minister inform the House of future prospects in this field?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– There is obviously at the moment a slackness in demand generally for wool and in fact for most textiles, attributable I would think more to the 10 per cent import surcharge applied by the United States of America than to any other factor. Without doubt currency uncertainty contributes to this slackness in demand. It was during the last wool selling season that the Australian Wool Commission first approached the Government to see whether it might enter into tentative negotiations with a number of countries in order to ascertain whether alternative markets could be found for those wools which had passed through the auction system and which were held by the Commission in its stockpile. The Australian Wool Commission at that time did, through agents, enter preliminary negotiations with a number of countries including the People’s Republic of China.

At this stage the difficulty in negotiating sales whether inside or outside the auction room lies rather in the prices at which wool is available from all countries. Indeed, I am told that some private wool sellers in Communist countries have quoted prices which are at a considerable discount off the prices that are now payable at auction in Australia. For that reason I am not optimistic about our being able to secure an early contract in the manner the honourable gentleman has suggested. Nonetheless I think it is an idea that is well worth pursuing, particularly from the point of view of the purchasers who would be able to buy wool by sample, be able to get the wool core tested and be able to buy in large quantities according to specification and in that way would enjoy many of the advantages which at the moment only the synthetic competitor is able to provide. I assure the honourable gentleman I will bring his question to the notice of the Australian Wool Commission.

page 1621

QUESTION

TRADING BANKS

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– 1 ask the Prime Minister a question in the absence overseas of the Treasurer. Is the profitability of trading banks declining while that of financial institutions is rising? Does the non-official money market now control a larger - and growing - volume of money than the banking system? Does this mean that a major portion of the total money market is outside the direct control of monetary policies and would this lead to an uneven and sometimes dangerous impact on the Government’s economic policy? What steps are proposed to rectify this defect in economic control?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is obvious that the honourable gentleman has read with care the recent statement made by the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia which was published in one of yesterday’s newspapers. As to the 4 questions that he has asked, the answer to the first one is yes and the answer to the second one is, I believe, a growing volume, yes. In relation to the third question I believe that as a result of the recent decision in the concrete pipes case the Commonwealth now has authority under the Constitution to legislate with respect to financial organisations and that this power would cover at least three-quarters of the kind of organisation mentioned in the table that was prepared by the Deputy Governor.

As to whether it is desirable to have changes made, I have sent the article across to the Treasury officials asking that a detailed examination of it be made, but in a matter as important as this there can be no doubt at all that it will take some weeks before an analysis can be completed. I mention also that I have some differences of opinion with the Deputy Governor in relation, for example, to the build-up of payments to the Commonwealth in order to achieve the Budget surplus of approximately $650m in the year. I believe that industry itself has now made certain adjustments in order to offset the difficulties that can arise because of this payment of funds in the last quarter. But equally I believe that the Commonwealth should, as it now is doing, carry out inquiries in order to ensure that we have more regular collections of funds throughout the year and not have them concentrated in the last quarter.

page 1621

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Housing whether he has seen a statement made by the Victorian Minister for Housing that the new Commonwealth-State housing arrangements could cause an increase in Victorian housing rentals. Does the Minister agree with the claim? Is it not a fact that the States will be better off under the new arrangement than they were previously?

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I have seen the statement made by the Victorian Minister for Housing attributing a change in rentals in that State or a change in the purchase price of houses built by State Housing Commissions to the proposed new CommonwealthState Housing Agreement. The gap in the logic of such a statement is the fact that the new proposals by the Commonwealth are a very substantial improvement on previous arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. Therefore, any increases in rentals or in purchase prices which have been made could not be attributable to the very great increase in assistance that has been proposed by the Commonwealth and substantially agreed to by the States.

Repeated statements have been made in Victoria that the new proposals are a regression and a disadvantage compared with the position in the past. Those statements are incorrect. Probably the best way in which to demonstrate their error would be to indicate that under the old arrangements the present value of the interest concessions for any one year, were they to have been continued for the next 5 years, would have been of the order of $29m a year - that is, at 5 per cent discount rates. The present value at the same discount rates of the new Commonwealth proposals is in excess of $40m a year. That is the nature of the comparison only under the grants which are appropriate to the new arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. I would suggest that the statements which have been made repeatedly are incorrect. I would further add that not all States have made these statements as some of them, since the date of the first announcement, have done their homework on the Commonwealth’s proposals.

page 1622

QUESTION

INVITATION TO MR KOSYGIN TO VISIT AUSTRALIA

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I ask: In the light of the inspired revelations published this morning concerning his correspondence with President Nixon, will the right honourable gentleman now at least send to Mr Kosygin the letter which was drafted personally by him on 20th and 21st July inviting the Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to visit Australia?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is true that I did write to President Nixon some time ago and that there has been reference to that letter in some of today’s metropolitan newspapers. According to some of those newspapers the information came from overseas sources and not from Austraiian sources. Usually I would not make any comment about the contents of any letter I write to a head of state or a head of government, but I will make this one comment: Half of what is reported is accurate; the other half is inaccurate. As to the question asked by the honourable gentleman, I would not be prepared to disclose the contents of any letter I write to Mr Kosygin, other than to say that I did not invite him to come to Australia.

page 1622

QUESTION

AVIATION

Mr GRAHAM:
NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the questions asked of him yesterday by the honourable member for Stirling and the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of a subsidy for aerial transport operations and sea transport to the Northern Territory, I ask: Will the Prime Minister please correct the record by giving the facts to the House for the benefit of all honourable members?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It is regrettable that the assumption on which the Leader of the Opposition asked his question was incorrect. I received today a telegram of protest from MacRobertson Miller Airlines Ltd pointing out that it does not now have any subsidised transport operations between Western Australia and the Northern Territory and, consequently, cannot receive any subsidy in respect of such transport movements. The 4 companies that operate in Western Australia do so on a very small basis. They receive a small subsidy. But they are for internal purposes and not for the purpose of traffic between the Northern Territory and Perth. Therefore the substance of the question that the Leader of the Opposition asked is wrong. That is to be regretted. This matter was objected to by the company I have just mentioned.

page 1622

QUESTION

AIR SERVICES TO DARWIN

Mr WHITLAM:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. I ask the right honourable gentleman: When did MacRobertson Miller Airlines Ltd or companies associated with it - subsidiaries of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd - cease to provide services between Western Australia and Darwin and when did they cease to receive subsidies from the Department of Civil Aviation for providing such services?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition could possibly expect to have this information readily made available by me or for that matter, if it was available, by anyone other than the Minister who is functionally responsible for the problem or the Minister who acts for him in this House. If the honourable gentleman wants the information I will ask the Minister for Civil Aviation in another place for it and I will convey it to the honourable gentleman as soon as possible.

page 1623

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– Yes. In the course of a reply to a question in which he referred to me, the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt) suggested that I had said that an Australian could buy an acre of land by sending the Minister 25c. What I had said was that people could support my move to save national reserves of land by sending the Minister 25c and asking that one acre of land be reserved for them. If the Minister is embarrassed by these funds I will be very happy to devote them to a public company which we hope to form for this purpose.

page 1623

TARIFF BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 18 of the Tariff Board Act 1921-1966, I present the annual report of the Tariff Board for the year ended 30th June 1971.

The report is accompanied by an annexure which summarises the recommendations made by the Board and shows the action taken in respect of each of them.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– by leave - I compliment the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) on, I believe, tabling the Tariff Board’s report earlier than the House has ever had it and in good time for debate on any relevant statements or the Estimates.

page 1623

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of National Development for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 1623

SNOWY MOUNTAINS ENGINEERING CORPORATION

Mr SWARTZ:
iviuuaii.1 for National Development · Darling Downs · LP

– Pursuant to section 36 of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation Act 1970-1971, I present the first annual report of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the AuditorGeneral’s report on those statements.

page 1623

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY

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

– Pursuant to section 32b of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949-1966, I present the twenty-second annual report of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority for the year ended 30th June 1971 together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 1623

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

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

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of Qantas Airways Ltd for the year ended 31st March 1971, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 1623

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CONTROL BOARD

Sir ALAN HULME:
PostmasterGeneral · Petrie · LP

– Pursuant to section 28 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1902- 1971, I present the twenty-third annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30th June 1971 together with financial accounts and the report of the Auditor-General on those accounts.

page 1624

COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS BOARD

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
Minister for Education and Science · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Scholarships Board for 1970.

page 1624

ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE BOARD

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Pursuant to section 19 of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970-1971, I present the report of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board for the period 1st September 1967 to 30th June 1970.

page 1624

NATIONAL FITNESS ACT

Dr FORBES (Barker- Minister for

Immigration) - Pursuant to section 6 of the National Fitness Act 1941, I present the annual report on national fitness activities for the year ended 31st December 1970.

page 1624

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT ACT

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Homes Savings Grant Act 1964-1970, I present the seventh annual report on the administration and operation of that Act for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 1624

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965- 1966, I present the seventh annual report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 1624

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1971

Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1971

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill (No. 2) 1971

page 1624

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1971

Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1971

Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill (No. 2) 1971

page 1624

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Mr Anthony) agreed to:

That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock) on the ground of parliamentary business overseas.

Motion (by Mr Whitlam) agreed to:

That leave of absence for one month be given to the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns) on the ground of parliamentary business overseas.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

– I move:

May I say, Mr Speaker, that the honourable member for Macquarie is coming out of hospital on Friday after his motor car accident and that he appreciates the messages of goodwill which he has received from members on both sides of the House?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1624

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation because I have been misrepresented.

Mr Stewart:

– Again?

Mr WHITLAM:

– It is the same source - the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) accused me of some inaccuracy in a question which I asked yesterday, which was supplementary to one which had been asked by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb). My question was: . . why is it that the Commonwealth sees fit to pay a subsidy for the airline operations provided between Western Australia and Darwin by a subsidiary of a very large airline company . . .

In the short time at my disposal between the right honourable gentleman’s reply and this moment I have not been able to make exhaustive investigations, but I notice that in the latest report of the Department of

Civil Aviation, that is for 1969-70, a sum of $124,900 was paid to subsidised air services rendered by MacRobertson Miller Airlines, $130,100 for developmental services rendered by Ansett Airlines of Australia and $101,200 for essential rural services rendered by Ansett Airlines of Australia. I am not sure which of these airlines provides services between Perth and Darwin. It always was the case that they were provided by one or the other and that that airline received subsidies for so doing.

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

– by leave - In view of the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) I will undertake to have those figures checked and also to provide the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) with information on the arrangements regarding the payment of the subsidies. I think the Prime Minister referred to subsidies that are paid to MacRobertson Miller Airlines. I do not think Ansett Transport Industries Ltd was mentioned at that time. But the subsidies referred to are paid for intrastate services. I can have the matter checked, get the full details, and see that the information is provided to the honourable gentleman.

Mr Whitlam:

– This also includes subsidies for purely Northern Territory services such as those provided by Connair Pty Ltd.

Mr SWARTZ:

– They are internal services too.

page 1625

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the House discussing a definite matter of public importance proposed to the Speaker by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

page 1625

AUSTRALIAN TASK FORCE

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

-I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The security, of the Australian task force in Vietnam.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– The submission of this matter of public importance is intended as an exercise in clarification of aspects of the disposition of the Australian Task Force in Vietnam; it is not intended as a post-mortem into the tragic encounter last week in which 5 Australian soldiers were killed and another 25 wounded, nor is it intended as a vehicle by which to canvass the broad range of issues affecting Vietnam which have preoccupied this House over the past 7 years.

This is not the time to assess what our military commitment in Vietnam has done to Australia and what impact it has had on the defence and security of this country. The final wash-up in Vietnam is beyond the capability of this country to influence in any way. No-one knows with any degree of precision what is going to happen to Vietnam. The Government spokesmen have their views on the level of security that has been achieved in South Vietnam. The Opposition may be extremely sceptical of the worth of these assessments. We will not know for another 2 years at least whether the South Vietnamese state as now constituted will survive or whether it will crumble under renewed Communist pressure.

For Australia the conflict has contracted to a narrow and rapidly diminishing focus, that is, the safe withdrawal of the remainder of the Task Force from Phuoc Tuy Province. The over-riding issue in the remaining months of the commitment should be to ensure the safe and bloodless removal of the remainder of the Australian forces from Vietnam. This is precisely the reason for raising this matter now. The Opposition has warned repeatedly that the extrication of our troops from Phuoc Tuy Province would be a very dangerous task. It has pointed out that, as the most vulnerable flag force in Vietnam during the rundown of overseas forces, the Task Force faced the peril of special attention from the North Vietnamese main force units and the Vietcong. There is no reason why the Communists in Phuoc Tuy should sit by passively and watch a dwindling antagonist withdrawing across their front. The events of the past week have reinforced these fears. Flowing from the engagement last week, subsequent statements made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) and the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock), and the answers given by the Minister for Defence to questions in the Parliament yesterday, the Opposition wants to look at the disposition of Australian forces in Phuoc Tuy Province and the security of their withdrawal.

The first matter we want to look at is the present role in which Australian forces are engaged. There seems to have been no change in the role stipulated for the Australian Task Force even with the sharp contraction in its strength. Briefly summarised, the role of the Australian forces was always envisaged as an offensive one, designed actively to engage the main force regiments, winnow out the Vietcong infrastructure and secure the Province. In the past 2 years much stress has been put on the growth in strength of provincial units in Phuoc Tuy. A picture was painted of the transformation of security in the Province as these territorial units grew in strength and gradually assumed increasing responsibility for the security of the Province. This picture was exposed as an illusion by last week’s engagement. In this encounter the Task Force engaged what have been identified as part of a main force Communist regiment without any support from the territorial units supposedly taking over control of the Province. The Government’s repeated claims that the Task Force could be withdrawn because the Province has been secured were exposed as a myth. Just as significantly the engagement revealed that the Task Force was still engaged in an active role of hunting out the Communists and engaging them. This is the technique designated as search and destroy by the Americans.

It is true there has been some conflict of opinion between the commander of the Task Force and the Minister for the Army about just what the Army is doing in Phuoc Tuy at the moment. According to Brigadier McDonald in a story published in the ‘Australian’ on 24th September, the Task Force was still actively seeking out

North Vietnamese and Vietcong forces. The Brigadier was quoted as saying there had been no change in military strategy despite the Australian withdrawal. According to the Minister the Task Force was noi on a search and destroy operation when last week’s battle broke out. He said the operation had occurred because of the Australian responsibility for the security of approaches to populated areas and the Australian Task Force base. The battle area had not yet been transferred to Vietnamese control. This is a completely different, emphasis from the interpretation of the operation given by the commander of the Task Force, according to Press reports. The Army’s conception of its role has not changed despite the reduction in strength from 3 battalions to 2 battalions and in the next few weeks to one battalion. This was indicated by the former Task Force Commander, Brigadier Henderson, in a television interview earlier this year. The Brigadier said that despite the removal of one battalion the Task Force role was the same; in substance it was performing a 3-battalion role with 2 battalions. Quite obviously what was militarily feasible with 3 battalions is completely beyond the compass of one battalion. If the Army is to continue a role of actively seeking out enemy units and engaging them, more heavy casualties can be expected.

It seems the Government is culpable here for not insisting that our forces go wholly on the defensive. The task of withdrawal in the face of an active and far from beaten enemy is an immensely difficult one. The difficulties are only intensified if an active role of policing and patrolling the Province is superimposed on the task of withdrawal. No single battalion could perform these 2 military tasks in conjunction, that is, to secure much of the Province and make a simultaneous withdrawal. Yet on the words of the Task Force commander this is how the Army sees its role during the next few crucial months. The Minister for Defence did nothing to dispel this impression in the Parliament yesterday. The Government has a clear duty to direct the commander of the Task Force that in the remaining months in Vietnam, the Task Force should operate strictly on the defensive. It should shed immediately the aggressive patrolling role it sustained in previous years with 3 battalions and support troops. With only one battalion and with most of the support elements gone, it would be disastrous to continue this role.

The second point the Opposition wants clarified is the relative disposition of Australian and South Vietnamese forces in Phuoc Tuy. The Minister for Defence said yesterday that South Vietnamese regional and popular forces were already responsible for a considerable proportion of the province. According to the Minister the Task Force still maintained the responsibility for security and operations in some of the more remote areas. This hardly squares with the account of Australian responsibility given by the Minister for the Army. The Minister for the Army defines Australian responsibility as the security of approaches to populated areas and the base at Nui Dat. This is sufficiently vague to be defined in any way you want. In a sense approaches to populated areas and the Task Force base could be denned as the whole of Phuoc Tuy province. What is plain is that the area of responsibility defined by the Minister for the Army is not the more remote areas of the province as stated by the Minister for Defence. It would not be a breach of security for either of these Ministers to state to the Parliament just what areas the South Vietnamese are responsible for and what areas the Australians still secure. This is the only way of clearing up these flagrant contradictions between the Minister for Defence and the Minister for the Army. If the remaining battalion is still responsible for patrolling widely over the whole province as withdrawal is undertaken, then it is exposed to very grave risks.

The third point I want to raise on behalf of the Opposition is the security of the remaining forces during the 2 phases of withdrawal. These are the initial withdrawal from the central area of the province to the seaport of Vung Tau, and then the sealift from Vung Tau to Australia. The first phase will mean the withdrawal of the Fourth Battalion, remaining support units and a considerable amount of equipment through an area whose security is highly suspect. It seems that the Fourth Battalion is engaged at the moment in covering the Third Battalion as it completes withdrawal over the next 2 weeks. The problem remains of how to protect the

Fourth Battalion as it makes a similar withdrawal to Vung Tau, presumably in late October or early November. The Minister was far from clear yesterday on how this difficult evacuation is to be safeguarded. He said that every possible assistance would be sought and be given in the evacuation by the South Vietnamese and by the United States Air Force. He did not say whether the South Vietnamese assistance would be from regular ARVN units or the territorial units. The territorial units which are ostensibly responsible for a great proportion of the province were not engaged in last week’s battle. When the elements of the Third Battalion were reinforced during this encounter, the reinforcement came from the Task Force, not from South Vietnamese provincial units.

On the details released by the Army it seems there are no regular South Vietnamese Army units on active operations in Phuoc Tuy province at the moment. If there are, the Minister should indicate what units are available and how they will be used to protect Australian withdrawal. To put it bluntly, there is no reason to think that the provincial and popular units have the capability to provide adequate protection for Australian withdrawal. There is no doubt in my mind that these units, despite the improvement claimed for them by this Government, have not the ability to cope with mainforce North Vietnamese units. Last week’s battle indicated that these forces are re-entering the north of the province in some strength. In this situation it is imperative that the Third Battalion has the protection of the Regular Army of South Vietnam during this withdrawal.

There are other questions of security raised after the completion of withdrawal to Vung Tau. The Australian forces will not be as exposed here as at Nui Dat but grave dangers remain. The port of Vung Tau is dominated by the Long Hai hills which are still a Vietcong stronghold. The area of the Australian logistics base, which will be the nerve centre of withdrawal, is also vulnerable to enemy penetration from the sea and across adjoining marsh and sand dune country. A strong risk element will remain until the last man is shipped aboard off Vung Tau. In these final critical months, there is an obligation on the South Vietnamese Government to protect and facilitate Australian withdrawal. This protection should not be dependent on territorial or provincial units. I hope the Minister will give an assurance to the House that the support of regular ARVN units will be available during this decisive period.

In summary, all the present difficulties and anxieties about the Task Force as the commitment runs down stem from one crucial choice of Government policy. This was to spread the Australian withdrawal over a protracted period. Withdrawal began in December last year; by the time of completion it will have taken more than a year. The reason given for extending withdrawal over this length of time was the need to allow the territorial forces to develop and take over control of the province. On the evidence available the extension of the commitment has not achieved this aim. Certainly the Government should have planned for withdrawal of the last 2 battalions together. What should have been a concentrated withdrawal has turned into a piecemeal withdrawal spread over too long a time span. This has given the Communist forces in Phuoc Tuy province all the intelligence it needs about the Task Force’s intentions and likely movements; punches have been telegraphed to the enemy long before the fight.

At a time when the bulk of American forces in South Vietnam arc acting on the defensive and in support roles, the Government should insist that the remnants of the Task Force relinquishes immediately an offensive patrolling role designed to find and destroy enemy units. For these reasons the Opposition has raised this matter today to allow the Government to clarify confusing aspects of its Vietnam policy, and to reassure the Parliament and people on the security of Australian forces during the agonising months of withdrawal ahead. Australian security must be imperative; our forces must not be influenced by projections of what could happen in Phuoc Tuy after Australian forces leave forever.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · Farrer · LP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) said at the beginning of his speech that we still do nol know what is likely to happen in a few years time in South Vietnam. He said we do not know whether South Vietnam is likely to survive. All I can say is that there is no doubt whatsoever that without the help that South Vietnam received from the free world it would not have survived. That help was mainly provided by the United States of America but Australia and a number of our allies in the South East Asia area also provided assistance. Australia’s help was provided despite the complete opposition of the Australian Labor Party. Had the Labor Party had its way and had its policy been carried out, not only as far as we are concerned but also as far as the Americans are concerned, there is no doubt that today South Vietnam would be a Communist state.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that this matter was raised as an exercise to look at the disposition of our present forces. He said that the Opposition wants to know whether regular units of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam were being brought into Phuoc Tuy Province. It staggers me to think what would happen if we said: ‘Yes, ARVN units are being brought into this area’. Immediately the Communists and the Vietcong would know that this unit is being taken away from somewhere else. It literally amazes me that the Opposition, which regards itself as the alternative government should be so insensitive to the needs of security. Security is essential in a military operation of this kind, and it is even more essential when we are in a situation of withdrawal from an area in which, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said, enemy units are still operating.

The Government and its military advisers are doing everything possible to ensure a safe withdrawal. Following the Government’s decision on the withdrawal of Australian forces from Vietnam, plans for the withdrawal were developed by the commander of the Australian Forces in Vietnam under the direction of the Australian Chiefs of Staff. These plans take into account the parallel planning by the South Vietnamese authorities for the redeployment of Vietnamese forces as appropriate in order that the South Vietnamese forces may assume in the very near future full operational responsibility for the security of Phuoc Tuy Province. Until the handover of responsibility takes place the Australian forces must meet their military obligations for the protection of settled areas within the province. At the same time, such action will reduce the risk of enemy interference during the stages of the Australian withdrawal. But the extraordinary thing is that the Opposition does not seem to realise this need for security. Opposition members seem to think that the men are just coming home from a trade union picnic or something and that the Government can give details of exactly where every units is going to be, how many will be there and at what time they will move out.

The Opposition has asked and continues to ask questions which, if answered, would be of little use to it but which would be of immense strategic value to our enemy. Let me refer to the question asked of me by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this House yesterday. As I said at the time, I have no intention of breaking security. An honourable member is meant to ask only one question at a time but I think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked four. His third question was as follows:

When will the withdrawal of the Fourth Battalion from Nui Dat to Vung Tau begin and when will it finish?

Could there by any more blatant question which, if answered, would warn the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese regiments exactly when and where the Australians were going to be? The next part of his question reads as follows:

Finally, what restrictions have been put on the operation of Australian units in Vietnam during the remaining months of the commitment?

Obviously, if I had said that the Australian task force is not to patrol any more, this would have been as good as saying to the Vietcong: ‘You are right now, boys. Go to it.’ What a stupid question! We have seen constant attempts by the Opposition to try to breach security in a way which does not help it. It does not help the Australians, because the best possible is being done by our highest military advisers. But it would help the enemy.

Let me refer to other instances. Some time ago the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked the then Minister for the Army:

When was the construction of the minefield across Phuoc Tuy province begun?

When was it completed?

How long is the minefield?

How deep is it?

How many yards of wire were laid in the perimeter of the field?

What type of mines were laid?

What Australian units were deployed in laying the field?

What arrangements were made with the army of South Vietnam to patrol the minefield?

Were these arrangements ever carried out?

What Australian, South Vietnamese and other units have ever patrolled the minefield?

What aerial surveillance units have patrolled the minefield?

What units are now patrolling the minefield? How many Vietcong corridors across the minefield have been detected?

Of course, if the Minister had said that a certain number had been detected the enemy would know that a few others had not been detected. That would be a great help to them. The Deputy Leader also asked:

How many mines have been removed from the minefield by Vietcong?

Have sections of the minefield been destroyed by the Australian task force; if so, by what units?

What methods have been used in the destruction of these sections of the minefield?

Is it planned to destroy the whole minefield and its perimeter?

I ask honourable members whether anything could give more information to the enemy. The Iron Curtain countries and the Communist countries certainly do not need a spy ring in Australia. All they need is for the Government to answer the Opposition’s questions. 1 say this in a most calculated way because I feel that it is true: It is tragic to find that there has been a constant attempt by the Opposition and by the members of the Australian Labor Party to undermine the morale of Australians in South Vietnam. The president of one of the State branches of the Australian Labor Party called on the national servicemen in South Vietnam to mutiny. Encouragement has been given by some members of the ALP to draft resisters to break the law. Gaol vigils have been undertaken by some ALP members and others have addressed and taken part in moratorium campaigns against the war in Vietnam. We have seen the shameful example of honourable members wearing moratorium badges in this chamber. I am told that about 75 members of the Opposition signed a moratorium statement against the Vietnamese war. One could go on and mention the attempts to break security at Pine Gap and the moves to abolish national service.

At this very moment there is awaiting consideration by the House an amendment moved by the Opposition which, if carried, would immediately reduce the size of the army from 44,000 to 28,000 men. I ask: Is this going to help the security of Australia? The ALP has decided that there should be no foreign bases on Australian soil. Honourable members know that this has been the policy of the Labor Party previously. Attempts have been made to denigrate the Fill aircraft.

Mr Barnard:

– Surely the Minister is not being serious.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– I have heard constant attempts by the Opposition to denigrate the Fill yet about 350 of them are flying in the United States Air Force today. The Opposition has tried to make out that the conflict in Vietnam is a civil war instead of one which was instigated and almost entirely supported - I would not say entirely supported - by the North Vietnamese. Every action is taken by the Opposition to reduce the strength of our defence and our commitment in Vietnam. The only action that I can call to mind at the present moment which would not have the effect immediately of reducing our strength was the statement made by the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition who is now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), (hat in some circumstances the Labor Party would be prepared to leave troops in Vietnam. He was very quickly hauled into line and the then Leader of the Opposition said that this was an attempt to knife him in the back and that Labor policy was ‘out of Vietnam and out as soon as possible’. This occurred only a few days before the general election in 1966.

The present debate has been brought about by the recent major clash in the north of the central portion of Phuoc Tuy province. This is in what is known as the clearing zone’. As I said yesterday, the clearing zone is an area of remote jungle clad and largely unpopulated territory - where the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese have constantly assembled and have then moved to attack the more populated areas. The Australian task force still has operational responsibility for certain areas of Phuoc Tuy province and it is working with the South Vietnamese forces who have taken over most of the populated areas and will very shortly take over all of them. It is true that there has recently been a very considerable increase in activity in this clearing zone which is only about 11 miles from Nui Dat and only about 5 miles from one of the more populated areas.

There was a sudden movement of elements of the 33rd North Vietnamese army regiment into this area. It could have been that this movement was brought about by the Americans who were operating in the area previously occupied by this regiment which had moved further south as a result. The regiment may have been waiting to pounce or to interfere with the withdrawal of the Australians. It may have been there to dig in and to make certain that once the Australians handed over the responsibility, the regiment was dug in in an area from which it would be extremely hard for the territorial forces of South Vietnam to dislodge it. It may have been there to disrupt the elections which are to be held early in October.

Mr Morrison:

– It could not disrupt them.

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– 1 could not hear what the honourable gentleman said, but if he is talking about the elections I would ask him how many elections are ever held in North Vietnam. At least many elections are held in South Vietnam. I have met heads of villages and hamlets who have been elected on a number of occasions as a result of free democratic elections. The regiment posed an immediate threat to centres of population which were only 5 miles away. The army does not believe that it poses a major threat to the impending withdrawal. Nevertheless, these people could harass and obstruct the withdrawal. So the commander very rightly mounted this operation. Of course we all know that it is an unfortunate thing that you cannot fight a war without casualties.

We also know that the casualties suffered by the Vietcong were considerably greater than those suffered by the Australians. So the Commander followed a reasonable and prudent course to ensure the security of his force and the security of the Province. The Task Force was fully supported. There have been allegations that some support has been withdrawn. This is not so. The Army still has call upon the Royal Australian Air Force. In fact, in this engagement the Army used RAAF gun ships which had not previously been available. Of course, it has call on the United States Air Force and on artillery. It is true that the tank squadron has been withdrawn but it has been replaced by Australian Army fire support vehicles. The 33rd Regiment of the North Vietnamese has been severely mauled and it may take some months before it can regroup. But very soon the responsibility for the security of this area will pass to the South Vietnamese.

The Labor Party has a consistent policy on this matter, lt has followed this policy ever since we first went into Vietnam despite the fact that it was not endorsed by the people at 2 elections. It has been a policy of get out. As I said earlier, had this policy triumphed initially and had there been no Americans assisting the South Vietnamese we know perfectly well that today South Vietnam would be another Communist country or Communist province. We believe that a great deal has been achieved by the Australian forces. They are leaving behind a province in which physical security has been greatly improved. Very much more land is under cultivation and much of it is now owned by the tillers of the soil and not by absentee landlords as used to be the case. New roads are there and are packed with Hondas. Hospitals and water supplies have been improved.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– What we are discussing today is far too important and far too serious for the pitiful attempts at pedestrian debating made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn). We are dealing with a situation which involves the lives of Australian sons, husbands, fathers and brothers. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) announced on 18th August that the Government had decided to withdraw all remaining Australian combat forces from Vietnam and in a shallow political flourish he brought in the ‘home by Christmas’ catch cry. So he first of all telegraphed our moves to the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese. A responsible Government would at an appropriate time have said in a simple statement ‘Today all Australian combat forces have left Vietnam’.

Mr Uren:

– They wanted to make political capital out of it.

Mr MORRISON:

– Precisely. That has been the motivation of this Government since 1965 and before. The Vietcong and the North Vietnamese know that we have 2 battalions at Nui Dat and that about mid-October there will be only one - one where there were 3 before as an integrated task force. This Government will be guilty of a culpable act if it leaves only one battalion at Nui Dat even if it is only for a matter of weeks. The recent military encounter, in which regrettably 5 Australian lives were lost, showed that the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese were operating from bunker positions about 10 miles from the Australian base at Nui Dat, and this is the area which the Government has claimed - it was reiterated again today - to be secure. In his statement of 18th August the Prime Minister sought to assure the people that the purpose of sending our troops to Vietnam had been substantially achieved, that security throughout the country had improved remarkably. What rubbish!

When is the South Vietnamese Army going to assume responsibility not only for Phouc Tuy Province but also for safeguarding our withdrawal? Will it allow Australian forces to be sitting shots for the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese? Nothing that the Prime Minister has said and nothing that the Minister for Defence has said indicates to me that the South Vietnamese Regular Army will help us. There appears to be no immediate prospect - I would be delighted to receive a denial of this from the next speaker - that the ARVN will come into Phouc Tuy Province. The policy of the South Vietnamese Government is to make regional forces available. These regional forces are not equipped to undertake the very delicate and very difficult task facing the Australian forces at the moment. It seems to me - this is our concern and this is why we have raised this issue this afternoon - that we will be left to fend for ourselves, and regrettably we could run the risk of a massacre. As has already been pointed out a withdrawal is perhaps the most difficult of all military operations. It is certainly the most dangerous from the viewpoint of potential casualties.

Over 2 years ago, in June 1969, the former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, stated quite categorically that our force was a self-contained force and that unless it was all withdrawn together it would be quite ridiculous militarily - not only ridiculous but also suicidal. But this Government has proceeded to do exactly what it said it would not do. It has indulged in a piecemeal withdrawal in the face of the Gorton statement ‘one out all out’. For domestic political face saving the Government is prepared to gamble with the lives of Australian troops. It is seemingly intent on creating the most unacceptable military situation. When the 3rd Battalion was withdrawn from Phouc Tuy the security of our forces - as is commonly recognised - was jeopardised but if, with the withdrawal of another battalion, only one battalion is left at Nui Dat it will be criminal negligence on the part of the Government. I do not want to know when the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment is to leave Nui Dat but I plead with the Government to withdraw the 4th Battalion at exactly the same time.

I also suggest that our forces at Nui Dat be withdrawn together to Vung Tau in exactly the same operation and that the return of both the 3rd Battalion and the 4th Battalion to Australia be expedited. Vung Tau is about as secure as any other area in South Vietnam; it is more secure than Nui Dat and it is the embarkation point for sea transport. We should seek the assurance of the South Vietnamese Government that the South Vietnamese Regular Army will be responsible for the security of the approaches to Vung Tau. I do not want the Minister to answer this sort of query. I do not want the suggestions that we on this side of the House have made to be debated but I hope that full consideration will be given to them.

Perhaps one of the points that is concerning this Government is that of stores. In his statement of 18th August the Prime Minister mentioned that the shipment of stores and equipment will be completed in the early months of 1972. I can already visualise the Army accountants and stores officers running around with forms in quad ruplicate checking up on the dented saucepans, other inventories and ripped tents. But this infamous and futile war has cost the Australian people in real terms about $200m a year. That is money that has already gone down the drain but do not let us run the risk of losing more lives in a misguided Public Service passion for having the store returns in ship-shape order. By all means get out what is useful and what is convenient. Perhaps we could make a virtue of necessity by magnanimously making available to the South Vietnamese as part of our aid programme the stores that we have at Nui Dat. But let us not leave a battalion of our troops in an exposed and suicidal position, guarding with their lives a pile of equipment that, in any event, will be obsolete in 2 or 3 years time. The life of an Australian soldier is worth far more than that.

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for the Army · Kooyong · LP

– The confused motives and the hypocricies of the Opposition in raising this matter of public importance today are exposed by a phrase in the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). He said that the length of the withdrawal had given the Communists all the intelligence they needed to know about the intentions of our Task Force. He accused the Government of ‘telegraphing punches to the enemy long before the fight’. The honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) also made similar charges. But over the last fortnight the Australian Labor Party has been asking me, the Army, the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) and, indeed the Government as a whole, to disclose not only the dates of the return of 3 and 4 Battalions but also the disposition of our own forces, enemy forces, movements into the province and all the information that would jeopardise the security of our Task Force in South Vietnam. Yet the very topic we are discussing is ‘the security of the Task Force’. The Opposition simply cannot have it both ways. It cannot demand information and also talk of the need for proper and adequate security.

This phased withdrawal is not based on the notions of some ‘public servants’ - an expression used by the previous speaker, the honourable member for St George. It is based on proper planning and the best military advice available. This is not a rout; it is a phased withdrawal on the basis of our best military advisers’ approach to this matter. Today we are having, to use the words of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition: ‘an exercise to seek an explanation of clarification of the disposition of forces in Vietnam’. What sort of tactics are these? What sort of approach is this? As ( said, it is, in itself, an attack on the security of the Task Force if the Government is to be charged with the responsibility of giving the details requested by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in his speech. The main basis of the planning of this withdrawal is, in fact, the security of the force and the Government will not, in any way, be moved by the remarks of members of the Opposition to give the sort of telegraphing of which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has spoken.

We have ensured in our planning to the best of our ability that the Task Force is properly balanced and will retain adequate fire support. I will say no more on this subject other than that it is not enough to talk about 4 Battalion being left at Nui Dat on its own. The Opposition should bear in mind what I have said. The Government has done its best to plan a properly balanced and adequate fire support for this battalion.

Mr Barnard:

– That does not convince me that it is good enough.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Only a modicum of military knowledge should convince the honourable member that the approach that I am making is infinitely preferable to the approach which he made in his address. However, I am not concerned whether that, in itself, is not sufficient for the honourable member because he is seeking a great deal more information than any Minister, whether he be the Minister for the Army or the Minister for Defence, can possibly provide in a situation such as presently exists. Members of the Opposition have spoken of the security of our Task Force and have suggested that the phased withdrawal prejudices security. This is a complete fabrication. Statements and questions in this House and elsewhere over the last few days by both the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition display either their alarming ignorance of military matters or their cynical determination to make political capital, irrespective of the military consequences or considerations that will flow from those statements. Does the Opposition seriously believe that the timings of withdrawals and all the various aspects associated with them should be available and made public? Does it believe that the dispositions of forces and the details of areas of responsibility between our Task Force and the Vietnamese forces should become public knowledge at this delicate stage?

I have used the phrase already, but I repeat that this is the most difficult part of our commitment to Vietnam and I am not prepared to lay down a schedule of times or dispositions of forces merely for the satisfaction of members of the Opposition who have fundamentally opposed Australia’s commitment to Vietnam since the time Australia first committed troops there. Let honourable members read into this the implications of the Opposition’s request for the announcement of withdrawal dates. In the circumstanses that the Opposition is trying to create, the enemy would not need to use intelligence sources to ascertain information vital to our operations or, indeed, to its own. The enemy would merely have to read Hansard if that were available to it. The implication is that the Task Force should sit back at Nui Dat and wait for an attack - sit behind a wire and wait for the enemy to come close, set up his mortars and fire. As I said before, any person with even a miniscule knowledge of Army operations would know that this would be to invite disaster and heavy casualties. The task now being undertaken by the Australian forces is no small one. Many complex factors must be taken into account, including the enemy, the resources available to move the force and the vast quantity of stores - however the honourable member for St George might like to term them - which must be cleaned and properly prepared for shipment to Australia. This is not some bureaucratic nonsense. We cannot import disease. The equipment which is to be returned must be properly quarantined and sprayed. It is not just to be left behind. This matter may not be of any import to the Opposition but those who represent the rural areas will realise its importance.

Mr Morrison:

– This is a fundamental matter.

Mr PEACOCK:

– No, it is not a fundamental matter; it is one of the matters. It is most important and is not to be dismissed in the way that the honourable member has done in terms of bureaucratic nonsense and Public Service planning. All these and other matters have been carefully considered - particularly the security of our forces - and this has resulted in a thoroughly workmanlike plan which anticipates that the bulk of our troops in Vietnam will be home by the end of the year. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) stated at the time of his announcement that the enemy was still present and that some setbacks might occur. This is axiomatic in a situation such as the conflict in which we have been engaged. To say, once the announcement of the withdrawal was made, that the Task Force is not being withdrawn quickly and decisively is to deny the evident facts of the matter. The smooth execution of the withdrawal plan so far is particularly noteworthy. It must not be forgotten that to date we still retain a responsibility towards the Vietnamese in the Phuoc Tuy province and this has been mentioned already by the Minister for Defence.

The recent operation was not ‘needless or pointless’ as the Opposition has stated but was necessary and proper to ensure the security of the province and the continuance of the Army’s duty to carry out its allotted task. The Army cannot protect this area, or, indeed, the populace without patrols. To use the words of a journalist in Melbourne: ‘It is talking through your hat to suggest that you can protect yourself without patrols going out to determine whether the enemy is moving in in any form or shape at all’. This is not done. The Opposition knows as well as I do that such patrols are absolutely essential to the security of our own forces. It has never been claimed - I mentioned the statement of the Prime Minister - that Phuoc Tuy province was ‘already secure’. It has been evident that the degree of security has fluctuated over the years. The definition of the term ‘secure’ has always been a moot point and the Government has never denied that. The enemy can still, in selected areas of Vietnam, by gradually building up gain some temporary success and for that reason alone it is necessary to carry out patrols beyond the base camp. The with drawal is not ‘a piecemeal reduction* as was suggested by the previous speaker. It has been planned to ensure a proper operational and administrative balance throughout. For example, the decision to withdraw the tanks last week, which was mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was taken after full consideration of all the factors involved, including the fact that additional fire support vehicles which are equipped with 76 millimetre guns had been added to the force.

Mr Barnard:

– You are giving away security now.

Mr PEACOCK:

– Yes, heavyweight security. It is a mobile cavalry and if the honourable member had any access to military planning he would know that the heaviest material is moved in the earliest stages of withdrawal, provided that, as in this instance, there is some mobile cavalry to support the troops. Recognise these factors; recognise the fundamentals involved. Do not just play with semantics. If you do not understand the factors involved do not engage in semantics. There has been so far no diminution either of air or artillery fire support available to the Task Force. Despite the suggestion by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition last week, Royal Australian Air Force bombers have not been in direct support of the Task Force at any time, certainly not in the last few years and their withdrawal is quite irrelevant to the capability of the Task Force itself. I have no reason whatever to doubt that the professional competence which has characterised the operations of the Task Force will be equally in evidence in this difficult phase of withdrawal.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr CROSS:
Brisbane

– I think that it should be emphasised quite clearly that the purpose of the Opposition in bringing this matter of public importance before the Parliament on this occasion is to gain from the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) those assurances that he has given and to emphasise to him and to the Government that, in the present circumstances which exist in South Vietnam, the Opposition has a responsibility to ensure by bringing this matter before the Parliament that the Australian Task Force is withdrawn with minimum loss of life. A great deal of shot and shell are always expended when issues such as this come before the Parliament. Members on the Government side take the opportunity of suggesting that the Australian Labor Party was always opposed to the involvement of Australian forces in Vietnam. Of course, in a military sense this is perfectly true. It is suggested that we are supporting Communism and that we are indifferent to the fact that there could be a Communist takeover in South Vietnam. This is not the motive in bringing this matter before the Parliament today. The motive is solely to express concern which is felt not only by the Opposition but throughout the Australian community at what happened several days ago in Phuoc Tuy province when a number of Australians were killed and a larger number wounded. The ‘Australian’ of 23rd September 1971 carried the statement that 5 Australian soldiers had been killed and 24 had been wounded - this was later corrected to 26 wounded - and that it was the worst single engagement in 5 years. It stated:

At least 19 of the casualties were national servicemen, including 4 of the dead.

The article went on to state that as far as losses were concerned this incident was exceeded only by the 18 soldiers killed in the so-called battle of Long Thanh in August 1966. Why we are concerned is that, with the facts as we know them and which are not under dispute, these young Australians have been killed and wounded against the background of the statement made by the Prime Minister and statements made by other members of the Government when the withdrawal of the Australian task force was announced. For example, the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) said in the House on 1 8th August: . . the main Australian effort has been in the general area surrounding Saigon and in particular in Phuoc Tuy Province. There, the security situation has markedly improved. The enemy has largely lost the initiative. The Vietnamese territorial forces have been steadily developing their capacity and in the last year have gradually expanded their own areas of operations. The enemy is still there of course, and some setbacks may yet occur. But in our view, shared by the Government of the Republic, the existing relative strengths are such that the territorial forces should be able to handle the likely contingencies.

After reviewing other matters, the Prime Minister said:

The forces will begin withdrawing in the next few months, giving the Vietnamese time to adjust their force dispositions. HMAS ‘Brisbane, due out of service in Vietnamese waters early in September, will not be replaced. Most of the combat elements will be home in Australia by. Christmas 1971. Shipment to Australia of stores and equipment will be completed in the early months of 1972.

In reply to a question yesterday, the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) said:

As I have pointed out already, about half the province is under the operations control of the regional forces and popular forces. Also there are the South Vietnamese self defence forces in that area. The other half of the province will be handed over in the fairly near future.

This incident which has happened raises the question of whether the security of Phuoc Tuy province is as soundly based as both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence have led us to believe. I support the views expressed by the Minister for the Army when he said that he would not give a detailed statement of all those matters associated with the withdrawal of the forces. It would be unreasonable for him to do so. In my view, it was unreasonable for some honourable members to have sought such information. The problem still remains that the Government has announced the withdrawal and the details are as well known as they may be.

I was a little surprised to hear some of the statements made in the debate this afternoon. It has been suggested thai the Minister would not state how many Vietcong corridors there were across the minefield. If the security situation in the province was as satisfactory as we have been led to believe, there would not be any Vietcong corridors across the minefield. We have been told that the Minister will not disclose information as to when the South Vietnamese forces will take over those areas which the Australian Task Force is vacating. Am I to understand that at present, because of the withdrawal of portion of the Australian Task Force, a vacuum exists in this area; that there is an area unprotected at this stage by the South Vietnamese forces? Is it then not true that the South Vietnamese forces have developed that capacity which the Prime Minister in his statement on 18th August suggested they have now developed to look after the security of their own country and, more particularly, that province in which so much Australian effort has been expended? These are questions that will only be answered in time because I think it is fair to say that we are all much too close to the war in Vietnam to be able to judge what will happen in the future.

It does not always follow that in a war one achieves one’s objectives. Sometimes there is a waste of life and no good purpose is served. There is still argument as to whether the campaign on the Gallipoli Peninsula in 1915 was a glorious failure or a great achievement. Be that as it may, what has happened in Vietnam will be judged only in the future. For example, I am sure that many people are disappointed by the fact, that there is only one presidential candidate at the elections to be held in South Vietnam. Is this an indication of the democracy for which so many young people from the United States of America, Australia, South Korea and other allied nations have expended their lives and made great sacrifices? These are questions that will be answered only in the long term. What we are concerned about is the short term - the period from now until December. The Opposition has brought this matter before the Parliament to indicate that it will be subjecting, as indeed the whole Australian community is subject ing, all of these aspects of the withdrawal to very close scrutiny. We do not want to know all of the details but what we want is an assurance, which has been given by the Minister for the Army, that everything will be done to protect the security of the Australian Task Force. The Government has now stated that it will withdraw all of the Australian Task Force. As I said before, the other side of the story will be made known only in the long term when it can be established to what extent the South Vietnamese Government is able to maintain security in the area.

We are concerned today with the security of the Australian Task Force and we want to make quite sure - as much as anyone in the Parliament can be sure - that the Task Force is withdrawn as one cohesive unit and that the withdrawal is properly protected. The Minister has indicated that this is so. It now remains to be seen whether the statements made by the Minister on this matter are strictly correct or whether they are as accurate as other statements that have been made by a series of Ministers about the situation in Vietnam over a period of 6 or 7 years, most of which in the long term have proved not to be correct.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I do not know whether the distinguished honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) who has just spoken remembers that during the Second World War in most theatres a poster was displayed which depicted a gentleman with half a head, the nose hanging over a wall, 2 ears, and 2 hands. His name was Foo. Everybody was told that Foo was here and that Foo was listening. In other words, throughout the defence areas and in the home bases we had very strong warnings that at all times security had to be protected. We remember distinctly the theory that careless talk costs lives. The honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) today at question time asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the impending withdrawal of the Task Force from Vietnam, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) might be prepared to delay such a debate as we are having now until the troops have reached home. But the Leader of the Opposition seemed to take a smart point. He seemed to do nothing and hence the debate has gone on. It was implicit in the question of the honourable member for Isaacs, that in view of the need for security, a careless remark in a debate such as this could well give information to the enemy which could affect not only the Task Force but also those of our allies who are still fighting there.

Whatever the Labor Party may think I contend that we still have some responsibility for those people with whom we have been fighting and it is not just a matter of picking up sticks, getting out and saying: To hell with the South Vietnamese’. This seems to have been the attitude of the Labor Party throughout this debate. The honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) - I give him credit - said he did not think it right that some honourable members should ask for information that had security classification. He said that these questions should not be answered and I give him credit for this. But he is a member of the Labor Party and his Deputy Leader, who led for the Opposition in this debate, put forward certain specific propositions. The honourable member for Brisbane reiterated them, as did the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison). The first proposition was that this debate is intended to find out the present dispositions of the Australian Task Force in Vietnam. What does he mean by the present dispositions of the Australian Task Force in Vietnam? Anybody who has read a spy novel would know, and if some honourable members opposite had the courage to go to a war movie or a spy movie at some time they would learn, that the first requirement of any enemy is to find out the dispositions of your troops. In reply to my verbal friend, the honourable member for Stuart (Mr Foster), who is interjecting, I point out that if he had been out in the Desert and the Labor Party at home at that time had been asking for the dispositions of the Sixth or Seventh Divisions, I am sure he would have been elated as a member of the Labor Party to learn that such information was freely being given out!

What does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) want? Does he want the Government to say that the First or Second Battalion in our Task Force - I am not referring to actual battalions there - is on a certain longitude and latitude on the map so that it can easily be identified, so that it can easily be bombarded with rockets and so that it can easily be attacked? Does he want it to be said that the defence perimeter around that area is of such-and-such depth? The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) has already referred to one question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, not relating, as the honourable member for Brisbane seemingly took it, to a Vietcong minefield but to an Australian defence minefield surrounding our area. If honourable members analyse the question they will see that it asks: How long is the minefield? How wide is the minefield? How deep is the minefield? I can assure honourable members that anybody who wished to gain that information would spend hundreds of dollars in any area to get it. But, as the Minister said, we do not need a Soviet spy ring in Australia; the Australian Parliament will do because every time a debate of this kind comes on and every time some suggestion is made as to when a battalion will come out we are giving something of value to the enemy. We may laugh. The honourable member for Brisbane said we are too close to the war and, therefore, we cannot make an impartial assessment. I would suggest that we are too far from the war and that if we were a damned sight closer to it we would be more concerned than we are.

Let us analyse what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and other honourable members opposite have said. They want to know the disposition of our troops and also the disposition of the South Vietnamese troops. They may say: ‘To hell wi.h the South Vietnamese’, but I, and I think the majority of the Australian people, recognise that we undertook an obligation there. We are now withdrawing but this does not mean we should not have some care, concern and consideration for those who are left in the area and who may have some difficulty. I admit they may have some difficulty in taking over from the Australian Task Force. The American force is withdrawing and the Australian force is withdrawing. Is it not reasonable security information to an enemy for it to learn that, for instance, the 1 1 5th-

Mr Foster:

– I rise to order. Is i» right for the honourable member to address to House in the manner he is when already on the streets of Adelaide there is a newspaper saying the troops will be out in 2 weeks?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallet)Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr JESS:

– One must forgive the honourable member for Sturt who has been under strain for a considerable number of years. If it is known from this detail of dispositions that the- 115th ARVN division is to take over in the Phuoc Tuy Province, is it not reasonable to assume that its present location is already known by the enemy and that if the division is moved its present location then becomes an area of weakness? Is it not reasonable to assume that an attack may be mounted on this area? When one looks at the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday one just wonders if he was Minister for Defence what the devil would happen to the defence of this country and anyone with whom we are allied. He asked the question: On what date are we vacating such-and-such an area? On what date are we doing this? What does he expect the Minister for Defence to say in reply?

It is and has always been a principle in any warfare that withdrawal is the most difficult operation to undertake. It involves high security, even in an orderly withdrawal, not a retreat. And this is not a retreat. When a new force goes into the area it has to get to know the minefields and the situation in that area and if the enemy knows that our troops are getting out on such-and-such a date and that incoming troops will arrive on a certain date it would know that that is the time to hit them because they have not yet familiarised themselves with the situation. The Government has and should take every precaution for the safety of our troops. It also has a responsibility, morally and in every other way, to see that there is some consideration given to those we are leaving behind us. I am not, nor do I think the Australian public will be, particularly appreciative of the action taken by the Opposition not only in initiating this debate but also in asking questions of the standard and type that its members have asked in this House over the last weeks and years. The Australian public is under no doubt that the Opposition’s attitude is to hell with the South Vietnamese’. The Labor policy is f.o.q., which means ‘fall out quick. Let us get back to the defence area. Let us have no more patrolling. It does not matter what the enemy does; we have had it chaps. Let us scuttle’. And scuttle’ is the word as far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned. I do not think the Australian public sees it from that viewpoint and I think the Government has acted honourably. I only wish to goodness that this debate had not taken place and that the Opposition had been responsible enough to accept a delay of the debate until the force came home.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hallett:

Order! The time allotted for this discussion has concluded.

page 1638

ACCOMMODATION AT HMAS ALBATROSS’, NOWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee Act

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

– I move:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Replacement of accommodation at HMAS ‘Albatross’, Nowra, New South Wales.

The proposal is for the erection of accommodation in the living-in zone at HMAS Albatross’ to replace substandard buildings and its main components are: an assembly hall, extension to the junior sailors’ canteen, junior WRANS’ sleeping quarters, a senior sailors’ mess and galley, wardroom, officers’ sleeping quarters, senior sailors’ sleeping quarters, and junior sailors’ sleeping quarters. The estimated cost of the proposed work is $5. 8m. The works in this proposal comprise the third and final stage of a progressive programme of replacement of substandard buildings in the livingin area. The 2 earlier stages were reported on by the Committee in 1968 and 1969. The living accommodation components of the proposal are to traditional designs to be harmonious with permanent buildings on the base and are in accordance with the current approved Services scales and standards of accommodation.

Honourable members will recall my statements in the House during the previous session that the Department of Works has undertaken, at the request of the Committee, a comprehensive exercise on the relative costs and standards of various forms of living accommodation covering traditional barrack and hostel styles and newer motel and flat types. The results of this study and the implications to Services accommodation are being studied in depth and it is hoped soon to be in a position to determine more conclusively whether or not variations of the conventional barrack type of accommodation or different types might offer equally acceptable or even better standards of accommodation and which at the same time will be cheaper to construct or at least as economic. The Government is pleased to note the Committee’s concern that the works in this reference should not be delayed in order to consider different styles of accommodation in lieu of the traditional types as proposed.

The matter of carpeting sleeping accommodation will be pursued to determine whether there is justification for amendment to the approved Services scales and standards of accommodation which will of course affect all future proposals for sleeping accommodation at defence establishments.

As to the works comprising this reference, the Committee has concluded there is a need and has recommended construction. Upon the concurrence of the House in this resolution, detailed planning can proceed.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– It is unfortunate that I did not have in front of me while he was reading it a copy of the statement made by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Mr Chipp), who represents in this chamber the Minister for Works (Senator Wright).

Mr Chipp:

– I passed one to the Leader of the Opposition earlier. I thought this matter would be coming on earlier.

Mr BARNARD:

– I accept the assurance of the Minister that it was passed on to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitiam). In his statement the Minister raised one or two matters which are of very great importance. One of the problems that is apparent at all of the permanent defence establishments in the various States is the large amount of sub-standard accommodation. I have taken the opportunity of examining a great deal of this accommodation myself. Indeed, last week I had an opportunity to look at what I and I am sure those who serve in the area would regard as sub-standard accommodation at the Puckapunyal camp.

I appreciate that the Minister’s statement dealt with an entirely different matter. However, I hope that implicit in the Minister’s statement is an assurance that the accommodation that is to be planned and provided for in this area will be proceeded with as soon as possible. I hope that the fact that the Department of Works has currently under consideration the question of providing more suitable barrack style accommodation at permanent camps will not mean a delay in the completion of this project. I express this hope because I believe that this is an extremely important matter. I believe that some of the problems that have arisen in relation to the subject we have been discussing during the last 2 days are directly related to the matters dealt with by the Minister in his statement. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that this work will not be delayed just because of some suggestion that other forms of accommodation might be more satisfactory than the accommodation which is about to be provided. The rate of improvement in the standard of accommodation at these camps is, in my opinion, pro gressing far too slowly. However, 1 will not debate that aspect any further at this stage as it is not an appropriate occasion to do so. But I hope that the matter which is at present under consideration by the Department of Works will not delay the provision of the very necessary accommodation in the area to which the Minister has referred.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1639

NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 September (vide page 1589), on motion by Mr Lynch:

That the BUI be now read a second time.

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– I really cannot understand why the Opposition has gone to such pains in preparing an amendment to this very simple Bill, which seeks to reduce the period of service required of a national serviceman from 2 years to 18 months and to reduce the strength of the defence forces from 44,000 to 40,000. I really cannot understand the Opposition’s attitude to national service. After all it was the Australian Labor Party that first brought in universal training or compulsory military training. I think it did so way back in 1910. Almost since the First World War the Labor Party has been endeavouring at all times to prevent the recruitment and existence of an army of the required strength to defend Australia. I do not know why the Labor Party has gone to such an enormous amount of trouble to assist 0.8 per cent of the young men who are called up for national service.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that there is no possible chance of a man who has genuine conscientious beliefs, be they religious or otherwise, being required to serve in the Army. I often wonder why the Labor Party has not applied to arbitration the stringent rules it applies in regard to national service insofar as conscientious objectors are concerned. As it is so painstaking in its assistance to conscientious objectors in regard to national service, one would think that the Labor Party would be equally adept and thorough in protecting a person who has a conscientious objection to belonging to a trade union. Furthermore, one would think that the Labor Party would endeavour to protect a man from having to subscribe to a political party of which he is diametrically opposed. The Labor Party does not apply these theories to arbitration, but it applies them to anything which relates to the defence of our country. 1 really cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition in tackling this problem in this way. Members of the Opposition have ranged over a very large area in this debate. As I said earlier, it is a very simple Bill which seeks to reduce the term of service of a national serviceman from 2 years to 18 months and to reduce the strength of the Regular Army to 40,000.

The Australian Labor Party is always wise after the event. It forgets that the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese were the aggressors in the conflict in Vietnam and that that was the whole basis for us being in Vietnam. We fought two World Wars and a war in Korea to prove that an aggressor would never be successful. If it was right for us to fight on those occasions then it was equally right for us to have gone into Vietnam. The only regret I have in regard to the conflict in Vietnam is that Australia and her allies did not fight with all the intensity with which we should have fought to dispose of the opposition as quickly as possible. Unfortunately the views of the doves in the United States of America and in Australia have prevailed, which interfered with the prosecution of the war. We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to withdraw.

There has been much controversy in regard to the bombing of North Vietnam. But when bombing of North Vietnam ceased we never heard honourable members opposite refer to the fact that 2 groups of Laotian people - I think 8,000 in one group and 9,000 in another group - were literally starved to death because armaments and food were being brought down the Ho Ghi Minh trail. These poor unfortunate people were left to starve to death and we never heard any reference to that by honourable members opposite.

As I said previously, the Opposition now is wise after the event, but we have to remember what happened in the early stages when we made our first commitment to Vietnam. At that time there was confrontation of Malaysia by Indonesia. Because of the efforts of Malaysia, aided by the United Kingdom forces, the confrontation was overcome. Then there was the attempted Communist coup in Indonesia on 30th September 1965. I ask the Opposition to reflect on this matter. What would be our present position in Australia had that attempted Communist coup been successful? It must be remembered that the attempted Communist coup of 30th September 1965 failed by only a matter of hours. What would have been our present position had confrontation by Indonesia of Malaysia been successful and had the attempted Communist coup of 30th September 1965 been successful? Our position in Australia would have been untenable. We would have been seeking the support of any friendly ally who would come to our assistance.

There is no doubt about what would have occurred. There are none so blind as those who will not endeavour to see. There is not the slightest doubt that had the attempted Communist coup of 30th September 1965 been successful. Chinese hordes would have attacked India through Tibet. According to the timetable, that was to take place some time in March 1966. So all these premises upon which the Opposition relies are not tenable and are not in accordance with facts. We had every right to be in Vietnam. The only thing that I regret is that because of the pressure of the doves in America and Australia the war was not fought with the intensity which our great American allies and ourselves would have liked. I think that posterity will judge a great number of these people to be traitors to their country and to the cause of freedom and democracy.

Another point is that since the First World War members of the Opposition have not shown that enthusiasm and pride for their country that one would have expected. Many great soldiers when they returned to Australia seemed to be submerged in the Australian Labor Party, which was not particularly concerned about defence or, for that matter, the terms and conditions of service under which men of the defence forces served. The Labor Party seemed to be apart from the Services altogether. It seemed to be oblivious to the fact that we required them. I remember that, in the early 1930s when

I was a serving officer, the defence allocation was the princely sum of £3m. I remember that the then Labor Prime Minister said that that was too much. Even if one multiplies £3m by 20 to bring it up to present day monetary values, one can see that it was only a very small allocation. I cannot understand the Opposition’s attitude with regard to protecting Australia. (Quorum formed.)

We heard the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James) make what might be described as ‘a sanctimonious statement’ regarding national service. Then he referred to the fact that there was no conscription in Canada or in the United Kingdom. Of course, it is not required because there is unemployment in both of those countries and, of course, when there is unemployment people are prepared to serve in the defence forces. Then we heard the honourable member for Forrest (Mr Kirwan) deplore the amount of expenditure on defence. Of course, we would all like to live in a world where defence was not required, but in this uncertain world it is necessary that we should be prepared. I suggest to the honourable member for Forrest that a better way for him to propound his theory would be for him to go to the countries in which the aggressors are situated. Nobody can say that Australia would ever be an aggressor. We do not have any fields which we want to conquer. 1 admire the honourable member for Forrest for his Christain beliefs but, after all, the good book gives the advice that we should not cast pearls before swine. There are other reasons why it is necessary for us to have a state of preparedness.

I find it peculiar that the Opposition is living in the past. It maintains that we can call up men and within 6 months train them to defend Australia. What a stupid statement. In these days of lightening strikes we would not have 6 months in which to prepare for war. We have to face the facts of life as they now exist. When we endeavoured to prevent the aggressor from succeeding in Vietnam, China did not then possess even the atomic bomb. Now it has a nuclear warhead, and before long it will have the means of propelling this warhead. We have to keep these things in mind. Any government responsible for the defence of Australia must be in a position of preparedness to meet any situation that may arise. As 1 said earlier, this is a very simple Bill which seeks to reduce the period of national service to 18 months and to reduce the permanent Army to a total strength of 40,000. But the subject of the Bill has been blown up out of all proportion. I support the Bill and oppose the proposed amendment.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

– I was not inclined to speak in this debate but last night I listened to the fallacious statements of many Government members, and I have just listened to a few from the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin). On the basis of these statements I decided to speak in the debate. The Bill basically is an amendment to the National Service Act io reduce (lie period of military service for national servicemen in Australia from 2 years to 18 months. The House will recall that the original legislation was introduced in 1964 to raise the strength of the Army from 23,000 people to a level that would suffice for service by the Australian military forces in Vietnam. To date 51,000 national servicemen have been called up to fulfil, as the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) says, our role in national defence. 1 would like to examine the question of national defence in relation to the call-up. The national defence the Minister speaks of is the Australian commitment to Vietnam. When, with Australia on a peacetime footing, hundreds of Australian boys have had their lives dislocated and 300 young men have died in an undeclared war, because the Australian Government offered to support various regimes in South Vietnam that purported to be governments we have a very serious position indeed. It was revealed in this House a couple of weeks ago that the only correspondence from the South Vietnamese Government which led to our involvement in Vietnam was an acceptance of the Australian offer of military assistance. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) said that Australia’s offer had been made after negotiations with the South Vietnamese Government, but that is pure conjecture. I think everyone would believe that the Australian Government offered assistance to the regimes of South Vietnam after pressure from the American Johnson Administration. : lal are we fighting for in Vietnam? Are we fighting for a free democracy as opposed to the authoritarian regime of a Communist-imposed dictatorship? For what have we been fighting for 7 years? I think everyone is aware of the fact that President Thieu rushed through a constitutional amendment that virtually forced every other candidate for the presidency of South Vietnam out of the field. Because it appeared too rough President Nixon recalled Ambassador Bunker for quick consultations on the matter. Bunker returned to Saigon and screwed Thieu’s arm to take steps so there would at least appear to be a semblance of democracy. Thieu apparently has sway over the Supreme Court of South Vietnam. As a result of a Supreme Court decision Ky” name was put back on the ballot paper, but then Ky said: ‘What is the point of going on with the thing? I cannot win anyway.’ This is the Government we have been defending. After 7 years this is what we are left with - one man manipulating the constitution of the South Vietnamese nation and the Supreme Court of South Vietnam. This is what we have been fighting for. For this the guilty men who sit opposite have sent 300 Australian boys to their death. We have just had a debate in which it was made known the times when we will withdraw our forces from Vietnam. We will probably find that the figure of 300 deaths will have increased by the time all Australian troops are withdrawn.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Labour and National Service said:

The Labor Party’s attitude is one of rigidity. It is therefore inadequate, and this is one of the lessons of history.

What are the lessons of history in relation to the Labor Party and Australia’s defence? On 2 occasions, in 2 major wars, the Australian people have called the Labor Party to the treasury bench of this Parliament to defend Australia. The Government of Sir Robert Menzies, and the Lyons Government prior to that, had let Australian defence industries and defence Services run down to such an extent that the Labor Party had to come to the assistance of the country and had to very quickly upgrade our defence forces to meet the Japanese threat. So the Labor Party’s record on defence is solid gold and always has been, and honourable members Opposite know it.

This whole national service debate hinges around Australia’s defence. This Government has never had a consistent and continuous defence policy. In the 2 years I have been a member of this Parliament there has been no debate on Australia’s defence. A major Government statement on defence was made on 10th March 1970 by the Honourable Malcolm Fraser, who was then the Minister for Defence. There was never any debate on this statement. Six months later in the dead of the night, like a cat burglar, the present Treasurer (Mr Snedden), when he was the Leader of the House, came into the House and tried to have this matter removed from the notice paper. Fortunately the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) and I prevented that from happening. But he got us. Six months later it was gone. He caught us. So there was no debate on this major statement. When we look at the consistency of the Government’s policy we see that the Government is just not credible on the subject of defence. The Honourable Malcolm Fraser, when he was the Minister for Defence, said this - and this is basically the Government’s defence approach:

We reject the concept of detachment.

He was having a poke at the Labor Party’s defence policies. He added:

We accept the risks and opportunities of involvement . . . because we believe isolation would lead to greater risks both for the region and for Australia. We do not believe there is any security in isolation.

He subsequently resigned his portfolio and was followed as Minister for Defence by the right honourable John Gorton. On the same subject, in a speech he made as Minister for Defence to the Australian Imperial Services Club, he said this about Australia’s defence:

As 1 see the concept -

He was talking about Fortress Australia, whereas his predecessor had been talking about forward defence - it is not one of retiring behind the moat of the oceans which surround us: There to wash our hands of responsibility for what happens outside our continental limits. It is not a concept of isolationism. For such a concept would indeed badly serve the future defence of Australia. Rather it is the realisation that any operations in areas outside Australia require that Australia itself should be a secure base, firmly defended, from which such operations can be mounted and sustained . . . And the Australian continent is, in the ultimate, the only firm and enduring base ob which we can rely. Should we not therefore regard the provision of strong defences for that base, for Australia, as the primary but by no means the only task for our defence. I think we should.

What a great Government! What a consistent Government! One Minister for Defence says we must have forward defence and that we should forget the Fortress Australia approach. He said: ‘Do not worry about the base here.’ Then the next Minister for Defence said: ‘The forward defence concept is out. What we need is a strong Australian defence base’. So there is absolutely no continuity in policy. What does the present Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), the man to whom the former Prime Minister referred as being pedestrian, say? What has the pedestrian Minister had to say about defence? The Parliament has not been told of his personal attitude to Australia’s defence. Over 24 years this Government has guided the defence capacity of Australia on an ad hoc basis. There has been absolutely no planning.

I think it is fair to say that the basic requirement of any defence capability is an independent industrial capability. Today war is a clash of rival technologies, and if a country is not technologically competent it is not able to defend itself. This Government has neglected all its defence industries. Basically this has come about because there has been no government defence policy. None of the Services has been able to foresee its hardware requirements because there has been no consistent defence policy whereby it could tailor its hardware requirements for a particular role. Therefore we have seen all our defence industries decreasing in manpower and technological skill.

I would like to refer to a statement made by a former Secretary of the Department of Defence, Sir Henry Bland, who on leaving the Department spoke about the way in which Australia selects defence equipment. I do not think that this statement has ever been read in this House. I think it should be recorded in Hansard. It is quite lengthy but it is worth recording. He said:

As is well known, compatibility of weapons and equipment with those of the USA has been a cardinal principle of Australian defence policy for some time. There is room for wondering whether habit has led this policy to be interpreted to Australia’s long term disadvantage.

He went on to say-

If the USA is to continue to be the principal determinent of our compatibility policy, we are, unless we are careful, committing ourselves to equipment which is almost invariably complex because it tends to be an element of a more comprehensive integrated system and so to maintain our compatability, we are led to more complexities and we are committing ourselves to equipment which is likely, to be designed for theatres of war and operations in which we are unlikely to be engaged and to equipment which is inevitably horribly costly.

The emphasis has been towards highly sophisticated weaponry, 1 suggest we should turn our eye in the direction of less sophisticated weaponry. If we can surmount this mental block the projection of these possibilities would add immensely to the importance of the new machinery for industry’s connection with defence administration and policy, lt would offer unique scope for defence to foster a real burgeoning of research and technology, in Australia.

What he is virtually saying is that all of our Service requirements and the equipment that we have acquired for our Services have been based on the wrong premise. They have been based on the Menzies theory that the United States of America will always come to our military assistance. In view of the realities of the Nixon Doctrine we have to realise that we must stand on our own two feet. This requires us to develop our defence industries to the point where we can keep the equipment of our Services in a condition where they can compete with any other nation which may turn out to be an aggressor. The Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when he was Minister for Defence, said:

We could not design, develop and produce the various guided weapons and aircraft our forces needed.

This is what he told a Liberal Party luncheon in Brisbane on 20th July and it is reported in the ‘Australian’. That is the attitude of the Government towards our defence industries.

Let us have a look at the defence equipment this Government has selected. As we all know the Fill aircraft was ordered in 1963 but it still has not been delivered and it is now 1971. The performance of this aircraft has failed to meet in any way the specifications originally laid down for it. Look at the Royal Australian Navy. The Government purchased DDG destroyers, worth about $50m or S60m each. Their primary role is to protect our aircraft carrier, which has a maximum speed of 21 knots and at that speed it could not keep up with merchant vessels. We now find that there has been great celebration in the RAN because the old aircraft carrier has just been refitted and we are buying extra Skyhawk aircraft to equip it. Everyone in this Parliament knows that we can never replace HMAS ‘Melbourne’ with a new aircraft carrier of 50,000 tons or anything that is regarded as an optimum size for our purposes because of the cost involved. Let us have a look at the DDL destroyer. It is a light destroyer the Navy had designed as a multi-role vessel. 1 think it started off at somewhere about 2,500 tons to 3,000 tons. Its size has escalated to 4,000 tons. Originally it had a unit cost of $18m but it is now up to $40m or $50m. Word has it that because of the escalation of costs our magnificent Government has decided it may not be best to build it in Australia because it is too expensive and the order for construction might have to go overseas. Again our defence industries - shipbuilding, electronics and aircraft industries in relation to weaponry - will be the losers in the event of such a decision.

The whole premise on which equipment was selected for our Navy led to the purchase of aircraft carriers. DDG destroyers to protect them and now DDL destroyers at 4,000 tons. The original order was to be for 6 DDL destroyers with a possibility of 24 being built. One has to consider the stupidity of such an approach in view of the massive coastline of Australia. Why are we not looking at fast patrol boats with nonplaning hulls with a dash capacity of 60 knots, perhaps with an endurance of 3,000 miles and supplied with weaponry developed by the Australian aircraft industry?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Order! I think the honourable member is getting away from the substance of the Bill. The substance of the Bill is national service. There is no national service in the Navy. I think that the honourable member should come back to the terms of the Bill before the House. The honourable member has had a lot of leniency from the Chair.

Mr KEATING:

– In reply to your ruling. Mr Deputy Speaker, I point out that national service bears upon the whole question of defence. The reason we have national service, as the Minister said at the commencement of his speech, is for Australia’s defence. Every Government supporter has spoken about Australia’s defence in this debate and has claimed that the Labor Party has no credible defence policies. What I am saying is that the Labor Party feels that we do not have to conscript men to have a credible defence, i am trying to prove to the House that the Labor Party has been concerned about the defence of Australia and Australia’s defence industries and that this Government has neglected Australia’s defence. I am instancing the defence industries and the general defence organisation to prove that the whole premise of the Government’s defence policies and the National Service Act is invalid.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I do not want to restrict the honourable member but I do think that he should keep to the terms of the Bill.

Mr KEATING:

– I think I am keeping to the spirit of the Bill and the general debate as it has developed. I was not going to speak on the National Service Bill. I was impelled to do so because last night the basis of the speech of every Government supporter was that the Labor Party cannot be trusted with defence, and as we know the very converse is the real position. This Government has failed to defend Australia adequately. We have had to enlist men for national service because the Menzies Government had allowed Australia’s defences and the strength of our forces to run down. I will accept your ruling, Sir, and conclude my remarks because my time in this debate has just about expired.

In every field of Australia’s defence, looking at the defence industries and at the general premise on which our defence organisation is based, we find there is an ad hoc approach. There has been no consistent policy by this Government. Its foreign policies have been designed and tailored towards a political end and that political end has been well served in the past by the Government’s tying itself to the defence umbrella of the United States. The whole point now is that, after the Nixon Doctrine announced in Guam, Australia has to stand on its own two feet in relation to its defence. The Labor Party believes it can do this without conscripting young Australians for national service. We believe that we could as a government encourage Australians to enlist voluntarily in a volunteer Army if they were well paid. If they were highly trained and if the Army were sufficiently mobile we would have sufficient strength to suit Australia’s defence needs.

The whole emphasis on Australia’s defence should be on mobility, speed and hitting power. Basically all of our defence requirements and Services should be tailored towards a defensive and not an offensive role. For instance, by this I mean that the Fill aircraft is plainly an offensive aircraft. It is being purchased for 5400m to drop nuclear bombs in places a couple of thousand miles away. Obviously this is an offensive type of aircraft. We should be looking for aircraft that are less sophisticated and are of a defensive nature and which the Australian aircraft industry can manufacture. Similarly with our Navy the Australian shipbuilding industry could manufacture ships equipped with arms and electronics so that we could have a firm industrial base and therefore be able to supply our troops with Australian manufactured equipment. We should not depend upon the resources of other nations.

While ever there is no consistent defence policy there will always be malaise in Service thinking. It is because of this lack of policy that we had to conscript boys and the guilty men opposite have sent 300 Australian boys to their death. As I said, this Government has been manipulated by a South Vietnamese President who introduced a constitutional amendment that forced every other candidate out of the presidential field. So what sort of Government have we defended in Vietnam? What sort of Government will we leave and how can Australia rely on that Government when we know that it is not securely based and does not have the popular support of the people? I think the whole National Service Act was a response to political pressure from the United States and it is an Act that destroys the Government’s credibility in the eyes of the Australian people.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support the Bill. I would like to refer to some remarks made by previous speakers, but not the last one because he did not discuss the Bill at all. The honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) stated that the Australian Labor Party does not oppose national service but opposes it only in relation to horrible ghastly non-wars such as those fought in places like Vietnam. I wonder whether he would know the difference between one horrible war and the next. I think that all war is a ghastly thing. To draw a line between one war and another is really an impossibility. A man is putting his life on the line whether he is in a jungle, underneath the sea, up in the air or in a desert. For the honourable member to say that he objects to a war on the ground that it is a ghastly war shows a complete lack of understanding of the serviceman’s approach.

It would be worse to be unprepared than to have men trained and ready to defend our country. The honourable member for Capricornia went on to advocate that we should be looking for a good life for all. That is what we have all fought for in the past. We must get through to the young people of today that they have a duty to serve this country in peace and in war. There are many ways of serving a country and they are not all in the front line. The honourable member for Burke (Mr Keith Johnson) yesterday delivered a tirade about the volunteers of today who have no stake in the wealth of the country. Let us look at the people who defended this country in the past. They probably did not have much stake in the wealth of the country either. They just considered that Australia was worth serving. In those days they were not soft minded enough to be led away from serving and saving Australia by people who are not concerned with the real interests of this country.

The honourable member for Burke also stated that the owners of property sit at home making money and directing operations from sanctuaries to which they deny admittance to those who have been sent to fight. Far heaven’s sake. The inference was that the likes of honourable members on his side of the House, the workers and the sons of workers, as they purport to be, are the men who are sent to risk their lives whereas the likes of honourable members on this side of the House sit at home and direct them in what to do. What arrant nonsense. He should check the Service records of Government supporters against those of Opposition members. The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) who was under attack yesterday, would be a good example. He has worked very hard on the land, he has fought very hard for his country and now he is in Parliament, still fighting for his country. The honourable member for Burke went on to speak about his trip to Indonesia last year and referred to the sending of Australian troops and other assistance to Indonesia. He said that the Indonesian army was 6,000,000 strong. 1 do not know whether that is right or not. I thought they had 20 divisions. He said that Australia had 28,000 men under arms. What he did not mention was the question that was asked every day while I was in Djakarta: What is Australia doing about the downward thrust of Communism? This was not an Australian political rattling the can. It was Indonesians in their homeland asking that question. The honourable member for Burke and his colleagues had no answer to that.

The Bill gives effect to the Government’s decision to reduce the period of full time national service from 2 years to 18 months. In his second reading speech the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) said:

National service has been and continues to be a significant element of the effort expended to ensure the maintenance of an effective defence capability in this country.

That is the essence of the Bill. The policy of the Australian Labor Party is to abolish national service. Every honourable member opposite who spoke said the same thing, except the honourable member for Capricornia who said that he wanted national service abolished for one type of war and not another. National service has supplied Australia with 51,000 men in the military forces and a total of 21,000 fully trained men in the reserve forces who could be called up to undertake short refresher courses and to serve Australia in time of need. In his speech the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) said that the Australian Labor Party would take appropriate steps to build strong forces by forming a volunteer army. I want to know how the Australian Labor Party would build up these strong forces. He went on to say that a soldier can be trained in 6 months. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spent 5 years in the Army. I do not know whether he was trained at the end of it or not. Is it possible to train a modern day soldier from a rookie to a front line man in 6 months?

We should give all Australians a chance to join in serving this nation. I have said before in this House and I say it again that Australia should give all the youth of this country a basic grounding in the service of their country. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in discussing national service said that the period of 18 months would prevent young persons from continuing in business. He said that it would completely ruin their chances of getting on in business afterwards. Perhaps no-one has pointed out to him that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and various other people have spent years in service between one part of their lives and another and they have returned to normal life apparently without much bother. So I say that we should give them all a chance to serve Australia. After training they would come out as better young Australians. I have seen them. We have all seen them before call up and after. There is often little likeness between the man who goes into national service and the one that comes out, either in stature or in outlook.

I want to know how the Australian Labor Party would build its strong volunteer army. Why would the youth of Australia volunteer to join an ALP army when its would-be leaders denounce Australian servicemen at every opportunity? Both the regulars and national servicemen have been denigrated by those leaders who attend moratorium marches and who support the enemy. Why would they join an army whose leader has addressed a meeting outside this House supporting their enemies with battle flags and national emblems. (Quorum formed.) Proposed section 3a in the amendment proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition provides that the Act shall cease to be in force on 1st January 1972. This would mean that there would be no more national service.

If the proposed amendment was carried the size of the Australian Army would be reduced by one-third. This is just as inconsistent as the attacks made recently by members of the Opposition on the Joint United States-Australian Defence Space Research Facility at Alice Springs. During the debate on that issue members of the Opposition quoted Dr Klass and Peter Ryan who both said in their assumptions that Pine Gap was part of an early warning defence system; in other words, it was a defence project. Yet speaker after speaker supported the denunciation by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) of this defence project. They are showing equal inconsistency and irresponsibility in this debate. They would not consider an army of 23,000 men to be adequate, and yet speaker after speaker has denounced the National Service Bill, which is the means employed to get sufficient numbers. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition would build up strong forces. What are strong forces? What does the Opposition have to say about these strong forces? Do members of the Opposition not consider that it is a right, a duty and a privilege for the young people of Australia to serve their country? It is our duty to see that the she’s right, mate’ attitude does not lead us into a state of national lethargy from which we may never recover. So I reject the proposed amendment wholeheartedly.

In the few moments remaining to me I would ask the Government to work on plans to involve all the youth of Australia in training to serve their country. From this training Australia would have many thousands of capable reservists. From this initial training would come all the volunteers necessary to man the 3 armed Services and even the Citizen Military Forces. The young people would feel that they did have a stake in the country as they had been trained to serve it. The scheme should be brought in gradually to allow all Australians the opportunity of serving in one way or another. This would do away with the ballot system which places an undue burden on certain sections of our young people today and would provide volunteers to man the 3 armed Services.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– In his second reading speech on the National Service Bill the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) said:

The Bill gives effect to the Government’s decision to reduce the period of full-time national service from 2 years to 18 months, as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on 18th August.

He said later in his speech that conscription was introduced in 1964 and he then made this amazing statement:

Subsequent developments have fully vindicated the Government’s judgment.

Nothing is further from the truth than that statement because the Government’s judgment has never been vindicated but has been condemned by every section of responsible opinion in this country. The fact of the matter is that conscription was introduced to support the commitment this Government entered into when its arm was twisted by the American Government to enter the war in Vietnam - a war which has not yet been terminated, an undeclared war to which Australia should never have contributed in any way.

We are now told that the period of national service training is to be reduced from 2 years to 18 months. There were a few other alterations to the Act mentioned in the Minister’s second reading speech but that is the major one. Far from being penitent over the loss of about 470 Australian lives and the wounding of 4,000 or more, Government supporters are saying that their sending of these young men to war has been vindicated. By conscripting Australians to fight in Vietnam and now by reducing the period of service to 18 months one would think that they had made a major contribution to the welfare of the nation. This legislation is the follow-on from the introduction of conscription in 1964 for the commitment to the war in Vietnam entered into by this country. It was because of the ‘all the way with LBJ’ policy enunciated by this Government that it was committed to conscription. As the Minister stated, at this stage 16,000 conscript national service trainees comprise a large proportion of the 44,000 men in the Army.

The real reason for the introduction of conscription in the first place, apart from our commitment to Vietnam, was not that it was ever necessary but that it was the easy way out for the Government and the easy way for the Army authorities to pick the best out of the young men of this nation. Australians should never forget that this Government, which said that our security and future independence was challenged by the menace from the north - and Vietnam was cited as an example - saw fit to call up only a section of the 20-year olds of this country and place on them the full responsibility for the defence of this nation. At a time when the Government said that this country was in real danger it thought so little about it that it said ‘business as usual at home’, yet 10 per cent of those of 20 years of age had their names drawn out of a barrel in a lottery which became known as the lottery of death.

This was opposed by the Labor Party - to its credit - right from its inception and when we become the government next year national service training will be abolished and we will raise a volunteer army to defend this country, an army with adequate pay and conditions and all that goes with it. As honourable members well know the Government at this stage does not seem to want volunteers in the Army. I think about 70 per cent of the young men called up are rejected because the Government looks for men with the physical condition of Olympic athletes. The ‘Australian’ of 20th August had something to say about conscripts and the war for which they were called up to fight. It stated:

With its withdrawal of Australian armed forces from Vietnam, with the exception apparently of some advisers, the Government is doing no more than putting right the wrong it did 6 years ago. In this time, successive prime ministers have used our commitment less for the South Vietnamese than for their own political advantage.

For their own political ends 470-odd Australians are dead, more than half of them conscripted national service trainees. Even though the Government says it is withdrawing the men from that area, unfortunately 5 died a few days ago and 25 were injured. The article continued:

A Prime Minister who seems to have so little to say about his own country’s future is not likely to have given much thought to the future of IndoChina. Still, some of us expected him to disclose on Wednesday night the broad sweep at least of the future for which more than 470 young Australians have given their lives.

It goes on to say:

During this period -

That is the time of the war political life in America, Australia and New Zealand has been preoccupied with whether or not the commitment was morally justified or even militarily sensible. To hear Mr McMahon, though, there is no argument about it.

Another article in the ‘Australian’ of 20th August refers to the war in Vietnam and to the reduction of troops there. The article states:

No fewer than 419 Australians have been killed in action and a further 2,860 wounded. Another 70 are listed as non-battle deaths, with an addi tional 726 injured or ill. It cost us $2 15m to wage the war over the past 9 years. What the Government calls success, the other side, represented by the Deputy Opposition Leader, Mr Barnard, terms ‘an unparalleled disaster’.

How true was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in that statement. Why was Australia ever committed to this war? Why were national service trainees ever called up? Why were men conscripted to fight in the paddy fields of Vietnam and other places?

While all this was happening, the Country Party thought little of Australia selling its wheat and wool to and feeding and clothing those people who were termed our enemies. At the same time, with double standards, the Government conscripted the elite of Australian manhood to fight in Vietnam for a cause which the Government said endangered our future but which the whole world now knows was not the position at all. For instance, we have found that had it not been for this Government offering troops to the South Vietnamese Government, Australia would never have been involved in the war. All Australia did was to back up the American approach and policy. The policy of this Government became ‘All the way with LBJ’ and Australia found that it was committed because it was felt that in a time of crisis the United States of America might come to our aid. Today, the United States Government in every aspect of its policy is showing how much it thinks of Australia’s support in Vietnam. Senator Fulbright visited Australia and said that he did not know we had men in Vietnam, although 8,000 of our men were faced with the prospect of death.

In addition to that, America in the field of aviation is waving the big stick over Qantas Airways Ltd and other companies. It has embargoes on certain of our products and even the members of the Australian Country Party are up in arms about this. America’s gratitude has been extremely short lived. Australia was silly enough to be the only white nation in the world to go in and fight in support of America in the paddy fields of Vietnam. Is this not a tragic commentary on this Government? Is it not a shocking thing and a scandal that men are in gaol today as a result of this policy? Charles Martin in Adelaide, Gary Cook in Perth and Geoff Mullen in Sydney are serving 2 years hard labour for the simple reason that they objected to the war in Vietnam, a war which has been condemned in mass demonstrations here, as in practically every other country, because people know that Australia should never have been engaged in it. The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) has refused to agree to an amendment which would have released some of these men from gaol. The very least the Government can do is to release them immediately because if any man is prepared to serve 2 years in gaol, in my book he is a fair and sincere conscientious objector against this conflict and docs not deserve to have any penalty imposed on him. Yet these men rot in gaol while the Government boasts of how successful its war has been and how it is reducing the term of national service. This is nothing short of a national scandal and the Government deserves to be condemned for it. There has been no contrition from Government supporters. Every one of them has told us how it is necessary to defend the country, what the Government is doing as a government and what Labor would not do.

I do not like to stir the embers of the past but had the Government not been defeated in another political generation in 1941, Australia would have been under Japanese domination today. In 1941 the Government was thrown out of office by its own supporters because it COUld not prepare this country to defend itself in the time of threatened invasion. As I mentioned in this Parliament recently, the manner in which the Government is changing Ministers is rather like a hurdy-gurdy. Because this debate relates to defence, I repeat, as honourable members know, that in the last 4 years there have been 4 Ministers for Defence. In fact, in the last 6 months, there have been 3 Ministers for Defence. That is great stability for the armed forces. The average man serving in the armed forces would not have time to know who is his Minister before that Minister was replaced. Since March, there have been 3 Ministers for Defence and changes in policy. Ministers are changed almost as often as one changes one’s shirt. The Navy is a real old whipping horse, as it were. There have been 2 Ministers for the Navy since the beginning of the year. The Navy portfolio is given to any member the Government may want to get rid of at any old time. An important service like the Navy is treated as though it does not matter at all. Yet the Government is boasting about what it is doing in regard to defence, is criticising the Labor Party and is changing its Ministers almost monthly.

Even during the last 4 years when the Government said it had a reasonable amount of stability, there have been 4 Ministers for Defence. The Government consistently tells us how much it is spending on defence, how much it has boosted up the amount allocated in the Budget for national service training and all these kind of things. However, what is important is not how much is spent on defence; but what is actually done with the money. It took the Government a long time to provide the adequate pay and conditions which have just been announced for certain sections of the Services. There would be no need for conscription at any time if adequate benefits were given to men in the Services, who are prepared to fight for the country and to be available in peace or war. Yet the Government took the cheap way out and today, to its eternal discredit and in the face of public opinion, it does not admit that it was wrong to commit troops to Vietnam. The whole world knows the Government deserves to be condemned for that action. I do not know of any section of society in this country which supports our continued commitment to Vietnam. This is also the case in Great Britain. In America there have been violent demonstrations against America’s involvement in this conflict. We in this part of the world - the only nation which was prepared to support America - are now treated as though we had no men there at all. As an article in one paper recently said - about 400 deaths later, 4,000 wounded men later and some years after the first entry of Australian troops to Vietnam - it is realised that we should never have been there.

Is it not a scandalous state of affairs that, instead of Government supporters apologising to the Parliament as they should be doing, they are almost arrogant in respect of what has been done and they still stress the necessity of these actions? I should like the Minister to reveal to this Parliament what the future of the national service training scheme will be. Are the boys who have been called up under this out of the barrel proposal to be sent to any war anywhere in Asia or elsewhere? At least I do agree with the former Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), when he stated in his article ‘I Did It My Way’ that he did not want Australia to be involved in every second rate war in Asia and elsewhere. This is to his credit and it is a sound policy. There is no mandate for this Government to commit Australian forces, particularly conscripted forces, to other parts of the world when Australia is not in danger. Therefore, I add my condemnation of the Government’s policy on national service training and for its involvement in Vietnam.

Naturally, I record with a certain amount of pleasure that the period of national service has been reduced to 18 months. However, if honourable members opposite support the amendment which will be moved by the Opposition, national service will be terminated completely in the not too distant future. Honourable members opposite should do this. No Minister of this Government should sleep peacefully at night while men languish in gaol because they would not go to a war which has no support in this country or anywhere else in the world. No government deserves the support of the Australian people when it conscripts young men to fight in a war, not because it felt the nation wanted them there but because it was following blindly the foreign policies of another country. Whether Government supporters like it or not, the Prime Minister of Australia hedged at all questions about invitations to participate in the Vietnam war, but when the correspondence was revealed, it boiled down to that well known phrase ‘They had their arm twisted’. When its arm was twisted, the Government agreed to accept the offer to go into Vietnam. Because of this, men have died in Vietnam. Men who have been conscripted have died in the paddy fields of Vietnam and today their families mourn them, no doubt with pride, because they gave their all. But the tragedy is that these men should never have been there at all. Other men have been wounded and maimed for life because of this conflict in which Australia should never have been engaged.

While the Government talks of reducing the period of national service and of withdrawing our troops from .Vietnam, men still languish in gaol. This is a shocking policy to be followed by any government. The Government deserves to be condemned and in the Committee stages the Opposition will confront the Government with important amendments to the National Service Act. This will give the Government an opportunity to make some recompense for what it has brought to this country because of the conflict in Vietnam. I was present in the House on the night when the Australian Labor Party opposed the conscription proposals of this Government to meet our involvement in Vietnam. I am proud of my Party and it is to its eternal credit that it has stood firm on this issue right through, despite bitter attacks from the Government. The Opposition has been justified by the results. The conflict is coming to an end so far as Australia is concerned. The Labor Party’s opposition to Australia’s commitment of forces to Vietnam has been vindicated in every way.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– One thing has become most apparent during the course . of the debate Contributions by honourable members on the Government side, from the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), who has held a number of other portfolios, to the last speaker have centred around criticism of the Labor Party Opposition. In their criticism, Government supporters have, of course, from time to time made some very serious allegations about honourable members on this side of the House. On 2 or 3 occasions when such remarks have been made some honourable members on the Government side have come across to me and said ‘We do not necessarily mean you.’ Why I should come in for any different sort of treatment to that received by my parliamentary colleagues, I do not know. But the criticism has been made on the basis that nobody in the Opposition gives one damn about the defence of this country and that nobody in the Opposition in fact gives any consideration to what ought to be done by government in regard to defence.

Of course, honourable members opposite have harked back to the First World War and the Second World War. During the course of their contributions their main theme has been criticism of the Opposition. So at the risk of being considered repetitive, 1 point out that the Hansard records on the ministerial table in this House contain much information of the activities of the Labor Party in both the First World War and the Second’ World War. Labor was the governing Party of the Commonwealth during those crucial years around 1914 to 1919 and subsequently in the early and mid 1940s. There can be no validity whatsoever in this most unjust criticism that is aimed at this side of the House by those on the Government side. One searches one’s mind for a reason why they should indulge in this kind of criticism. It is almost a hate session directed at members on this side of the House in which it is alleged that we would sell out the country, that we would have no regard for its defence, that by our opposition to this Bill and by our action in putting forward the amendments we would be reducing the armed forces of the country in peace time to such an extent that it could be considered that we were in fact nothing more than treacherous traitors. As I have already stated, this is quite false. Because the defence of this country was so shocking and so deplorable in the country’s hour of need in 2 world conflicts honourable members opposite have to indulge in this type of recrimination against honourable members on this side of the House.

A former honourable member for Sturt, is, as far as I can ascertain, the only parliamentarian who has forgone his parliamentary career and enlisted in the Services. I do not see any honourable members on the Government side who were perhaps too young to be involved in the conflict from 1939 to 1945, who have resigned what positions they have held in this Parliament to fight in what they consider to be a just war in Vietnam. I do not believe that one should call upon another to do something that one is not prepared to do oneself if one is fit and physically able to carry out the type of duty to which honourable members opposite have subjected the youth of this country during the time they have been in office.

Mr Giles:

– What a silly argument.

Mr FOSTER:

– One hears idle boasts by the Liberal Party machine from time to time that it has gathered to the banners of the Young Liberal Movement large numbers of the youth of this country. I would question the loyalty of these young people because not many of them have gone to Vietnam in accordance with the Government’s wishes.

Mr Giles:

– You do not see them trying to get out of it when they are called up.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt has been speaking for 5 minutes. During that time the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) has interjected on a number of occasions. I suggest to the honourable member that he cease interjecting.

Mr FOSTER_ So, one again questions the whole supporting Liberal Party attitude. In using the term ‘supporting Party attitude’, I mean these rank and file members of the Liberal Party in this age group who ought to shoulder arms in support of their Party. We hear so much about the ‘frank’ and file movement of the Liberal Party. Just how frank and how sincere is it about this aspect of its conscience?

This National Service Bill which is again introduced by this Government is nothing more than a lousy, cheap, political trick. It is an absolute subterfuge. I say this because in this Parliament over the last few weeks we have seen an attempt by Ministers - indeed, by the Prime Minister himself - to cover up how this country became involved in Vietnam. By involvement, I mean the fact that we have gone into this country at all in a military sense or in military force. The position is so vastly different from what has been experienced by countries normally associated with conflict. It is vastly different to the way Australia became involved in the 1914-1918 war. Again, it is vastly different to the way in which Australia became involved in the 1939-1945 conflict. Where could one put one’s finger on the element of truth that will reveal for history how Australia became involved in Vietnam? We have heard a former Minister for Air make statements in this House that he was on a visit to Indo-China at that particular time and in Vietnam. There was talk of a French letter, which has never been tabled in this House, as being the authentic document which brought about Australia’s involvement in this most sorrowful conflict - this war against the innocent.

Mr Grassby:

– Are you attacking the Country Party?

Mr FOSTER:

– I am not attacking the Country Party at all. The members of the Country Party, by their actions, attack themselves. But the fact is this: We have never been told why we became involved in Vietnam. The Pentagon papers have received scant regard from this Government as far as our involvement in the conflict is concerned. One must search one’s mind in an endeavour to arrive at a conclusion as to why this country became involved. I wish to go back a little before 1964. We have seen a situation in this country where a coalition government which has been in office far too long has stooped to subterfuge to ensure that it is not defeated at the polls.

As an aside, one classic example is the Country Party’s stranglehold on the Department of the Interior so it can gerrymander the electorates. Twenty honourable members in this House represent the Country Party which receives less than 8 per cent of the vote of this country. That is less than the Australian Democratic Labor Party receives. This is an illustration. We had the Petrov situation in the mid-1950s. The Government wanted an issue on which to go to the polls. It did not have one so it created an issue. In 1964 we were in no different position. The Government wanted an issue. How does the Liberal-Country Party machine work in this regard? What does it do to ensure it remains in office? It simply decided to divide and rule, to divide and conquer. Almost every piece of legislation this Government has put through the House down through the years, whether it be social legislation, industrial legislation, or legislation on a rural basis, has been introduced in this way. What is more shocking is that in regard to the National Service Act, it decided that it would divide the people and conquer. Education is another classic example of this attitude. So this was the reason the Act was brought in. The Government did not want every 20 year old conscripted because it would have gathered in some of its own people who would have objected. So it evolved, with the Department of Labour and National Service, this shocking system of the ballot of death - the lottery of death as it became known. It was a vicious, vile method which is no different from that adopted by the Nazi troops which occupied many European countries during the last war. As a result of action by the freedom fighters, the French maquis and so forth, against the occupation forces the Nazi troops decided to line up the village people and take one in 10 of the male population. This method of conscription is no different.

Who are we to stand in this Parliament and decide by a lottery of death that we will deny people civil liberties? Who are we to say that in a time of peace we should send conscripts to Vietnam to fight in this war? Having said that I give notice that during the course of the Estimates debate I shall raise a matter concerning this Government and a number of Ministers and the manner in which some conscripts were medically examined and the shocking inequalities that took place in that regard. I also indicate that during the course of the Estimates debate 1 will be dealing with some specific cases of people who have been dealt with shockingly by various Government departments since their return from Vietnam. The Government can rest assurred that its nose is not very clean in this regard. In fact the way it has turned its back on these people is a shocking indictment of the Government.

I want to say something about our defence position in 1971 in the light of our involvement in Vietnam since 1964. There is not one military brain in this country and, indeed, hardly one military assessor in the world who is prepared to stand up and say that as a result of Australia’s involvement in Vietnam our defence position now, in 1971, is one iota better than it was in 1964. We have no additional aircraft with which to defend this country. An article by a member of the parliamentary Press Gallery in that most conservative of newspapers, the ‘Advertiser’, a few days ago gives a further indication of our absolute and utter weakness’. We have been bled to the point of weakness through our involvement in Vietnam. I would say it has cost the nation $500m. And what do we have for that $500m? I say nothing now of the sorrow that has been caused in this country by the stupidity of a previous government playing with people’s lives by the cheapest of political mockery and trickery. 1 could not describe it in any other way.

In addition to that we have had a large percentage of soldiers in Vietnam killed by that stinking, rotten minefield which should never have been put there. It has been the cause of most of our casualties in Vietnam. If a Labor government had been in office and this percentage of deaths in Vietnam had resulted from our own fire and the laying of our own mines, would the Government parties who would then have been in Opposition have let such a Labor government forget it? Most certainly they would not and, what is more, they would have been shirking their responsibilities if they did not sheet it home.

The terrible part of all this is that, despite the hundreds of dead, the thousands of wounded and the many shattered minds, the Government supporters in this chamber, to one of whom you had to speak for interjecting, Mr Speaker, openly smile and laugh. Let them visit the homes of some of the families whose sons have never returned except, of course, in a military casket.

Mr Giles:

Mr Speaker, I want to make quite sure that the honourable member does not think that I-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. If he wishes to raise a point of order on a matter of procedure I will listen to him but he well knows he cannot stand and hold forth without explaining the reason to the Chair.

Mr FOSTER:

– 1 have not mentioned of course, the hundreds of thousands of amputees, including children under the age of 10. What is all that worth to those in this country who want to probe their consciences and who have never raised their voices in opposition to our involvement in Vietnam? Where are those people who supported the Vietnam war in its early stages? Where are the guilty people on the Government side who must bear directly the responsibility for every soldier who has been brought back to this country and interred in a local cemetery under the Australian flag? They are the people who are guilty and they ought to pray for their souls each night before they retire. I am sure if ever there is a judgment day they will have to answer for what they have done. This was all in support of a lousy, cheap political trick, with a thumbs in the lapel attitude, after having won successive elections on this issue. They ought to be condemned and loudly condemned forever.

Where is their sincerity as far as the defence of this country is concerned? A former member of this House not so very long ago raised a matter relating to the Cockburn Sound base. The Opposition wanted to continue the debate for some 30 minutes. Honourable members opposite tonight should pick up the appropriate Hansard, read it and bite their tongues when they come to the end of it where it sets out the ayes and the noes. Where then is their sincerity in relation to the Cockburn Sound base? Where is their sincerity in trying to achieve sufficient naval strength in the Indian Ocean, having in mind the type of claptrap that they were speaking at that time about the Russian influence in the Indian Ocean? The Government does not realise that the first prerequisite of a defence policy is not necessarily that we must have tens of hundreds of thousands of military personnel. We could have every able bodied man conscripted tomorrow into the Australian Army but it would not make our defence potential one skerrick better unless it was backed by an industrial complex which is necessary to carry out a proper defensive role.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Did you answer your country’s call in the Second World War?

Mr FOSTER:

– I will deal with that later tonight during the adjournment debate when I refer to an article that appeared in the local rag in the electorate of the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes). The fact is that this is the type of potential we must have in order to defend the country. We have not that potential. The Government set about conscripting the highest type of wealth that could possibly be conscripted in 1964; that was humanity. Did the Menzies, the Holts and others think, when they were telling the people of Australia that the country was in dire danger, that they should have mentioned, even if they paid only lip service to it, that industry should be conscripted, that the way of life should be altered and that company profits should not reach an all time record during a time when the young fellows of this country were being slaughtered in an unjust war in Vietnam? The takeover bids were greater and the profits became greater.

Mr O’Keefe:

– Oh, oh!

Mr FOSTER:

– You can ‘oh, oh!’ all you like. The Government did not conscript wealth. Its immigration programme ran at an all time record to give industry the type of fodder it needed to make up for that which the Government unjustifiably sent to Vietnam. In my concluding minutes I want to ask: Will the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), who is now at the table, rise tonight and say that the amendment moved by the Opposition is an amendment of some substance? He should no longer continue in office as Minister in charge of the Department which thought put this diabolical scheme. He should stand and be counted for that and say that the Government is not prepared to continue with this discriminatory practice. My only hope - I suppose it is a forlorn one - is that in my remarks tonight I have in fact touched the conscience of some supporters of the Government in this chamber arid in the chamber on the other side of King’s Hall. I most certainly think that they ought to have another look at their consciences in regard to this matter. It cannot be repeated too often -that the Government deserves no credit for its actions in Vietnam.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I rise to protest against the action of the Government in continuing to gaol young men who defy the Government’s efforts to conscript them to serve in the war in Vietnam. In particular, I want to express my attitude in regard to the case of one young man. I refer to Geoffrey Mullen, a science graduate of the University of New, South Wales who is at present in Cooma gaol. I relate some aspects of the attitude of the Government and its organisations towards Geoffrey Mullen. After spending a short period in Long Bay gaol Geoffrey Mullen was transferred to Berrima gaol. I visited him at Berrima gaol on Easter Saturday last. On that occasion the superintendent of the gaol, in my presence, threatened that if there were any demonstrations in front of Berrima gaol against the war in Vietnam or conscription Geoffrey Mullen would be removed from that gaol and certain action would be taken against him. It was later brought to my notice that 2 prison warders threatened Geoffrey Mullen that if certain demonstrations occurred outside the gaol the privileges of prisoners in Berrima gaol would be restricted. This led to prison inmates threatening Geoffrey Mullen.

As a result of the revelation of this matter in this Parliament, Geoffrey Mullen was transferred from Berrima gaol to Newnes, which is probably the best of the New South Wales prisons - if one can describe a prison in such terms. It is more of a prison farm. My information is that during his period at Newnes Geoffrey Mullen was treated well and had good relations with his fellow prisoners. However, several weeks ago he was transferred from this prison to Silverwater and later from Silverwater to Cooma. I made representations to the Commissioner of Corrective Services in New South Wales, Mr McGeechin, about this matter. I asked him why Geoffrey Mullen had been transferred to Cooma. Mr McGeechin said that the transfer was in fact in Mr Mullen’s best interests. Following that I sent a telegram to the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) in the following words:

Geoffrey Mullen was transferred from Berrima gaol to Newnes Farm. In my speech Hansard 239? May 3rd I gave details on why he was transferred to Newnes. He has now been transferred from Newnes to Cooma. I made representations to Commissioner of Corrective Services Mr W. McGeechin seeking details on reason for transfer from Newnes at the request of his mother who believed it was not in the best interest of her son to be at Cooma. In reply to my representation to the Commissioner all I can describe the reply is one of arrogance. As Geoffrey Mullen is a prisoner in the New South Wales prison due to a Commonwealth Act I request through you the details on why he was transferred from Newnes to Cooma and I further request that he be transferred from Cooma back to Newnes. I should appreciate your sympathy and consideration in this case.

Although I specifically asked the Minister to give consideration to this case no consideration was given to it because the Government has no feelings in this regard. One would think that, as it is now bringing troops back from Vietnam because of public opinion and world pressure, the Government would release the 3 young men who were gaoled because they had the moral courage to stand up against the Government’s policy of conscription. The Department of Labour and National Service knows that at least 43,000 young men in this country have failed to comply with all the details of the National Service Act, but only a handful of them have been prosecuted. One would think that these young men would be released from gaol now that we are withdrawing from Vietnam. But that is not the case. The Government apparently wants to act according to what is called the letter of the law.

The Government is a government of hypocrisy. Was its heart bleeding for the young men who were killed in Vietnam last week? An indication that the Government is a government of hypocrisy is that it could not care less that the lives of 500 of our young men were lost in Vietnam because the Government wanted a cheap insurance policy. What did the AttorneyGeneral say in reply to my representation? In a letter to me dated 28th September 1971, he said:

I refer to your recent telegram regarding Mr Geoffrey Mullen, in which you request details of the reasons for his transfer from Newnes to Cooma. You further request that he be transferred back to Newnes.

Mr Mullen is undergoing imprisonment in a State prison as the States are required by section 120 of the’ Constitution to make provision for detention in their prisons of persons convicted of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth. Commonwealth prisoners are subject to the same terms and conditions as apply to State prisoners. 1 am satisfied from information I have received from the New South Wales Minister of Justice that the decision to move Mr Mullen to Cooma was made in Mr Mullen’s own interest. The question as to the prison in which Mr Mullen should be held is one for decision by the New South Wales prison authorities.

Let us examine the Attorney-General’s claim that the transfer was in the best interest of Geoffrey Mullen. At Newnes he had access to all library facilities. He is a student. Geoffrey Mullen is trying to do a postgraduate course through the University of New England. At Newnes he had complete access to all daily newspapers without having to seek any special permission. Immediately he was transferred to Cooma he came under prison discipline and had to seek permission even if he wanted a newspaper. Under prison conditions they are difficult to obtain. He also had to seek permission to get certain books from the library. This is supposed to be in his best interests. The Government wants to keep this young man in gaol. I can say with the direct authority of his mother that Geoffrey Mullen did not want to leave Newnes. He did not come into conflict with anybody there and no threats were made against him. In fact, he enjoyed good relationships there. I do not think that the boy should be there at all. He should be out of gaol. But no, this Government wants to make sure that somebody pays.

I am sick to death of the hypocritical attitude of this Government which is putting young men in prison. In fact, it is snooping around looking for other young men to put into gaol. I understand that for 3 days it was chasing young men in melbournetotry toputthem ingaol. It must have cost the Government thousands of dollars in attempting to apprehend just a few men. Why does the Government persecute just a few young men? Why does it want to persecute these young men who have had the moral courage to stand up against the authorities and the establishment? These young men have been treated by this Government in a way which is contrary to the way in which they should be treated. There should be some dignity in the matter. The Government should show some sympathy and understanding because of the blunders it has made. What has the Government done? It has committed crimes on 500 young men. It has their blood on its hands.

One would think that Government supporters at least would examine their guilt, as members of Congress in the United States, both Republicans and Democrats, did. Those members were critical of the Administration - whether it was a Democrat Administration or a Republican Administration. But not one Government supporter in either House of this Parliament - with the exception, of course, of the late Senator Hannaford, who left the Liberal Party - has had the decency to look at the mistakes and blunders which have been made in Vietnam. Instead the Government snoops around to make sure that it puts into gaol all the boys who have had the audacity to stand up against this corrupt, rotten law which was passed through this Parliament by the use of the Government’s numbers.

The Leader of the Australian Labor Party has committed an incoming Labor government to wipe from the statute books of this Parliament the National Service Act and also the convictions which have been recorded tinder it. In fact, the Labor Party has stated that it will compensate those who have been persecuted by this Government. Even now I ask honourable members opposite to show some sense of decency and to treat this young man, Geoffrey Mullen, with some human compassion and transfer him from Cooma gaol to Newnes, as requested by his mother. I also ask honourable members opposite to examine his case with a view to ending his’ service in prison and letting him return to serve society. He is a science graduate and he can make a contribution to this country. I ask the Government to forget its fears and its dogma under which it must keep htm in gaol.

As the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has done, I ask the Government now to release Charles Martin who has served a gaol term of 18 months. Why does the Government keep him in gaol? The Government says: ‘No, we must keep to the letter of the law’. We know how much it keeps to the letter of the law. It does so when it suits it. Let us re-examine this case. Let us examine our mistakes. Let us examine our guilt, because every Australian has guilt for the crimes that have been committed in Vietnam. There have been 500 young men sacrificed and the maiming of another 2,500 young men. This has happened because of the blunders and stupidity of this Government. After all these long years of pleading, making requests and issuing challenges to the Government to look at its guilt, I am asking it now to stop persecuting a few men. I ask it to do the decent thing and release these young men from gaol.

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

– in reply - The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) said in this House tonight that he was sick to death of what he called the ‘hypocrisy of this Government’. I want to say to the honourable member for Reid and to other honourable gentlemen opposite that we on this side of the House - and, I believe, the Australian people - are sick to death of the hypocrisy which characterises the Australian Labor Party’s policy on defence. Honourable members opposite talk about a defence policy for Australia. They say inside and outside this House that they are interested in defence, but by their very words they are condemned as a party which is prepared to sacrifice the defence security of Australia. What responsible party in this Parliament would be moving an amendment to seek the abolition of national service from 1st January of next year? Have not honourable members opposite considered the consequences which would result from such an action? Have they considered the size of the Australian Army which would result in those circumstances? They have failed to sustain their case, and I believe that they have failed to convince the Australian people.

I want to say in brief reply tonight that this debate has been wide-ranging and lengthy. Two Ministers, an Assistant Minister and Government supporters who have made a particular study of defence matters and, of course, the Opposition’s defence spokesman have participated in the debate and have provided what I believe to be a very comprehensive coverage of the major issues which face Australia and this Parliament in this debate. The debate has been, moreover, I believe, an important one in demonstrating once again the very clear difference between both sides of this House on an issue fundamental not only to Australia but also to any other country. As my colleague the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) put it, the issue is the making of proper provision for the defence of this country against external aggression. Therefore, let me briefly focus attention on several key points.

In their efforts to fill the vacuum that is Opposition policy on this important aspect of national defence, Labor Party speakers, to a man, have accepted the need - to use their own words - for an adequate Army as part of our defence capability. But again, as the honourable member for Berowa has pointed out, not one has gone so far as to say that an Army of the present volunteer element, 28,000 men, would meet our defence requirements. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) in fact spent some time in proposing ways in which, in the absence of national service, the short fall between the present level of volunteers and what he evidently regards as a force of an adequate size could be made up. But despite this, the Opposition proposes that the national service scheme should be discontinued from 1st January next year - that is, within a period of 3 months - which would precisely reduce the Army to the volunteer element, an immediate reduction of 30 per cent.

If the Opposition, the supposedly alternative Government, is serious in its proposal, it is nothing less than irresponsible. Or is this another example of the Parliamentary Labor Party being required to act out a role in this House and to align its - proposals with the pressures and directions of some sectional or extreme views which originate somewhere in the depths of the non-parliamentary machine? Is it another example of the fiasco in Victoria of recent days involving the President of the State branch of the ALP - that man of continuing episodic interest - and others with him in their support for those dissident elements which wish to challenge one of the basic premises of any community, the maintenance of law and order?

The reasoning behind the Opposition’s line of approach has been basically that as there is no immediate threat to Australia so there is no need for national service. The present national service scheme does not fit into a context of total mobilisation for war and it is not because of Vietnam, as some Opposition speakers have insisted on claiming, even though they know that national servicemen will no longer be required to serve in that part of the world. It is rather one aspect, an important aspect, of the effort expended in this country with regard to long term national security by seeking to maintain effective defence forces on a permanent, continuing basis, in particular by enabling the maintenance of an army of a size consistent with a permanent and continuing defence capability.

The major component of the manpower necessary to achieve national security objectives, of course, is obtained by volunteer recruitment. The Navy and the Air Force are all-volunteer forces. On the other hand, the men needed to maintain the essential strength - and I say this quite bluntly - of a standing army in peace time have to be obtained by other means to ensure an army of the size we need.

Honourable members on both sides of the House will know of the substantial efforts which have been made to attract enough volunteers, to which my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) has referred in detail, but it has not proven possible to attract sufficient volunteers to give us an army of sufficient size. This is the context of national service and why the Government believes its continuance at this time is so essential. The Government decisively rejects the case put forward by the Opposition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

InCommittee

Clauses 1 to 3 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 3a.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I move:

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: 3a. After section 3 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: “3a. This Act ceases to be in force on the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-two.”.’.

The amendment is moved in the context of the statement made by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) when be wound up the debate on the motion for the second reading of this legislation. I listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister as I have listened to those others who have spoken in this debate from both sides of this Parliament. As the Minister said, it has been a wide ranging debate. Some of the matters raised have been completely irrelevant, but that has not been the responsibility of honourable members on this side of the chamber. The debate certainly did not extend to the terms of the amendment I have moved to repeal the National Service Act as from 1st January 1972.

It was extremely interesting to listen to honourable members on the Government side expounding their theories about national service, giving the impression to the people of Australia that national service has always been a part of the Australian society. Let me remind the Minister and those who sit with him on the Government side that the Government has experimented with national service on 2 occasions. Everyone on this side of the chamber can recall the Government’s first method of national service, which it introduced some years ago and which it subsequently abolished as a complete failure. I suggest that honourable members opposite should read the second reading speech of the Minister who introduced the legislation to abolish the previous system of national service, which they knew was no more than a costly failure.

Again I say that I have listened with great interest to the arguments advanced by the Minister for Labour and National Service who has spoken, as I pointed out last night, as with the authority of the Minister for Defence. The plain fact is that this is a Bill relating to the Department of Labour and National Service and the Minister knows only too well that the matters about which the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has just spoken are matters that come within his province and nothing else. Having regard to what the Minister said about the attitude of honourable members on this side of the Parliament, I say that the foreign and defence policy of the Australian Labor Party is based on the firm conviction that war can and must be prevented and any responsible Australian government has a part to play in that prevention. At the same time we make it perfectly clear that we believe there is a necessity for a strong defence force in this country. If we go back into history, as so many on the Government side did during the course of the second reading debate, we can point, I believe, with a great deal of satisfaction and pride to the record of the Australian Labor Party during 2 World Wars.

What I have said, and what the Government has not answered, is that we do not believe that in a period such as this, a period in which the former Prime Minister said there was no danger to Australia for the next 10 years at least, there, is any necessity for the kind of conscription that this Government has foisted on the people of Australia. It knows that this is one of the most divisive issues that have faced this country in recent years. There have been 2 of them, both of the Government’s own making. The first was the introduction of national service and the second was our involvement in Vietnam. It is not my prerogative to speak about the latter tonight.

Let me turn again to this question of national service. Every honourable member on the Government side knows that there is no-one in Australia who could possibly justify the Government’s method of selecting 20-year-olds to be conscripted to fight overseas in a war in which Australia should have no part. We know and the Govern- ment knows that national service was introduced with Vietnam in mind. Since we are now relinquishing our involvement in Vietnam the period of national service is to be reduced from 2 years to 18 months. We have maintained consistently that it requires a period of only 12 months to train a serviceman in this country.

Let me remind the Minister for Labour and National Service that his colleague, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser), quite recently during a very short but unforgettable career as Minister for Defence, twice removed, himself admitted that, if we doubled the number of conscripts, reduced the period from 2 years to 12 months and spread the responsibility, it would be a much more equitable burden on the people of this country. So he believed that it could have been reduced at that time - and that was in July of this year - from 2 years to 12 months. I hope that I have quoted the former Minister for Defence correctly. The plain fact is that this system is neither just nor equitable. It is costly. It has been foisted on the people of Australia and, despite what the Minister and those who support him have had to say about the National Service Act, it is intensely disliked by the people of Australia because of the method of selection. No honourable member on the other side of the House has attempted during the course of this debate to justify the method of selection of 20-year-olds who were called upon to serve for a period of 2 years or who will be called upon to serve for a period of 18 months under this amending legislation.

The time at my disposal is limited, so let me conclude on this note. We on this side of the House have never suggested that it is not essential to maintain the defence forces in this country to guarantee our security. The Labour Party, whether in government or in opposition, has never failed to express its point of view in this way. Indeed we on this side have made it perfectly clear that in a time of national emergency if the necessity arose we would not hesitate to introduce a system of national service and conscription in this country. In the Second World War and in the Korean War, the Government was able to obtain all the volunteers it required at that time. I believe that if the Government set out to give to the armed Services of this country the kind of professional status to which they are entitled there would be no difficulty in obtaining all the volunteers that are required. The Minister for Labour and National Service said only a few moments ago that this could not be done. The Government has only just attempted to provide improved conditions that will mean additional volunteers for the armed Services.

The Government had to be prompted in this respect because it was not the Government that decided of its own volition to set up the committee under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Kerr which is now examining conditions in our armed Services. The Government was prompted by the Opposition to set up this inquiry and by the fact that there could have been a rebellion by honourable members on its own side. The honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) freely admitted this last night; he did not have to be prompted in this respect. Who caused an inquiry into the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund to be set up? Again the Government was prompted by honourable members on this side of the House. If this Government decided to build up the defence forces of this country on a voluntary basis it would find it could be done.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP

– I do not quite know why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) referred to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund and the other matters he brought in towards the end of his speech on this clause but it must be quite obvious to him and to the other members of the Opposition that this amendment is unacceptable to the Government because to accept it would completely negate the concept of national service altogether.

Mr Hughes:

– It would help to negate the Army as well.

Mr STREET:

– Yes, it would. But to those honourable members who sat through the debate on this Bill the situation must be quite obvious. The Government has made it clear that it is the intention of the Government to continue national service. The Opposition has made it perfectly clear that its intention is to abolish national service at the earliest opportunity. Therefore it must be obvious that this amendment is unacceptable. 1 find it rather extraordinary that while the Opposition were not prepared to vote against the motion for the second reading of the National Service Bill it is prepared to move an amendment in the committee stage which if adopted would virtually abolish the need for this Bill altogether. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has made the point, not only in his last speech a few moments ago but also previously, that in his opinion in today’s circumstances there is no necessity for national service. This is the Opposition’s stated attitude. On the other hand the Government’s stated attitude is that there is a continuing necessity for national service and not merely to cope with the immediate circumstances. The Opposition is continually harping on the fact that there is no obvious immediate threat to Australia but I would make the point that no government is a responsible government if it fails to take into account the possibilities as well as the probabilities. We are concerned not only with the immediate circumstances.

We believe that there is a necessity for national service to provide a continuing army of adequate size. I would stress the word ‘continuing’. This is a guarantee of an army of adequate size and not merely a pious hope, as I said last night, that we would have an army of adequate size. It will also provide adequate reserves, subject to immediate call-up for a period of 3 years, of men fully trained and able to take their place in an operational unit. It will assist in the build up of adequate Citizen Military Forces to fulfil their role in times of emergency. It will provide a further reservoir in the community of those who, although no longer serving actively in the reserve, have had the benefit of full-time training in the Regular Army in Australia. Therefore I cannot see how the Opposition which has neglected to vote against the motion for the second reading of this Bill can bring forward this amendment which is completely unacceptable to the Government. I suggest that this continuing programme - and I stress the word ‘continuing* which has an element of guarantee in it - of maintaining an army of adequate size, giving encouragement to the Citizen Military Forces, establishing adequate reserves subject to immediate call-up and providing a further reservoir in the community is an immeasureably superior system and gives immeasureably greater security to this country than rh; Opposition’s system which as I read it is one of panic call-up in times of emergency and panic training to get men called up to adequate standards. There can be no comparison between the 2 general approaches of the Government and the Opposition and I therefore have no hesitation in rejecting this amendment.

Mr COPE:
Sydney

– I should like to confine my remarks to the need for national service training in the first place. This is the first time in the history of this country that such legislation has been introduced for the purpose of conscripting troops to fight overseas in an undeclared war. The fact is that in World War I, which was a much more serious conflagration than this one in Vietnam, the people of Australia were given 2 opportunities to vote in a referendum to decide whether they desired conscription. On both occasions the vote was no. F believe that there was no need for the National Service Act in the first place because the Government should have encouraged people to volunteer. We heard the argument year after year in this place that people would, not volunteer for the Army. The fact is that there would be very few men willing to sacrifice the chance of getting more money in industry by joining the forces and the pay. conditions and amenities in . the armed Services were not nearly as good as they should have been.

One thing stood in the way of volunteers. Of those people who wanted to volunteer for the Army about 72 per cent were . rejected on the aptitude test. In World War II when the Japanese were on the doorstep of Australia and the situation was desperate there was no such thing as an . aptitude test for anyone joining the Army. Those who had a very poor education proved to be the best soldiers in World War II. Let me quote something that I have mentioned in this chamber before. 1 knew of one case in which a chap tried to enlist in the Army. He was rejected on the aptitude test. He joined the Australian Country Party and later became a member of Parliament. So one can readily see that it is a very strict aptitude test. These facts stand out.

I believe that we should always try to encourage people to volunteer for the Army. Strange to relate, as my friend and colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Allan Fraser) was one of the first to point out years ago, at first no-one could volunteer to go to Vietnam, despite the fact that Australia was supposed to be at war. Where is the answer to that query? Nobody has the answer and nobody could have it.

Dr Mackay:

– That is not right.

Mr COPE:

– It is, and the honourable member knows it is. Nobody could volunteer to go to Vietnam. They had to join the permanent Army first. But this was supposed to be a war. It was not like World War II when a person could go and enlist. If it was a war why was wealth not conscripted, as my friend the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) asked? Does the Government put money before human life? That is what it meant. Some people were allowed to go about their ordinary way of life making huge profits, but what about the men who were losing their lives, and what about their parents? The first thing that should have been done in this regard was to have a referendum, as was done on 2 occasions in World War I.

The Prime Minister who was originally responsible for the introduction of this legislation, Sir Robert Menzies, was given the opportunity at the second referendum to vote no, and he did vote no. He did not go to the war. In the first referendum he was not 21 years of age and could not vote, but in the second one he had a vote and he did not go to the war. He was given the opportunity by way of a ballot paper to say whether or not he wanted to go to the war. But the Government did not give the young boys of 20 or then parents the opportunity to say whether or not they wanted to go to the war. I believe that one of the gravest mistakes that has ever been made by any government since federation was that men were conscripted to be sent overesas in an undeclared war.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– I have listened very carefully to the debate that has been taking place. The Opposition failed to call for a division on the second reading of the Bill. I thought that a division was going to take place, but members of the Opposition did not even sound their voices. They kept strangely quiet. 1 would like to ask honourable members opposite why they did not call for a division.

Mr Barnard:

– Because we are now moving an amendment. That ought to be obvious even to you.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says it was because they proposed to move an amendment. Do not let us forget that they are always talking about some people going back into the past on different subjects in debate. But this is a question for the future that we are discussing now - that the Act shall cease to be in force on the 1st day of January 1972. The point is that this is a matter for the future - not for the past at all. At the time of the second reading speech it may have been something to do with the past. Honourable members of the Opposition came in and spoke and called Government supporters hypocrites and all sorts of things which were unparliamentary. But those remarks regarding the second reading are not applicable to the matter before the Committee which concerns the future.

It has been said in this chamber that the men who have been sent over to Vietnam are being brought back to Australia and they will be back here by 1st January next year. This will be done. But the whole point about this is: Does anyone think that some national service training is not in the best interests of the youth of this country?

Mr Scholes:

– How do you know what is best for them? .

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honourable member should know. The honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) said that in the Second World War the men with the least education and the men who could hardly pass the aptitude test were often the best soldiers. How does he know? But I know because I had nearly 6 years with them. I know that you cannot split the Australian Imperial Forces according to educational standards. They were all out to fight for this country and to do the best job they could in the interests of this nation. It is no use the honourable member for Sydney trying to make out that a certain section was better than another based on educational qualifications were concerned. This is completely false, and I know it. I do not just think it. There is a lot of difference between what one thinks and what one knows. I know this because I was in close touch with many of the men in the campaigns. I say the honourable member’s statement was completely wrong.

The matter we are discussing is something for the future. I believe that Australians generally will agree that a certain amount of military training will not hurt any young man. It builds him up. Many a person has said to me when their sons have been in the services that the training has made a man of them and that they came out a lot better men than when they went in. We are not talking about Vietnam at all. We are talking about something in the future. To hear the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) speaking in this debate one would think that we were talking about the Vietnam war. We are not doing anything of the kind. Honourable members should keep this on the right basis and know that we aim to continue to have national service in peace time. This is good.

Furthermore, the Opposition says that there is no danger to Australia and that some years ago someone said we had 10 years to prepare our defences. I made a speech in this House recently and pointed out that history has shown that the time when Neville Chamberlain said, after coming back from seeing Hitler: ‘This means peace in our time’; war soon followed. Some people say: ‘It cannot happen here’. That is as great a mistake as I have heard spoken in Parliament or out of it. It can happen here.

I have heard about the fortress Australia policy: Wait- till they get on the beaches and fight them there. Any man who has been in such places as Europe, and Malaya and who has seen what happens when war comes into a country will not want it to come into this country. Therefore we have been fighting most of our battles overseas. When our men have gone overseas they have never gone on a quest in search of gain nor to invade weaker nations in lawless rage of conquest. They have gone overseas to uphold the principles of democracy and freedom.

Mr Birrell:

– What are they?

Mr TURNBULL:

– I know- and the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) knows - that democracy and especially freedom are the greatest things that man can achieve. The honourable member has had the same experience as I have had in being deprived of freedom. 1 give him some credit. He is in a position now to feel that certain young men in gaol should have their freedom. No doubt this is something that goes back to the time when he did not have his freedom. British people stand for these principles. When our flag flutters in the breeze wc know that no man can can stand beneath its folds without becoming and remaining free. When I hear talk about having no national service in the future T am absolutely sickened. We are not talking about Vietnam. We are talking about the years to come, and we must be prepared.

This nation is supposed to be tremendously prosperous. People know that I have said that our cities are prosperous but not the country areas. Everybody must know that there is a boom in the cities where most of the young .men seem to have congregated in a conglomeration of population. The great prosperity is in the cities. Surely people know that great empires of the past, the Roman Empire and Greek Empire, did not fall because conditions were bad and the people were desperate. They fell because the luxury that they were enjoying made them forget the things that build men and nations. I hope I have made it clear that I am opposed to the amendment because, after all. it means nothing. We must prepare for the future. We must continue national service. It is not a matter of Vietnam; it is a matter of Australia, of building up Australia’s defence and keeping it at a certain level and standard of preparedness.

If a young man has had 18 months military training he can help to defend his country. Everybody should know, unless he is completely ignorant of army tactics, that even 10 years afterwards if a man has had 18 months military training it stands him in good stead. He can, if required, be produced for a war. He may volunteer and he can be trained much more quickly than someone who has never had any training at all. But the Labor Party wants to wipe out all training for young men. That is the way to get them slaughtered. If an enemy came to this country and the young men had had no training whatever they would be slaughtered. Anybody who knows anything about the Army knows that. The honourable member for Reid knows that. He knows what happens to men in armies who are not trained. The trained forces win every time. So let us have a little bit of reason in this debate tonight and realise that we are not looking into the past but to the future of the great Australian nation. I do not think for one moment that any member of the Opposition does not want to see Australia prosperous. I am certain that no member of the Opposition wants to see enemy forces in this country. I am also certain that they do not want war. I do not want war, but what is the alternative if an enemy comes along? It is to fall at the feet of an invader, to become slaves of a foreign power. Everybody should know these things. Therefore I say that anybody who puts up a proposition which will mean the discontinuance of this training is right out of tune with things in this country and its future and I am convinced that he is out of. touch with what the population of this great nation requires.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). It provides for a new section 3a which reads:

This Act ceases to be in force on the first day of January, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-two.

We have moved this amendment because we want to end conscription. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) asked why we did not vote against the second reading of the Bill. What we did was common sense. This legislation reduces the period that a conscript spends in the armed services of Australia from 2 years to 18 months. We have said for years that we will support any progress towards the elimination of national service or, as we call it, conscription because we believe that conscription of any type is an evil act particularly in a time of peace. Therefore, even though we are completely opposed to conscription the period of service is to be reduced to 18 months. That is why we did not oppose the second reading.

We are moving these amendments in Committee so that those gallant men on the Government side who have conscripted young Australians to that bottomless pit of human suffering which is Vietnam and who were responsible for the deaths of 500 young men in thai country may have the opportunity to cross the floor and end this immoral act. That is what we are doing. Let us therefore stop this humbug of asking why we did not oppose the second reading. At least the Bill cuts 6 months off the period of service. It means 6 months less of this immoral conscription.

Mr Turnbull:

– Is that the reason?

Mr UREN:

– That is the reason why we did not vote against the second reading. I am asking Government supporters to come over and vote with us on this amendment that has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Freedom and democracy have been spoken of in this debate. We know the freedom and democracy that existed in South Vietnam where most of these young conscripts went, where 500 young men lost their lives and where 2,500 young men were maimed. We know the democracy of the gangsters, the military thugs, of South Vietnam. Honourable members opposite talk about freedom, democracy and the ‘free world’. Let us drop this veil and face the question realistically. Honourable members opposite know about this so called fear hysteria. They know that it was the former Prime Minister, Mr John Gorton, who said that this country has no fear of invasion for at least 10 years.

But what do honourable members opposite want to do. They say: ‘We have to build up this fear*. In 1966, when the right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell) was the Leader of the Opposition - he will recall this - the Government and its supporters were saying: Where do we draw the line? Do we draw it in Vietnam or do we fight them on our shores?’ Of course, every honourable member knows the jingoistic propaganda which were pounded. Honourable members opposite rattled the cans. They even produced coloured pamphlets which portrayed red arrows coming down from China threatening Australia, and they created fear in the Australian people. They even went so far with their propaganda in the Liberal Party that the New South Wales Branch produced, as the honourable member for Mallee well knows, a poster depicting an Australian soldier, wearing a slouch hat, pulling a rickshaw over the Sydney Harbour bridge with a blonde Australian alongside an Asian. They had to build up this fear of racialism that may exist within the Australian community. This is the type of hysteria that this immoral Government indulges in, and then it talks about freedom and democracy.

The honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) is in many ways a gentle man. I do not know why he has not been able to look within his conscience, as d’d Senator Hannaford, and see the immoral act of the Government which he support1!. Surely he knows that in the United States honourable members from both sides have had the courage to say that their country’s entry into Vietnam was an immoral and wrong act. In fact, 58 per cent of the American people said it was immoral for the United States ever to go into Vietnam. But why is it that not one member of the Conservative element of this Parliament can say: ‘Look, we were wrong.’? The exception, of course, was Senator Hannaford. He resigned from the Liberal Party. We have to go into the State legislatures and come into this Parliament and let these men know of their guilt. The honourable member for Corangamite asked why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the inquiry by Mr Justice Kerr into Service pay rates. He mentioned it for this reason: We say that conscription was never necessary. It was not necessary in the Australian scene. In fact, the Gates Commission, which was created by President Nixon and which inquired into the need for conscription in the United States disclosed that there was no reason for national service, as honourable members opposite like to call it. The Opposition calls it conscription of the Australian forces. The Government went about this in haste, lt did not try to establish good wages and conditions for servicemen. This is why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Justice Kerr inquiry.

If young men enlist in the Army, why should they not be entitled to war service homes? Why should they not receive housing loans? Of course, the loan should be greater than the present amount of $8,000 and the proposed $9,000. The Opposition believes it should be something like $15,000. After all, if one lives in New South Wales, and particularly in Sydney, the average cost of a block of land and a house is $19,000. If the Government implemented the proposals of the Australian Labor Party and provided suitable pay, conditions and amenities to members of the armed services, conscription would be unnecessary. This was revealed by the. Gates Commission in the United States. However, the Government decided to take the easy way out. It decided that it needed bodies.

There is an old cliche, ‘Diggers for Dollars’, and the Government had to take out what was called a cheap insurance policy. It thought that if it conscripted young men and sent them to Vietnam to stand by Australia’s ally, the United States, and Australia was ever attacked, then the United States would come to our aid. I think that this was a pretty weak insurance policy. It has been completely discredited. This is why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised this question and it is why the Opposition proposes that the National Service Act should cease to be in force as from 1st January 1972. All the brave honourable members on the other side of the House will now have the opportunity to cross the floor and vote with the Opposition. By so doing they can help clear their consciences of the crimes that have been committed in Vietnam.

Mr HUGHES:
Berowra

– Let me first assure the House that 1 do not propose to respond to the alluring invitation that has been extended by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren).

Dr Klugman:

– When is your preselection ballot?

Mr HUGHES:

– I am going to win that anyway, without the honourable member’s help - and I know that he wants to help.

Mr Calwell:

– I understand that you are at odds on.

Mr HUGHES:

– I am at long odds on. I can survive the neo-Cromwellian revolutionary. I remain depressed by the course that this debate has taken - I say that with considerable respect to my 2 friends sitting on the front bench of the Opposition - because it is about time that members of the Opposition, if they will permit me to say so, addressed themselves to this question without regard to the very understandable emotional involvement which they have about Vietnam.

Mr Uren:

– Does the honourable member think that death is not emotional?

Mr HUGHES:

– I said that I understand the emotional involvement of members of the Opposition in regard to Vietnam. I believe, as members of the Opposition disbelieve, that our commitment to Vietnam was a proper commitment.

Mr Birrell:

– It was crook; you know it, too.

Mr HUGHES:

– I do not know it. I believe strongly to the contrary but I would defend to my last dying breath the right of the Opposition to maintain a contrary view. What I am trying to say, despite the friendly interjections from the other side of the House, is this: We have to face up to the question of how to maintain at a proper level the strength of the Army now and for the foreseeable future, without regard to what I would describe as emotional hangups about Vietnam.

Mr Foster:

– That is a nice way to regard it. The matter does not even get an expression of sympathy from the other side of the House.

Mr HUGHES:

– The honourable member who has just interjected does not want to tolerate any attempt at a dispassionate discussion of an important problem. I do wish that he could bring to himself a little tolerance on a matter that I regard as terribly important. What is the basic problem? At no stage - I did not hear the honourable member for Reid or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) say it - has the Opposition propounded or dared to- propound the idea that a defence force or a regular army of only 28,000 men is adequate for our present purposes.

Mr Barnard:

– You must admit that I did not propound that. Indeed I went out of my way to show that the numbers would be increased.

Mr HUGHES:

– Precisely, and I give the Deputy Leader of the Opposition credit for propounding that view. I applaud him for it. He said that the size of the Army should be increased. The Government’s present stand is that we can live - 1 doubt whether we can live for very long - with an Army of 40,000 men.

Dr Klugman:

– Well, reduce the number.

Mr HUGHES:

As usual, there seems to be a little division within the Opposition. Some honourable members say increase the numbers and other honourable members say decrease them. However, I suppose there are divisions on questions of principle within every Party.

Mr Charles Jones:

– Tell us what it is like on the back bench.

Mr HUGHES:

– I am enjoying myself on the back bench.

Mr Calwell:

– You would like to get off it.

Mr HUGHES:

– No, I am content where I am. The front bench members of the Opposition say we should increase the size of the Army. The Opposition is adopting a curious and inconsistent stance, for it has moved in this Committee an amendment, the immediate effect of which, on 1st January 1972, would be to decrease at one fell blow the size of the Australian Regular Army from 40,000 men, which my friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says is not enough, to 28,000 men. Where is the sense and the consistency in this attitude? 1 think that this is the basic question to which we must address ourselves and when we arc addressing ourselves to it let us look at some contemporary and relevant facts, one of which is that in this country - thank goodness - we are passing through a salutary social revolution in the field of education. More and more young people are advancing not only to higher secondary education but also to tertiary education. The percentage of young people going into tertiary education is increasing year by year and nobody in this House would do other than applaud this situation. It is a thoroughly good thing. But what are the consequences of this fact in relation to maintaining the size of an army? An army must be maintained at a size and of a structure necessary to cope with possible future threats. We must maintain a capability. One of the consequences is that in the nature of things, a career as a private or as a non commissioned officer in the Army is not a way of life that appeals to people who have gone through to tertiary education or perhaps even to higher secondary education. This is not a matter of complaint; it is a simple fact of life. As we go on increasing the pool of our educational resources amongst the. young - as they go on improving themselves in increasing volume - the plain fact is that the number of people who would find an Army career appealing or attractive diminishes.

Mr Garrick:

– We might progress so far that one day we will not have an Army.

Mr HUGHES:

– That is a monumentally fascinating contribution. The honourable member, who is sitting temporarily on the front bench, does not want to have an Army at all. Do we have to put up with that degree of inane thoughtlessness? My honourable friend will forgive me if I use rather extravagant words to describe that interjection.

Mr Garrick:

– That is not what I said.

Mr HUGHES:

– 1 thought it was what you said. If the pool from which we can attract recruits is diminishing, what is the consequence? The consequence must be a system of conscription as equitable as circumstances will demand. I ‘passe’ the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) who suggested that we shrink from this word ‘conscription’. I adhere to it because that is a true description of what this legislation does. I agree that national service is a euphemism. Conscription is what it is all about. I will maintain as long as I am in this place that in present circumstances it is the only viable option open to a responsible government. With all respect to the men of great sincerity on the other side of the House who hold a contrary view, I would characterise this amendment as basically irresponsible.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I should like to raise a proposition in regard to the first amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) that there can be a conscientious objection not only to a particular war or war in general, but also to conscription itself. I think this is a point that has not been given an adequate airing in this place and it is certainly a point that this Government just does not seem to accept. I would argue very strongly that it is extremely important that we realise that conscription is an evil thing. If I recall accurately, the honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) in a speech yesterday made points along those lines. He certainly made the point that no government liked to bring in conscription. I would certainly argue that conscription is an extremely evil thing. In fact, it is one of the points which I would hope differentiates our type of society from the types of societies the Government says it is trying to oppose in Vietnam and in other areas in the world. 1 feel very strongly on this point.

The honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) has spoken reapeatedly about the case of Geoffrey Mullen who is incarcerated at the present time. I think the point that must be made in this respect is that while originally he had strong objection mainly to the Vietnam war, it is quite clear that towards the end of his fight with the authorities his basic objection was to conscription. I should therefore like to quote some of the points that Geoffrey Mullen has made at different times during his fight, and finally the point he made when he was in gaol. In 1969 when he refused to attend a medical examination he was gaoled for 29 days. He said: 1 refuse to be conscripted as I consider that conscription is the first step towards a totalitarian Slate. If there be any difference between Australia and the Communist regimes that we hate, it should be that Australia shows some respect for individual liberties. Conscription narrows and for some obliterates this difference.

While I am opposed to the Australian intervention in Vietnam I feel that conscription and Vietnam are 2 separate issues; I would reject conscription even if it were not for the Vietnam war.

I think this is an important point. One can oppose conscription quite apart from opposing the Vietnam war. In a letter which he sent from gaol - I am not sure whether it was written during the term of his present incarceration or the previous period I have just referred to; I rather feel it was the previous one - he said: 1 am in gaol and I suppose all the official records will say that I am a criminal. I might, of course,, plead that I have a moral duty to oppose conscription; while, at the same time, the government has the legal duty to imprison me.

In this way I might see myself, and be seen, as a morale young man who takes gaol and suffering upon himself to forge a way to a better Australia. But this is not ‘ so. 1 don’t really give a bugger about moral or legal systems, governments, religions, better worlds, pie in the sky’ or anything like that.. I want solely to live my life, without unreasonable interference or interfering, now. And .to my mind, conscription is an unreasonable interference in any man’s life. Not even ‘freedom and democracy’ can justify the taking of a conscript’s freedom.

I think it is important to raise this point: There is an objection to conscription quite separate from objection to the Vietnam war, I think it will probably be remembered that Geoff Mullen was brought up as a Catholic. He attended Waverley College. He was a supporter of the Australian Democratic Labor Party when he first attended university and in his last year at school. Then a certain change came over him. May I read part of a letter which I sent to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) in May of this year when I appealed to him to release Geoff Mullen. I will not read the whole letter. At the beginning of the letter, I made a number of points. I put forward certain arguments in favour of releasing Geoff Mullen. I then went on:

Knowing you-

That is, Mr Lynch -

I have no doubt that you regret the incarceration of people for their beliefs and I hope therefore that you will take the necessary steps to give a court the opportunity to decide whether Geoff Mullen should be treated as a conscientious objector. 1 then went on to make certain other points about Geoff Mullen and to give certain background information about Mullen from an article that appeared in the Bulletin’. The letter continued:

Geoff Mullen appears to have joined that stream (? trickle) of Catholic dissenters to the authoritarianism present even in our ‘free enterprise’ democracies, which I am sure you admire in those living under worse conditions in the Communist countries.

I concluded - speaking for myself as a nonbeliever - by saying:

  1. . may I say that they are some of the most attractive people in this world of ours.

I was sorry to receive a letter, not from the Minister for Labour and National Service who, 1 think, had gone overseas, but from the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) who was acting as the Minister for Labour and National Service, which completely ignored my arguments and concentrated on the legal position. It is extremely important to remember that there are many people who are basically the most democratic people in our society, who are more concerned about democracy than almost anybody else, who do more for democracy to continue to exist in our society, but who are being turned off by our sort of society and by the actions of this Government. It is easy to force those sorts of people to put up an argument that there is no great difference between the society in North Vietnam and our type of society. I am sorry when I hear them say that, because there is a significant difference. There is such a qualitative difference between the amount of oppression in North Vietnam and in this country that it makes a qualitative difference also.

At the same time we cannot be surprised that those people do say: ‘What is the difference? You will be put in gaol in Australia for 2 years and in North Vietnam you will probably go to gaol for 10 years or you may be executed. But what is the basic difference? If you disagree with the Government that is where you finish in both places’. I strongly appeal to the Government. I know it will not accept our first amendment to abolish conscription but I sincerely hope that it will accept certain amendments dealing with the type of conscientious objection which should be allowed to enable those with that objection to opt out of military service. Speaking for myself I would argue that the amendments should be even wider than those that are to be proposed because I certainly feel very strongly that a conscientious objection to being conscripted is probably one of the most important conscientious objections that should be upheld in our type of society. I support the first amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– My contribution to this debate is to indicate support for the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) and to place on the record of the Parliament some of the nauseating features that lead me to be vigorously opposed to conscription. Any tendency I once may have had to support national service I can assure the House I have entirely abandoned because of the manner in which tha Government has used national service trainees in this barbaric war in South East Asia. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) suggests that often men of lower education make the best soldiers. He is probably right. They are usually the sons of workers whose parents could not afford a better schooling for them. The sons of the privileged classes usually have a better schooling than the sons of workers and, of course, sometimes with better schooling comes a greater degree of selfishness. A person with a better schooling often concentrates on his own enrichment. He becomes more cunning and selfish and is prepared to let someone with less nous do the dirty work for him, whether it is a fight in the street or a fight in another country. I think this could be proven to be the case in most countries.

If a true analysis were made we would find that in America and in Australia it is the sons of the poorer section of the community, the lower income groups, who have been predominant in the national seh vice call-up and have served in Vietnam. In my own electorate I know that several boys went to Vietnam and 2 were killed. They did not go there through any feeling of patriotism. They said that they might as well go and do their 2 years and at least they would get the benefit of the provisions of the war service homes legislation. They could not afford a home due to the rising costs of land and houses so they went to Vietnam against their better judgment and never returned. Of course, this could not happen to the children of the wealthy because they usually get a block of land or a home given to them by the bridegroom’s or the bride’s parents; we know that this so often happens. The honourable member for Mallee made reference to people who have said to him: ‘Yes, my son is a better man as a result of having to do national service and serve in the Army’. That may have been so in olden times but times have changed now.

Let me explain what appalls me about the United States involvement. I do not think it has been fully placed on the record of the Parliament for those who study Hansard. I hope that this information will prove beneficial to some of the avid Hansard readers throughout Australia and the world. The great tragedy of this war in Asia and particularly its effect on the American conscripts or permanent soldiers is the increase in drug addiction. President Nixon has had to appropriate through Congress some extra millions of dollars to fight the increase in drug addiction as a result of United States servicemen returning home hopeless heroin, cocaine and morphine addicts. One in 10, I am reminded by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), is an addict. The American Government is now confessing to the fact that drug addiction is taking a greater toll of its servicemen than the Vietnamese. This is a shocking indictment of any country’s involvement in the civil war in Asia. There is an article in the ‘Far Eastern Economic Review’, to which I often refer in the Parliament. It says:

Heroin addition among American soldiers in Vietnam has finally prompted White House orders for United States missions in Southeast Asia’ to crack down on drug traffic. But these new efforts to curb the clandestine trade in drugs are not America’s first incursion into the murky area of Southeast Asia’s most secret and profitable business enterprise.

The article goes on to point out that one of South Vietnam’s most prominent politicians was strongly suspected of flying illicit drugs from Laos to Saigon for drug trafficking. He was none other than the person this Government hosted 3 or 4 years ago, Nguyen Cao Ky. The right honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Calwell), whom I was very pleased to support, addressed under the Sydney Harbour Bridge one of the biggest demonstrations that has ever been held in Australia against our involvement in Vietnam and the visit of Ky to Australia.

Mr Jess:

– Was Gough Whitlam there?

Mr JAMES:

– I do not think so but Arthur Calwell addressed this great multitude of people who protested against the Government’s having invited Ky to Australia. How right those protests were when now we learn there is strong evidence that this man Ky, who was hosted by the Government was playing a leading role in drug trafficking in South East Asia. That alone, hosting a man of Ky’s type, should make honourable members opposite hide their heads in shame forever. I pointed out in my remarks last night that these addicts from the United States Army find when they return to the United States that, whilst satisfying, their drug needs in South Vietnam cost $6 a day, to get the same quantity of drugs in America costs SI 00 a day and they have to commit serious crime to get the necessary funds to continue their addiction, an addiction that they did not seek, an addiction that they and their parents did not want but an addiction that was imposed upon them by a warmongering government in the United States and its conscription laws. Young boys’ lives have been ruined and every honourable member knows how difficult it is to recover a confirmed drug addict. The members of this Parliament who have a medical background would be no doubt aware that a person can serve 2 years in gaol during which time he is cut off altogether from drugs and within a fortnight of his release resumes his addiction. I know from practical experience of this happening.

No articles have appeared in the Press so far about Australian conscripts becom- ing drug addicts in Vietnam. But I think any person who presumed that not one single Australian serviceman has returned from Vietnam a drug addict is hiding his head in the sand. This must have happened. I would like to think I was wrong. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), who is at the table, must have had cases of this kind brought to his attention when he was Minister for the Army. The Government could be aware Of this fact from letters that have been written by parents claiming that their sons h.ave become drug addicts. I believe that the Minister for Labour and National Service, who still has some decency in him, will comment on my remarks when he has an opportunity to do so. I ask him to state whether he knows of any Australian servicemen who have become drug addicts as a result of being conscripted to service in Vietnam. I conclude by saying that I wholeheartedly support the amendment which has been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I hope that some supporters of the Government will have sufficient moral courage to support it

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Order! The’ honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr Turnbull:

Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr TURNBULL (Mallee) - I claim to have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James). I do not believe that the honourable member for Hunter misrepresented me knowingly, but he did do so. I have written down what he said. The honourable member said that even the honourable member for Mallee admitted that the least educated man makes the best soldier. It was the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Cope) who said that. I said the very opposite. Honour- apic juL.rfiLH.13 Wm recall ana t:ans:ra win record that this is so. I said: ‘You cannot divide the fighting qualities of the men of the AIF into the highly educated or the poorly educated. They were all out to do the best for Australia’. Those were my words. I am sure the honourable member for Hunter did not knowingly misrepresent me.

Mr JAMES (Hunter) - I wish to make a personal explanation, Mr Deputy Chairman. I accept what the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) has just said. 1 was listening to his speech on the intercom in my room and reading at the same time. I believed he said what I quoted him as saying, but I accept his explanation.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– I would hate to disappoint the honourable member for Hunter (Mr James), who, with his usual charm, made what perhaps to him was a logical progression through the argument in favour of the amendment which has been proposed, but I would hasten to assure him that I am not one of those people who are going to support it. What I did take exception to, and I am sure just about every Australian would take exception to, was the inference at the end of his speech that some Australian servicemen returning from Vietnam would be victims of drug addiction. .

Mr James:

– There must be cases.

Mr JESS:

– I am sure it would take little to convince the honourable member that there were because I am sure he wants to be convinced that there are. But I have been assured by responsible people in the

Ministry - indeed, by everyone to whom I have spoken - that there has been no such case. With the confidence I have in our young national servicemen, I accept that assurance regardless of what the honourable member for Hunter may infer. The honourable member also referred to the great tragedy caused by drug addiction. I would not know how this subject would fit into a debate on this provision, but the honourable member spoke on it for some considerable time. He said that the members of this Parliament with a medical background would know of the great tragedy caused by drugs. I thought it was the policy of some members of the Australian Labor Party, particularly those in the medical profession, that certain drugs should be legalised in this 0011:1117. The legalisation of marihuana has been spoken of by the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass).

Mr James:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. At no time has any member of the Opposition said or implied, either inside or outside of this Parliament, that dangerous drugs should be legalised.

Mr JESS:

– I did not mention dangerous drugs. I mentioned marihuana.

Mr James:

– The honourable member never mentioned it at all.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- .Order 1 would remind the honourable member for La Trobe that the debate is at the Committee stage and that We are considering a clause of the Bill. I appreciate that the honourable member for Hunter did move into another area.

Mr JESS:

– He did, indeed. I thought you allowed him to do so, Mr Deputy Chairman.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I would ask the honourable member to return to the clause before the Committee.

Mr JESS:

– Could I conclude my remark by saying that members of the Opposition who are in the medical profession-

Mr Uren:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. My point of order is that the honourable member for Hunter was relating his remarks on drugs to the possibility that national servicemen who are conscripted to serve in Vietnam could become addicted to them whilst in that country. However, the honourable member for La Trobe’s remarks about the honourable members on this side of the House who are doctors have no relationship to the Bill which is before the Committee.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- 1 did allow the honourable member for Hunter to move into this area, but I have asked the honourable member for La Trobe to revert to the subject matter of the clause before the Committee.

Mr JESS:

– All I am trying to say in respect of drugs and conscription is that there appears to be some people in the medical profession who are encouraging the legalisation of certain drugs which, if the remarks of the honourable member for Hunter are true, must have some effect on the persons taking them. The main point of the honourable member’s speech, which he was not impeded in making, seemed to be that the sons of poor families went to war and the sons of rich families did not. I do not remember the honourable member being disturbed on this issue. I would like to point out that it is the catch cry of the Australian Labor Party that one is not a worker if one does not vote for that Party. The Labor Party would have been in office long ago if every worker voted for it. It is quite understandable why they do not.

There is no proof whatsoever that the majority of national servicemen who go to Vietnam are the sons of so-called workers. That is purely the belief of the honourable member for Hunter. It is a political argument. I know many blokes who have gone to Vietnam who are the sons of, if you like, rich men. But who in this country is not a worker? Who in this country does not work? Does one have to be a brainless nit like some people I know who set the standard of what a worker is? Does one have to be like the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster)? I should think that the majority of workers would not want to be.

Mr Foster:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. 1 want a withdrawal of that remark and its stinking inference. I have just as much grey matter as the honourable member for La Trobe has in his skull; that is for sure. I want a withdrawal of that remark, Mr Deputy Chairman. What is more, I am entitled to it.

Mr JESS:

– I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. I said ‘if the typical worker is similar to the honourable member for Sturt’.

Mr Foster:

– I want a withdrawal of that remark, Mr Deputy Chairman.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. I ask the honourable member for La Trobe whether he was referring to a particular member of the House when he made that remark?

Mr JESS:

– I thought I was being flattering to the honourable member for Sturt in saying that if he typifies the worker in this country-

Mr Foster:

– I rise again, Mr Deputy Chairman. I am entitled, am I not, to a withdrawal of that inference?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order!

Mr Foster:

– Deal with him, for God’s sake.

Mr JESS:

– I if I may be abject, indeed I think it is an exaggeration. I do not think he is typical of any worker in this country. Furthermore, Sir, if I may revert-

Mr Foster:

Mr Deputy Chairman-

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - The remark has been withdrawn.

Mr Foster:

– I have not heard it being withdrawn and I am not that deaf.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- It has been withdrawn.

Mr Foster:

– I am suggesting that what he said was offensive. He should not have entered into the debate because he is not speaking on the matter which is before the Committee.

Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:

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

Mr Foster:

– I have. But I will deal with him on the adjournment.

Mr JESS:

– Reverting to the amendment, I do not think it is necessary to say much more in respect to the speech of the honourable member for Hunter. I personally oppose the amendment. The Labor Party is in effect moving that conscription should terminate early in 1972. The effect of that would be a reduction from 44,000 to 28,000 in the effective strength of the Australian Army.

Mr Collard:

– Rubbish.

Mr JESS:

– It is not rubbish. That is in fact what the Labor Party is proposing. The Regular Army component is 28,000.

We have at present an Army of 44,000. If conscription is to be cut out next year, which is what the Labor Party has recommended, it will be found that that is all the requirement we will have at that time.

Mr Collard:

– Rubbish.

Mr JESS:

– Opposition members are like parrots. Mr Deputy Chairman, I would like your protection because too many parrots can be offensive. If the Labor Party believes that 28,000 men are all that are required for the Army in the situation in which Australia finds itself today, that is fair enough, but nobody on this side of the chamber believes that that is so. The military advisers, who, 1 suggest, might know not much perhaps, but a fraction more than the honourable member for Hunter and the honourable member for Sturt, contend that in today’s strategic situation we require 40,000 men in the Army.

Surely one cannot say that in a nation such as ours an Army of 40,000 men is very great. One cannot say that in the circumstances which could confront us in this area an Army of 40,000 men is overstrong. But to repeat what I said yesterday, if one takes out of an Army of 28,000, the logistic, reserve and other non-offensive units and support components, one could be left with little more than 3 battalions. So in fact the Labor Party is saying that all we need for. the defence of Australia is an Army of 3 battalions. This is quite ridiculous. I remember the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) saying that he could defend Australia by stationing something like one soldier at 100 mile intervals around Australia. I do not know whether he was serious. Without any doubt, on the advice of our military advisers, we contend that at the present time we require national service. Therefore, we intend to vote for its retention until, perhaps, an alternative scheme is devised. I oppose the amendment.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– Unlike the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess), I intend to deal with the amendment and not to indulge in name calling. This is a serious matter. It is of- very great moment for a small but important section of the Australian people - those people who have turned, or who will turn in the near future, 20 years of age. The honourable member for La Trobe has said the

Opposition is suggesting that an Army of 28,000 is adequate, whereas the Government believes that an Army of 40,000 is adequate. I think that someone on the government side should have explained how an army of 40,000 would be adequate and why it was desirable to reduce the numbers in the Army from 44,000 to 40,000 if, as honourable members opposite have been saying, there are great threats facing Australia at the present time.

In fact, this Bill will reduce the strength of the permanent Army by 4,000 men. I think it is also fair that this Committee should clearly understand the reasons why that reduction is taking place. It has absolutely nothing to do with military strategy or defence policy. It is purely because the defence estimates, when presented to Cabinet, were in excess of that amount which could be fitted into the Budget, and it was felt that a reduction of 6 months in national service would be the easiest and most popular way in which to accommodate a reduction in defence expenditure. It was done to fit into the Budget strategy of the Government. I think that we should be clear on that point. Honourable members opposite should not stand up in the chamber like heroes and support national service at a certain level.

I think we ought to deal a little more realistically with this figure of 40,000. The honourable member for La Trobe said that an army of 28,000 men does not represent an army of 28,000 fighting men. I suggest that the additional 12,000 national servicemen do not represent 12,000 additional fighting men. I think that we should be a little realistic about this matter. When a former Prime Minister spoke in this chamber on 10th November 1964 and outlined the way in which national service was to be introduced - the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) introduced a Bill the next day - he stated the reasons why it was necessary to have 2 years national service. He made it quite clear that 2 years national service was necessary because it was felt it was unrealistic to place a person into the armed forces for an effective service period of less than 12 months. He made it quite clear that the anticipated training period of men called up would be 6 months. He said that matters such as recreation leave, assimilation, transfer, travelling time, etc., would dissipate a further 6 months. Therefore, out of 2 years national service there would be an effective service period of only 12 months. So the proposal in this Bill to reduce by 6 months the period of national service in fact reduces by 50 per cent the effective period of service which these men will serve in the Army - unless, of course, “the former Prime Minister and other honourable members opposite have deliberately misled us since the Bill was first introduced. So if we take the figures as they are quoted, we are in fact talking about a difference in Army numbers between 28,000 and 34,000- not 40,000. That is the reality of the situation. If the Government’s own figures are correct, then there is a difference of 6,000 effective national servicemen, not 12,000. In fact, I think it is less than that.

The Government keeps harping on the fact that it cannot get recruits. The honourable member for Berowra (Mr Hughes) said that educational standards in the community are higher; therefore, people who are educated are not prepared willingly to serve in the Army in the lower ranks. That may or may not be true. But it is fairly obvious that people without the highest educational standards who are not prepared to serve in the lower ranks are prepared to serve in the Army. The number of recruits who are rejected on educational grounds is astonishing. I suggest that while this nation is in its present situation the Government should consider educating those people who wish to serve in the Army but whose educational standards are marginally below those required for entry in to the armed services. The Government has made no attempt to do this because it is cheaper and easier to deal with the matter by conscription. It does not matter to the Government that conscription destroys a young man’s future; it does not matter that quite often it deprives a young man of early family . life with his wife and children’; and it does not matter that it can destroy the opportunities of a man for the rest of his life.

The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) said that the Army makes men out of these young people. We do not have people wearing armour and riding white horses any more. There is no evidence to suggest that service in the armed forces is any more likely to build character than any other type of service in the community. It is a doubtful proposition to suggest that polishing another man’s boots is morale building or character building. It is also a doubtful proposition to suggest that a trained police officer should be called up into the Army to serve behind an officer’s mess bar - that seems to be a stupid allocation of priorities in any community - or that a trained teacher should be called up into the Army to clean out lavatories. Does this build character? It deprives the nation of the skills which it needs in order to satisfy by the easiest possible means the requirements of our defence forces.

The Government is not prepared to provide attractive conditions of service, such as housing and other facilities which are necessary. It resorts to the simplest and most authoritarian method of attracting people into the Army. We hear in this chamber about the great need to defend freedom and about abhorrence of totalitarian nations. I suggest that there is nothing more totalitarian in any country than to deprive a man of his liberties and his rights as a citizen of the nation by forcing him against his will and his conscience to serve in any armed force. Men are entitled to speak for themselves. We do not live in an age when the King decrees and all persons must think alike. The amendment provides an opportunity for the Government to remove from the statute book an abhorent piece of legislation which is a denial of the freedom which we suggest we defend. I suggest that Government members should seriously consider my proposition. Retraining of those persons who are deficient in education at the time when they seek to enlist in the Army could provide the Army with a substantial proportion of its required manpower on a longer term basis than would be provided by the continuation of this Act.

I suggest that it is totally cynical to stand in this Parliament and say that this Bill is based on the defence needs of Australia and that these reductions have been made on military advice when we all know that they have been made on the advice of the Budget strategists who drafted this year’s national Budget and found that the defence expenditures were in excess of what the Government was prepared to put before the Parliament. Because the Government could not take the odour of not providing the increases recommended by the Kerr Committee it has reduced the period of national service by 6 months. That is the real story. It is a cynical budgetary proposal motivated purely by money. I think the Government should state truthfully why it is reducing the period of national service and should not stand beneath its halo and claim it is defending the country with 40,000 soldiers. In fact we will not have 40,000 but only about 34,000 effective troops.

Question put:

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (MrBarnard’samendment)besoinserted

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr J. M. Hallett)

AYES: 46

NOES: 52

Majority . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 4 to 6 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 6a.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

– I move:

The clauses referred to in my amendment read:

  1. persons who are students at a theological college as defined by the regulations or are theological students as prescribed;
  2. ministers of religion; and
  3. members of a religious order who devote the whole of their time to the duties of the order and persons who are students at a college maintained solely for training persons tobecome members of a religious order.

Those persons are exempt from rendering service under the provisions of the National Service Act. I have read the Hansard report of the debates which took place following the introduction of this Act but I could not find any reference by the then Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr McMahon) to this matter and it was not raised during the committee stage. This is a provision that has been made in this type of legislation from the late Roman times through the medieval period and it has been taken to be normal procedure up until the present time. I oppose these exemptions on 2 main grounds. Firstly, this either reeks of discrimination or of privilege. I think for honourable members on the Government side it would suggest discrimination against clergymen and others in religious services but from our side we suggest that there is a hint of privilege.

This provision in the Act is very similar to one in the Western Australian Electoral Act. People who are disqualified from standing for Parliament in Western Australia include persons who are clergymen, undischarged bankrupts or debtors whose affairs are in the course of liquidation arrangements, persons involved in or convicted of treason or felony in any part of Her Majesty’s dominions or persons holding contracts for public service. This group later included people of unsound mind who were wholly dependent on relief from the State or from any charitable institution, etc. I believe it is a bad law. I do not know why the Church is discriminated against in that way. I believe that there will be an amendment made to the Western Australian Electoral Act in the near future.

I believe that churchmen ought to be treated in exactly the same way as other citizens of this country. I do not know why they should be discriminated against in the way that they are in the Western Australian Electoral Act or in the way that they are discriminated against in the National Service Act. Why should not they be called up in the same way as doctors, teachers, workers, tradesmen and others? Their work is essential to the community but no more essential than the occupations I have listed. They are people of equal standing with other people in the community and they ought not to be discriminated against in this way. If it is not a matter of discrimination then it is a matter of privilege. I believe that the Church ought not have extended to it these sorts of privileges. I believe there is adequate provision in the Act for conscientious objection and I believe that if ministers of religion hold conscientious objections they ought to establish their beliefs in the courts in exactly the same way as any other citizen in the community. I believe it would be a good thing for them and for this country if that were the position because they would have to clarify their own points of view and their own opinions. Being faced with this situation they would probably become stronger advocates of pacificism and be opposed to a country becoming engaged very easily in a war.

I do not believe that this sort of privilege is good for the Church or for the community. I believe it is not good for the Church on historical grounds. Where the Church has found too easy a place and too comfortable a place within society it has become ineffective, it has lost sight of its mission, it has become weak and it has set up no dichotomy within the society in which it works. I believe the Church ought to set up a standard other than that which is generally accepted in the community and I believe that if this amendment is carried it will help to bring about this situation. Because the Church is extended too many privileges in the British Empire as it was and in the Australian society today it has led to the Church being far too acquiescent in her duties and in her missions to the nation. I think that the removal of this privilege or discrimination, whichever it is, will help her to find her true place and her true mission. On those grounds and because there is adequate provision within the Act, on the ground of conscientious objection, for men who are in religious orders or who are training for religious orders to establish that they hold conscientious objection, the same as any other citizen in the community may, I believe that this provision ought not to remain in the Act. For those reasons I have moved for the deletion of those paragraphs of section 29.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Proposed new clause 6a.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I move:

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: “6a. Sections 29a, 29b, 29c, 29ca and 29d of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections inserted in their stead: 29a. - (1.) A person whose conscientious beliefs do not allow him to engage in military service, either generally or while particular circumstances (including a particular war or particular warlike operations) exist, is, so long as he holds those beliefs, exempt from liability to render service under this Act. (2.) For the purposes of this section, a conscientious belief is a conscientious belief whether the ground of the belief is or is not of a religious character and whether the belief is or is not part of the doctrines of a religion. 29b. - (1.) The question whether a person is, by virtue of sub-section (1.) of the last preceding section, exempt from liability to render service under this Act shall be heard and determined by a Commissioner for Conscientious Objectors upon application made in accordance with the regulations. (2.) Where an application has been made under the last preceding sub-section in relation to a person in relation to whom no previous application has been made under that sub-section, then, until the hearing and determination of the application by a Commissioner and, if an appeal is brought from the decision of the Commissioner, until the hearing and determination of the appeal -

the person shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act other than sub-section (5.) of section thirty-five b to be exempt from liability to render service under this Act;

any notice under Part 111. requiring him to attend and submit himself for an examination for the purpose of determining his physical or mental fitness or capacity for service under this Act is of no effect; and

if he is a national serviceman - he shall be granted leave without pay. (3.) The parties at the hearing of an application in relation to a person under sub-section (I.) of this section are the person and the Minister. (4.) In determining an application under subsection (1.) of this section in relation to a person, a Commissioner shall have regard to all relevant matters including -

the circumstances in which the person claims to have formed his beliefs and to have continued to hold those beliefs;

the period during which the person claims to have held his beliefs; and

the extent to which the person’s evidence as to his beliefs is corroborated, but the Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, accept the evidence of the person whether it is corroborated or not. (5.) In this section, “Commissioner” means a Commissioner for Conscientious Objectors holding office under the next succeeding section. 29c. - (1.) For the purposes of this Act, the Governor-General shall -

in respect of each State - appoint a person to be the Commissioner for Conscientious Objectors for that State; and

in respect of each Territory - appoint a person to be the Commissioner for Conscientious Objectors for that Territory. (2.) A person is not eligible for appointment as the Commissioner for a State or Territory unless he is -

a Judge of the Supreme Court of that State or Territory; or

a Judge of a District Court or County Court of that State or Territory or, if there is no such Court in that State or Territory, a barrister or solicitor of the Supreme Court of that State or Territory of not less than ten years’ standing. (3.) A person appointed to be a Commissioner holds office for such period (not exceeding seven years) as is specified in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment. (4.) A person appointed as a Commissioner shall be paid remuneration at such rate (if any) as the Governor-General determines, but the rate shall not be diminished during his term of office. (5.) A Commissioner shall be paid such allowances (if any) in respect of travelling expenses as the Minister determines. (6.) A Commissioner shall, before proceeding to discharge the duties of his office, take an oath or make an affirmation as prescribed. (7.) A Commissioner may resign his office by writing signed by him and delivered to the GovernorGeneral. (8.) The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the practice and procedure in relation to the performance by Commissioners of functions under this Act, including the Summoning of witnesses, the production of documents, the taking of evidence on oath or affirmation, the administering of oaths or affirmations, the payment of expenses of witnesses andthe protection and immunity of Commissioners, of barristers and solicitors appearing before Commissioners and of witnesses. 29d. - (1.) Where a Commissioner for Conscientious Objectors for a State or Territory has given a decision on an application under section twenty-nine b of this Act, a parly to the application may appeal from that decision to the Supreme Court of that Stale or Territory constituted by not less than three Judges. (2.) The Court in which an appeal under this section is instituted -

shall hear and determine the appeal;

may affirm, vary or set aside the decision of the Commissioner;

may give such judgment, or make such order, as in all the circumstances it thinks fit, or refuse to make an order; and

may remit the case for rehearing and determination, either with or without the hearing of further evidence, by the Commissioner. (3.) A decision of a Court on anappeal under this section is final and conclusive except so far as an appeal may be brought to the High Court by leave of the High Court.’.”.

The amendment I have moved on behalf of the Opposition can be considered in 2 parts. I have of course moved for these provisions on 2 other occasions in this Parliament. The Opposition proposes 2 amendments to the principal Act and if these amendments are accepted by the Government they will almost certainly remove a great deal of the agony and divisiveness that has accompanied the question of conscientious objection since national service was introduced by this Government. Briefly the first part of this amendment proposes that there should be the right for a person in this country who has a conscientious objection to a particular war to express that objection. I cannot emphasise too much the necessity for including this provision in the principal National Service Act. I concede at this stage that our first amendment was defeated and that if accepted it would have had the effect of repealing the principal Act from 1st January 1972. As this amendment has been defeated I believe it is now the responsibility of the Opposition to put forward the amendments which we have put before this Parliament on other occasions and which we believe would improve the principal Act if they were accepted. Therefore I return to the first pan of the amendment which concerns conscientious objection and conscientious objection to a particular war. Every honourable member in this Parliament is fully aware of the circumstances that have surrounded the cases that have been dealt with in the courts whereby young men have been imprisoned.

Honourable members who have spoken tonight, particularly from this side of the chamber, have referred to those young men who are now imprisoned as a result of their conscientious objection, but in particular as a result of their conscientious objection to a particular war. There will be an opportunity at a later stage to deal with these 3 cases because I propose to move a further amendment which would provide for the release of those young men who are now imprisoned because of their conscientious objection.

Let me refer briefly to these cases. In at least 2 of these cases the young men stated their conscientious objection to conscription particularly on the basis of the Vietnam war. It was quite clear from the statement which was made by one of these young people and which appeared in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ that he had a conscientious objection to the Vietnam war. We believe that it is a principle that ought to be accepted by any democratic government that if the right of conscientious objection is to be recognised there ought to be the opportunity for a person to express his objection to a particular war. I reiterate what I said a few moments ago in relation to the divisiveness that has been created in this country as a result of the treatment of those who wanted to express their conviction and opposition to conscription and who refused to accept the law of this country because they had an objection to a particular war.

Surely this is a democratic process that has been accepted in other countries in relation to their conscientious objection provisions. It is a provision that ought to be accepted by this Government in relation to the national service legislation. It is notorious, of course, that it is much more difficult to obtain recognition of conscientious objection on any grounds in some States than it is in others. One does not blame those who have to apply the law in this respect. I think that they have done what they could under the circumstances having regard to the Act and the manner in which the Act should be interpreted. That brings me to the second part of the amendment which would provide for a commissioner for conscientious objection.

The amendment, therefore, is divided into 2 parts, the first to provide for conscientious objection on the basis of objection to a particular war, and the second to provide for the setting up of a commissioner for conscientious objection in each State. I have already emphasised how difficult it has been for magistrates to interpret this legislation. I think there have been some cases in which a magistrate has granted conscientious objection on the basis of a young man’s application for conscientious objection to the Vietnam war. but basically the Act, if it is interpreted correctly, would not allow for conscientious objection on these grounds. Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, in the Thompson case in 1968 judgment was given that conscientious objection could not be granted on the basis of objection to a particular war.

So I believe that there is a need to adopt a uniform standard in this country in relation to conscientious objection if we are to overcome the problem of disparity between the States and the fact that it has been much easier, for example, to obtain recognition of conscientious objection in South Australia and Western Australia than it has been in New South Wales and Victoria. The last figures provided by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) do not give a breakdown of the number of cases for each State in which conscientious objection has been granted. On previous figures, which I have quoted in this House, it has been proved conclusively that in some States it has been much easier to gain conscientious objection than in others. In this respect I make no reflection on those whose responsibility it has been to make these determinations but I believe that if there were a uniform code of conscientious objection and if in each State there were appointed a commissioner for conscientious objection it would be much easier for this uniform code to be adopted.

The amendment proposes that there should be appointed a commissioner for conscientious objection in each State. Much of the amendment is purely of a machinery nature in relation to the appointment of a commissioner and in relation to the payment of remuneration. 1 do not think it would be necessary for me to deal with those matters at this stage. Finally, in relation to the appointment of a commissioner for conscientious objection the amendment provides for an appeal from the magistrate to a court of a State or Territory of not less than 3 judges and finally an appeal to the High Court of Australia by leave of the High Court itself. Undoubtedly these provisions which, as 1 have already indicated, can be placed in 2 categories - the right for a person to express conscientious objection on the ground of objection to a particular war, and the appointment of commissioners for conscientious objection - represent an improvement to the Act. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I am sure that there must be some honourable members on the Government side who can at least see some merit in this proposal. 1 hope that they will be prepared to support the Opposition on this occasion. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I rise to support the amendment. I have dealt with the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) earlier tonight during the course of this debate and I want to draw to his attention a matter which I have raised in this chamber concerning the shortcomings of the Government in relation to the objections to the National Service Act and to the fact that the Government, during the operation of the Act as we know it in its present form, has failed miserably to make any provisions for objection to service on compassionate grounds. Let me relate to the Minister the case of a widow with 8 children, 6 of whom were going to school. The eldest child who was 19 years of age was selected out of the barrel for national service.

I made strong representations on behalf of this distressed woman who was losing the eldest child of her family under the National Service Act. The previous Minis ter for Labour and National Service, now the Treasurer (Mr Snedden), who is overseas, wrote me great long letters which, of course, contained nothing. He pointed out on a number of occasions that there was just no provision under the Act for a lad to be released ‘ from his responsibilities to the Government on compassionate grounds. I notice that the Minister has now gone across to the departmental representatives in the chamber. I can only hope that he has received confirmation from his departmental officers that what I am saying is absolutely true. Here again in amending this Act to save its face it has still neglected to pay sufficient and proper regard to the human element in applications for exemption on compassionate grounds. Let me relate another case in which a host of letters were sent by the then Minister for Labour and National Service, one Mr Snedden. It concerned a family made up of a mother and her 3 sons. Two of them had already been to Vietnam. Then the third and youngest son was called up. The mother, who was bringing the family up on her own. again appealed for assistance.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Corbert) - Order! I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that the proposed clause deals with conscientious objection and not exemption on compassionate grounds. I ask the honourable member to come back to the subject.

Mr FOSTER:

– I thought I may get pulled up over that one. Apparently that is what the Minister was whispering about. The proposed clause deals with conscientious objectors. Is there not a degree of conscience in a person’s right to. object on behalf of a member of his. .family on compassionate grounds? Under what other clause can I speak on this matter in this debate in the Committee stage? I will conclude on this note because the Government has not the courage to include in this Bill measures which would enable me to speak about exemption on compassionate grounds. You, Mr Deputy Chairman, have said that I have no right to address the House on this measure, merely because of the neglect of the Government and the Minister in the preparation of the Bill.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member may. move an amendment if he wishes.

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

– The Opposition’s second amendment seeks to introduce the concept of selective objection as a ground for exemption from the liability to render service. This has certainly been traversed before in this place with particular regard to the participation in Vietnam. With the withdrawal of our troops the issue becomes largely a theoretical one. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) has said it is a simple matter to provide for selective objection. In this he is at odds with most people and bodies who have examined the implications of it in any real depth. The United States Supreme Court in particular has most recently, in refusing recognition of selective objectors in that country, placed particular emphasis on the practical difficulties of distinguishing reliably between the vast range of situations and shades of belief which selective objection can take. Selective objectors are able to change the basis for their objection at will and with whatever conflict or issue is in focus. The present recognition, on the other hand, relates in a quite straightforward manner to opposition to participation in war in general, which precludes participation in military service at any time.

In speaking in this chamber in August, the Deputy Leader said of Charles Martin that one could place ‘an absolute reliance’ on the fact that his refusal to serve ‘was because of his objection to the Vietnam war’. With the cessation of the Australian involvement in that war Charles Martin has, however, made it quite plain that his position as to rendering national service is not changed. Obviously, the Deputy Leader, the proposer of a so-called ‘simple’ recognition of selective objection, misjudged the real basis of Charles Martin’s objections. He said much the same thing about another man, currently in prison on account of his refusal to render service and honourable members may be interested to know that despite that the Government’s position has also been made clear to this other man - Geoffrey Mullen - there is no indication that he regards himself as able to serve. It certainly does not augur well for a general reliability in determining which objectors are entitled to exemption from the liability to render service if the main proposer of the matter in the Parlia ment is apparently very wrong indeed in relation to the examples on which he chooses to rely. The unavoidable conclusion therefore, which has been made amply clear on this side of the House, is that selective pacificism, as opposed to conscientious objection to participation in all war, is not amenable to recognition as a basis upon which exemption from the liability to render military service can be granted.

The Opposition also seeks in this amendment to overturn the current conscientious objection structure in order, as is claimed, to establish a body of law relating to conscientious objection. But there is a substantial body of law already in existence. It is case law reaching up to the High Court, the highest court in the land, and it is in practice drawn on almost every day.

The Opposition would also overturn the present reliance on the legal system, and, whereas, the present procedures are wholly within that system and draw on its resources, would place it, at least so far as the initial determination is concerned, somewhere not quite within the legal system but having its attributes and functions of hearing and determining matters; in short, it would be in an unsatisfactory limbo for all concerned. I am most dubious whether in such a context there would be the same degree of acceptability for the proposed process as there is now among the men affected, the organisations, groups and individuals who are interested in this matter, and in the community generally for the current provisions. The amendment also has the avowed purpose of giving a uniform and consistent approach to conscientious objection over the whole of Australia, but it is proposed to have one commissioner in each State and so the possibility of variability in the approach adopted with regard to applications from different States is far from being precluded. If anything, such a proposal would, I suggest, accentuate the possibility of interstate differences of approach to the grant of exemption on grounds of conscientious objection.

The third broad purpose of the amendment is to broaden the right of appeal but that is already quite adequately provided for, including access to the High Court by leave of that Court. One salient advantage of the present system is that there are readily available to the applicants and their witnesses established places of hearing throughout Australia, most often in a locale convenient to the participants. I ask: Would this be the case with the system proposed in the amendment and would it not amount to a virtual denial of natural justice if a man was not enabled to have the witnesses he wanted properly heard in person?

In summary then, under the present arrangements the purposes underlying the amendment are in practice already well met. The Opposition has not established any grounds on which a substantial criticism of the current procedures can be sustained. It is proposing a change in a well established procedure apparently for the sake of change itself. This is not the approach of the Government to what is a most serious matter. At the same time there are substantial problems associated with the proposal which the Opposition has brought forward but has not chosen to throw any light on. They apparently would place their faith - and the fate of the men involved - in a procedure which has shortcomings without consideration being given to all of the problems which are subject to easy identification. Therefore the logic of the position of the Opposition in this matter is, to say the least, questionable. Certainly what is proposed by the Opposition is not acceptable to the Government.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– The Minister for Labour and National Service talks about logic. I certainly cannot see his logic when he has been arguing that Geoffrey Mullen and Charles Martin should not be released from gaol because they have only selective objection - that they are not really conscientious objectors - and then he tells us that even though the Vietnam commitment is over these people are still objecting. Surely this proves that they have a general conscientious objection, not only an objection to the Vietnam war. I think the Government’s position is to a large extent summarised in 2 sentences from the Minister for Labour and National Service. In dismissing our proposition be said: The Opposition wants to change a well established procedure.’ Then he went on to say: ‘But the Government is, of course, not prepared to do it.’ That is basically the difference between the Opposition and the Government; we are prepared to criticise well established procedures and, in certain cases, to change well established procedures. Being extremely conservative the Government is never prepared to change well established procedures and clings to those procedures not because there are good arguments in favour of them but because they are well established.

I should like to quote an article in support of selective conscientious objection which is being proposed at the present time. The Minister for Labour and National Service said that the United States Supreme Court, which in some way is supposed to influence our propositions, has argued that selective objection would be contrary to the public interest or would be difficult to apply. I should like to quote from the United States Catholic Bishops’ pastoral letter on war which was approved at their national conference in November 1968 by 180 votes to 8. I know that the Minister is influenced by Catholic bishops and 1 hope that he is influenced by Catholic bishops not only in this country but also by those in the United States. I repeat that this particular statement was approved at the national conference of the United States Catholic Bishops in November 1968 and was passed by the huge majority of 180 votes to 8. I quoted from this letter in my maiden speech about li years ago but 1 should like to quote it again. It states:

The present laws of this country -

That is, the United States- however, provide only for those whose reasons of conscience are grounded in a total rejection of the use of military force . . . but we -

That is, the bishops- consider that the time has come to urge that similar consideration be given to those whose reasons of conscience are more personal and specific. We therefore recommend a modification of the Selective Service Acts making it possible, although not easy, for so-called selective conscietious objectors to refuse - without fear of imprisonment or loss of citizenship - to serve in wars which they consider unjust or -

And here the Bishops went further- in branches of service (e.g. the strategic nuclear forces) which would subject them to the performance of actions contrary to deeply held moral convictions about indiscriminate killing.

Surely it is a reasonable proposition that if a person is conscripted for military service it is wrong that that person should be conscripted to perform an act to which ho strongly objects. I can well imagine the screams from members of the Government if the time should come when a Labor Party were in power and there was conscription - I should hope that there would not be - and the conscriptive powers were used to carry out the United Nations propositions in Rhodesia. With most members on the Government side strongly supporting the Rhodesian government, it would indeed be interesting to see whether they would suddenly develop conscientious objection to particular wars.

I put it to the House that the determination of conscientious objection is terribly difficult. It is extremely difficult for somebody to say that he is opposed to the use of force in any and all circumstances, but surely it must be possible for that person to argue that he is opposed to the use of force in a particular situation or to the use of force in circumstances where he cannot control the final outcome of the use of that force. Barristers cross-examining conscientious objectors usually ask: ‘Would you be prepared to use force to prevent your mother, your daughter or your wife from being raped by some invading soldiers?’ Whilst the conscientious objector may well be prepared to say ‘yes’ to that question, that does not imply that he would also be prepared to drop an atomic bomb on a city which contains, amongst other people, one of those persons who allegedly may rape his wife. It seems terribly obvious to me that one cannot apply the proposition that one would never use force and, from that, say that this is the only type of person who can hold any sort of conscientious objection.

I strongly urge the Government to reconsider its decision. I agree with the Minister that the question of selective conscientious objection is no longer the hot issue that it was when we were sending conscripts to Vietnam, but it is still an issue. It could become an issue again because the Government is still trailing its coat in all kinds of countries. The Minister must surely realise that there could be certain types of wars in which Australia could become involved where he would not be prepared to say that one should use force against a particular person. The Minister is looking upwards trying to think of such a war. He left the chamber before I pointed out that United Nations action to which

Australia would agree in South Africa or Rhodesia could be 2 possibilities. I am not suggesting that the Minister would not think that armed intervention in those 2 countries would not be good; he probably thinks that it would be a good thing. But I suggest to him that at least one of the Assistant Ministers may disagree with him and would probably have a strong conscientious objection if people were called up for such a purpose. No doubt the honourable member for Boothby (Mr McLeay) would be one person who would suddenly feel terribly strongly that there should be conscientious objection to specific wars.

Motion (by Mr Giles) put:

That the question be now put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr Corbett)

AYES: 51

NOES: 45

Majority .. ..6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr Barnard’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr Corbett)

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

Majority .. .. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 7 and 8 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 8a.

Mr ENDERBY:
Australian Capital Territory

– I move:

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: “8a. Section51c of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: 51c. - (1.) Section five of the Commonwealth Prisoners Act 1967 does not apply in relation to a person serving a term of imprisonment imposed following a conviction for an offence against section fifty-one or section fifty-one a of this Act. (2.) A person referred to in the last preceding sub-section shall, for the purpose of his release on parole, be treated as if his term of imprisonment had been imposed following a conviction for an offence against a law of the State where he is imprisoned.’.”.

As has already been stated, the amendments presuppose that the first amendment failed. The principal objective of the Opposition in moving the first amendment was to express total disapproval of the whole philosophy underlying the National Service Act. But having failed with our first amendment the best that we can do is to try to derive some comfort from it, to effect some reform, to soften some of the worst and more unjust features of the Bill.

It always seems to me that one of the most unjust features of the Act is the one that flows from section 51c, which is referred to in this amendment - that is, the enactment that distinguishes and discriminates between Commonwealth offenders, who are offenders because they have broken the provisions of the National Service Act, and other Commonwealth offenders. The scheme of the principal Act is to say of people who have refused to acknowledge their service or who have refused to be called up that they will go into prison for the term that they otherwise would have served in the armed forces. Conviction under this Act makes them Commonwealth prisoners. Ordinarily if they were Commonwealth prisoners they would be entitled to the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Commonwealth Prisoners Act which in effect gives a power to the magistrate or the judge who deals with the particular person for whatever offence it is, to impose a minimum non-parole period. In other words, if a magistrate or a judge is sentencing a person to 18 months imprisonment he can say: ‘Look, in my opinion, having regard to all the circumstances it would be reasonable to consider that you be let out after, shall we say, 6 months’. Machinery is created whereby after 6 months someone else picks it up. In the States it is usually a parole board. But under the Commonwealth Prisoners Act it is the Governor-General who invariably acts on the advice of the AttorneyGeneral. That is the normal procedure that applies to any Commonwealth prisoner.

For some reason the Commonwealth, when enacting the National Service Act, said that those provisions should not apply to persons convicted under the Act. This is an odd sort of discrimination to practise against people who break a Commonwealth law in this way as against people who break other Commonwealth laws, because when the Commonwealth enacted the principal Act it did not take away from people sentenced under that Act their entitlement to remissions for good behaviour. It said that these people could have this entitlement just like any other prisoner who breaks a Commonwealth law who receives so much time off for good behaviour. A prisoner who is sentenced to 5 years gaol knows that if he behaves himself and if he works towards his reform he can get out, say, after 4 years. They do not take this entitlement away from a prisoner convicted under the National Service Act. This entitlement is given to these prisoners just as it is to other Commonwealth prisoners. But when it came to parole, the Commonwealth said: ‘No, you cannot have it’. 1 suppose one has to ask the question: Why? We find spelt out in the principal Act a number of rather radical departures from ordinary criminology or penology. For example, normally we give a power to a magistrate or a judge to sentence up to a limit, having regard to antecedents, good behaviour, good character, the nature of the offence, the inducement to the person who committed the offence and the motives behind the offence. We give the magistrate or the judge power to look into these matters and to ask what is reasonable for this particular person. None of that was done here because the Government says: ‘Irrespective of whether you are a good fellow, a bad fellow, a man with a long criminal record, a first offender, or you were acting under the .most pressing influences resulting from hardship, you will get 2 years’. Under the Government’s amending Bill it will be 18 months now but this does not make any difference to the principle.

It is like a pay back; it is like a threat; it is like a barbaric form of retribution; it is like the Government saying to the young men in advance: ‘Here is a law. We know you might think it is a bad law but there is a higher principle involved. All laws, good or bad, should be obeyed and we are going to put you in gaol if you do not obey them.’ However, rather than give these offenders treatment similar to that given to other Commonwealth prisoners or because they, might be acting out of the highest motives, allow them to be given some preferential treatment - as might well be the case because the magistrate might be influenced in that way - the Government says: ‘No, we will write into this statute a mandatory, strict, rigid sentence for the period he was supposed to serve in the armed forces’.

Mr Foster:

– A totalitarian concept.

Mr ENDERBY:

– I have described it as a retribution, a pay back, a threat, a form of blackmail or, if you like, revenge, lt goes against every principle that is ever enacted in any court of justice anywhere. Why did the Government do this except in terrorem, to frighten them, to put the fear of hell into these young people. It is an indication of the degree to which the Government has failed that so many young men have not been frightened by this legislation but have stood up and been counted, and have these young men who have been named in this House tonight. Those are the principal adverse features of this legislation. All this amendment seeks to do is to put these young men on the same level as any other Commonwealth prisoner. Why should they not be on the same level? Why should the magistrate not be permitted to look into the circumstances as he does in every other case? Or is it that the Government does not trust the magistrates either? And if it does not trust the magistrates, could it be that it also does not trust the judges of the superior courts who might in some indirect way reflect the thinking of the community on this controversial issue? So the Government takes it out of the magistrates’ hands and out of the hands of the district or county court judges and says: ‘The sentence shall be 2 years; take it or leave it.’ This is all this amendment seeks to deal with. Surely it is not controversial.

There is a second part of the amendment which is less essential, it seems to me, but which takes the actual making of the parole order out of the hands of the Governor-General, who acts upon the advice of the Attorney-General, and gives it to whoever is the parole making body in the State where the young person concerned has been arrested, charged, convicted and is serving his term. Surely that too is only normal because that is presumably the place where he is living and is where he will ordinarily come under notice. That is how the prison systems in this country work. They work at State level. Surely this is acceptable. This is the job that the people on the parole boards do all the time. They have to determine whether a person is to be released or not. They have to determine whether he is likely to offend again, whether there is a job for him outside, what the effect of his detention is having on his family, what the effect of his detention is having on his future career, on his scholarship ambitions or his ambitions of any sort. They are the people who have to consider these things. They are the people who specialise in it because that is their full time job. They are not like the Governor-General who acts on the ad hoc advice given to him from time to time by the Attorney-General.

They are the people who have to consider the effect on a person who, although nominally a criminal and with what is seen by some people to be a blot on his record, is still a person who is not a criminal. He is certainly not criminally oriented in any way. But he is now to be subjected to the company of criminals. They are the people who have to consider these matters and consider what is happening to this young man of impressionable years. He has been ordered into gaol for this period of time. Is he deteriorating because of the company he is now being forced by this Government to keep? Will he gain any advantage if we let him out into the healthy and real world? These are the matters which the parole boards in the States consider all the time. The second part of the amendment seeks to put these Commonwealth offenders, if they may be called that for having infringed these parts of the National Service Act, on the same basis as others with regard to minimum non-parole periods and, so far as the actual making of a parole order is concerned, on the same basis as other Commonwealth prisoners.

Mr KIRWAN:
Forrest

-! support the amendment moved by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby) for all the reasons stated by him. At present there is serving a sentence in the Bunbury gaol within my electorate a man who was a lecturer in economics at the university. He is conscientiously opposed to the war in Vietnam and conscientiously apposed to conscription. For this reason he refused to register for national service. He will be required to serve 2 years in gaol, wasting his time. The only person who will be advantaged from his being there is another prisoner who happens to be studying leaving certificate standard economics while in the gaol. So the university lecturer is spending his time in the Bunbury gaol teaching economics. I suggest that this is unreasonable.

A man who has a very important part to play in society will languish in gaol for 2 years, during which time the university is to be robbed of his talents, his time and his abilities. He is absolutely wasted while he languishes in gaol without any hope of parole. Yet I venture to say that in this case, as in every other case where a person has been imprisoned under this Act, he is a person who otherwise would not have come into conflict with the law throughout his lifetime or had a criminal record when he came to the end of his life. But now, for the remainder of their lives, these people will have this blot on their characters, and a criminal record. I suggest that that is unjust and unjustifiable, and that their treatment is completely unequal to that applied in other cases. That is one of the worst features of this Act.

People have been confined to gaol under the provisions of this Act because of their beliefs, whereas there are other people in the community who hold the same beliefs and think in exactly the same way but are different only in that they have the advantage of being members of a Christian church or some other faith with a set doctrine which enables them to go into court, state the doctrine and say that they conscientiously hold that belief. They are exonerated and there is no conviction. A person who does not have that advantage, yet holds those beliefs just as strongly but is unable to refer to a religious tenet or doctrine, has to serve 2 years in gaol without any hope of parole. I believe that this situation is as inequitable as the other point to which I referred earlier when debating another amendment, that is, that one small group of 20-year-olds should be called upon to bear the responsibility for national service in this country. I suggest that the situation is totally unequal and inequitable.

At present people who hold a Christian belief of non-pacificism can avoid service for a particular war by quoting the tenets regarding a just war, to which I referred in my speech on the second reading, yet people who are atheists or agnostics, or people who have no particular belief other than that national service is unjustifiable and inequitable, and hold this view just as firmly as the Christian, are liable to imprisonment. Although the Christian will be released by the Court, as happened in a case in which I was indirectly involved, the non-Christian, because of the inequity of this legislation, will find himself serving 2 years imprisonment without any hope of parole. In my view this is unequal treatment; it is inequitable and completely unjustifiable. Therefore I ask honourable members to accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr STREET:
Assistant Minister assisting the Minister for Labour and National Service · Corangamite · LP

– The effect of this amendment, which relates to the introduction of parole provisions into the

National Service Act, would be to put those who have refused to accept their obligations towards their country in a more advantageous position than the vast majority of young people who have accepted their obligations. I think this would be an intolerable situation. The Australian Labor Party is in effect saying that anybody who breaks the law should be better off than anybody who obeys it. I think it is more than coincidence that this line of reasoning has appeared more than once recently in remarks made by honourable members opposite. I can remember an occasion not so very long ago when a leading front bench member of the Opposition, the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns), expressed the belief that authority has had its day. All I can say is that the reasoning behind this amendment is consistent with that view.

It may be the view of the Australian Labor Party that those people who denigrate the law and create a situation where they are disobeying the provisions of the National Service Act should have some advantage conferred on them over those young people liable to military service who accept their obligation. All I can say is that it is not the view of the Government.

There are other practical objections to the amendment. One is that the parole laws are not uniform in the States, Therefore there would inevitably be inequitable variations between the States in the period of imprisonment that had to be served. The very purpose of the parole provisions in the prison system is directed towards the rehabilitation of prisoners. The honourable member for the ACT (Mr Enderby) made the point - I do not know whether he meant to relate it in this sense but it is the sense that I read into it - that, in the context of this legislation and the particular people involved, the principle behind a parole system would seem to be quite irrelevant. For all those reasons, I oppose this amendment.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I support the amendment. It is quite obvious that the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) has completely lost the point of the amendment. I fail to comprehend how any government can isolate this particular offence, which is a criminal offence, and treat it in a special and repressive way. It seems to me to be completely illogical and indefensible and totally unjust that a person sentenced under the provisions of the National Service Act should be, in contrast to every other criminal offender under the Commonwealth Prisoners Act, denied not only the right to release on parole but also the right to have a non-parole period set. The situation exists at present where prisoners in State prisons who have been indicted for larceny, rape, embezzlement or even murder are entitled to be paroled - they are even entitled to have a non-parole period set - but a man who is gaoled under the provisions of the National Service Act simply because he has exercised his conscience is not entitled to this right. The only provision that applies in relation to people who are gaoled under the National Service Act is the provision that a person who is put into gaol for 2 years has the right to remissions.

Charles Martin, who has been imprisoned in South Australia, would be entitled in that State to what is termed a 10-day a month remission for good conduct. The position is, briefly, that had this Act remained unaltered and Martin remained at Cadell prison and served his full 2-year sentence, apart from the remissions he received, he would be released without parole on 27th January 1972. Let us assume that the 18 months provision had been passed. Once again he would be entitled to a remission. He would in fact have been entitled to a discharge on 25th August 1971. I would like the honourable member for Corangamite to tell the House which State jurisdictions contain no parole provisions. Despite what he said, all State jurisdictions contain parole provisions. What is not understood is that under South Australian law prisoners can apply for and normally be granted remissions and parole after serving one-quarter of their sentence. If the conviction was for embezzlement the time to be served before applying for remission and parole is one-third of the sentence. There is a reluctance on the part of parole boards to grant parole to those convicted of embezzlement if they have served only one-quarter of their sentence. 1 invite the honourable member and the Government to look at statistics. The South Australian position would be similar to the current position in all States. I am dealing now with parole for ordinary prisoners in South Australia for last year. There 234 applied for parole; 100 applications were granted, 61 were deferred and 73 were rejected. Seven lifers, including murderers, applied; 4 applications were granted, 1 was deferred and 2 were rejected. Bight habitual criminals applied; 6 applications were approved, one was rejected and one was deferred. Eight special prisoners, including sex offenders, applied; 3 applications were granted, 3 were deferred and 2 were rejected. Eight prisoners who were sentenced to imprisonment at the Governor’s pleasure, including prisoners charged with murder and found not guilty on the ground of insanity, applied; 2 applications were granted, 3 were deferred and 3 were rejected.

The yardstick that is used by the Government which is totally indefensible is that the punishment must fit the crime. If that is the yardstick which is used by the Government, it should be used in all cases. If the honourable member for Corangamite knows anything at all about prison sentences, he will know that people who are sentenced to life imprisonment for murder - lifers - at least can apply for parole after 5 years. A person in Martin’s position, who is in gaol because of his conscience, cannot so apply. There is an old Indian saying that there are 2 tribunals in which a man stands in judgment. One is his conscience. The second is God. Charles Martin satisfied one. History will determine the other. The whole range of criminal offences under all State jurisdictions is such that on each occasion the prisoner convicted of a criminal offence has a right to do one of two things. If he is convicted under a non-parole provision his case is automatically looked at because of the sentence passed by the magistrate or other presiding officer. If convicted under a parole provision he has the right to make application for parole. Most criminal cases come up for review after one-quarter of the sentence has been served. I would like an answer from the Minister tonight as to how he can differentiate between a man in Martin’s position and a man serving a sentence for a criminal offence. That is what Martin will be. He will carry this stigma for life. He will not be able to apply for a position in the Commonwealth or State Public Service. Because of his conviction that is one thing that he will have to suffer for the rest of his life. I would like an explanation from the Minister and the Government as to how they can possibly justify the granting of 2 privileges to other prisoners throughout Australia - remissions and parole - but give only the right of remission to an individual who has exercised his God-given right of conscience. It is completely indefensible. I ask the Committee to support the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr Enderby). I would not have risen to speak in this debate if it had not been for what I regard as a fatuous speech made by the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street). Undoubtedly he has given little thought or consideration to what, after all, is a humane amendment which was explained very carefully to the Committee by the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory. Surely noone could be convinced by the argument advanced by the honourable member for Corangamite. He merely said that he did not believe in parole provisions. Surely he subscribes to the parole provisions which apply in his own State. He would not oppose the parole provisions which apply in bis own State or in Tasmania or in South Australia. It is merely a question of justice. We are asking that the parole provisions which apply to those who are serving sentences for any one of a number of indiscretions for which a person can be sentenced in a criminal court in a State should apply to those who have committed an offence under the Commonwealth law. There is no justice in a provision in an Act which prevents the normal parole provisions which apply to any other citizen from being applied to people convicted under the National Service Act.

I do not want to deal at any great length with the 3 persons who are concerned in this matter. A great deal has already been said about those persons who are serving gaol sentences, and I will have something more to say about them when we are discussing the last amendment. All we are asking the Government to do, in the ordinary course of justice, is to amend the National Service Act to allow not only remissions for good behaviour but also the normal parole provisions to be extended to these people. Having listened to the honourable member for Corangamite one wonders whether the Government is prepared to allow the remission provision to remain in the Act

Surely if the provisions which refer to remissions for good behaviour can be applied it ought to be left to the good judgment of those in the States who have the responsibility to see that a person serves the sentence which has been imposed for an offence - in this case it would be an offence relating to the National Service Act - to decide whether the parole provisions also should be applied. Then any young man who refused to obey the law of the land in this respect - whether it was for conscientious reasons or for some other reason - could expect to have applied to him the parole provisions which operate in the State in which he is convicted. Under normal circumstances, if he were convicted of some other offence - no matter whether it was under Federal law or not - he would be entitled to receive the benefits of the parole provisions.

This Government has refused consistently to apply the parole provisions to those who are convicted under the national service legislation. Where is the justice or logic in this kind of attitude? It indicates quite clearly that the Government is consistently opposed to those who it says have the temerity to stand up and oppose its national service legislation. Apparently the honourable member for Corangamite has not been very well advised on this issue. I do not know whether this is an indication of what we can expect from him. I understand that he is an Assistant Minister. On the first occasion on which he has assisted the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) he has put forward a proposition opposing an amendment moved in this House merely for the sake of opposing it. There was no logic or reasoning in his argument. I hope that the Minister for Labour and National Service, who is responsible for this Bill, will reconsider the proposition put by the honourable member for Corangamite and accept an amendment which ought to be accepted on the basis of common humanity and justice.

Motion (by Mr Giles) agreed to:

That the question be now put

Question put:

That the new clause proposed to be inserted (Mr Enderby’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr J. Corbett)

AYES: 44

NOES: 49

Majority .. .. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clauses 9 to 17 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 18.

Where a person is, on the date of commencement of this Act, serving a term of imprisonment imposed following a conviction for an offence against section51 or section 51a of the National Service Act 1951, or that Act as amended, the term of imprisonment so imposed shall be deemed to be such term as the court would have been required to impose if the amendments made by Part II. had been in force when the person was so convicted, but nothing in this section entitles a person to be released from custody before the commencement of this Act.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I move:

Omit all words after the word ‘deemed’, insert to end on that date’

The purpose of this amendment is to secure the release from gaol of the 3 young men who are presently serving sentences for their refusal to take part in the Vietnam conflict. The 3 young men are Charles Martin, who was sentenced to 2 years gaol on 25 th September 1970; Geoffrey Mullen, who was sentenced on 22nd March; and Garry Cook, who was sentenced as late as 27th August 1971, 9 days after the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) made his formal announcement in this Parliament of Australia’s withdrawal from Vietnam. The sheer fact that these men are prepared to serve 2 years in gaol must surely provide ample evidence of the conscientious nature of their objection to serving in Vietnam. With the withdrawal of Australian troops from Vietnam now under way there can be no reason in morality or logic for continuing their detention. Indeed, the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock), as reported in the Australian’ on 25th September of this year, has said that no national serviceman has been posted to Vietnam since the final withdrawal announcement if he has objected to the assignment. How then can anyone be kept in gaol for objecting to the same assignment?

Charles Martin was gaoled in September last year for refusing to comply in any way with the National Service Act. He made it clear that his refusal was because of his objection to the Vietnam war. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) earlier in the debate tonight, when speaking to one of the other amendments that I had proposed, disputed the fact that Charles Martin had a conscientious objection to a particular war - the Vietnam war. I said then that Charles Martin had made a statement which was printed in the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’. The Minister said that Charles Martin had a wider objection to conscription. This is what Charles Martin had to say in a statement which appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser’: 1 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 populace.

In the face of this statement by Charles Martin which was made not under duress but after having given full consideration to the penalties that would be imposed on him if he expressed a conscientious objection - if I may use that expression - to a particular war, it is quite clear that Charles Martin, as in the other cases, has this objection to a particular war. We are about to relinquish our responsibility in Vietnam. As 1 have pointed out, Charles Martin will still be serving a sentence in a South Australian gaol after the last of the Australian troops have returned from Vietnam. Charles Martin made it clear that his refusal to comply with the Act was because of his objection to the Vietnam war. In the typed statement which he made available to the Adelaide ‘Advertiser’ and which I have just read to the House he said that he had a conscientious objection to a particular war.

Likewise, both Geoff Mullen and Gary Cook have made it plain that their consciences would not allow them to participate in the Vietnam war. I think the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) has previously made out a very cogent case for Charles Martin being accorded the same treatment as Bruce Ross. I do not think there is anyone on this side of the House who would not agree with the case which was put by the honourable member for Adelaide in respect of this matter. Upon the intervention of the former Minister for Labour and National Service, Bruce Ross was released after serving 11 months of his 2-year gaol sentence. Charles Martin has now served 12 months of his sentence. As I understand the situation, remissions for good behaviour should allow him to be released as soon as this legislation is passed. This situation arises from the reduction in sentence from 2 years to 18 months which is inherent in this Bill’s reduction of the term for national service training from 2 years to 18 months.

However, I feel the analogy to the Bruce Ross case could be extended to the cases of Martin and Cook. It would be an unhappy conclusion to Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict if 2 young men remained in gaol after the last troops had returned from Vietnam. Both Mullen and Cook refused to comply with the law in any way. Because of conscientious beliefs they felt that 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 conscience 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 2 men at a time when the folly of the Vietnam commitment is clearly exposed. They should be released immediately.

This is not the first occasion that 1 have taken the opportunity to put this case in the House on behalf of those who have expressed an opinion in relation to an objectionable war. If this amendment is defeated, probably it will not be the last occasion. Because they held that opinion they were prepared to accept the consequences of a 2-year gaol sentence. They held a moral objection to what they believed was an unjust war. I believe that this war is drawing to an end so far as the Australian commitment is concerned. It would be morally wrong for this Government to leave these 3 young men in gaol when the Australian commitment has ended in Vietnam. The purpose of this amendment is to seek the release of these 3 young men. Again I believe in all conscience that the Government ought to accept this amendment, do the honourable thing and release these 3 men from gaol.

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– I cannot restrain myself from rising to speak on this amendment which seeks the release of the only 3 out of many thousands of conscientious objectors to the war in Vietnam who are being used as an example by this Government and who are languishing in gaol at this very time as we debate this legislation. The facts outlined by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) concerning Charles Martin, who is a constituent of mine, are quite correct. I can go further than has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and say that if this Bill were an Act right now Charles Martin would be allowed out of gaol. This would not apply to the other 2 men whom the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned. I consider that my letter to the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) was an application to the GovernorGeneral of Australia for the release of Charles Martin as from last Monday, which was the 1-year anniversary of his being imprisoned, and the fact that this Government advised the Governor-General not to accede to that application is nothing more than a piece of vindictiveness.

The fact that this vindictiveness can be carried out by this Government is clearly plain in this case and the fact that it will not, it would seem from what we hear in the lobbies, accept this amendment is another example of this vindictiveness. If I may I will explain why I call it vindictiveness. We know that if this Bill becomes law the term of imprisonment will be reduced for anybody in the circumstances of Charles Martin from 2 years to 18 months. We also know that Charles Martin is in gaol in South Australia where the remission from his sentence is one-third for good behaviour. Those of us who have taken an interest in this young man who comes from Strathalbyn in South Australia know that his behaviour has been absolutely exemplary and he would therefore be entitled to a one-third remission. This would mean he would be eligible to be released from gaol on the 1-year anniversary of his imprisonment. In other words he would have been out of gaol last Monday if this Bill had been law.

Yet in spite of the fact that the AttroneyGeneral has agreed that a letter from me dated 23rd August could be looked upon as an application to the GovernorGeneral for this young man to be released from gaol and in spite of the fact that it would seem from the Attorney-General’s reply to me that this matter was put before the Governor-General with the recommendation of the Government not to release him, Charles Martin is still in gaol. It is a callous dying kick, I would say, by the Government that it is at this late hour trying to justify the action in Vietnam and taking it out on certain citizens who have the moral courage to stand against it and all that it stands for.

I was not one of those chosen to specialise on this Bill and speak to it before the House tonight but because this amendment has been moved and because one of the 3 people concerned is a constituent of mine and is a person for whom I have great affection and great admiration I was compelled to rise and speak on this occasion. I believe that Charles Martin and the other 2 people should be let out of gaol. I believe that this amendment if accepted would ensure that this sort of thing would not happen again and that these political prisoners would be enjoying their freedom today.

Thursday, 30 September 1971

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– I would like to place on record that statement of a young man who served his time in gaol under this Act. The first man committed was Brian Ross. He said:

I wonder what has happened to freedom, democracy and justice in Australia, when we have twenty-year-olds being made staves, killers and dead.

Can the state ask people to kill, let alone tell them to kill? And can it ask them to die, let alone tell them to die? To whom does life belong? And to whom does an individual’s mind and body belong? Is there such a thing as equality? Shouldn’t we all, twenty-year-olds to sixtyyearolds, men and women, be conscripted, if anyone is?

We hear our government talk a lot about freedom, and then let it create a National Service Act. Are we ‘God’ to decide what is right for the Vietnamese? Anyway Australia’s involvement in Vietnam is more than unfortunately foolish and lacking in reason. It is a brutal infliction of pain and suffering on an innocent people, and a criminal destruction of life and natural resources. In this case, it is common sense to learn from Nuremburg: A soldier’s responsibility must go (for his own sake) further than just obeying orders. Nations are also judged on their actions, as are the people who allow their leaders to abuse humanity.

Can we ever have peace on earth? I will just say that violence has had a fair trial. Perhaps, and I think it may be so, a conciliatory approach and non-violent resistance to evil might be a more successful method for maintaining right. Everyone must admit that war, especially now, is very foolish. Yet the country’s faith and money still goes towards war machinery; next to nothing is spent on removing the causes of war - fear, mistrust, greed and extreme nationalism.

The resources of the world must belong to everyone, not just the fortunate few, who by a mere fluke happen to be born in rich countries. I fail to see that Australia, and other wealthy nations, should selfishly, protect their own standards of living at the expense of the poor people who starve until they die.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! 1 point out to the honourable member that he is straying a little from the clause which is before the Committee.

Dr EVERINGHAM:

– If the Committee will bear with me, there is very little more, and the point is that I want to put succinctly the case of one young man involved with this very Act. I believe that if we are to see the justice of the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard), it is right that the House for once should listen to the words of a young man affected by this legislation, to listen to the protests of one man who has been forced, against his will, into the situation which this amendment seeks to correct. I believe he has the right to be heard in this chamber if there is such a thing as freedom of speech left for these young men in this country. Brian Ross continued and said:

This is what we do; this is, of course, where our interests lie.

Aren’t we a great and, if I dare use the word, Christian’ nation? I don’t believe in waving flags. I have no wish to be inhuman. I don’t wish to be a rebel or lend myself to radical activities. The present government is trying to force me into actions of an incredibly evil and extremist nature. So bow can I be a national serviceman?

I don’t believe in breaking the law either, except when the law is as uncivilised and immoral as the National Service Act; then I have a duty to break it, and see that such laws are repealed.

The state will be avenged by my two year term in gaol.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I want to raise one matter briefly. Obviously the purpose of this amendment is to release from prison 3 men who quite obviously have proven beyond all reasonable doubt their conscientious objection to the National Service Act. The penalty of 2 years imprisonment, being reduced to 18 months, is an extremely severe penalty and one which is comparable with penalties for some of the major crimes in our community. In considering this clause I would ask the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) to inform the House, now or on the third reading of the Bill, what the situation is with these young men who are serving prison sentences and whom we are asking to be paroled, with regard to any future application they make to join the Commonwealth Public Service or any State Public Service. Are they to be considered as common criminals and to be denied the right of access to employment because they have had a conscientious objection to a piece of legislation which is seriously objected to by a very substantial portion of the Australian population?

If in fact, as appears to be the case at this stage, these young men are for the rest of their lives to be denied access to employment in the Commonwealth Public Service and other areas where a criminal record - this is what they have been provided with - is a bar to future employment then it is up to the Government, before we conclude the Committee stage of the Bill, to inform the House so that the Committee stage can be adjourned and consideration can be given to this point. Once they have served their sentence and been released from prison - as we are asking for in this clause - then their record of imprisonment should be completely wiped clean. They are not criminals. They have refused on the ground of conscience to participate in the national service scheme.

To compare this offence with assault and battery, robbery and other criminal acts is totally wrong and something which should not be tolerated. I ask the Minister to tell us before we conclude the Committee stage whether these men are to be denied access to the Commonwealth Public Service because of their incarceration and because of their conscientious objection. If this is so, will he agree to the Committee stage of the Bill being adjourned so that amendments can be brought forward to ensure that their criminal records are completely wiped clean and they will be fully entitled to the privileges of citizenship of this country?

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

– Apropos of the point which has just been raised by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), I am not certain of the position which he has queried and neither are the officers of my Department at this stage, but the matter will certainly be checked and I will advise the honourable gentleman tomorrow. I do not suggest for one moment that that in itself should be any reason why the clauses cannot proceed and the Bill be adopted by the House if that is the wish of the House. At this stage of the debate I simply want to emphasise that, from the inception of the present national service scheme, there has been a direct and equivalent relationship between the penalty for the offence of failure to render service with the military forces as required and the period of service for which men are liable.

The announcement of the reduction in the period for full time service did not of itself provide grounds for the immediate and unconditional release of the 2 men imprisoned at that time, that is at 1 8th August. Each of them had a clear liability for national service. They were in default of their obligations under the National Service Act passed by this Parliament. They had the opportunity to have examined any beliefs which they claim with regard to military service, but they did not claim such beliefs. They committed the offence and were dealt with according to law. They were convicted and sentenced as the National Service Act then required. The announcement concerning the reduction of the period of service did not mean that national servicemen serving in the Army, who were subject to the decision that the period of national service should be reduced from 2 years to 18 months, should immediately be relieved of any further liability to render service. Nor, in the view of the Government, can any valid conclusion be drawn on the premise that men in prison at that time for their failure to render service should have been eligible for release on an immediate and unconditional basis.

The amending legislation provides for 3 men now in prison. From the date of commencement of the operation of the Act they will be eligible for release upon completing 18 months imprisonment less the normal remissions for good behaviour.

In the case of one man in South Australia - Charles Martin - this means that he would be eligible for release upon the date of commencement of the legislation. The Governor-General has considered Charles Martin’s position in particular since under the revised arrangements he would have been eligible for release on 25th September. He has decided that the sentence of this young man should not be remitted to provide for his release prior to commencement of the operation of the amending legislation.

It might be observed that the decision of the Parliament, of course, should not properly be anticipated. Moreover, the announcement of the reduction to 18 months full time service did not mean that men serving in the Army who had completed or would shortly complete 18 months service should immediately be discharged, and they, unlike Mr Martin, are men who have undertaken the obligation required of them. I think the point is quite clear. At this stage there is no question of discharging men who in the normal course of events have undertaken their commitments in relation to the Act. The Government fails to see any reason why those persons who are serving a term of imprisonment should, in a sense, be advantaged as against those who have been prepared to undertake service in accordance with the Act.

I remind the Opposition of the very large number of young men who have been prepared so to serve. If my memory serves me correctly, about 51,000 of them have served in accordance with the Act and have been prepared to meet their obligations. If the persons who are currently serving in accordance with their obligations are not to be released immediately I do not see any reason why those who are serving a term of imprisonment should be advantaged in relation to them. I mention therefore that they cannot be discharged until after the Bill becomes law, and then not immediately. As to the other 2 men, if there had been any significant change in their position as a result, for example, of the announcement to withdraw from Vietnam as would allow them to render national service, then their position would be considered. I understand that as yet it has not come to notice that their position permits any such consideration to be initiated.

To summarise, it is the contention of the Opposition that the 3 men currently serving terms of imprisonment for failure to render national service should be released immediately. In the view of the Government there is no basis for their immediate release at this point of time. However, if immediately’ means upon commencement of the operation of the legislation, of course that will be the case in respect of one man - Charles Martin. For the other 2 men, the legislation provides that they will be eligible for release upon completing 18 months imprisonment less such remissions as are applicable m their particular cases in the States in which they are detained. There is no valid basis at this time on which their earlier unconditional release could be justified. A request has been submitted to the Governor-General who has decided not to remit any portion of their sentences.

The men were properly convicted and sentenced for the offences for which they were committed. They will, however, benefit to the extent of the reduction in the period of service. I do not for one moment doubt the genuine nature of the motivations which have prompted the comments made by members of the Opposition but I make it clear to them that the Government is not in accord with the particular clause that they seek to have inserted and therefore rejects it.

Mr UREN:
Reid

– I will be brief because I know the hour is late, but as 1 pointed out earlier this evening Geoffrey Mullen was transferred from Long Bay Gaol to Berrima Gaol. Because of certain incidents which occurred at Berrima he was then transferred to Newnes. I wish to quote briefly from today’s ‘Australian*. The article states that Mr Maddison, the Minister for Justice in New South Wales, when replying to Mr Petersen, the State member for Illawarra, said that there were reasons for Mullen being transferred from Berrima gaol. The article states:

Certain alleged incidents took place at Berrima and the administration decided for good and proper reasons to move him to Newnes,’ Mr Maddison said. 1 might say that it was only after my speech in this House that Mullen was moved. The article goes on to say:

After about two or three months at Newnes prison farm ‘it became obvious that this man (Mullen) was unable to relate to other Inmates in this institution.’

Reports suggested that he was in danger from suffering physical violence.’

Mr Maddison went on to say that Mullen should serve only a maximum of 12 months in gaol.

I state - and I want the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) to take note of this - that the statement made by the Minister for Justice, Mr Maddison, that it became obvious that this man Mullen was unable to relate to other inmates in the institution and that he was in danger of suffering physical violence is categorically false. For some reason or other the New South Wales authorities, including I take it, Mr McKeegan, who is the head of the prison service, have taken a dislike to this boy. This young man should remain at Newnes prison farm which is a more appropriate place for him to serve a sentence if he has to serve it. We have asked the Minister to release him but he has already given a reply in the negative so I am not going to press that point. It is not the one I am trying to make. I am asking that the Government have discussions with the New South Wales authorities in order to enable Mullen to return to Newnes. Newnes is a prison farm where there are at least appropriate conditions for the young man to do his post graduate studies. There is a library and he can read newspapers. The whole atmosphere of the prison farm is far more beneficial than that of Cooma gaol.

His mother has requested me to make this representation. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) set out the principles of the case. Mullen is a man of strong character and I hope that the Minister reads the comments made by the honourable member for Prospect here tonight. Mullen is a man of courage and I ask that he be given consideration because young men in circumstances such as these should not be persecuted in any way. He should be given consideration and in fact, in my view, respected for his great moral stand and great moral courage. There should be some understanding on the part of the

Government and the prison authorities of New South Wales of the difficult situation that he will be in. I am asking for a complete examination of the Mullen case.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Barnard’s amendment) stand part of the clause.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr E. N. Drury)

AYES: 48

NOES: 42

Majority .. .. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, report adopted.

Third Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I want to raise with the Minister a matter 1 raised a few minutes ago. He said that he would examine the rights to employment in the Commonwealth Public Service of a person imprisoned under the Act. If the Minister finds the situation is as stated - that persons are debarred from joining the Commonwealth Public Service and other services - will he undertake to introduce amendments to the Act which would remove this continuing penalty against the very small number of persons who have been incarcerated and ensure that their penalties are for the period specified and not for the life of the person concerned. This is a serious matter if the situation is in fact as it appears to be. I believe that no government could justify a situation in which it denies forever the rights of these persons to employment in the Commonwealth Public Service or in other areas because of their criminal record. Will the Minister give this undertaking because I think it is a serious matter and one that should be given deep consideration.

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

-I certainly could not give the honourable gentleman an undertaking on what in fact may be, upon examination a hypothetical situation. But I can say in quite genuine and serious terms that I will certainly have the question that he has raised fully examined and when I have the facts I will convey them to him with an indication of my attitude at that particular time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1693

ADJOURNMENT

Mail Services

Motion (by Mr Swartz) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I will take only a few minutes to raise an urgent question. It deals with the Postmaster-General’s Department. I did not tell the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) that I would be speaking on it because I know that no doubt he will read what I have to say in tomorrow’s Hansard. I also know that because of a medical condition he tries not to be here at this time of the night. The Postmaster-General’s Department has decided to transfer some of the interstate mail services from Sydney to Canberra and from Sydney to Melbourne from the railways to interstate road transport. I will deal only with the Sydney to Melbourne service which has been transferred from the railways to basically interstate road transport. Approximately 2 weeks ago this came into force. The timetable which has been set is as follows: Sydney to Tumblong, which is 260 miles from Sydney, is to be done in 9i hours. 1 have been informed that the vehicles to be used are 180 International prime movers with single axle trailers carrying up to 12 tons maximum load. This timetable requires a 261 miles per hour average.

I have been informed by the drivers and by the union concerned that this would in fact require speeds of up to 45 or 50 miles per hour over certain stretches of the road between Sydney and Tumblong. In fact, the speed limit for semi-trailers on this trip is 40 miles per hour and in built-up areas it is 25 miles per hour. It is therefore clear that those drivers will have to exceed the speed limit. These trucks are especially dangerous on a wet road when they tend to slide and to jack-knife. The proposition is that this trip should take 9i hours; they are to have a 9i-hour break in Tumblong and then return again to Sydney driving a semi-trailer that has arrived from Melbourne. I have also been told that these semi-trailers driving at 40 miles per hour take between 300 and 400 yards to pull up safely. I will certainly take much more care when I am near them in future, or driving behind them.

I think it is extremely important, in view of the road fatalities and the large number of accidents that are occurring, that a Government department does not force its drivers to exceed the speed limits and thereby increase the possibility of accidents. I understand that normally a trip of between 200 and 210 miles is assumed to be what can be done in 12 hours. In this case the drivers are expected to travel 260 miles, some of it in Sydney, some of it in built-up areas, in 9i hours.

I wish to make one further point This scheme was introduced approximately 2 weeks ago. I understand that every 3 years there is a weigh-in period with the New South Wales Government Railways. On that is based the amount of money that is paid by the Post Office to the New South Wales Government Railways for the mail carried by the railways. The weigh-in period started on 13th September and continues to 13 th October and determines how much the New South Wales Government Railways will be paid for the next 3 years, lt is ridiculous that this trial period, as the Post Office is calling it, coincides with this weighin period. It is basically cheating the railways. Allegedly that has happened before. In this case. I am giving only second or third hand information. But allegedly during the previous weigh-in period 3 years ago, overseas mail was sent to Canberra and Newcastle by semi-trailer instead of by the railways for that weigh-in period. It seems ridiculous to me that a Commonwealth Government department tries to cheat the New South Wales Government Railways and tries to decrease the amount of money it should be paying by introducing this sort of scheme with only a week’s notice. I appeal to the Government to reconsider the proposition that the Post Office has put up in regard to both these points. As far as I am concerned, the more important point is that of road safety and the secondary point is that of depriving the New South Wales Government Railways of a large amount of money.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 12.35 a.m. (Thursday)

page 1695

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Army: Personnel in PuckapunyalSeymour Area (Question No. 3849)

Mr Kennedy:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. How many married military personnel are engaged in the entire Puckapunyal-Seymour area.
  2. What is the total number of married quarters available in this area.
  3. How many applications for married quarters were (a) lodged in the year 1970-71 and (b) still outstanding on 30th June 1971.
  4. How many married personnel engaged in the Puckapunyal-Seymour area were (a) renting and (b) buying private accommodation as at 30th June 1971.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. The number of married personnel in the Puckapunyal-Seymour area at 30th June 1971 was 913.
  2. The total number of married quarters available in the area is 818.
  3. Applications for married quarters in the Puckapunyal-Seymour area:

    1. Lodged in 1970-71-540
    2. Still outstanding at 30th June 1971-23.
  4. (a) There were 11 married members renting private furnished accommodation in the PuckapunyalSeymour area at 30th June 1971. (b) It is not possible to provide a figure for members buying private accommodation although there would only be a few members, if any, in this category.

New and Permanent Parliament House (Question No. 3853)

Mr Calwell:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many times has the Joint Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House met since it was first formed on 3rd December 1965, and when did it meet last.
  2. On what dates has the Committee reported.
  3. When is it expected that the Committee will meet again.
  4. When is the House of Representatives to be given an opportunity to make the final decision on the site on which the new Parliament House is to be built.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) 1 am advised that since it was formed in December 1965, the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House has met 17 times. Twelve meetings related to the building itself and 5 related to the site. The last meeting was held on 2nd March 1970. The Committee has presented three reports, namely, Special report on the site (14th August 1968), Report on alternative sites of Capital Hill and the Camp Hill Area (30th April 1969) and on the new building (8th April 1970).

  1. On 13th May 1969 the Report of the Joint Select Committee relating to the alternative sites of Capital Hill and the Camp Hill area for the new and permanent Parliament House was brought up for consideration. That Report recommended that the new and permanent Parliament House should be situated on Camp Hill. The House of Representatives voted on 14th May 1969 to adopt that Report.

There is at the moment on the Notice Paper, one Government Business Order of the Day, and one General Business Notice both of which relate to the site of the new Parliament House,

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: Staff (Question No. 3935)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Edu cation and Science, upon notice:

  1. Have instructions been issued for a reduction in the staff establishment of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation at Geelong.
  2. Have similar instructions been given to other Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation establishments.
  3. If so, are these instructions a result of the Government’s anti-inflation campaign.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Yes. Because of problems associated with primary production and, concomitantly, the funds available from statutory Agricultural Industry Fund sources, the Executive of CSIRO is conducting a special review of priorities and research programmes. Resulting from these reviews, there have been variations in the establishments of certain of the Organisation’s laboratories - both as between Laboratories and in absolute terms. It is to be noted, however, that the Executive has determined that any adjustments will be made without retrenchment of staff.
  3. No.

Ministerial Statements and Speeches (Question No. 3944)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Does his answer to question No. 2703 (Hansard, 30th March 1971, page 1194) stating that for an order in excess of 60 copies of any speech he makes or a question addressed to him and the answer thereto the Government Printer renders an account on the Minister, mean that the Minister must in all such cases pay that account personally, or is the account paid by some department.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

I am advised that the cost of an order for additional copies of a speech by a minister is a normal charge against the administration of his department.

Vietnam: Australian Commitment (Question No. 3978)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Since he has reclassified and tabled the letters to and from the Premier of South Vietnam on 29th April 1965 concerning the Australian offer of an infantry battalion of 800 men with some 100 personnel in logistic support to serve with United States forces (Hansard, 18th August 1971, page 230 and 19th August 1971, page 314), will he now reclassify and table the text of the communications about May 1962 concerning the dispatch of a group of Australian military advisers (Hansard, 25th September 1970, page 1754).
  2. Did other communications pass between the governments of Australia’ and South Vietnam concerning the dispatch of (a) RAAF units and (b) additional battalions; if so, what was the (i) date and (ii) text of those communications.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I have nothing to add to the reply given by my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs in answer to a question without notice from the honourable member on this subject on 20th August 1971 (Hansard, pages 414 and 415).

High Commission in United Kingdom (Question No. 4109)

Mr Cross:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many people are employed by the Australian High Commission in the United Kingdom,
  2. How many of these people are locally employed.
  3. How are the responsibilities of the staff divided among Australian Government departments and authorities.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) Statistics for staff on the establishment of the High Commissioner’s Office are maintained on a quarterly basis. The latest available figures, as at 30th June 1971, are:

Medical and Dental Personnel (Question No. 4147)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. Why has the payment of the 6 per cent national wage increase to Service medical and dental personnel been delayed for more than 8 months.
  2. Will he ensure that future national wage increases are paid in the same financial year as they are granted so that these personnel are not forced to pay tax on money earned in a previous financial year in addition to the tax payable on earnings for the current financial year.
Mr Fairbairn:
LP

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

  1. The pay of medical officers in the Services was under review at the time the National Wage Case was handed down and in preference to promulgating separate increase within a short period, it was considered desirable to process the national wage increase simultaneously with increases resulting on completion of the review. Some further delay occurred because of the time taken to process the changes through regulations, which is an essential requirement before Service pay changes can be implemented.
  2. Yes. This has already been achieved in the past except for the isolated instance of the medical officers.

Sporting Bodies: Visas (Question No. 4171)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Prime Minis ter, upon notice:

  1. Did he receive letters dated 3rd and 19th July, 1971 asking whether the Government had refused visas to East German and North Vietnamese sporting teams.
  2. Were these letters acknowledged on 3rd August, 1971 with a statement that they were receiving consideration.
  3. Were the questions raised in the letter still unanswered when the Minister for Immigration replied to my similar question without notice on 7th September, 1971 (Hansard, page 808).
  4. When may Mr 1. Smillie of 3 Renniks Street, Sunnybank 4109 expect a reply.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2), (3) and (4) 1 received letters dated 3rd and 19th July, 1971 from Mr I. Smillie of Sunnybank, Queensland, concerning visits to Australia by sporting teams. These were acknowledged on 3rd August, 1971 and a reply has now been sent to Mr Smillie.

Repatriation System: Inquiry (Question No. 3763)

Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for

Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. When did be announce that an independent inquiry would be conducted into the Repatriation system.
  2. Has the committee of inquiry “been appointed; if not, when will it be appointed.
  3. What is, or will be, the composition of the committee.
  4. What are the committee’s terms of reference.
  5. Will the inquiry be conducted in public.
Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

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

  1. 27th May 1971.
  2. , (3) and (4) I expect to make an announcement soon.
  3. It is probable that some evidence will bo taken in public but this will depend to some degree on the terms of reference and the general framework of the inquiry.

Commonwealth Employees: Furlough (Question No. 3881)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Do the provisions of the Commonwealth Employees Furlough Act operate to reduce the furlough entitlement of Commonwealth employees either on resignation, retirement or in the event of the death of an employee, in circumstances where the employee has been convicted in a court of law for a minor civil offence.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

Section 10 of the Commonwealth Employees Furlough Act provides that ‘The official conduct record of the Commonwealth employee shall be taken into consideration in determining whether the whole or any portion of the leave of absence or pay provided in this Act may be granted.’ Reduction of furlough entitlement in relation to misconduct is therefore at the discretion of the approving authority and each case is determined on its merits.

Parliament House (Question No. 3970)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. When did the Government approve the extensions to Parliament House which are currently proceeding.
  2. Were the extensions on either side of the front of Parliament House and above the Chambers recommended by the National Capital Development Commission.
  3. If so, were recommendations and projections also made by the Commission in respect of the-

    1. future of the present Parliament House;
    2. siting of the new Parliament House;
    3. findings of the Committee appointed by Parliament to investigate the new Parliament House; and
    4. decisions of both Houses of Parliament on the site.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Government approval to the extensions was given in September 1970.
  2. The provision of extensions to the House was recommended by the Minister for the Interior following representations by the Presiding Officers and investigations by the National Capital Development Commission.
  3. In the investigations mentioned above, it was assumed that whatever decision may be taken regarding the building of a new Parliament House, there would be no additional space available from a new building for at least 8 years. The design of the extensions was then established on the basis of providing a minimal reasonable solution to the expected requirements of the Parliament over the ensuing 8 years. The matters mentioned as parts (b), (c) and (d) of Question (3) were not included in the investigations of the short term requirements of the existing Parliament House.

Australian Tourist Commission: Reports (Question No. 3971)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities, upon notice:

Will annual reports of the Australian Tourist Commission continue to be furnished to the Minister for Trade and Industry or will he as the Minister responsible for tourism receive these reports and present them to the Parliament.

Mr Howson:
Minister for Environment, Aborigines and the Arts · CASEY, VICTORIA · LP

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

The Australian Tourist Commission will continue to furnish its annual report to the Minister for Trade and Industry who is the Commonwealth Minister responsible for tourism.

In accordance with the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 the Minister will table the Report in each House of Parliament.

Child Welfare (Question No. 3981)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Have the Premiers been in touch with him or his predecessor on matters discussed by, the State Ministers concerned with child welfare at their meeting in March 1970 (Hansard, 13th October 1970, page 2082 and 9th March 1971, page 750).

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

I have had the records checked, but no letter has been found from the Premiers written either to me or my predecessor as a result of discussions by the State Ministers concerned with child welfare at their meetings in March 1970.

Repatriation Hospitals: Costs (Question No. 4021)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Repatriation, upon notice:

What were the average costs per occupied bed day in Repatriation General Hospitals in each State in 1969-70 and 1970-71 (Hansard, 18th August 1970, page 122).

Mr Holten:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

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

The average costs per occupied bed day in Repatriation General Hospitals in each State were:

National Film and Television Training School

Mr Howson:
LP

– In the course of my reply to a question without notice from the right honourable member for Higgins about the proposed national film and television training school, I undertook to provide details of the estimated costs of land and buildings, capital cost excluding land and buildings, and annual running expenses over the first 5 years. The details, as provided by the Interim Council, National Film and Television Training School, are as follows:

Sub-Contract Production of Boeing 747 Aircraft (Question No. 2724)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to give the (a) number and (b) value of all sub-contracts involved in Boeing’s production of the 747 aircraft.
  2. Can he state the (a) number and (b) value of these sub-contracts awarded to Australian companies.
Mr Garland:
Minister for Supply · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. Information on the number and value of Boeing sub-contracts is not available.
  2. Detailed information on sub-contracts awarded to Australian companies is not available to my Department. However information that is available indicates that sub-contracts totalling some $650,000 in value have been placed by Boeing on the Australian aircraft industry for 747 aircraft work.

Papua New Guinea: Nutritional Needs (Question No. 3510)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Will he consult with the Minister for Health with a view to laying down minimum standards of calorie and protein intake for the Territory of Papua New Guinea in accord with paragraph (18) (d) of the Strategy for the Second Development Decade.
  2. If so, will he further seek delineation of nutritional needs for the Territory in terms of preserving or restoring other food elements and qualities which are often reduced by cooking and processing methods, having regard to current research studies on the immunity of certain of these people to certain diseases of civilisation.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matters referred to fall within the authority of the Ministerial Member for Health in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Ministerial Member for Health has provided the following information:

Most of the people of Papua New Guinea grow and prepare their own food by traditional methods. Protein deficiency and faulty weaning diets are some of the recognised problems which are receiving attention. It is the policy of the Papua New Guinea Administration to improve the levels of nutrition in Papua New Guinea with special emphasis on the needs of vulnerable groups of the population. Research has been and is still being carried out in the field.

Food standards used in Papua New Guinea are based on recommended dietary allowances for Australians, that are now acknowledged as being arbitrary. No better standards are available and evidence on the requirements of Papuans and New Guineans is incomplete.

Imported rice is enriched withThiamin and the use of iodised salt is encouraged.

There is in operation a nutrition improvement programme. Other measures to deal with nutrition problems include:

The establishment of Maternal and Child Health Centres throughout Papua New Guinea to advise mothers on health matters including nutrition. At 30th June 1971 there was 188 such centres.

Health education programmes under which trained health educators inform villagers and school children about basic health and hygiene including nutritional matters.

Community education courses are conducted by the Department of Social Development and Home Affairs in many parts of Papua New Guinea with participation by health workers. Home economics including cooking and nutrition is included in the courses.

A Nutrition Rehabilitation Unit has been built adjacent to the Port Moresby General Hospital with assistance from the Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific.

Other nutrition rehabilitation units are operating in Goroka and Kundiawa. Mothers with children suffering from nutritional deficiencies live in these units and receive instructions in unproved feeding habits.

The syllabuses for primary and secondary schools throughout Papua New Guinea include nutrition education.

High protein biscuits developed by CS1RO and manufactured in Australia are now available commercially.

It is the Health Department’s policy that nutrition improvement programmes must be based on locally available foods. Educational activities are directed towards identification and better utilisation of suitable foods produced locally.

Papua New Guinea: Air Link with Guam (Question No. 3665)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why did his Department wait till 28th October 1970 (question 2409, paragraph 3) to bring the attention of the Minister for Civil Aviation to the motion passed by the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea on 3rd September 1970 concerning an air link with Guam.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Paragraph 3 of question 2409 asked the Minister for Civil Aviation:

When was the Minister’s attention drawn to the motion passed by the House of Assembly on 3rd September 1970 deeming the establishment of an air link between the Territory and Guam to be vital for the future development of the Territory and requesting the Commonwealth Government to obtain an amendment to the agreement with the United States of America which will permit the establishment of an air service between the Territory and Guam at the earliest possible date.’

The answer given by the Minister for Civil Aviation was’28th October 1970’.

The question of a service to Guam from Papua New Guinea had been the subject of detailed consideration by the Ministers for Civil Aviation and External Territories for many months prior to 3rd September 1970 when the House of Assembly motion on the matter was passed. This detailed consideration led to an approach to the United States authorities. Their reply is still outstanding for reasons connected with the current determination of their own civil aviation policy relating to operation of United Stales airlines in the area.

Post Offices: Belmont and Norlane (Question No. 3964)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

  1. On what dates were the post offices in Belmont and Norlane first opened.
  2. What was the number of staff at each office at the time of opening, and what is the staff at present.
  3. How many homes are served from each office.
  4. Is it a fact that the present building is totally unsuitable to serve the Norlane area.
  5. If so, when can a new building more suitable to a growing area in the centre of a major business undertaking be anticipated.
  6. Has Norlane been given a low priority because it is largely a Housing Commission area.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. The Belmont Official Post Office was opened on 8th October 1936. The Norlane Official Post Office was opened on 3rd August 1953.
  2. Belmont Post Office opened with a staff of 9 people and now has 18 people employed.

Norlane Post Office opened with a staff of 4 people and now has 13 people employed.

  1. Belmont Post Office serves 6,520 homes and Norlane 4,978 homes.
  2. No. However, the Department recognises that there are some deficiencies in the existing accommodation, particularly in the extent of operational areas available and staff amenities provided. Full public facilities are available at the office and a good grade of service provided to the public.
  3. At this stage, no definite indication can be given as to when a new post office building can be provided at Norlane. However, the needs at this centre, as compared to other centres, will be kept under notice and reviewed from time to time when building programmes are formulated.
  4. No. The relative priorities for dealing with post office building projects are determined basically by the extent of the accommodation need at the various centres to provide an efficient postal service.

Gazelle Peninsula: Professor Salisbury’s Report (Question No. 3992)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

When will he table Professor Salisbury’s report on affairs in the Gazelle Peninsula.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Professor Salisbury was engaged to advise the Papua New Guinea Administration. Many of his recommendations relate to matters falling within the final responsibility of elected Papua New Guinea Ministerial office-holders. The Administrator’s Executive Council is now considering the report. After it has completed its consideration of the matter a statement will be made in the House of Assembly.

Territorial Seas: Declarations by Mexico and Canada (Question No. 3995)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Have any States other than the United States protested against (a) Mexico’s declaration that the northern third of the Gulf of California is part of Mexico’s territorial sea (Hansard, 29th September 1970, page 1844) and (b) Canada’s proclamation of fisheries closing lines across the Gulf of St Lawrence and the Bay of Fundy on the Atlantic coast and Queen Charlotte Sound and Dixon Entrance-Hecate Strait on the Pacific coast (Hansard, 23rd September 1970, page 1577).

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

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

The position in respect of both the matters mentioned by the honourable member remains as stated in September last in the replies to which he referred, except that Canada proclaimed fisheries closing lines on 18th December 1970. It is understood that a few States have expressed to the Canadian authorities their views on the proclamation.

America’s Cup Challenge (Question No. 4063)

Mr Morrison:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Were any expenses involved in entertainment associated with the last America’s . Cup held in the United States of America met by the Commonwealth Government.
  2. If so, what was the nature and amount of these expenses.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The Australian Ambassador to the United States held a number of functions in Newport, Rhode Island, at the time of the 1970 America’s Cup races. The costs of two large functions were met from a special supplementary Representation Allowance. On each occasion when Australia has been a participant in the America’s Cup Trials, the Government has made available funds to the Australian Ambassador to the United States for representation purposes. These occasions afford valuable opportunities for publicising Australia and the expenditure concerned is provided from funds specially allocated for these purposes.
  2. Details of the two functions are as follows:

Reception, 23rd August 1970.

Four hundred guests were invited and most of them attended. The Australian, French and United States Crews and those associated with their efforts were included. Among those present were prominent American personalities such as the Governor of the State of Rhode Island and the Congressmen from that State. The function was held at’Chateau-sur-Mer’ The costs were:

Dinner, 13th September 1970.

The presence in Newport of a large number of prominent American and foreign visitors and journalists viewing the races afforded the opportunity of holding a dinner to promote Australian products. The 340 guests were served Australian oysters, beef, fruits and wines at tables decorated with Australia wildflowers. The function was held at The Breakers’. The costs were:

Telephones (Question No. 4068)

Mr Collard:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

At which centres in the subdivisions of (a) Dundas, (b) Greenough, (c) Merredin, (d) Pilbara and (e) Yilgarn in the Electoral Division of Kalgoorlie is it intended to install an automatic telephone exchange in (i) 1971-72. (ii) 1972-73 and (iii) 1973-74.

Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

The centres within the Kalgoorlie electorate at which automatic exchanges are programmed for installation during 1971-72 are:

Programmes for 1972-73 and 1973-74 have not yet been finalised but Esperance, in the Dundas subdivision, has been tentatively scheduled for an automatic exchange installation in 1972-73.

Non-official Post Offices (Question No. 4070)

Mr Collard:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is payment to the person in charge of an unofficial post office based on traffic of mail and telephone operating hours.

    1. If so, when during each of the last 5 years were the rates adjusted, and what was the percentage increase on each occasion.
    2. Can be say when the next adjustment will be made.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Payments to persons in charge of nonofficial post offices are based on the volume of post office business transacted and are calculated in accordance with the scale of payments set out in the relative Determination of the Public Service Arbitrator. The determination also prescribes additional allowances to be paid to non-official postmasters for attendances to provide postal, telephone and telegraph services outside of the normal office hours.
  2. Pay increases were granted to non-official postmasters on nine occasions during the past five years, the dates of effect being; 1st March 1966. 14th July 1966, 26th January 1967, 26th June 1969, 24th July 1969, 11th December 1969, 25th December 1969, 24th December 1970 and 7th January 1971. The percentage increases for a full-time service non-official postmaster on the minimum point in the scale were 4.2 per cent, 4.5 per cent, 2.5 per cent, 5.9 per cent, 10.5 per cent. 5.2 per cent, 3 per cent, 9.5 per cent and 6 per cent respectively. The increase on the minimum was generally representative of the percentage increases overall but in some instances, depending on the basis of adjustment, variations occurred throughout the scale of payments.
  3. No.

Indonesia: Aid (Question No. 3963)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What aid has been made available to Indonesia by Australia in each year since 1967 In

Devisa Kredit;

Food Aid;

Technical Aid;

Commodity Aid;

Project Aid; and

Other forms of aid.

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

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

South Pacific Commission: Plantation Workers (Question No. 4053)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

Is information yet available on conditions for plantation workers in French Polynesia and Western Samoa (Hansard 23rd April 1971, page 2036).

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

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

The following information was provided to the Honourable Member in a letter dated 6th May 1971 from the then Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs:

French Polynesia

Minimum agricultural wage as from 1st December 1970 is CFP43.2* (approximately 40 cents) per hour. Usual rate is CFP500 (approximately $4.59) to CFP600 ($5.50) per day. Employers are entitled to deduct CFP43.2 for each meal provided and 5 per cent of salary if accommodation is provided but both are normally provided free. The working week remains at 48 hours.

Note - CFP (which is an abbreviation of the French equivalent of French Pacific Franc) is the currency used in the French Pacific territories.

Western Samoa

The basic wage for an ordinary plantation labourer is $WS1.00 per day ($A1.25) for men or $WS0.80 ($A1.00) for women. Rates for foremen range from$WS1.50 ($A1.86) to$WS2.00 ($ A 2.50) depending on size of plantation and duties.

Contract workers earn $WS0.25 ($A0.31) per 100 lbs of copra and$WS0.45 ($A0.56) per 100 lbs of cocoa or coffee.

Workers are provided with rent free accommodation and allowed the use of small plots of land to grow domestic foodstuffs.

Air Mails: Payments to Carriers (Question No. 4129)

Mr Morrison:

asked the Postmaster-Gen eral, upon notice:

What payments were made to (a) TransAustralia Airlines and (b) Ansett Airlines of Australia for the carriage of Royal Mail in 1968-69, 1969- 1970 and 1970-71.

Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

The payments made to Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia for the carriage of mail, in respect of the years mentioned, were:

Bali Tourist Hotel (Question No. 4132)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Are Commonwealth aid funds being used to build a large luxury type tourist hotel at Bali?
  2. If so, what amount has been contributed by the Commonwealth, and over what period have the contributions been made?
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to previous question.

United Nations Charter: Review (Question No. 4140)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. In view of the United Nations request for suggestions by 1st July 1972 regarding review of the United Nations Charter, will the Government publish a summary of the issues which the Australian public should discuss and upon which Australians should make submissions to him before the Government decides whether or not to accede to the request.
  2. Will the Government request the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs to call for these submissions at public hearings and to report thereon to Parliament before the Government decision is taken.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. and (2) The honourable member is referred to the answer given to his question No. 3422 on 19th August 1971.

Papua: Visit by Select Committee (Question No. 4143)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why did he wait till 19th August 1971 to bring the attention of the Prime Minister to the motion passed by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly on 4th June 1971 requesting an early visit to Papua by a select committee of the Australian Parliament (Hansard, 25th August 1971, page 670 and 7th September 1971, page 899).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

It was necessary to give the resolution of the House of Assembly full and proper consideration.

Immigration: Settlers from South Africa (Question No. 3696)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

How many of the (a) 307 assisted settlers and (b) 486 unassisted settlers from South Africa in 1969-70 were of (i) European, (ii) partly European and (iii) non-European descent.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. With the possible exception of a very small number of non-European dependent family members of European family heads who have not been recorded statistically as such, all the 307 assisted settlers from South Africa in 1969-70 were European.
  2. The 486 unassisted settlers were comprised as follows:

Immigration: Commonwealth Countries (Question No. 3697)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many of the (a) 3,891 assisted settlers and (b) 3,041 unassisted settlers described at page 40 of his department’s 1970 consolidated statistics as coming from unstated British Commonwealth countries were of (i) European, (ii) partly European and (iii) non-European descent.
  2. How many came from Rhodesia.
Dr Forbes:
LP

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

  1. (a) With the possible exception of a very small number of non-European dependent family members of European family heads who have not been recorded statistically as such all the 3,891 assisted settlers who came from unstated British Commonwealth countries in 1970 were of European descent.
  2. (b) The 3,041 unassisted settlers from the same countries were comprised as follows:
  1. Separate figures are not maintained for Rhodesia and for statistical purposes this country is grouped with Zambia and Malawi. From all three countries there were 45 arrivals during 1970. All of these were of European descent, 7 being assisted and 38 unassisted.

Deportations under Crimes Act (Question No. 3799)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many Australian citizens have been deported under the provisions of the Crimes Act since World War 11?
  2. What weretheir names and offences in each case?
  3. Does the Government inform naturalised citizens that they have the full rights and privileges of native born citizens when in fact they can be deported?
  4. Is consideration being given to the elimination of this discrimination?
Dr Forbes:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (4) I refer the honourable member to parts 6 and 7 of my answer to his Question No. 2922 (Hansard of 3rd May 1971, page 2412).

  1. When an alien is notified of the approval of his application for naturalisation he is informed that upon naturalisation he will enjoy thesa me rights and privileges and become subject to the same responsibilities as an Australian born citizen.

Deportations (Question No. 4144)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

How many of the persons deported in each of the last 5 years (Hansard, 10th September 1971, page 1 148) were of (a) European, (b) partly European and (c) non-European descent.

Dr Forbes:
LP

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

The following table shows the number of (a) European, (b) mixed descent and (c) nonEuropean persons, and the sex of the persons in each category, who were deported in each of the last 5 financial years:

Com mon wealth-State Committees (Question No. 3710)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

On what joint Commonwealth-State committees, such as the Fresh Fruit Disinfestation Committee (Hansard, 15th September 1970, page 1169) and the Co-ordinating Committee on Pesticides (Hansard,5th May 1971, page 2638), do officers of his Department serve.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The Fresh Fruit Disinfestation Committee and the Co-ordinating Committee on Pesticides are standing committees responsible to the Agricultural Council. Other committees of a similar type on which Commonwealth and State officers serve are:

Animal Production Committee

Australian Weeds Committee

Committee on Importation of Cheese

Commonwealth and States Dairy Officers Committee

Commonwealth and States Entomology Committee

Commonwealth and States Horticultural Committee

Commonwealth and States Veterinary Committee

Co-ordinating Committee on Seed Certification

Consultative Committee on Drought

Multi-Resistant Cattle Tick Committee

Tractor Testing Committee

Fruit Fly Commodity Treatment Committee

Standing Committee on Soil Conservation.

Australian Meat Board (Question No. 3885)

Mr Hurford:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. When did the Australian Meat Board appoint the Washington legalfirm of Clifford, Warnke, McIlwain and Finney as its legal representatives and advisersin the United States of America.
  2. Does this firm still act for the Board.
  3. If so, is the firm a lobbyist for the Board in the United States Congress.
  4. Is he able to say whether this function is normally carried out by professional firms of lobbyists rather than by legal firms.
  5. What are the other functions of the firm in its relationship with the Board.
  6. What sum has been paid by the Board to the firm in each financial year since its appointment.
  7. What is the Board’s assessment of the benefits it has derived by the appointment of this legal firm.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (5) The Australian Meat Board appointed the firm of Clifford, Warnke, Class,

McIlwain and Finney as its legal representatives and advisers in December 1969. This arrangement still exists. Apart from its role as legal representative the firm also informs the Board of all legislative moves in America which could affect meat imports.

  1. and (4). No. This is the responsibility of a firm of lobbyists - Warner and Harris - which was engaged by the Board for that specific purpose.
  2. The arrangements between the Board and the firm of Clifford, Warnke, Glass, McIlwain and Finney are confidential to the two parties.
  3. The Board believes that considerable benefit has accrued to the Australian meat industry from the regular reports of its legal representatives. In addition the advice received on a number of specific issues which have arisen since their appointment has been of material help in avoiding possible errors of judgment which may have occurred had their advice not been available.

South Vietnam: Economic and Social Assistance (Question No. 3997)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What changes in the (a) nature and (b) extent of economic and social assistance to South Vietnam have occurred since the answer by a former Minister on 3rd September 1970 (Hansard, page 1031).

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

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

Details of economic and social assistance to Vietnam are shown in the following publications, which are available through the Parliamentary Library: ‘Economic and Social Aid to Vietnam’, a report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Vietnam for the period up to 31st December 1970, about civil assistance from all foreign sources; the Operation Reports of the United States Agency for International Development for financial year 1971; the ‘Report to the Ambassador from the Director ofthe United States Agency for International Development 1970’ covering United States assistance to Vietnam.

Twenty-three countries gave bilateral assistance to the Republic of Vietnam in 1970. The 8 major donors (more than$USlm) in order of the size of their assistance programmes were the United States, Germany, France, Australia.Japan, Canada and the Republic of China.

A brief general summary of aid programmes of these donors follows:

The United States: The United States continued to be by far the largest donor of assistance to Vietnam. Total United States economic and technical assistance to Vietnam in fiscal year 1971 (1970-71) was estimated at $US534m, excluding the Military Assistance Programme. The Commercial Import Programme has been estimated to cost $US270m, the Food for Peace (P.L. 480) programme $US115m and the Project Programme approximately$US159m.

Germany: German assistance continued to be centred primarily in the field of medical care and social welfare activities. Limited economic assistance was given to projects previously financed with German grants or credits. The aid continued to be concentrated in Quang Nam Province in Region 1 and in the Saigon area. Total German bilateral aid in 1970 was $US5,440,650.

Prance: France continued to provide both cultural and technical assistance at approximately the same level as during the preceding years. Most aid was a continuation of previous undertakings. Under the Cultural Assistance Service, France continued to provide senior staff, books and equipment to schools and cultural centres. Through its Technical Assistance Service it continued to provide experts and commodities to the public services in public health, technical and agricultural education, industry and handicrafts, and to many national medical and educational institutions. Total French bilateral aid in 1970 was $US5,094,088.

Australia: Australian economic assistance to Vietnam in 1970-71 was $A2.916m, an increase of about $A0.9m on the previous year. The most important element of Australia’s aid continued to be the provision of town water supplies. Current water supply projects, which accounted for more than$Al.lm in 1970-71, are for the cities of Can Tho, Saigon and Vung Tau. Other important items in 1970-71 were the improvements in Bien Hoa Hospital (complementary to a similar programme completed the previous year), surgical teams for the hospital, training of Vietnamese students in Australia, repairs to the Ban Me Thuot radio transmitters, and continuing Civic Action Work in Phuoc Tuy Province including the construction of housing for the families of members of the Regional/Popular Forces.

Japan: Japanese aid to Vietnam in 1970 was $US 1,832,733. As in the past, it continued to be concentrated in the medical sector, although a larger proportion than in previous years was given to other forms of aid including a donation of assistance in the six-year plan to establish an agricultural faculty at Can Tho University, and construction of the television studio at the Instructional Materials Centre. Japan also made a relief grant to the Vietnamese Red Cross for victims of the typhoons of October 1970, and refugees from Cambodia.

Canada: The Canadian Government continued its assistance in the form of grants for technical assistance, food aid, construction equipment and supplies. The value of Canada’s total bilateral assistance to Vietnam in 1970 was$US1,639,832. No major new projects were commenced during the year. Construction of the auditorium for the Science Faculty at the University of Hue, suspended after the Tet offensive, was completed in 1970. Canada also provided emergency relief for refugee Vietnamese from Cambodia and for victims of the typhoons.

Republic of China: Chinese bilateral assistance in 1970 was $US1, 171,040 and was primarily in the fields of agriculture (vegetable seeds, vaccines, water pumps, sprayers and other equipment); power (study or construction of a number of electric power projects); public works (including the continuation of the dredging project in the

Mekong Delta); post and communications (postal equipment and motorcycles) welfare and relief (flood relief for Central Vietnam).

Importation of Fancy Cheeses: Examination by Inter-departmental Committee (Question No. 4020)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Which departments are represented on the inter-departmental committee appointed to examine the importation of fancy cheeses.
  2. When was the committee appointed and when did or will it report.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The inter-departmental committee was appointed in August 1970 to examine a number of aspects relating to cheese imports into Australia. The Committee consists of representatives of the Departments of Primary Industry, Trade and Industry and Customs and Excise. An interim report was submitted to the then Minister for Primary Industry in September 1970. The committee recommended that its examination be deferred until the effect of anti-dumping action on cheese imports could be established. The Tariff Board has completed its public inquiry but not yet submitted its report.

Environmental Pollution (Question No. 4048)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

What consideration has the Agricultural Council given to aspects of environmental pollution.

Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

The Agricultural Council has considered in detail important aspects of environmental pollution which have agricultural implications such as pesticides, salinity, soil erosion and soil deterioration and the disposal of ships garbage for many years.

Fisheries Research (Question No. 4114)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for

Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. How many Department of Primary Industry scientists engaged in fisheries research are based in each State.
  2. What sum has been spent by the Commonwealth on fisheries research in each State for each of the last three years.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

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

  1. None.
  2. Payments from trust funds administered by my Department for fisheries research are as follows:

For the information of the honourable member 1 have approved so far this financial year the following grants:

Official Cars (Question No. 4169)

Mr Hamer:

asked the Minister for Foreign

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What were the makes and countries of origin of the official cars supplied for the use of Australian Ambassadors and Heads of Missions overseas as at 30th June 1971.
  2. How many of these cars were supplied during the year ended 30th June 1971, and of these how many were of distinctly Australian manufacture.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. I am informed that the following cars were in use by Heads of Mission (Ambassadors or High Commissioners) at overseas posts, as at 30th June 1971:
  1. Sixteen of the fifty-one cars listed above were purchased during the financial year ended 30th June 1971. Of these, only one, a Ford Galaxie, was purchased in Australia. (3 The foregoing should not be thought to indicate that Australian vehicles are not purchased where possible. As at 30th June 1971 the Department of Foreign Affairs operated a total of 344 motor vehicles at Australian diplomatic and consular missions overseas. Of this number, 128 were of Australian manufacture, comprising principally cars which are used as part of mission transport pools.

International Labour Organisation Conventions: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 2355)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Which International Labour Organisation conventions have been brought to the notice of the House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea with a view to the enactment of legislation or other action by the House.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The texts of I.L.O. Conventions are referred to the Administration of Papua New Guinea as they are adopted by the I.L.O. Under the I.L.O. constitution the making of a declaration in respect of Papua New Guinea stating the extent to which the provisions of any convention should be applied does not, of course, arise unless and until Australia has ratified that convention.

International Labour Organisation Conventions: Application on Papua New Guinea (Question No. 2356)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What progress has been made in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea towards applying ten outstanding International Labour Organisation Conventions since his answers to me on 26th August 1969 (Hansard, page 712) and 18th August 1970 (page 114).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Convention No. 83 - Labour Standards (NonMetropolitan Territories), 1947.

Convention No. 84 - Right of Association (NonMetropolitan Territories), 1947.

Convention No. 82 - Social Policy (NonMetropolitan Territories), 1947.

These Conventions are at present the subject of consultation between the Department of External Territories, the Papua New Guinea Administration and the Department of Labour and National Service.

Convention No. 64 - Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1959.

The law and practice of Papua New Guinea conform with this Convention. However, the ratification of the Convention is a matter for determination in the light of the position in Australia itself and the question of the declarations to be made in respect of Australia’s nonmetropolitan territories will not arise unless the Convention is ratified by Australia.

Convention No.50 - Recruiting of Indigenous Workers, 1936.

Convention No. 65 - Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1939.

Convention No. 86- Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1947.

Convention No. 104 - Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1955.

Convention No. 1 10- Plantations, 1958.

Convention No.111 - Discrimination (Employment and Occupation), 1958.

The situation regarding the above Conventions remains substantially as set out in my previous answers. However, I wish to inform the honourable member that the Administration of Papua New Guinea is at present drafting a new Employment Code to replace the Native Employment Ordinance. The provisions of International Labour Organisation Conventions are being taken into account, to the extent that this is practicable, in the drafting of this Code.

International Labour Organisation Conventions: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 2874)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. When was the attention of the Administration of the Territory of Papua New Guinea brought to the following International Labour Organisation conventions which have been ratified by Australia:

    1. No. 9- Placing of Seamen, 1920 (ratified 3rd August 1925);
    2. No. 15 - Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers), 1921 (ratified 28th June 1935);
    3. No. 16 - Medical Examinations of Young Persons (Sea), 1921 (ratified 28th June 1935);
    4. No. 21 - Inspection of Emigrants, 1926 (ratified 18th April 1931);
    5. No. 22 - Seamen’s Articles of Agreement, 1926 (ratified 1st April 1935);
    6. No. 26 - Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery, 1928 (ratified 9th March 1931);
    7. No. 57 - Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1936 (ratified 24th September 1938);
    8. No. 63- Statistics of Wages and Hours of Work, 1938 (ratified 5th September 1939);
    9. No. 76- Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea), 1946 (ratified 25th January 1949);
    10. No. 88- Employment Service, 1948 (ratified 24th December 1949);
    11. No. 93- Wages, Hours of Work and Manning (Sea) (Revised), 1949 (ratified 3rd March 1954);
    12. No. 99 - Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture), 1951 (ratified19th June 1969) and
    13. No. 116- Final Articles Revision, 1961 (ratified 29th October 1963).
    1. What steps have been taken to apply each convention to the Territory.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

As indicated in the reply given by my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, to the honourable member’s question No. 2353 (page 750 of House of Representatives Hansard for 9th March 1971) the texts of all International Labour Organisation instruments are, as a matter of practice, brought to the attention of the Administration of Papua New Guinea as they are adopted.

The Australian Government reports annually on the position of Australian law and practice in Papua New Guinea in relation to all the conventions listed by the honourable member except Nos 57, 76 and 93 which have not come into force and No. 116 which is concerned with machinery matters. The information contained in these reports is prepared by the Administration of Papua New Guinea.

The position with respect to each of the conventions listed by the honourable member, as determined after consultations with the Administration, is as follows:

In a declaration registered with the International Labour Office on 31st March 1971, Convention No. 99- Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture) 1951 was declared to apply to Papua New Guinea without modification.

Convention Nos 15 - Minimum Age (Trimmers and Stokers) 1921, and 21- Inspection of Emigrants 1926 are considered to be inapplicable in Papua New Guinea.

The International Labour Office has indicated that it is not necessary for declarations to be made with respect to the application in non-metropolitan territories of Convention No.116, which covers machinery matters relating to International Labour Organisation instruments.

As to the remaining conventions (Nos 9, 16. 22, 26, 57, 63, 76. 88 and 93) 5 of these were previously declared inapplicable to Papua New Guinea. These declarations and the position regarding the other four conventions are now under review.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 25: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 3273)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why has Australia not yet applied International Labour Organisation Convention No. 26 - Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery, 1928, which she ratified on 9th March 1931, to New Guinea and Papua whereas France applied it to French

Polynesia and New Caledonia as far back as 19th March 1954 and Britain applied it to the Solomon Islands on 4th June 1962, Fiji on 26th June 1962 and the Gilbert and Ellice Islands on 15th October 1963.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

In 1931 I.L.O. Convention No. 26 was declared inapplicable’ to Papua New Guinea. This declaration is now being reviewed.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 50: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 3274)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why has Australia not yet applied International Labour Organisation Convention No. 50 - Recruiting of Indigenous Workers, 1936 to New Guinea and Papua whereas Britain applied it to Fiji, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the Solomon Islands as far back as 22nd May 1939 and New Zealand applied it to the Cook Islands and Niue on 8th July 1947 (Hansard, 14th October 1964, page 1963).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Australia has not ratified this Convention and. therefore, the question of making declarations regarding its application in Australia’s nonmetropolitan territories has not arisen. Regarding the position in Papua New Guinea in relation to this convention, I refer to honourable member to my answer to his question No. 2356.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 64: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 3275)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Ministerfor External Territories, upon notice:

Why has Australia not yet applied International Labour Organisation Convention No. 64 - Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1939 to New Guinea and Papua whereas Britain applied to to Fiji, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the Solomon Islands as far back as 24th August 1943 and New Zealand applied it to the Cook Islands and Niue on 8th July 1947 (Hansard, 14th October 1964, page 1963).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Australia has not ratified this Convention and, therefore, the question of making declarations regarding its application in Australia’s nonmetropolitan territories has not arisen. The law and practice of Papua New Guinea conform with this Convention.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 65: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 3276)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why has Australia not yet applied International Labour Organisation Convention No. 65 - Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1939 to New Guinea and Papua whereas Britain applied it to Fiji, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the Solomon Islands as far back as 24th August 1943 and New Zealand applied it to the Cook Islands and Nine on 8th July 1947 and to the Tokelau Islands on 13th June 1956 (Hansard, 14th October 1964, page 1963).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Australia has not ratified this Convention and. therefore, the question of making declarations regarding its application in Australia’s nonmetropolitan territories has not arisen. Regarding the position in Papua New Guinea in relation to this Convention I refer the honourable member to my answer to his question No. 2356.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 81: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 3277)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Whyhas Australia not yet applied International Labour Organisation Convention No. 81 - Labour Inspection, 1947 to New Guinea and Papua whereas Britain applied it to the Solomon islands on 26th May 1966.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Australia has not ratified ILO Convention No. 81 and, therefore, the question of making declarations regarding its application in Australia’s nonmetropolitan territories has not arisen. However, Australia has ratified ILO Convention No. 85 Labour Inspectorates (Non-Metropolitan Territories), 1947 which was applied to Papua and New Guinea without modification on 20th June 1966.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 82: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 3278)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why has Australia not yet applied international Labour Organisation Convention No. 82 - Social Policy (Non-metropolitan Territories), 1947 to New Guinea and Papua whereas Britain applied it with modifications to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and the Solomon Islands as far back as 27th March 1950 and to Fiji on 11th July 1966, New

Zealand applied it to the Cook Islands, Niue and the Takelau Islands on 19th June 1954 and France applied it with modifications to French Polynesia and New Caledonia on 26th July 1954 (Hansard, 14th October, page 1964).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Australia has not ratified this Convention and, therefore, the question of making declarations regarding its application in Australia’s nonmetropolitan territories has not arisen. The possibility of ratifying this Convention is under consideration at present.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 86: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 3280)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why has Australia not yet applied International Labour Organisation Convention No. 86 - Contracts of Employment (Indigenous Workers), 1947 to New Guinea and Papua whereas Britain applied it to Fiji as far back as 27th March 1950, to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands on 29th March 1961 and to the Solomon Islands on 15th August 1961 (Hansard, 14th October 1964, page 1964).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Australia has not ratified this convention, and therefore, the question of making declarations regarding its application in Australia’s nonmetropolitan territories has not arisen. Regarding the position in Papua New Guinea in relation to this convention I refer the honourable member to my answer to his question No. 2356.

International Labour Organisation Convention No. 104: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 3285)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why has Australia not yet applied International Labour Organisation Convention No. 104 - Abolition of Penal Sanctions (Indigenous Workers), 1955, to New Guinea and Papua whereas New Zealand applied it to the Cook Islands, Niue and the Tokelau Islands as far back as 28th June 1956 (Hansard, 14th October 1964, page 1964).

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

Australia has not ratified this Convention and, therefore, the question of making declarations regarding its application in Australia’s nonmetropolitan territories has not arisen. Regarding the position in Papua New Guinea in relation to this Convention I refer the honourable member to my answer to his question No. 2356.

International Labour Organisation Conventions Nos 112, 113 and 114: Application in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 3399)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Are the law and practice in Papua New Guinea in accord with the provisions of International Labour Organisation (a) Convention No. 112- Minimum Age (Fishermen), 1959, which Australia proposes to ratify (Hansard, 3rd May 1971, page 2353), (b) Convention No. 113- Medical Examination (Fishermen), 1959 and (c) Convention No. 114 - Fishermen’s Articles of Agreement, 1959.
  2. On what dates and with what results have his Department and the Department of Labour and National Service consulted about the application of these instruments to the Territories.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. (a) There is close conformity between the law and practice of Papua New Guinea and Convention No. 112. The question of the declaration to be made in respect of Papua New Guinea is under active consideration.

    1. and (c) Law and practice In Papua New Guinea are not at present in compliance with Conventions Nos 113 and 114.
  2. There are continuing consultations between my Department and the Department of Labour and National Service concerning the position in the Territories relating to these conventions.

Papua New Guinea: Teachers (Question No. 3586)

Mr Stewart:

asked the Minister for

External Territories, upon notice:

What is the present shortage of

primary,

secondary, and

technical school teachers in

Mission and

Government schools in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

Mr Barnes:
CP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Ministerial Member for Education in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Ministerial Member for Education has provided the following information:

The teachers of Administration schools and the majority of those of Mission schools are employed in the Papua New Guinea Teaching Service. All positions on the Teaching Service’s establishment, which is set by the budget, are currently filled. There is however a shortage of permanent teachers. This shortage is at present made good by a number of temporary staff. It will be necessary if teachers are to be obtained in the numbers needed for the planned expansion of education in future, to increase the recruitment of teachers from overseas and to encourage more young people to enter the teaching profession.

Papua New Guinea: Trade Stores (Question No. 3664)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. What information has he obtained on the number and percentage of plantation owners in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea who have established trade stores (Hansard. 23rd April 1971, page 2033).
  2. Can be readily give this information for each district.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. and (2) The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Assistant Ministerial Member for Local Government in the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea. The Administrator on the advice of the Assistant Ministerial Member has stated that, while some replies have been received in response to requests for the information, an indication cannot at present be given as to when all the information will be available. Efforts to expedite the provision of the information will continue to be made.

It is not expected that there will be difficulty in giving the information by districts.

Papua and New Guinea Development Bank (Question No. 3993)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Externa] Territories, upon notice:

  1. What was the (a) number and (b) amount of loans to (i) indigenes and (ii) expatriates approved by the Papua and New Guinea Development Bank in 1970-71.
  2. How many (a) indigenes and (b) expatriates are (i) employed and (ii) housed by the Bank.
  3. What are the (a) highest, (b) lowest and (c) average salaries and allowances paid by the Bank to its (i) indigenous and (ii) expatriate employees.
Mr Barnes:
CP

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

  1. (a) (i) Number of loans to indigenes in 1970-71-1,938

    1. (i) Amount of loans to indigenes in 1970-71- $2,381,560
    2. (ii) Number of loans to expatriates in 1970-71-103
    3. (ii) Amount of loans to expatriates in 1970-71-1,764,380

In addition there were seven (7) loans to joint enterprises for $97,185.

  1. (a) (i) Number of indigenes employed at 30th June 1971-108

    1. (ii) Number of indigenes housed by the Bank at 30th June 1971-49
    2. (i) Number of expatriates employed at Bank at 30th June 1971-58
    3. (ii) Number of expatriates housed by the Bank at 30th June 1971-52
  2. (a) (i) Highest indigenous salary at 30th June 1971- $2,015

    1. (i) Lowest indigenous salary at 30th June 1971- $700
    2. (i) Average indigenous salary at 30th June 1971- $1,137
    3. (ii) Highest expatriate salary and allowances at 30th June 1971- $16,334
    4. (ii) Lowest expatriate salary and allowances at 30th June 1971- $3,450
    5. (ii) Average expatriate salary and allowances at 30th June 1971- $7,616

The lowest indigenous salary ($700 per annum) is that of a 17-year-old female typist. The highest expatriate salary and allowance ($16,334 per annum) is in respect of the statutory appointment of the Managing Director.

International Labour Organisation Conventions (Question No. 4112)

Mr Whitlam:

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

What progress has been made in persuading New South Wales, the only State in default, to pass legislation to permit ratification of International Labour Organisation Conventions (a) No. 32 - Protection Against Accidents (Dockers) (Revised), 1932 (Hansard, 2nd June 1970, page 2787), (b) No. 58- Minimum Age (Sea) (Revised), 1936, (c) No. 87 - Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, 1948 (Hansard, 16th March 1971. page 968 and 8th September 1971, page 983) and (d) No. 92- Accommodation of Crews (Revised), 1949.

Mr Lynch:
LP

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

I am informed that the New South Wales authorities consider that legislative action in relation to those aspects of Convention Nos 32, 58 and 92 not complied with in that State cannot be taken until certain amendments to the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act have been adopted. New South Wales is, of course, not the only State which has not yet agreed to ratification at Convention No. 32.

As to Convention No. 87 consultations are proceeding with a view to clarifying a number of issues raised by New South Wales.

Commonwealth Ordnance Factory (Question No. 3977)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

How many people were employed at the Commonwealth Ordnance Factory at Bendigo in (a) 1940, (b) 1945, (c) 1950, (d) 1955, (e) 1960, (f) 1965, (g) 1970 and (h) at 30th June 1971.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

Primary Production (Question No. 3777)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is production in excess of market demand in almost every primary and secondary industry in Australia.
  2. If so, does the Government expect increased production resulting from increasing efficiency and productivity to reduce cost and price inflation.
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1.) No. While it is true that production may be in excess of demand in certain sectors of primary industry, it is certainly not true generally. There is little to indicate excessive production in other branches of industry.

  1. See . 1 above.

Gross National Product: Distribution (Question No. 3570)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What percentage of the gross national product was distributed to (a) private investments, (b) public investments, (c) inventory charges, (d) net foreign trade, (e) private consumption and (0 public consumption in each of the last 20 years for which figures are available.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following table which shows components of expenditure on the gross national product, other than the statistical discrepancy, expressed as percentages of the gross national product. Personal consumption expenditure on goods and services and net current expenditure on goods and services by financial enterprises are shown separately in accordance with the practice followed in ‘Australian National Accounts, National Income and Expenditure’. For some purposes it may be desired to include net current expenditure by financial enterprises in estimates of private consumption expenditure.

Industrial Accidents: Statistics (Question No. 2826)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Which States do not yet use the minimum standard adopted in 1958 for producing statistics on industrial accidents.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The honourable member’s question doubtless refers to the ‘Standard Minimum Content of Collection Form’ considered by the 20th Conference of Statisticians of Australia in 1958 as being highly desirable for those States commencing (or envisaging commencement of) collection of industrial accident statistics derived from reports of work injuries compensated under State workers compensation acts.

For each State statistics are now produced which either purport to meet this standard minimum content or are wider in scope. Each separate State system provides a volume of statistical data concerning industrial accidents within the State and from these the Commonwealth Statistician has recently attempted to derive Australian figures on the minimum basis. Following examination of the available data and special tabulations, he has concluded that the figures cannot be accepted as sufficiently comparable to warrant their publication as official statistics for Australia on a uniform basis. Sufficient comparability seems unlikely to be achieved without further development and investigation into the basis of the figures. This work is now proceeding on a limited scale.

Taxation: Religious and Employer Organisations (Question No. 3779)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that religious and employer associations are exempt from taxes when they conduct commercial enterprises including laundries, wineries and distilleries.
  2. If so, will he have this exemption reviewed and a report on the matter brought before Parliament.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. Religious institutions, and associations of employers registered under an Act relating to the settlement of industrial disputes, are exempt from income tax. This exemption applies to all income derived by such organisations, including income arising from commercial operations.
  2. If a review were made along the lines the honourable member proposes, there could hardly be excluded from its scope other organisations to which the exemption applies. Instances of these were given in my reply to an earlier question of his on the same matter (Question No. 3306, Hansard 6 May 1971). I am not, in any case, persuaded that at present there is any occasion or need for following the course proposed by the honourable member.

Education: Scholarships (Question No. 3810)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

What is the proportion of Commonwealth (a) seconday scholarship winners as a percentage of pupils in the fourth form (school certificate year) and (b) tertiary scholarship winners as a percentage of pupils in the sixth form (higher school certificate year) in each school grouped according to (i) State schools, (ii) Roman Catholic schools and (iii) other private schools for (A) the Wollongong area and (B) the rest of New South Wales.

Mr Malcolm FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

My Department does not hold statistics of enrolments in individual schools or in schools located in particular regions within a State. Nor does it maintain numbers of Commonwealth scholarships awarded in the detail requested.

For New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, of students enrolled in fourth form in 1970 at Government, Catholic and other non-government schools, the percentages who accepted 1971 Commonwealth secondary scholarships were as follows:

The total number of students who accepted Open Entrance Commonwealth University scholarships and Entrance Level Commonwealth Advanced Education scholarships in 1971, in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, was 17 per cent of the 1970 enrolment in sixth form.

Aboriginals: Gurindji Tribe (Question No. 3813)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Has any land been made available for use by the Gurindji people at Wattie Creek; if so, what conditions apply to its availability. .

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

About 200 acres of land at Seale Gorge near Wattie Creek has. been reserved as an area of significance to Aborigines and this area is protected under the Native and Historical areas and Objects Preservation Ordinance. Only Aborigines including those at Wattie Creek may enter this area without permission. The area is under the control of Aboriginal Rangers.

No other land has been set aside for the use of the people camping at Wattie Creek but these people have the. same statutory rights as other Aboriginal people to freely enter any land in the Territory under pastoral lease and take game and use natural waters on such lands.

I recently announced that three bores have been successfully sunk at Wave Hill and that, in the interests of health, this supply will be connected to the Wattie Creek camp to provide an assured supply of water for domestic purposes as soon as funds become available.

Education: Scholarships (Question No. 3868)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:’

What is the proportion of Commonwealth (a) secondary scholarship winners as a percentage of pupils in the fourth form (school certificate year) and (b) tertiary scholarship winners as a percentage of pupils in the sixth form (higher school certificate year) in each school grouped according to (i) State schools, (ii) Roman Catholic schools and (iii) other private schools for the Electoral Division of Parramatta.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Statistical records covering schools in particular electoral divisions are not maintained by my Department. However, if the honourable member cares to provide me with a list of the schools in which he is interested, then 1 shall see what details are available for those schools. What information there is will relate only to the number of applicants for and winners of Commonwealth Secondary scholarships. Statistics of enrolments at particular schools and of Commonwealth tertiary scholarship winners from individual schools are not kept by my Department.

Population (Question No. 3872)

Mr Daly:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the population of (a) each State and Territory and (b) Australia on (i) 30th June 1902 and (ii) 30th June 1971.

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised population figures for Australia and the States and Territories at 30th June 1971 are not yet available. The following figures show the estimated population of each State and Territory and Australia as at 30th June 1902 and 30th June 1970. Figures for 30th June 1902 exclude fullblood Aborigines.

Commonwealth-State Officials Committee on Decentralisation (Question No. 3880)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice:

Can he say which departments other than his own are represented on the Commonwealth-State Officials Committee on Decentralisation.

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

Commonwealth Departments represented on the Commonwealth-States Officials Committee on Decentralisation were listed in answer to question No. 468 on 14th April 1970 (Hansard page 1109) namely:

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet - Chairman

The Treasury

Department of Trade and Industry

Department of Primary Industry

Department of National Development

Department of Labour and National Service

Education: Scholarships (Question No. 3897)

Mr Bryant:
WILLS, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

How many students in each school in the Electoral Division of Wills have (a) sat for Commonwealth secondary scholarship examinations and (b) been awarded scholarships in each year since the scheme was introduced.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Statistical records covering schools in particular electoral divisions are not maintained by my Department. However if the honourable member cares to provide me with a list of the schools in which he is interested, then I shall see what details are available for those schools.

Education: Scholarships (Question No. 3898)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

How many students from each secondary school in the Electoral Division of Wills have been awarded Commonwealth (a) university and (b) advanced education scholarships during each of the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

My Department does not maintain statistical information on the numbers of students attending individual schools or groups of schools who are awarded Commonwealth University or Advanced Education scholarships.

Aboriginals (Question No. 3904)

Mr Morrison:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the statement of the Prime Minister at Cairns on 23rd April 1971 that Aboriginal Australians should be encouraged and assisted to preserve and develop their culture, languages, tradition and art.
  2. Is it a fact that administrators and school teachers at Yuendumu in the Northern Territory are imposing Anglo-Saxon names, including surnames, on Aboriginal children.
  3. Is it also a fact that the children of the same family are being given different surnames.
  4. If so, are the parents of these children highly disturbed at this attempt to eliminate their own family or clan names of which they are justly proud.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. and (4) The Wailbri, who are the main tribal group at Yuendumu, have an Aboriginal personal name and a skin or subsection name. The personal name is sacred and is never used except in ceremonies. The subsection name is different for husband, wife, sons and daughters and does not identify the family in the way a European surname does. The European concept of the use of a personal name and a surname is foreign to the Aboriginal people. It is not unusual, however, for Aborigines themselves to choose European names which they use in conjunction with a subsection name and a mother will usually choose a European name for her child for birth registration purposes; nursing sisters frequently assist the mother in this by providing a panel of names from which she may choose.

If a senior member of an Aboriginal family or the eldest child chooses a European name as a surname, junior members of the family are encouraged to use that name.

Where no preference for a particular European name is expressed it is common to adopt the skin name as a surname.

There have been no complaints to the Administration nor has there been evidence of disturbance amongst the Aborigines and Yuendumu over the use of European names by Aborigines.

Sydney Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board: Finances (Question No. 3962)

Mr Grassby:

asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether (a) loan funds owed by the Sydney Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board at 30th June 1970 amounted to $63 7m, with interest payments, loan repayments and associated expenses totalling $42m representing half the rates collected, (b)$900m are committed by the Board to essential works over the next 10 years and (c) the Board is committed to repay $300m of its loans in the same period.
  2. In view of the urgent need to provide basic facilities for 3,000,000 people, will he confer with the appropriate State authorities and the Board to seewhat Commonwealth assistance can be given directly to ease the burden on the individual ratepayer and make the planned works programme possible.
Mr McMahon:
LP

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

  1. (a) The Report of the New South Wales Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board for the year ended 30th June 1970 shows that it had outstanding loans and advances totalling $627.5m at 30th June 1970 and that in 1969-70 expenditure by it on debt’ charges and associated items totalled $42m, compared with the Board’s total operating receipts in the period of $88.3m.

    1. I am advised that theBoard has publicly announced a capital works programme of some $900m over the 10 years commencing 1970-71.
    2. In the abovementioned annual report the Board has estimated that, over the 10-year period mentioned in (b), loans totalling approximately $300m will mature. This amount is made up of $250m in respect of loans outstanding at 30th June 1970, and an estimated $50m in respect of loans expected to be raised during the 10-year period but with currencies such that they will also mature during the period.
  2. The responsibility for providing the facilities referred to rests with the State Governments and their dependent authorities. The Commonwealth provides the States annually with large and increasing amounts of general purpose assistance, both revenue and capital, which the States are free to allocate as they may determine. In addition, State authorities have access to borrowings under borrowing programmes as approved by the Loan Council. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to ‘confer with the appropriate State authorities and the Board’ as suggested by the honourable member. I should nevertheless add that the New South Wales Government has approached the Commonwealth Government about the particular problems that are said to be confronting the New South Wales Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board in the financing of its future capital works programme.

Education: Scholarships (Question No. 3974)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

How many students have (a) sat for and (b) been awarded Commonwealth Technical Scholarships in each technical school in the Electoral Division of Bendigo in each year since the scheme was introduced.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Statistical records covering schools in particular electoral divisions are not maintained by my Department. However, if the honourable member cares to provide me with a list of the schools in which he is interested, then I shall see what details are available for those schools.

Housing: Northern Territory (Question No. 4013)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many (a) houses and (b) flats were built in (i) Darwin and (ii) the rest of the Northern Territory in 1970-71 by the Administration, the Housing Commission and private builders, respectively.
  2. What was the waiting period for bouses and flats at 30th June 1971.
  3. How many persons were waiting at 30th June 1971.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

Superannuation Funds (Question No. 4035)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice:

What progress has the Statistician made in collecting statistics on the total number and coverage of superannuation funds in Australia and on the number and occupations of contributors to them since the answer of a former Treasurer on 26th September 1969 (Hansard, page 2169) and of the last Treasurer on 30th October 1970 (Hansard, page 3169).

Mr McMahon:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that the position is still as stated in the answer supplied on 30th October 1970 to Question No. 2088 (Hansard, page 3169). It has not been possible, because of other commitments, to develop more complete and detailed statistics of superannuation funds and contributors.

Homes Savings Grants (Question No. 4065)

Mr Uren:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

  1. How many applicants were there in each State for grants under the Homes Savings Grant Act in 1969-70 and 1970-71.
  2. How many applications were rejected in each State due to the land and dwelling exceeding the maximum cost provided for under the Act.
Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. The numbers of applications for Home Savings Grants received in each State and in the Australian Capital Territory in each of the financial years 1969-70 and 1970-71 were:
  1. The numbers of applications rejected in those years because the value of the dwellinghouse (including land) exceeded the statutory limit were:

Australian Capital Territory: Flying of Flags (Question No. 4116)

Mr Morrison:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Does any Australian Capital Territory Ordinance regulate the flying of flags so as to require that all flags on display in public places should be in sound condition and not tattered and torn.
  2. If so, will he bring the regulation to the attention of the Federal Secretariat of the Australian Country Party which is situated in a prominent position on National Circuit.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

There is no” legislation governing the matter n question. However I understand that a booklet has been issued by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet which sets out the procedures to be followed in the flying of flags.

Canberra: House Valuations (Question No. 4131)

Mr Bryant:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. Does it take unduly long time to obtain valuations on Government houses in Canberra; if so, why.
  2. Are there any criteria used in establishing the sale value of Government houses other than cost of house plus cost of land.
  3. If so, what is the justification for these criteria.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. At present it takes an average processing time of eight weeks from the date of application by a tenant to obtain a valuation and prepare an offer of sale. This is not considered to be an unduly long time having regard to the necessary inspection, administrative and accounting procedures involved and the need for the available staff to continue also to provide other services to the public.
  2. Government houses are sold at current market value.
  3. It is considered proper that public assets in Canberra in the form of Government houses should not be sold at less than current market value. This principle parallels the position with private house sales and a tenant-purchaser, after five years, has the right to dispose of his house on the open market.

Psychiatric Hospitals (Question No. 4167)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Are long term patients in psychiatric hospitals entitled to receive (a) an age pension, (b) an invalid pension and (c) sickness benefits.
  2. Is their eligibility for pension and benefits affected because they are (a) voluntary or (b) committed patients.
Mr Wentworth:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. Under the provisions of the Social Services Act 1947-1971 a person is not entitled, while an inmate of a mental hospital, to receive age or invalid pension or sickness benefit. On discharge from a mental hospital a qualified person is entitled to receive up to 12 weeks pension or benefit related to his period of hospitalisation. Most mental institutions now provide separate open ward divisions for the treatment and training of patients participating in rehabilitation programmes designed to achieve their early discharge to ordinary living in the community. These rehabilitation divisions are not classified as a mental hospital for the purpose of the Social Services Act and qualified rehabiliatation patients are entitled to social service benefits.
  2. No.

Omega System (Question No. 4178)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

What are the comparative costs of an Omega transmitting system using an aerial

  1. mounted on a platform;
  2. erected on a complex of high masts; and
  3. slung across a valley.
Mr Nixon:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

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

Comparative costs can really be given only in relation to specific sites. It is not possible to make cost comparison merely in principle.

The cost of an installation depends to a significant degree on the earth system requirements, which in turn depend’ very much on the terrain and the natural conductivity of the soil at the site.

As a broad guide, overseas information suggests that a tower-supported aerial and associated earth system tends to be cheaper than valley-span systems.

The reference to an aerial mounted on a platform is not understood.

Omega Receivers (Question No. 4179)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Can he say which American, British, Japanese and European companies make Omega receivers.
  2. Which of the companies has associates in Australia.
  3. What is the cost of each model of Omega receiver made by the companies.
  4. How many receivers have been manufactured by each of the companies.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. Companies manufacturing Omega receivers include:

TracorInc., U.S.A.

Litton Industries, U.S.A.

I.T.T., U.S.A.,

Koden Electronics, Belgium

Sercel, France

SAIT Electronics, Belgium

Redifon Ltd, U.K.

Northrop Corporation, U.S.A.

Hastings-Raydist, U.S.A.

It is unlikely that this list is exhaustive.

  1. As far as our immediate knowledge of commercial arrangements is concerned it is believed that all these companies have in Australia, either an associated company or a company representing them.
  2. The receivers which have been made cover a wide range of applications, complexity and available options, hence a comprehensive statement of the current costs of all makes and models is not available. As has been publicly stated, typical cost for a simple marine receiver is (3,500. At the other extreme, the cost of an airborne receiver incorporating computer would be in the order of $50,000.
  3. Production quantities are not divulged by manufacturers.

Omega Receivers (Question No. 4180)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

Can he say which:

international shipping lines have installed Omega receivers on their ships and

which international airline companies have installed Omega receivers on their aircraft.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

Information is not available as to which particular shipping lines have installed Omega on their ships, although we do know that Cunard’s QE2 is equipped and some hundreds of cargo, fishing and survey craft, mainly United States-based, are using the equipment.

It must be remembered that so far only the North Atlantic region has reasonable Omega coverage resulting from the 4 experimental low-power transmitters. One cannot expect any significant proportion of potential commercial users to fit vessels and aircraft until the full system becomes operational on a global scale.

Omega System (Question No. 4181)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

What sites in Australia for an Omega navigation transmitting station have been inspected by United States survey teams.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

In the course of a preliminary study in 1968

UnitedStatesexperts assistedbyAustralian Departmental officers inspected 2 sites. One of these was on the Nattai River, New South Wales; the other on the Forth River, Tasmania. These are the only potential sites inspected by United States representatives, but they by no means limit the possibilities which will be examined before a final decision is reached.

Omega System (Question No. 4182)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

What are the estimated power requirements for:

an Omega transmitter and

a total Omega Complex.

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

Estimated electric power requirements are:

for one Omega transmitter approximately 415 KVA

for one complete Omega station approximately 800 KVA.

Motor Vehicle Advertisements (Question No. 4201)

Mr Cohen:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has he taken any action regarding motor vehicle advertisements that place undue emphasis on speed and power.
  2. If not, will he take ‘ action in the near future.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. The Australian Transport Advisory Council, which comprises Commonwealth and State Ministers with transport responsibilities, has for some years taken a very close interest in this matter.

Council took positive steps in 1968 when one of its committees, the then Australian Road Safety Council, approached national advertising organisations regarding the content of certain publicity material which detracted from safe driving practices. These advertising organisations responded most favourable and since that time the emphasis in motor vehicle advertising has been more towards highlighting safety, comfort and reliability features of cars than either their power or speed.

In addition, the major advertising organisations, in conjunction with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, publish a guide to advertisers. This is a measure directed towards ensuring that the publicity content of material used by the various media conforms to certain standards and avoids the use of advertisements likely to influence drivers adversely.

Air-bag Safety Device (Question No. 4202)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

Can he say what stage of development the airbag safety device has reached in the United States of America,

Mr Nixon:
CP

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

Current U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards specify passive restraint systems as one of three alternatives for occupant protection for passenger cars manufactured after 1st January 1972. From 15th August 1973, a passive restraint system becomes mandatory for new passenger cars, that is, the 1974 models.

The Air Bag is currently one of the most developed forms of passive restraint system and I understand that is is likely some 1973 model passenger cars in the United States may incorporate it.

Although prototypes have been produced and demonstrated, I understand the development of mass production versions for use as original equipment by vehicle manufacturers has not been completed.

Problems have been reported including noise hazard, injury to occupants from the bag, failure of the bag to provide protection unless occupants wearlap belts and failure to operate in situations other than a front end collision.

Of serious concern also is the question of achieving complete reliability of the device when manufactured in large numbers. For example, it is necessary to avoid inadvertent operation when not required and failure to operate after long periods of storage in the vehicle.

Seat Belts (Question No. 4208)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

When will the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory have compulsory seat belt legislation.

Mr Hunt:
CP

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

I have accepted the advice of the A.C.T. Advisory Council for legislation for the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the Australian Capital

Territory. It is hoped that the legislation will be introduced this year.

Legislation requiring the fitting of seat belts to the front seats of passenger cars and passenger car derivatives manufactured after 1st January 1970 was introduced in the Australian Capital Territory on 31st December 1969. This provision was extended on 2nd September 1971 to require these types of vehicles, manufactured after 1st January 1971, to have seat belts fitted for all seating positions.

As far as the Northern Territory is concerned Private Member’s Bills were recently introduced to the Territory Legislative Council to provide for (i) the compulsory fitting of seat belts to specified vehicles manufactured after 1st January 1972; and (ii) the compulsory wearing of seat belts in all vehicles where seat belts are fitted.

Official members supported the Bills which were passed by Council on 18th August 1971.

Road Safety (Question No. 3507)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Can he say whether consumers are enticed to buy cars by the use of psychologically tested means which appeal to biological drives in ways which are contrary to drives found conducive to road safety.
  2. If so, what action has been taken by the Commonwealth and State Governments to control or counter this type of advertising.
Mr Nixon:
CP

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

  1. There have been instances where advertisements featuring motor vehicles have emphasised the speed and power potential of vehicles as a means of influencing sales. Nevertheless, such advertising has always been deprecated by those people involved in road accident prevention.
  2. The Australian Transport Advisory Council, which comprises Commonwealth and State Ministers with transport responsibilities, has for some years taken a very close interest in this matter.

Council took positive steps in 1968 when one of its committees, the then Australian Road Safety Council, approached national advertising organisations regarding the content of certain publicity material which detracted from safe driving practices. These advertising organisations responded most favourably and since that time the emphasis in motor vehicle advertising has been more towards highlighting safety, comfort and reliability features of cars than either their power or speed.

There are no legislative measures to control or counter adverse advertising of the particular nature referred to. However, the major advertising organisations, in conjunction with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, publish a guide to advertisers. This is a measure directed towards ensuring that the publicity content of material used by the various media conforms to certain standards. The guide is more than helpful in avoiding the use of advertisements likely to influence drivers adversely.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 September 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710929_reps_27_hor74/>.