House of Representatives
9 November 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 3123

PETITIONS

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 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 Riverhydro-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 are 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.

Lake Pedder

Mr GORTON:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA

-I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 are 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.

Lake Pedder

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, 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 are 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.

Lake Pedder

Mr ENGLAND:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the follow ing 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 are 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.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

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

  1. That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.
  2. That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.
  3. That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.
  4. That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.
  5. That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

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

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr REID:
HOLT, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

  1. It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some nine million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies. The involvement of the Australian is evidenced’ by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries.
  2. As some twenty million refugees and displaced person are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that In tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and a further $50m over 3 years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

  1. It is obvious the people of Australia are vitally concerned about the welfare of some 9 million East Pakistan refugees that have crossed the border into India. Also they are equally concerned about the desperate plight of millions of displaced persons in East Pakistan, many of whom are worse off than the refugees, as they are not even receiving relief supplies, The involvement of the Australian is evidenced by their willingness to contribute substantial funds to voluntary agencies, to assist their work in these countries.
  2. As some twenty million refugees and displaced person are today facing acute problems of hunger and privation - nutrition and child family problems - ultimate famine and death on an unprecedented scale - the Commonwealth Government must plan to come to their assistance in a more sacrificial way.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that in tackling these great human problems in Bengal, by far the greatest this century, the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will request that a special meeting of Cabinet be called to provide $10m for relief purposes in India and East Pakistan, and further $50m over 3 years to help rehabilitate the refugees in East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Aid for Pakistani Refugees: Taxation

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

  1. That the immediate prospect in East Bengal is of mass starvation on a scale unprecedented in modern history.
  2. That only a quick settlement of the Pakistan-Bangla Desh conflict will make it possible to avert the death of many millions.
  3. That concerted action by the world community is an immediate imperative.

Your petitioners most humbly pray:

  1. That the Australian Government, in order to effect relief to some, grant at least temporary entry to academic and qualified persons among those from Bangla Desh.
  2. Thai donations over $2 be tax deductible when contributed towards the relief of refugees inside and outside East Pakistan.

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

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 petition of citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Sales Tax on all forms of contraceptive devices is 27i per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47i 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 most humbly pray that the Sales Tax on all forms of contraceptive devices be removed, so as to bring these items into lini’ with other necessities such as food, upon which there ls 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 and read.

Contraceptives

Mr ENGLAND:

– 1 present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the [louse 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 27i per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 47i per cent on some contraceptive devices.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr BERINSON:
PERTH, WESTERN 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 27i per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 471 per cent on some contraceptive devices.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Contraceptives

Mr GARRICK:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– I present the following petition:

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

That the Sales Tax on all forms of Contraceptive Devices is 274 per cent. (Sales Tax Exemptions and Classifications Act 1935-1967). Also that there is Customs Duty of up to 471 per cent on some Contraceptive Devices.

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

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

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

Petition received.

Rehabilitation of Refugees: Bangla Desh

Mr HAMER:

– I present the following petition:

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

We recognise the Aid already given to Pakistani refugees now in India by the Australian Government, but due to the magnitude of the disaster, we urge the Government to substantially increase and continue this aid.

We urge the Australian Government to use its influence with its friends and allies to initiate action which will lead West Pakistani authorities to withdraw its troops from East Bengal and negotiate with the provisional Government of Bangla Desh to bring about a speedy rehabilitation of the refugees in their own country.

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

Petition received.

Kangaroos

Mr FOX:

– I present the following petition:

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

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

There are insufficient wardens in any State of the Commonwealth to detect or apprehend those who break the inadequate laws which exist.

As a tourist attraction, the kangaroo is a permanent source of revenue to this country.

It is an indisputable fact that no species can withstand hunting on such a scale, when there is no provision being made for its future.

We, your petitioners, therefore humbly pray, that:

The export of kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government take the necessary steps to have all wildlife in Australia brought under its control.

Only a complete cessation of killing for commercial purposes can save surviving kangaroos.

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

Petition received.

Perth Airport

Mr BENNETT:

– 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 residents of the Stale of Western Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the present site of the Perth Airport is unsuitable because of:

the morning fogs.

its proximity to the Darling Ranges.

its lack of planning, prior to construction.

the loss to the local authority in rates and loss to the community in acreage of development area and assets.

the restriction placed on the development of surrounding shires due to existing flight paths and proposed flight paths; and

the adjacent areas to the airport are suffering loss of value due to their unsuitability for high density development.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that action be taken to remove Perth airport from its present site to the site planned by Professor Stephensons overall plan for the city of Perth, that is at Lake Gnangarra.

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

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr KEOGH:
BOWMAN, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

page 3127

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– 1 give notice that on the next day of sitting I will move:

That this House is of opinion that until such time as evidence of a request from the Cambodian Government to the Australian Government to provide instructors to train Cambodian troops in South Vietnam is tabled in this House, no Australian serviceman- be ordered to instruct Cambodian servicemen in South Vietnam.

page 3127

QUESTION

SECONDARY INDUSTRY

Mr BARNARD:

– Has the Treasurer noted the cut backs in steel production by Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd following what Sir Ian McLennan has described as a ‘considerable downturn’ in secondary industry activity in Australia? In the face of this evidence does the Treasurer still claim that demand is growing at a reasonable rate? Has the campaign to ‘talk-up’ the economy by the Prime Minister and himself been a complete failure? Does the Treasurer now agree that there has been a marked deterioration in key areas of demand? What further evidence does he need to show that the Government’s budgetary strategies were wrong and that there is an urgent need to stimulate economic activity?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I saw newspaper reports referring to a cut back by BHP. I made certain inquiries and I understand that a statement was made by the general manager of the Newcastle works, and that in the statement it was said that these steps had been taken as a consequence of a demand shortfall in both the domestic and export markets. I understand that BHP sees this as something that is periodic and, contrary to one report, it does not see ‘worse to come’. The company was experiencing bouyant conditions domestically, and looking ahead, hoped that export would sustain a slow down. Unfortunately, the export opportunities are not there. There is a gross world over-capacity in the steel industry, whereas a short time ago there was a shortage. For example pig iron, which about 18 months ago was priced at $84 a ton, is now selling at less than one-half of that amount. This periodic situation caused by over (capacity has affected other countries. I understand that there has been a cut down of about 20 per cent in the steel industry in Japan, and I have seen reports of trading losses made in the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

On the domestic side the slow down in orders is quite significant as part of the decision, and the sharp downturn in orders has, to some extent - a considerable extent, very likely - been caused by the cancellation of over ordering and double ordering in times of shortage in Australia, as there was in the past, when conditions were extremely buoyant. There has been a downturn in the requirements of the mining industry. So far as the general aspects of the question are concerned, I think that the honourable gentleman would like the situation to be worse than it is. I have said that there is every reason for confidence in our economy. I have also said that the Government will continue to pay close attention to the economy and stands ready, when the occasion requires it, to take appropriate action.

page 3127

QUESTION

NUCLEAR TESTS

Dr J F Cairns:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the appropriate Minister: Can he tell me whether any protest was made about the French nuclear tests in the Pacific and whether any protest has been made about the American nuclear test last weekend? If no protest has been made, why has a different course been adopted in the case of the French tests from that adopted in the case of the American test? Can he tell me also whether it is believed that the American test will reveal the location of oil in the greater part of the northern Pacific, including international waters? If this is so, will the information found by the test be made available internationally or only to American oil corporations?

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

– We did formally protest against the testing by the French in the Pacific. The honourable member for Lalor will recall that the French, having made a test, did not proceed with a later test which they had planned to undertake, giving as the reason that they had secured sufficient information from the earlier test. The American test was an underground one and is not covered by the conventions to which we are a party. We have been a party to agreements to ban open air testing with the risk of fallout, but these agreements do not cover underground testing which has now been engaged in by the Americans. As to the last part of the question, I have no information to give the honourable member about the possibility of discovering oil.

page 3128

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND BUTTER

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Did the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry notice a report some time ago from New Zealand by a Mr Hawke, stating that New Zealand butter should be allowed freely into Australia? In view of the importance of tie dairying industry and in view of Mr Hawke’s proven capacity to influence Opposition thinking, will the Minister treat the matter seriously enough as to give assurances to the Australian industry - the second most efficient in the world - that this course of action will not occur under this Government?

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

– There has been a longstanding understanding with the New Zealand Government that butter will not be allowed into this country. We have a stabilisation scheme in Australia which, if it is to be effective, must not allow imports to come in and subvert its operations. We are an efficient producer of dairy products. Figures that have been produced in the past by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and other International organisations put us the second or third most efficient producer of dairy products in the world. I think it does great harm to the morale of the Australian dairying industry for a person like Mr Hawke to go overseas and glibly say that dairy products will be allowed into this country. It exhibits 2 things: Firstly, a lack of understanding of bow our marketing authorities work and secondly, a complete lack of sympathy for our rural producers.

page 3128

QUESTION

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Acting Prime Minister received a letter from the Premier of New South Wales requesting a special Premiers Conference to discuss unemployment and inflation, as sought by a unanimous vote of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly last Thursday? If so, has the Government acceded to the Premier’s request? If not, will the Government give earnest and urgent consideration to it, since it is impossible to implement any prices and incomes policy in Australia without the co-operation of the

States, whose fiscal policies can have a marked effect on prices, as the latest cost of living index has again shown, and whose constitutional powers to supervise prices are much greater than the Commonwealth’s?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I have seen a report ot a statement by the Premier of New South Wales that he is going-

Mr James:

– Did you get a letter?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I read a report that he was going to write a letter to the Prime Minister asking for a Premiers Conference. I have not received the letter as yet. It may be with the Department, but I have not received it. In reading the report I note that the Premier was going to write to the Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, and that the matter no doubt would be considered by the Government on his return. When the letter is received in my Department it will be examined, but I would expect that no Government decision will be made until the Prime Minister returns.

page 3128

QUESTION

UNITED STATES MEAT QUOTAS

Mr LLOYD:
MURRAY, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry. Is it a fact that the United States has awarded extra meat quotas amounting to 44 million lb because of quota short falls from other exporting countries, principally Australia? Has New Zealand been awarded almost 21 million lb of this extra quota? Can the Minister explain why New Zealand has been able to fill its meat quota to the United States and now fill an extra quota when Australia could not, particularly as New Zealand faces similar dock strike problems to those facing Australia, and which affeat shipping to the United States?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The facts as stated by the honourable member are correct. I mentioned in this House earlier that it looked as if we would not be able to fill our quota to the United States. Present indications are that we will run about 15,000 tons short of what our quota would be. It is true that New Zealand has been awarded some 21 million lb extra.. How the New Zealanders have been able to fill it I cannot say offhand, but I will find out and let the honourable member know.

page 3129

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS COMMISSION

Mr BROWN:
DIAMOND VALLEY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Science. As the Government has established an Australian Universities Commission and proposes to establish a commission on advanced education, is there not a case for the establishment of an Australian schools commission? Has the Minister considered the suggestion that a schools commission should be established, and if so, what is the result of the Government’s deliberations on that matter?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I have examined this matter closely. I do not really think there is an analogy between the Australian Universities Commission and what might be called an Australian schools commission. The Australian Universities Commission deals with 16 to 18 autonomous institutions, each of which might have somewhere between 5,000 and 17,000 students, after the years of establishment. That, of course, is one task, a task of a certain definable order* but if we look at an Australian schools commission we would have a situation in which one Commonwealth commission would be looking at 10,000 separate independent and government schools around Australia, and I do not believe that this would be a practical basis of operation.

The Leader of the Opposition has said that under the Australian Labor Party proposal the commission would regularly examine the requirements of individual schools and this quite clearly would be usurping the judgments of the States in relation to this matter. To give one sideline to this, if a schools commission were to operate on the same basis as the Universities Commission, it is likely that the administrative costs alone of the schools commission would be about S7m if it was to make any kind of examination of the requirements of individual schools. I think it is worth noting that the Leader of the Opposition has on some occasions suggested that the proposals of the South Australian Government would largely be adopted by a Labor Commonwealth Government for the establishment of a schools commission. The South Australian Government has established a body which claims that it distributes some funds - a very small amount - on the basis of need of schools.

But in the South Australian context it is plain that the primary criterion for distributing funds is a pupil-teacher ratio. If this were adopted as a criterion for distribution of funds for schools - certainly by implication the Leader of the Opposition has suggested this and his colleague Mr Dunstan has adopted it - it would act as a disincentive because presumably the smaller the pupil-teacher ratio the less likelihood there would be of any government support and there would be an incentive to maintain low pupil-teacher ratios to maintain maximum government support. That is not the sort of criterion that makes sense. If we look at other criteria in this matter they generally seem to fall to the wayside. There is not yet a credible policy in support of what could be called an Australian schools commission. It is not by chance that most governments in Australia, the National Council of Independent Schools which has incorporated on it, I think, nearly all the independent schools of Australia including the Catholic Education Office of each State, the New South Wales Catholic Schools Committee, the Federal Catholic Schools Committee-

Mr Uren:

– I rise to order. Firstly, the question was with notice; it was not a question without notice. Secondly, this is an abuse of question time and is not in keeping with your ruling, Mr Speaker. The Minister’s reply is too lengthy. He should seek leave after question time to make a statement so that the matter may be debated.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair cannot confirm or deny that the question was with notice. I have already made a request to Ministers in relation to the time taken to reply to questions. Now that the Minister is going in to the area of independent schools I think he is out of order. I suggest that the Minister comply with my request in relation to the length of answers during question time.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– I will certainly do so. If I may conclude very briefly, all those bodies have supported the straight per capita payment of government funds to independent schools. This, of course, cuts right across the proposal for an Australian schools commission, as advocated by the Australian Labor Party.

page 3130

QUESTION

PRAWNING INDUSTRY

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Acting Minister for Primary Industry. Why did the Department of Primary Industry refuse 2 applicants from Cairns permission to trawl for prawns along the east coast of Queensland? The reason given for the refusal was that the policy was to restrict prawn trawlers entering the Gulf of Carpentaria and that if the applications had been granted in respect of the east coast the Department could not prevent the trawlers from entering the Gulf. Has there been a change in policy? According to a report the Australian-Japanese company, the Gollin Kyokuyo Fishing Co., will build 6 more trawlers, 2 of which have already been launched and will be operating -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now giving information. I suggest that he complete his question.

Mr FULTON:

– If there has been a change in policy why were the 2 applicants I have referred to not given first chance?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– The first part of the honourable member’s question relates to licensing of prawn trawlers. There has been no change in the policy announced by the Minister for Primary Industry in 1968 when the decision was taken that the number of trawlers to operate in the Gulf would be a matter for the fishing industry to decide for itself and that the Government would not legislate on this matter. Whilst from the point of view of conservation of the prawning industry the matter is kept under review, there has been no change in that policy. The second part of the honourable member’s question relates directly to the Australian Government’s policy on the use of foreign fishing vessels <n the prawning industry. The Gollin Kyokuyo Fishing Company entered into an agreement with the Government to replace within 5 years, with Australian built vessels, the vessels the company brought to Australia when the agreement was signed. The 2 vessels about which the honourable member has spoken are being built to replace 2 imported vessels.

Mr Fulton:

– Where?

Mr NIXON:

– In Cairns. It is a fact that there were 2 requests from Cairns to import vessels for use in prawning operations but because this was not compatible with the policy that had been announced those requests were rejected. The rejection, of course had the support of the Australian fishing industry.

page 3130

QUESTION

STEEL

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Acting Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and industry. I want to explore a little further the subject of an earlier question which was asked of the Treasurer. Does the Acting Prime Minister regard as correct the implication, or suggestion, reported as having been made by the Chairman of Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd that the downturn in demand for steel is representative of secondary industry generally? What are his views on this matter?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

Mr Speaker, this is a pretty general question asking for a pretty general answer. There does appear to be some slight easing of industrial activity in some sectors of the economy, but 1 would not go as far as to say that it is general. There are some areas where business is still very brisk; certainly in the retailing section of the community there is a high activity. As the Treasurer mentioned, the Government is watching the” situation closely, and if it appears that the economy is getting out of balance and that the Government actions are tending to affect or over-affect the economy adversely, the Government will take appropriate action.

page 3130

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA

Mr GARRICK:

– I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. What action has the Government taken following the reported arrest and imprisonment of an Australian citizen, without charges being laid, in South Africa?

Mr Anthony:

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer this question.

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

-I take it that this question refers to an Australian citizen, Martin Cohen, who, with 3 other citizens, one a West German and the other 2 British, has been detained under the Terrorism Act of 1967 of South Africa. They are photographers. The Government has, through the Australian Embassy in Pretoria, approached the South African

Foreign Affairs Minister with a view to arranging a visit to Mr Cohen. These arrangements are progressing. We have been assured that he is in good health. We have passed this information on to his parents in Sydney with whom we have been keeping in close touch.

page 3131

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr BENNETT:

– My question to the Acting Prime Minister is supplementary to a question I asked last Wednesday. Has he yet found, or had drawn to his attention, a telegram from the Building Workers Union group which was sent on 29th October 1971 requesting him to take action on unemployment in Western Australia?

Mr Reynolds:

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I believe that the Minister for Education and Science is now writing out-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member knows full well that he must not interrupt another honourable member who is on his feet and speaking. I suggest to the honourable member for Swan that he commence again.

Mr BENNETT:

– My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and is supplementary to my question of Wednesday last. Has he yet found or had drawn to his attention the telegram from the Building Workers Union group in Western Australia sent on 29th October 1971 requesting him to take action on unemployment in Western Australia, particularly in the building industry, and requesting that the Minister for Labour and National Service be sent to Western Australia to view the situation? What action has he taken to date, and what further action does he plan to take in the matter? Further, will he inform the House why a special grant asked for previously by the same group to bolster the building industry was refused?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– A telegram was sent on the 29th and it did request that I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service to go to Western Australia to investigate the unemployment and the building industry there. This telegram was subsequent to 2 earlier telegrams that had been sent, one on 4th October and one on 13th

October, referring to unemployment in the building industry and asking that a $30m grant be made to Western Australia to assist it in this respect. A reply was sent back to the union on 26th October to the effect that there was no evidence of lack of finance in the State for building and that the present situation resulted fundamentally from an extremely high level of construction in recent years leading to a situation of temporary over building. We are conscious that there is a degree of unemployment there. We believe it is a temporary situation. We are watching the situation. 1 am conferring with my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, and if action needs to be taken at the Commonwealth level we will do so.

page 3131

QUESTION

FERTILISER

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. I refer to my previous remarks in this place concerning the manufacture of bio-super from rock phosphate in the vicinity of Batchelor in the Northern Territory. Owing to the importance of superphosphate to this part of the Territory and also of such an industry to the north. I ask: Will the Minister have discussions with the Ministerincharge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation with a view to directing the excellent research work done by his Department towards using this valuable resource as the basis for setting up a works in the area for the manufacture of bio-super?

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

– I will be pleased to have discussions on this important matter with my colleague.

page 3131

QUESTION

LADY GOWRIE CHILD CENTRE

Mr WHITLAM:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education and Science. My question is without notice. Is it a fact that the grant from his Department upon which Melbourne’s Lady Gowrie Child Centre is chiefly dependent has not been increased over the last two years while kindergarten teachers’ salaries have risen in Victoria over the same period on 7 occasions? ls the honourable gentleman aware that staff at the Centre is now to be reduced by one-third? Is the Lady Gowrie Child Centre a model of the sort of kinder-Gorton which the right honourable member for Higgins said in his 1970 Senate election opening speech would be established oy the Government as a matter of ‘very high priority’? Is it the policy of the McMahon Government not only to shelve the new centres planned and promised by the right honourable member for Higgins but also to withhold from existing centres the increased grants without which even present levels of activity cannot be maintained?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Four or five weeks ago I saw a deputation in connection with the Lady Gowrie Centres and as a result I am having some discussions with my colleague, the Treasurer, concerning the grants to the colleges. I am not aware of some of the information that the honourable member conveyed in his question. 1 had thought that in considering any future arrangements or adjustments that may or may not bs required for the centres - there is not just one centre; there are, I think, six of them - the centre should await the outcome of the review that is presently taking place. I do not know whether the honourable gentleman is aware that the Lady Gowrie Centres have been established in Australia for a considerable period of time-

Mr Whitlam:

– Since 1939.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Well, there were some aspects of the honourable member’s question which made me think that he might believe they were newly established institutions.

page 3132

QUESTION

PORNOGRAPHIC LITERATURE

Mr JESS:
LA TROBE, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware of, and have any approaches been made to him regarding, the excessive amount of pornographic literature that appears to be coming into Australia and is flooding many of the book shops in our capital cities? Many of the covers of these pornographic books would rate top billing in Port Said. Can the Minister tell me whether these books are being imported or whether they are being printed and bound in Australia and, if the latter is the case, whether they are eligible for the book bounty? If so, will he look at the matter more closely?

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 have no desire whatsoever to do the last thing that the honourable member has suggested.

Mr Foster:

– Oh, come off it.

Mr CHIPP:

– However, I will gladly delegate that function to the honourable member for La Trobe if he would so wish, or even to the honourable member for Sturt, although in his case I think it would be far too late to do any good. I am not aware of any flood of pornographic literature that is coming into the country. There have been some complaints about certain types of material with lurid covers being exhibited in book stalls, particularly in Melbourne. If honourable members will forgive the cliche, sometimes you can never judge a book entirely by its cover in this context. However, the general situation is that the Victorian police have acted in accordance with the Victorian law in this matter to restrict the sale of these kinds of books, and I understand that certain prosecutions are being so considered by the Chief Secretary’s Department in Victoria. To my knowledge, no bookstalls referred to by the honourable gentleman are displaying goods which are in fact prohibited imports or which have not been approved by the Department of Customs and Excise. But to allay his mind I can assure him that my Department, in conjunction with the State police, constantly keeps a check on this sort of thing.

page 3132

QUESTION

HAWKER SIDDELEY ORGANISATION

Mr BIRRELL:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Supply aware that the Engineering Division of Hawker Siddeley Electronics Engineering of Salisbury, South Australia will be completely transferred to Brookvale, New South Wales, by 1st March 1972 and that as a direct result of this, retrenchments of highly skilled tradesmen have already commenced and are expected to continue? Is it a fact that there are vacant positions at various levels within the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury which the highly skilled retrenched personnel from Hawker Siddeley are competent to fill? If so, will the Minister take immediate action to fill the vacant WRE positions from the skilled personnel retrenched by Hawker Siddeley?

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

– I will look into this matter and ascertain the present position and let the honourable gentleman know.

page 3133

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Acting Prime Minister been drawn to the fact that marked increases in wool prices have occurred in (hose types dropped by the Government support scheme? The increases range from 20 per cent to 100 per cent. I ask: Is it not reasonable that the marked increases would follow in better types of wool if the Wool Commission ceased to be an aggressive competitor? Finally I ask: Is is not time that the Wool Commission was wound up?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– I noted a report in a newspaper today that there was supposed to be some substantial increase in the price of some types of wool. Whether this is a fact I do not know. But I do not appreciate derogatory remarks being made about the Australian Wool Commission which I feel is doing a very important job in trying to stabilise the price of wool and giving added competition within the market.

The Commission is going through a difficult period in having to buy up more wool than one would wish. But we hope that there will be an upturn in the market so that there will not be the requirement for the Commission to buy so much to maintain the present price levels. I noted a comment by the Minister for Primary Industry which was made when he was going through Japan on his way to Rome that he had bad very favourable discussions with the Japanese Wool Spinners Association and that reports given to him were that it could see increasing activity in the purchase of wool. Maybe the Commission’s present difficulties will be shortlived.

page 3133

QUESTION

USE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE BASES BY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr BERINSON:

– I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister related to the offer of Cockburn Sound naval base facilities, among others, to the United States of America. Would the use of Cockburn Sound by the United States Navy necessarily involve nuclear armed units of that Navy with a resultant increase in the attractiveness of the area as a target for nuclear attack itself? What consideration has been given in this respect to the loca tion of this particular base at the centre of an intensively developed residential and industrial section of the Perth metropolitan area?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The Prime Minister announced in Washington that favourable consideration would be given to allowing the Americans to use Cockburn Sound as a naval base and Learmonth Royal Australian Air Force establishment as an air base. This is consistent with our ANZUS understanding and the Government is very pleased to co-operate and negotiate with the Americans to have defence bases in Australia. There is nothing novel about nuclear warships coming to Australia. We have bad visits from nuclear warships at various times. These visits took place after discussions and an assurance that there was no risk involved in these nuclear ships being in this country.

But why the honourable member wants to create doubt about . Americans having bases in Australia I suppose is consistent with the attitude of the Australian Labor Party whenever we discuss any defence installation in this country. The Labor Party always takes a very grudging attitude to these bases and tries to write conditions into the establishment of them which makes it virtually inoperable for the Americans to be here.

page 3133

QUESTION

JAPAN: RELATIONS WITH TAIWAN

Mr MacKELLAR:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister seen a report detailing some gratuitous advice by the Leader of the Opposition to the Japanese Government with respect to that country’s diplomatic relations with Taiwan? Has the Minister received any communications from the Japanese Embassy in Australia acclaiming the Leader of the Opposition’s diplomatic offensive on behalf of the People’s Republic of China?

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

-I did read some Press reports - whether they were accurate or not I have no means of checking - which suggested that the Leader of the Opposition was giving some gratuitous advice to that Government. But I have not had any reaction from the Japanese Government on this occasion.

page 3134

QUESTION

PARAPLEGIC PATIENTS

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Services. Is the Minister aware that no facilities exist for paraplegic patients who are unable to look after themselves and who do not have sufficient incomes to pay private hospital fees when they are discharged from Commonwealth repatriation centres or from hospitals in which they have been under care? What is the level of Commonwealth attendants’ fees paid to the patients? Arc any proposals in hand to accommodate paraplegic patients between 16 and 65 years of age needing constant nursing or attendants’ care? At present there appear to be no facilities for them whatsoever.

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

– The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service is available for such patients but I am by no means certain that it is capable of meeting all their needs. I gather that the honourable member’s question relates to those who are unable to benefit from the facilities of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. There is some gap in our social services and this is one of the things which is at present under consideration.

page 3134

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service: Does the Government have to stand by whilst an inter-union row holds up ships in Melbourne? How many ships are lying stagnant at the wharves and in the bay simply because of this union strike? How will the dispute affect supplies to Tasmania? Has the Opposition been asked to support the Government in stamping out these futile and costly hold-ups?

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

– As the honourable gentleman has suggested, the present situation in the shipping industry in relation to the inter-union row is one of considerable cost to the Australian community and may well be of greater cost to the Tasmanian community if the shipping dispute continues. All I can say at this stage is that I am following the situation very closely. I hope that sanity will prevail. I suggest to the honourable gentleman and to the House that the area of inter-union disputes is surely one major area of concern to the Australian Council of Trade Unions and one to which the ACTU should direct its best offices in seeking a solution to these problems, which certainly affect the community at large from the viewpoint of the costs imposed. These problems are basically for the unions and, therefore, should properly be resolved by them.

page 3134

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts whether the Council of Ministers established by the Prime Minister in May to inquire into Aboriginal land rights reached a decision on this matter some weeks ago. Has any recommendation of the Council been considered by Cabinet and. if so, with what result? When the Minister told the Leader of the Opposition on 27th October that the Council was still examining the question of land rights, did he mean that its original recommendation had been referred for reconsideration? If so, on whose authority was this action taken?

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

– I have nothing to add to my answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question last week. When I have some more information it will be conveyed to the Prime Minister who will announce it to the House.

page 3134

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I had received a letter from the Premier of New South Wales. A letter has been received in my office and in that letter the Premier has said that he would like a decision as soon as possible after the Prime Minister returns from overseas.

page 3134

QUESTION

PRAWNING INDUSTRY

Mr NIXON:
CP

– During question time I was answering a question asked by the honourable member for Leichhardt when he interjected to ask where the ships were being built. I replied that it was in Cairns. In fact the ships are being built at Fremantle.

page 3134

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

- Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. On 1st November last in the Sunraysia ‘Daily’ - with apologies to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) - the ‘Courier’ of Ballarat, Victoria, the ‘Examiner* of Launceston, Tasmania and the ‘Advertiser’ of

Adelaide, South Australia indicating what an independent Press we have in Australia, there appeared an article about a meeting called by a man named Mr Buff. I think the meeting was in respect of the matter of a second resurrection. The article contains this statement:

Two of the MPs whose endorsement the committee will oppose are the Environment, Aborigines and Arts Minister, Mr Howson, and former Navy Minister, Mr Jess.

Mr Jess has never been so honoured. 1 do not mind being blamed for what I have done, but not for what I have not done.

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

Mr Speaker, the Minister for Education and Science (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I believe, misrepresented me. He referred to something I had said about a needs committee under which the South Australian Government makes grants to non-government schools.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr WHITLAM:

– 1 seek to do that. I have checked on the only statement I nave ever made on this subject, which was on 1st August last. I said that it had been suggested that the Australian Labor Party’s needs concept for assistance to schools would not be acceptable to Catholic education authorities or to the laity. I pointed out that in March of this year a committee reported to the South Australian Minister of Education on the distribution of additional aid for primary schools. There were 6 members of the committee, 3 of whom represented the Catholic education system: The Director of Catholic Education, the principal of a Dominican girls college and the headmaster of a Brothers school. The report of the committee was unanimous. It divided schools into 4 categories, ranging from those in maximum need to those in minimum need. The committee members recommended that schools in the minimum need category should not receive any additional aid in the current year. So that answers, I believe, the matter upon which the Minister appeared to misrepresent me.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– 1 claim to have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Minister wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Yes. The Leader of the Opposition, in making bis persona] explanation, I think sought to suggest that I had been attacking his policy on grounds other than those on which I in fact did attack it. I pointed out that the principal needs test used by this committee in South Australia is basically a pupilteacher ratio needs test and that that just does not make sense, and I gave the reasons for that. I also went on to point out that the National Council for Independent Schools, the Federal Catholic Schools Committee, the New South Wales Catholic Schools Committee and the Australian Parents Council all opposed the honourable gentleman’s policy.

Mr Whitlam:

Mr Speaker, I confined my remarks, properly, to what the Minister had said about me. I suggest that it is out of order for him to repeat something which had no bearing on anything that even he alleged I had said.

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– I claim to have been misrepresented in 2 respects by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation?

Mr BERINSON:

– Yes. Firstly, the Acting Prime Minister suggested that I was linked with some assumed move to make the Australian-United States alliance inoperable. I am not. That was not the purpose of my question, nor is it, as I understand it, the policy of my Party. My question was related to the specific problems concerning the particular base at Cockburn Sound. I was stressing the particular difficulties of the particular location of this particular base, and that was all. The second respect in which 1 was misrepresented arose from the fact that the Acting Prime Minister sought to equate my question with a complaint against mere visits by nuclear armed units of other navies. In this respect all that one needs to say is that the difference between visits and the use of a naval base is so obvious as to hardly need elaboration.

page 3135

SUPPLY BILL (No. 3) 1971-72

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for proposed expenditure announced.

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

Second Reading

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP

– I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to obtain further supply under the appropriations for salaries and payments in the nature of salary for all departments, for war and service pensions and allowances and for certain other services amounting to $138,215,000 and will enable these services to be met until the moneys provided in the Appropriation Bill No. 1) 1971-72 are available. The sums sought in this Bill do not in any way reflect an increase in the amounts included for these purposes in the 1971-72 Budget.

Additional supply is needed for 3 reasons. Since the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1971-72 was introduced on 27th April some 19 salary determinations and awards have come into operation. Although the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72 provides for most of these, it will be clear that the provision made in the Supply Act (No. 1) for salaries and payments in the nature of salary is inadequate. Nor will it be possible to fund all of the deficiency from the advance to the Treasurer. Secondly, by Acts Nos 68 and 69 of 1971, Parliament increased war and

Service pensions and allowances by varying rates.

No provision was made for these increases in the Supply Act (No. 1), nor could the requirement reasonably have been forecast in April last. An additional $ 19.5m is needed to enable these pensions and benefits to be met up to and including pension payday, 9th December 1971. Thirdly, it is now necessary to extend the supply period beyond 30th November. For a number of years it has been the practice of the Parliament to grant the Government supply for a period of 5 months, that is, to 30th November. To enable the Parliamentary timetable for the passage of the Appropriation Bills conveniently to be met it is now desired to provide additional supply for the purposes set out in the schedule to this Bill to meet anticipated payments to 17th December. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– The Opposition accepts the technical necessity for this measure which arises to some extent from the longer time that has so far been given to the discussion of the Estimates this year. We support that, too. In a sense the Bill may point to the need to revise the procedure in this chamber in the future. I commend to the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) the practice that is followed in the British House of Commons where the Estimates actually come in before the Budget. This allows a longer time for the consideration of the Estimates, separate from the Budget debate, in which principle, economic strategy and fiscal matters are discussed. I suggest that in the future he might look at this with a view to changing the procedures here. After all, to some extent, the fact that we have done things in a certain way for years is no reason why we should continue to do them that way.

I suppose the other alternative would be to vote Supply for 6 months instead of five. That also would require careful consideration. The Opposition appreciates that until the Estimates are passed by both Houses - by the Senate as well as ourselves - the Government will be in some difficulty as from 1st December. It seems to us that the remedy for this is all that the Bill encompasses. For that reason we support the speedy passage of the Bill, but I ask that in future the procedure be reconsidered.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– This measure raises an important point, as my colleague the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) mentioned, about the procedures of Parliament in the handling of finance. According to the Schedule, this Bill involves an amount of $138,215,000 which the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) told us is simply to keep the place going until the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1971-72 is passed. While I am prepared to concede that these machinery matters occur year after year, I ask: Is it not time that we started to look at these matters before the money is appropriated so that the Parliament can approve the Estimates before the event? I am not in sympathy with the idea that we should not debate these matters. We have not been here longer than is necessary since the last Federal election - just over 130 sitting days. After all, the House was able to take half an hour off a week or so ago so that people could listen to a horse race. The system of priorities, the way we run the

Parliament and the way we handle the finances of the nation are a complete abrogation of the responsibility of the Parliament towards national finances. Apparently our only protection will continue to be the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Snedden) read a third time.

page 3137

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1971-72

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 4 November (vide page 3107).

Second Schedule.

Defence Services

Total proposed expenditure. $1,155,476,000 (including Department of Supply, Antarctic Division),

Department of Defence

Proposed expenditure, $25,048,000.

Department of the Navy

Proposed expenditure, $261,081,000.

Department of the Army

Proposed expenditure, $465,081,000.

Department of Air

Proposed expenditure, $287,420,000.

Department of Supply

Proposed expenditure, $112,305,000 (including Antarctic Division).

General Services

Proposed expenditure, $4,541,000.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– There are many aspects of defence policy that warrant consideration in this debate. Because of the extremely restricted time span I intend to concentrate on one part of the Government’s procurement programme, that is the DDL light destroyer programme. The 1971 Defence Report describes the DDL as a light, generalpurpose destroyer of about 4,000 tons and powered by gas turbines. The initial time scale for the DDL was from 1969 to 1976. This encompassed a preliminary design period of 12 months starting late in 1969, followed by a detailed design stage beginning at the end of 1970 and finishing at the end of this year.

Construction of the first destroyer would begin in 1972 and it be launched in 1976. The other 4 destroyers in this initial programme of five would join the fleet during the following 2 years. This time schedule has slipped very badly. The preliminary design study did not reach the Navy until September this year, almost a year behind schedule. The detailed design study which was to begin at the end of 1970 has not started, and it is unlikely to start until well into 1972. This will put the entire programme at least 20 months behind schedule.

So far $lm has been spent on the preliminary design phase. The Budget for 1971- 72 allocates $1.5m for spending on the detailed design stage. However, this money will not be spent until Cabinet approval is given for the detailed design stage, so at the moment the DDL project is suspended in a state of limbo. Little real work on the project can be expected before the next budget, even if the Government decides to go ahead with the DDL. The delays in the programme have been accompanied . by a quite remarkable increase in cost, undoubtedly as a result of the transformation of the Navy’s concept of the destroyer.

In the initial programme the destroyer was conceived as a relatively cheap and modest vessel designed to fulfil one specialised role with significant back-up capacity in other roles. One destroyer would be designed to concentrate on an antisubmarine role, another on anti-ship, another on anti-aircraft, and so on. Each would have the ability to perform one major task with secondary capability in other areas of naval warfare. According to this rationale the destroyer had to be designed and built in Australia, because European designs were too small and United States and Canadian designs too big. As stated in the Navy News’ of September 1969, the allpurpose class of ship was too big, too expensive and needed a bigger crew. This meant a light destroyer designed for Australia’s requirements was needed.

At a Press briefing in March last year before a defence statement made by the then Minister for Defence. Mr Fraser, a naval spokesman described the programme in the following terms:

The general plan ls to build a batch of ships armed for general escort and interdiction duties followed by specialised ships for anti-submarine or anti-air duties.

Having made it clear that it did not want a sophisticated and expensive general purpose ship, the Government went ahead and blue-printed a sophisticated and expensive general purpose ship. The revision in plans and the higher cost were acknowledged by the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) on 1st October. When referring to the project, he said:

We have to face the fact that these and greater costs are inescapable if we are to have ships of this size and sophistication.

The revision in the role of the DDL from a fairly simple vessel to a large, powerful and expensive destroyer performing a number of roles has been reflected in a spectacular cost escalation. The first estimate when the project was announced in September 1969 was under $20m a ship. When the preliminary design study was given to the Minister in September this year, he said the estimated cost was between $40m and $44m. According to evidence given to a Senate estimates committee last week by Mr Boreham of the Department of the Navy, the present estimate is between $40m and $50m. Even higher estimates ranging up to $85m a ship have appeared in Press reports.

It has been claimed that these figures are inflated by inclusion of the costs of improving dockyard and construction facilities which would be needed in any case to keep pace with Navy servicing requirements. But it is just as correct to say that unit costs of ships have a way of rising rapidly during construction. An example is the DDG guided missile destroyer procurement where the HMAS ‘Brisbane’, which was completed 30 months after the HMAS Perth’, cost SI Om more. Even on the most conservative estimate of costs, it is difficult to see a programme of 12 light destroyers costing much less than a billion dollars. In this way a modest project which could have provided a versatile fleet of 12 destroyers at an acceptable cost has escalated into the most ambitious and costly procurement programme ever undertaken by an Australian armed service in peace time.

The scope of the projected DDL procurement makes the Fill look like a curtain raiser. The dramatic change in concept and cost is reminiscent of United States programmes such as the MBT 70 tank and the Cheyenne attack aircraft where the cost increases were so staggering that Congress vetoed them. The DDL programme is a prime example of the upgrading of a comparatively modest item of defence equipment by adding more requirements to cope with more contingencies. This is happening at a time when other navies are moving to simpler and smaller vessels with the emphasis on speed and missile armaments. By cramming so many roles into the one vessel and increasing its size the Government is also increasing its vulnerability.

There is increasing evidence that larger warships are outmoded and by contemporary standards the destroyer is one of the larger warships. With advances in electronics, automated weapons systems, lightweight rapid fire guns and self sufficient surface to surface missiles, a greater number of more powerful weapons can be installed on hulls of smaller displacement and serviced by smaller crews. It is not a sign of reduced naval strength but an indication of the advances in technology which astute navies can use to revolutionise maritime warfare. The trend evident in naval exhibitions and procurement by other navies is towards faster and smaller vessels of the light corvette and fast patrol boat types. With the rapid advances in armaments these are powerful warships, even in their smallest form. A destroyer of several thousand tons can be put at very grave risk by a missile boat or fast patrol boat of 200 tons. Along with these advantages this sort of vessel is still cheap enough to be provided in the numbers needed to build any creditable naval force.

The DDL programme goes completely against this trend and for this reason and what is certain to be its high cost, it does not seem to me to be the proper solution for the problems our Navy will face in the next few decades. It is far too costly to be provided in adequate numbers unless other parts of the defence budget are drastically revised. Even if the project is approved and goes forward, these destroyers would not join the fleet until the early 1980s. By this time the HMAS ‘Melbourne’ would have reached the end of its service life and there would be a requirement for air cover. In addition Admiral Crabb has pointed to the need for another DDG destroyer and another Oberon crass submarine if the vessels now in service are to be used with the utmost effectiveness. The Admiral has also stressed that Australia needs many more patrol boats. He might have gone further and pointed out that the fast patrol boats which other countries in the region such as Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia have or are acquiring are superior in speed and armaments to those in commission in the Australian Navy.

In summary, if the DDL project proceeds we can forecast a situation in the early 1980s where Australia lacks fleet air arm capability. There will also be serious deficiencies in other areas of naval capability. Against the evidence of present naval trends all our resources for deployment will have been thrown into the one enormously expensive project. The argument in favour of the FI 1 1 was that if we wanted a sophisticated weapons system of this sort we had to buy it off the shelf in the United States. It would not do to design and build a more modest aircraft in Australia, or alternatively to build a cheaper aircraft under licence or coproduction arrangements in Australia.

Now the Government is moving to do just the opposite; it wants to design and build an immensely complex and costly weapons system in Australia for the Navy. Yet the Government seems completely unaware of this blatant contradiction in its procurement logic. Of course there should be provision for local production and local design work, just as there should have been these provisions in planning for the Canberra bomber replacement. But it would be as much folly to try to do the DDL project solo as it would have been to design and build the Fill from scratch in Australia.

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

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– Defence of the community against external threats is probably the oldest function of govern ment, and it is still the most vital. It is true that we do not face any immediate threat. This has been the result of wise government policy in the past and if we continue to follow firm and wise policies we will continue to keep any threat away from our shores. If members of the Opposition ever had their way 1 am sure we would soon have a threat on our doorstep. The statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) that Australia’s strategic boundaries were her natural frontiers must rank very high in the annals of strategic folly, although it would probably have had the sincere support of the late King Ethelred the Unready.

A prominent member of the front bench of the Australian Labor Party recommends our withdrawal from all military alliances. Such a retreat into isolationism would not only endanger the future of this country, but would also be a supreme act of international selfishness. I suppose when our friendly neighbours appealed to us for support against external aggression he would send them his best wishes, or perhaps repeat the remark of Neville Chamberlain after the sell-out of Czechoslovakia at Munich, when he referred to ‘a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing’. The great problem of defence planning is the time scale. Equipment that we are considering now will not be in service much before the end of this decade, and will remain in service until the year 2,000. We must think a long way ahead in our defence planning, not concentrate on the past, as is the habit of honourable members opposite.

One great new area nf concern is the Indian Ocean - a strategic vacuum now that Britain has withdrawn almost all her forces from east of Suez. There is much speculation as to the purpose of the Russian move into the Indian Ocean. Russian naval policy since the Second World War has been marked by vast expenditure and expansion, and sudden reversals of policy. The last major change, the third since the Second World War, occurred in the early 1960s. The Russians had greatly underestimated the potential of polaris-type nuclear submarines, and in the 1950s had devoted an enormous amount of energy to building a largely useless Navy. Their present policy comprises 3 elements: Firstly, the build-up of a large polaris-type nuclear submarine force - this they have achieved; secondly, the provision of destroyers and submarines with long range cruise missiles to counter the American attack carriers; and thirdly, the build up of anti-submarine forces to counter the American polaris submarines.

The Russians have attached great importance to the threat of the American carriers. They have designed several classes of ships and submarines with cruise missiles. The ships are in fact very limited and extremely vulnerable to air attack, and would not be suitable for anything except this highly specialised role. They need accurate target information in order to use their long range anti-ship missiles, and this is normally provided by suicide ships which are always lurking near American attack carriers. I think this whole concept is out of date, but it does explain much Russian activity in areas where American attack carriers operate.

The other activity of the Russians is the development of their anti-submarine forces to counter the American polaris submarines, in the hope that some technical breakthrough will make it possible to locate these submarines with some reliability. Much of the Russian naval deployment must be seen as an attempt to provide a counter, albeit an ineffective one, to the polaris submarines. I believe their incursions into the Indian Ocean have so far been chiefly directed to investigating the problems of providing a counter to American polaris submarines operating in the Arabian Sea. However, the Russians will not be able to maintain an anti-polaris force in the Indian Ocean unless the Suez Canal is opened and probably unless they can also obtain bases, perhaps in Mauritius or perhaps in the Red Sea. But although I believe that the present Russian deployments are basically defensive, once ships and bases are established in the Indian Ocean they may and probably will be used for other purposes. I do not believe that in the foreseeable future the Russians would attempt to use their ships to disrupt commercial shipping in the Indian Ocean, short of a general war because the risks would far outweigh the possible gains. What is more likely is that they would use their naval forces in a modern form of gunboat diplomacy, fermenting revolutions and harassing non-Communist governments.

How does this affect Australia? As I have said, I do not think our vital supply routes across the Indian Ocean will be harassed by the Russian presence. But, particularly if the Russians obtain a base in the eastern half of the Indian Ocean, our attempts to assist stability in the area to our north might be severely hampered. For that reason I would support a considerable expansion in our Navy, particularly in destroyers. I am nevertheless somewhat alarmed at what I have heard of the light destroyer project. I would be surprised if, by the time these ships are ordered in 1973, their cost is less than $100m a ship, quite apart from any escalation in costs which occurs during construction. These so called light destroyers will not only be the biggest destroyers we have ever built, but also probably the costliest defence programme on which this country has ever embarked.

I suspect that these ships have been subject to intensive systems analysis. The trouble with systems analysis is that an elaborate superstructure is often built on the most flimsy foundations - the flimsy foundation in this case being the nature of the threat which these ships will have to counter. I do not believe these ships will be in direct conflict with the Russian long range missile firing destroyers. I see rather their role in brush-fire wars in the vital area to our north, for which a much less complicated ship would be adequate. If a taxi company chose its taxis after systems analysis, but without considering capital cost, it would probably finish with a small fleet of Mercedes instead of a large fleet of Holdens.

We have limited capital resources for our Navy, and with our vast distances we have a need for many individual units because a ship cannot be in 2 places at once. I should like an assurance from the responsible Minister, that in considering the light destroyer project, due weight was given to the likely capital available for this programme and to the number of ships required, and the resultant unit cost has been an overriding factor in the design. This Committee cannot usefully consider the detailed equipment and design of these ships. We must rely on the experts for that, but I do think we are entitled to the assurance I have sought from the Minister. To modify the Duke of Wellington, I hope these ships will be as terrifying to our potential enemies as their cost is to me.

I am sure we should design and build our ships in Australia. The quality of our ship construction is unsurpassed. We are a maritime people. Eighty five per cent of our population lives within 25 miles of the sea. The only threat to our survival comes from across the sea. We rely on the use of the sea for our economic survival as one of the great trading nations of the world. I support these estimates and hope for the sustained expansion of the Navy.

Mr MORRISON:
St George

– I am very glad that the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) is maintaining his loyalty to the Service from which he has recently departed. In commenting on these estimates I would first of all like to commend the Government for its decision to withdraw the Fourth Battalion from Nui Dat to Vung Tau. Honourable members may recall that in the debate that took place in the House on 29th September the Opposition argued that it would be suicidal to leave the Fourth Battalion in an exposed position at Nui Dat. It is rather strange to recall that in that debate the Government rejected our suggestion but fortunately minds of much greater military worth than those in the Government ranks evidently prevailed.

Today we are discussing a highly important and certainly a very costly item in the Budget. The amount is almost mind boggling - $1,252,383,000. We on this side are far from satisfied that the Government is using the money allocated for the very purpose that it is allocated - Australia’s defence. We do not feel that in a number of areas the Government is making the best use of the funds that are available. In the short time that we are allowed in this debate I would like to take up some of the history and some of the present activities of the Department of Defence, and its subsidiary departments, in Malaysia and Singapore. To start with the Royal Australian Air Force base at Butterworth, Australia has in fact lost a very substantial investment of Australian taxpayers’ money, particularly in Malaysia, both at Butterworth and the former military establishment at Terendak. The 1969-70 report of the Auditor-General reads:

The rights of occupancy of the Air Force base, Butterworth, were transferred by the United Kingdom authorities to the Malaysian Government on and from 1st April 1970. Included in the transfer were capital works and equipment which according to departmental records had cost Australia in excess of $12.3m.

Through inept planning and through inept financial control this Government lost an Australian investment of over SI 2m. The background to this is that the British held a lease from the Malaysians and when the British wanted to move out of Malaysia the lease was handed back to the Malaysians. At no stage did the Australian Government safeguard (he investment of Australian funds in that base. What is the present position? For the Australian capital invested at Butterworth, Australia has to pay a rental. In 1971 the rental was 8650,000, and that was for the privilege of using what we built with Australian taxpayers’ money. The Government has argued that this is, in fact, offset by a Malaysian contribution. In a reply to a question I put on notice, on 13th September the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) said:

The amount of rental in 1970-71 was SA649.417, against which was offset SA592.749 being Malaysia’s share of the cost of jointly-used maintenance services, leaving a net payment to Malaysia of $A56,668.

So the whole matter was sorted out and all Australia had to pay was $56,000. But, in fact, Australia is providing, and apparently will continue to provide, the Malaysians with a service. Presumably Australia <s providing for them the type of repair equipment that they need for the operations of their Sabre jets. Australia is paying out in services an amount equivalent to what the Malaysians are paying Australia, so this is not an offset programme. Australia is providing facilities and is getting back payment for those facilities, but as a separate category we are paying rental.

I found the dishonest presentation by the Minister, in his reply, obnoxious. The cold fact is that Australia is paying, and will continue to pay, in Butterworth a rental on Australia’s own investment. This is not an investment of only $12m. Since Butterworth was first established Australia has laid out something like $57m in maintenance charges. The cold reality is that we have provided a base at Butterworth and have maintained that base but within Australia we do not have a base that can accommodate the 2 Mirage squadrons that we have at Butterworth. We have 2 Mirage squadrons at Williamtown but it is not possible to put the 2 Mirage squadrons that we have at Butterworth into that base. In terms of military balance this is suicidal. Half of our fighter force is, in fact, maintained in Butterworth and if Indonesia were a hostile power those 2 squadrons would be wiped out of operation because we could not get them back to Australia. This is monumental irresponsibility, both financially and militarily, on the part of the Government. Australia invested something like $7m in the base at Terendak and that also has gone down the drain. Australian forces are no longer based at Terendak. All told this Government has lost $20m of investment in bases in Malaysia and does not have the equivalent sort of bases in Australia.

In relation to Singapore, we have been told that we do not have to pay rental for our bases there. This is made to sound like a diplomatic triumph, but would it not be absurd if we had to pay for the privilege of assisting countries that maintain they want our forces in those countries? As I am in a fairly generous mood today I should like to praise the former Minister for Defence, the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), for standing up at the Five Power meeting in London in April and not bowing down to the absurd request that the Singapore Government was making at that time. However it will cost us money, and plenty of money. It has been worked out that the cost of the married quarters and educational and other facilities will be about $ 1.25m a year.

A curious item appears in the Budget. A sum of $5. 36m has been put into a trust account and the purpose of that trust account - I hope that Government supporters will try to explain this to me because I cannot understand what it is all about - is to finance Australia’s share of commonuser logistic support for ANZUK forces in Singapore. I trust that that $5.36m will be explained along with the other difficulties which the Government obviously is having in the Five Power arrangements. All told the maintenance of our forces and garrisons overseas is a very heavy charge to our defence vote. In the current Budget the allocation for our Army overseas is $20.2m. I presume that this allocation was made before the Government bowed to political and popular pressure in Australia for the full withdrawal of our forces from Vietnam, but I think v/e can conclude that the cost of maintaining the Army in the Singapore-Malaysia area, given that the figure of $20.2m covered part of our Vietnam commitment, will be about $7m. Of course these figures - this is another point I should like clarified during this debate - are usually given as costs over and above the maintenance of those same forces in Australia, so that figure of $7m is a fairly substantial amount that must be accounted for.

On the same sort of analysis we can say that the Air Force in Butterworth will cost the Australian taxpayers SI 2m, so we are finishing up with a figure of roughly $20m as a commitment to Malaysia and Singapore. This is a commitment that the Opposition believes is completely devoid of any strategic basis. In this day and age the maintenance of garrisons, particularly white garrisons, in the countries of South East Asia is an anachronism. This is a great confidence trick that the Government has put forward in what it calls a forward defence policy. But that forward defence policy has meant that we have not been able to establish on Australian soil the very bases that we have paid for on the soil of other countries. We are, in fact, leaving Australia without the sort of bases that it should have. If we had a Butterworth in north Queensland or in Western Australia how much more effective would it be for Australia’s defence? We are continuing to maintain bases in foreign countries while this Government has not been able to lay down a sufficient and satisfactory base establishment in Australia.

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

Mr GORTON:
Higgins

– I congratulate the Government on presenting such farsighted, statesmanlike and admirable estimates as these and I hope that noone will be nasty enough to think that I do this merely because I was instrumental in persuading the Government to adopt them. From the strictly defence point of view of course the estimates should be larger but from the national point of view, and remembering all our competing claims, they are, I think, as large as we could expect. For the future they will not be large enough unless the Government either reduces the manpower of our forces or refrains from securing modern replacements for the ships, aircraft, artillery and tanks which are wearing out. But that is a decision for the next Budget.

I want now to discuss the matter of defence against the background of my firm belief that if turmoil develops in the region to our north there will be no United States involvement in that area and there may, according to the circumstances, be no British involvement. I express the hope once again that public discussion of Australia’s defence requirements will not be confused by parrot cries of ‘forward defence’ from some people and ‘Fortress Australia’ from other people, for much of the public discussion of this matter over the years has gone no deeper than support for such unthinking slogans and approval of some slogan called ‘forward defence’ and condemnation of some other called ‘Fortress Australia’. I believe that those who conduct these discussions in those terms do a great disservice to the rational consideration of what defence material Australia needs, and I believe that those who seek to portray a concept of forward defence as being incompatible with a concept of Fortress Australia and suggest that they are opposed one to the other do a real disservice to the planning of Australia’s defence and therefore to Australia itself.

The prime object of Australia’s defence is the preservation of Australia itself from military attack and subjection. That is the end purpose we need to achieve. In order to succeed in doing so it is obviously in our national interest to try to prevent any overt successful attacks on the countries to our north, and to do what we can to keep any fighting which may develop as far from Australia’s shores as possible. To do this we need the capacity and the willingness to join with such countries as Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia, should they wish to join with us and with each other, in repelling overt attacks on any one of them in that region; but we cannot and should not try to do this by ourselves.

In my view the capacity of which I have spoken should be primarily, though not wholly, provided by naval and air forces capable of operating off the shores of, or even being based in, such countries. I say primarily, though not wholly’ because we should also have the capacity to provide and transport ground forces able to operate in concert with local forces, and we should have the willingness to provide technical support, logistic support, signals support and weapons of various kinds when they are wanted and needed. But I do suggest that the use of any Australian ground forces in Asia in the future should be the subject of the strictest safeguards by any Australian government. It was a cardinal principle in United States military thinking post-Korea and pre-Vietnam that American ground troops should not become involved in large scale hostilities in Asia. I think time has shown that thinking to be valid, and if it is valid for a country with the power of the United States, how much more valid is it for Australia. But to have the capacities I have mentioned, able to be used in these ways, must be in Australia’s interests.

I presume that what I have just said is what is meant by those who advocate what they call forward defence. But having said that, I now emphasise that we cannot and will not have this capacity unless we first have a secure, well defended Australian base on which any forward operations must primarily depend. The dockyards to repair and refit our naval vessels must be here and must be defended; the aerodromes from which strike or maritime reconnaissance aircraft will operate must be here and must be defended. The defence of them and of our cities and of factories producing war material calls for fighter and missile protection, for a capacity to move ground troops inside Australia and for a capacity to call an army quickly into being by calling up trained reserves such as are now provided by the national service scheme.

This concept, I suppose, is what those who denigrate it call Fortress Australia. Yet only by adopting that concept can Australia properly be defended, for I repeat there can be no effective forward defence which does not depend entirely on a secure, well defended base in Australia itself. Proper defence planning would, as far as our resources allow, provide for both requirements but would regard the protection of Australia itself as a secure base as the first and overriding requirement - a sine qua non. This is not retreating to isolation. It is not ‘settling down behind the barricades’. It is realising that a secure and well defended Australia is an essential basis of any defence policy.

A dialogue on this subject tends to be further confused by discussion of whether Australian ground troops should or should not continue to stay in Singapore. I think there is more nonsense talked about this than about any other matter connected with defence. I think it was right for us to keep troops there when we did. I think there are strong arguments - not as strong as they were but still strong arguments - for retaining our troops there now. But people speak as if retaining a battalion of troops there was in itself a forward defence policy. It is not. Retaining our ground troops there now is one facet of such a forward defence policy but it does not of itself provide such a policy, and removing them I would hope would not mean the abandonment of a concept of forward defence. I think it essential that we should realise this because I believe that sooner rather than later in the life of the nation their presence will no longer be welcomed by local governments. We should not seek to stay one minute after this becomes evident, but when that time comes it would be tragic if we become so obsessed with the matter on both sides that we abandoned planning for regional assistance as I earlier defined it and thought that merely because our troops had come from Singapore we could no longer have forward defence.

There is much I want to say about defence which cannot possibly be said in the time allotted for an Estimates debate. I hope therefore that a defence statement will not be too long delayed and I hope that when it is made and debated it will not be marred by being conducted in terms of slogans or of insult or of cries of ‘war.mongers’ from one side of the Parliament and ‘traitors’ from the other. It is too important a subject for this.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I move:

That the proposed expenditure for the Department of Supply by reduced by $1.

I do so in order to direct the attention of the Government to the deterioration of the Australian aircraft industry.

In moving that motion I think it is necessary for the Parliament to understand that any discussion on defence estimates which does not include discussions of the appropriate base for defence is a discussion of irrelevancies. If Australia is not prepared to maintain the vital defence services, such as an aircraft industry, we may as well reject the total estimates for the defence of this country. Without the back-up supplies, which would not be readily available from overseas in wartime, as has already been proven, no defence in fact exists.

I am particularly concerned, as are other honourable members on this side of the chamber, with the deterioration in morale among employees of the Government Aircraft Factories and to a similar extent employees of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation. For some time there have been proposals - nothing definite, which I suppose is understandable, but of very deep concern to those employed in the industry - for a merger between these 2 organisations. I think I should put my own position on this matter quite clearly. The Government Aircraft Factories were brought into being during the Second World War, when the Government felt that this type of operation was necessary to Australia’s defence requirements. The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation had then been in existence for some time. It was felt in a time of national need that a government-owned aircraft industry was required. I believe that is the context in which the Government Aircraft Factories should be examined. In that context a government-owned aircraft industry is still required.

I think it is ludicrous to suggest that a defence industry can be merged with a private company which, because of its shareholdings and mode of operations, must be involved mainly in profit making. I wonder what members on the Government side or the public would think if it was suddenly suggested that Ansett Airlines of Australia should be merged with the Royal Australian Air Force or that the Peninsular and Orient Line should be merged with the Navy. I think these propositions are comparable to a proposal to merge a government defence operation with a private company. There are very strong feelings among the employees of the Government Aircraft Factories because quite obviously they have a great deal to lose by such a merger. It has been suggested by the men concerned that men are being downgraded in the Government Aircraft Factories in preparation for their being offered lower rated jobs in the proposed merged company. It has even been suggested in some quarters that the arrangements for this merger were signed in 12th October this year. Whether this is true or false, the men on the job believe it to be true, and this is a serious thought.

Mr Garland:

– Which arrangements?

Mr SCHOLES:

– The arrangements for the merger.

Mr Garland:

– The entire thing?

Mr SCHOLES:

– Yes. As I said, the important thing is, firstly, the morale of the men concerned. They are as vital to Australia’s defence as are any persons in the armed forces. 1 have a letter which has been circulated to every member of the Parliament. It is of some length and was written by a joint committee of Government Aircraft Factories personnel. It was circulated so that their views could be readily known to members of Parliament. I ask leave of the Minister to have it incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows)

page 3145

COMBINED G.A.F. STAFF ASSOCIATION AND CRAFT UNION COMMITTEE FOR INVESTIGATION INTO PROPOSED AIRCRAFT RATIONALISATION

Address:

Secretary, 35 Holmes Street,

East Brunswick,

Victoria 3057. 22nd October 1971

Dear Member,

page 3145

QUESTION

PROPOSED GAF/CAC MERGER

The purpose of this letter is to convey to you the deep concern and intensity of feeling throughout the Government Aircraft Factories (GAF) at the proposed merger with the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd (CAC). This concern was expressed at a combined meeting of GAF staff associations, craft unions and others at a lunch time meeting on Friday, 8th October. The meeting was attended by about 80 per cent of all staff and wages employees, including second line executives.

The Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd (CAC) was established in the mid 1930s from a consortium of local and overseas companies headed by BHP, ICI and GMH. Although some changes have taken place, notably GMH being replaced by Rolls Royce, the composition of the company is essentially the same. On the other hand, the Government Aircraft Factories were set up as the Aircraft Production Commission by the Lyons-Menzies Government. It was later brought under the control of the Public Service by the Chifley Government and the name changed to Government Aircraft Factories (GAF).

In considering the merger, the assumption appears to have been made that a private organisation is more efficient than a similar government establishment. This assumption is not justified in this case. GAF produced over 1,000 front line aircraft during the war, and since the establishment of a design team in the middle forties, has designed and manufactured the Jindivik target aircraft, Malkara anti-tank weapon, Ikara antisubmarine and missile (joint ARL-GAF design) and the Turana target and Project N aircraft. In addition topline aircraft like Canberra and Mirage have been manufactured under license.

The existing organisation at GAF provides funding for an active design team which has led to exports of Jindivik to the United Kingdom, Sweden and United States of America, Malkara to United Kingdom, Ikara to United Kingdom, which in turn have led to continuing work loads in the factory. Likewise the latest design projects, Turana and Project N could lead to overseas sales. However this involves funding which is not likely to be available from company profits.

When any merger takes place, one of the parties invariably becomes dominant. In this case it is the CAC with the apparent support of the government to the extent that it appears to GAF personnel to be a take over. This involves handing over specialised government equipment and property valued in millions of dollars as well as the specialised skills of highly trained craftsmen and professionals from the public service for the purposes of private profit. This is in spite of the fact that GAF has done more than any other Australian aircraft establishment to advance the frontiers of Australian technology.

This applies not only to the export of GAF designed products referred to previously, but also to offset orders to the United States which are possible because of advanced manufacturing techniques developed within the factory. For instance GAF have repeat orders from the Boeing Company for stretched acrylic windows on the 747 and structurally bonded elevators on the 727. Further enquiries for this type of work from the major United States aircraft companies are in progress. These are some of the methods developed for Ikara missiles and Project N aircraft.

In the current depressed situation of the industry, the continuing work load at GAF is derived from the Australian designed products, Jindivik and Ikara, for which there are still overseas sales, and from offset orders from the Boeing Company, utilising the special capabilities developed by GAF. If these skills are not maintained, then the prospect for further export orders is very slim indeed and the new company is unlikely to be economically viable over a long period.

Australia needs an aircraft industry for defence. At a most critical time in our nation’s history, when our friends become more remote, and Soviet ships come nearer to our shores, we need weapons like Ikara, an Australian designed and Australian made product. This is not the time to hand over a competent and well proved defence establishment, with all its facilities and skilled personnel, to a private company.

We are told the industry must be small but all of the advanced industrial nations have significant aircraft industries. India also has an aircraft industry to advance the needs of industrialisation. In terms of employment and production, the Indian industry is larger than the Australian aircraft industry. We must not get too small. Sweden maintains aircraft industry for independence, as also docs Yugoslavia. Israel was considerably handicapped by their dependence on outside sources of supply. Expense will be involved in maintaining such an industry, but the rewards will be independence, self reliance, prestige, export potential and an economic growth potential by a spin off into other fields such as machine tools, metallurgy and management techniques.

At this point in history, Australian defence capability needs to be developed to the fullest possible extent. We recommend therefore that GAF, the 100 per cent Australian owned defence establishment, should remain the nucleus of a developing aircraft industry for defence.

Finally, at a time of increasing unemployment, we remind you that highly skilled tradesmen, technicians and engineers will become redundant and large numbers have expressed their desire to remain in the public service. AH of these skills will be lost to the industry.

As these are matters of great importance to the defence of this country, we respectfully request that the matter should be debated in Parliament.

  1. HATHERLY, Secretary

Committee:

Chairman - O. Broughton, AAESDA.

Vice Chairman - R. Cook, POA.

Secretary- A. Hatherly AAESDA.

Messrs- R. Baxter, POA; J. Maddigan, Federal Clerks Union; W. Pearson, ACOA; E. Sanger and I. Whittle, All Craft Unions; F. Widen, Foreman’s Association.

Mr SCHOLES:

– I should also like to deal with one or two other matters. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) wished to take part in this debate but owing to the restrictions of time he will not be able to do so. However, like myself, he has attended a number of meetings of employees at both the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the Government Aircraft Factories which dealt with the proposed mergers. There are a number of questions which have been raised and which are still of real concern to the men concerned. I do not believe that it is compatible for an organisation which is founded on the making of profit to be fitted into the defence pattern. I would hate to see the situation where the Army, the Navy or the Air Force was asked to make a profit.

This industry appears to be in a flat spot at the moment but it also appears that there are prospects of vast improvement in its areas of activity in the not too distant future. 1 note that the Government is seeking at least one new aircraft for the Air Force which I hope that, unlike the FI 1 1, the Government Aircraft Factories are given the opportunity to build. I hope that (hey are given the same margin for quoting on this aircraft which was given to the American company, General Dynamics Corporation, which built the Fill. The Government receives a quote of $10 and pays $50. If this sort of margin is given to any industry in Australia, I am quite sure it could supply the required equipment.

The amendment which I have moved is primarily designed to draw attention to this matter but there are some other points which I believe should be drawn to the attention of the House. One is that an aircraft which 1 understand is the best of its type in the world has been developed by the Government Aircraft Factories. I understand that one of the delays which have occurred in marketing this aircraft has been because marketing arrangements through the Government Aircraft Factories, through Government channels, arc not necessarily adequate. Demonstrations which were to have taken place in Canberra tomorrow have been delayed because the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) is overseas. This is a matter of concern because I believe that any delays in placing this aircraft on the market and before the public reduce any advantage gap which at present exists. I also understand that the situation is that no production in anticipation of sales of this aircraft can be entered into; that production cannot be commenced until actual sales are made. This makes the naming of delivery dates almost a total impossibility.

I want to make one other point, although I do not have adequate time to debate a matter such as this. I point out that the Government Aircraft Factories have a record of service to Australia’s defence which is second to that of no other industry in the world. At the time when they were set up, they performed the duties for which they were established with remarkable skill and produced remarkable results. They now face the prospect of a convenient merger but one which could well result in further reductions in confidence in the industry. It has been alleged - I realise that the Minister is not in a position to say whether this is so because he is waiting for reports - that the more profitable sections of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, namely, the helicopter section and the engine plant section, are not involved in the proposals for a merger. It has also been indicated - and quite obviously it is not known at this stage - that the Government Aircraft Factory at Avalon may or may not be involved. However, my concern is that there is a large reservoir of highly skilled personnel who have proved themselves capable of manufacturing - in some cases, better than the original makers - and maintaining and modifying any aircraft which Australia’s defence requires. This operation could well be in serious jeopardy if profit taking is made the major motive for its future operations. I think the amendment expresses adequately the requirements of this Parliament. I believe that the defence content of the industry is far more important than profit taking.

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

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– In discussing the Estimates for the Department of Defence, I should first like to deal with a matter which was raised by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) concerning the 2 Mirage squadrons currently based in Malaysia. He said that they could not be accommodated in Australia. I think they could well be accommodated in Australia and that they could well be accommodated in northern Australia because there we have the basic requirements for handling, such squadrons. The runways at both Darwin and Tindal are long enough to accommodate these aircraft. In fact, I would welcome one squadron at least. The other squadron could be based in another part of Australia, and the two could be swapped from time to time on exchange training duty. After all, this area has the most northern defence bases in Australia and I would welcome these aircraft, as would everyone else living up there, a couple of thousand miles away from this quiet part.

After all, this is the sort of country over which these aircraft will have to operate. These are the skies in which they will have to fly and where they will meet sudden tropical build-ups of cumulo-nimbus clouds and unpredictable thunderstorm activity. So, the honourable member is quite incorrect in saying that the squadrons could not be accommodated.

The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) urged the Government to spend more in Australia on the manufacture of hardware for the Australia forces. I notice that 75 Light Observation Helicopters for the Army, as well as a commercial production of 116 are to be produced in Australia. The engines, wings and fins of the extra Mirage trainers will be made in Australia. The new hydrographic ship for the Navy is being built at Williamstown dockyard. The first of 8 new Landing Craft LCH vessels are being constructed at Maryborough in Queensland. So I think the Government is making a genuine endeavour to have as much of its military hardware made in Australia as it possibly can.

This year’s estimate for defence show a rise of $117m to a total of $l,252m which is an increase of 10 per cent in military spending. If my figures are correct, the largest single amount of the Defence estimates is for service pay and allowances. The expenditure on this item, which also includes the Department of Supply and general services, is estimated for the year 1971-72 to be $578m. This amount is up by $66m, and rightly so. The findings of the Kerr Committee dealt with the principles of pay and the demands and exigencies of the Services. It recommended suitable financial recognition for qualities and skills required in the Services. This is reflected in this item. The Committee made its recommendations and the Government has allowed an extra $30m in the coming year.

Service hardware is listed at Si 63m. This item was listed alone in the estimates. The proposed expenditure on this item is up $30m and the overall capital expenditure on hardware and installations together with various other items is up 16.3 per cent to $228m. I welcome the inclusion in this year’s programme of provision for the acquisition of two more dual Skyhawk trainers as well as the 10 front line Skyhawk aircraft. It is a difficult thing to step into a high performance fighter straight off the chocks. It is also difficult to land such aircraft when one’s only experience has been trying out the landing gear on the jacks. I believe that the acquisition of both Mirage and Skyhawk training aircraft is a step in the right direction. As I said, honourable members can take it from me that it is quite an experience to step into a front line high performance fighter aircraft without having any experience of this aircraft. Experience can be gained in a dual training aircraft. Therefore, as I said, I commend the inclusion in the estimates of provision for dual training aircraft.

I turn now to the light destroyer, oi DDL, programme. Much work has been done on this type of ship this year. I notice with dismay the estimated cost of this type of ship. However, it was I who. I think in the last estimates discussion or in the one before, recommended that the Navy should have this type of naval vessel. The DDL is considerably larger than the Attack class patrol boats which are very hard to live in under tropical conditions and cannot be expected to stay at sea, especially in those tropical conditions, for any great length of time. Therefore we are looking for something bigger than that type of ship and I believe that the DDL would be suitable. As the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) also pointed out, I imagine that the cost of this programme has escalated considerably, as is very often the case with Service programmes. People responsible for a programme start tacking things on until the item gets something somewhat larger or heavier than what was originally designed.

In the few moments which I have left. 1 would like to mention some of the things which the Australian Labor Party has been continually condemning. The policy of the Labor Party, as was recently stated, is that Australia should be defended from the shores of this country. This is a rough summing up of that policy. However, if the Labor Party supports this policy it should support the Fill programme because this is an aircraft which will project the defence of this country 2,000 or 3,000 miles away from our coast. If that Party supports or talks about not having forces in any forward area such as Malaysia or anywhere else it should also be backing the light destroyer programme or extended Navy programme because in the circumstances which would occur under its policy our Navy would be operating in waters reasonably close to Australia. Also, the Labor Party should be supporting defence bases at such places as Pine Gap near Alice Springs. After all, the reports of some experts who write about these things in magazines overseas say that these bases monitor signals from Early Bird warning systems and spies in the sky. They say that these systems are capable of detecting the wash of nuclear submarines, photographing them and placing them on a grid system to determine where they can be attacked. They are capable of photographing ships at sea-

Mr Reynolds:

– This is all hearsay. We are not allowed to inspect these establishments.

Mr CALDER:

– The satellites, which these people consider are national treachery

Mr Foster:

– Gel off it.

Mr CALDER:

– That has been said. Okay these installations are part of the defence system of the free world. However, members of the Labor Party do not appear to want this country defended as well as we will defend it. In the concept of the defence of Australia frsm Australia the presence of this ‘spy in the sky* and the long range tactical strike aircraft, both of which are attacked very strongly by the Labor Party, is essential to the policy they are advocating.

Briefly I would like to say a word about the Citizen Military Forces and our national training.

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

Mr HURFORD:
Adelaide

– The contribution of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) need hardly be dealt with by me at any length. The fact is that he has stated that his knowledge of what is going on at Pine Gap has been obtained by way of overseas articles. This is the very point that those of us in the Australian Labor Party have been making, namely, that we would like to know more and if it is possible to learn about it from the Government. In fact, we would like to know only as much as United States Congressmen are allowed to know of these sorts of things. We would like the same sort of opportunities as are given to United States Congressmen to visit these places so that we can be better informed on these defence installations in Australia.

I take this opportunity of speaking on the defence estimates to direct attention, of necessity very briefly in this debate, to matters surrounding which there are political differences, namely, the need for forward defence as it is called and the further integration of the armed Services and the subject of conscription. I hasten to add that the political differences surrounding these matters are within the Government parties. There are a number of sensible people on the Government benches who agree with the Opposition Labor Party’s point of view on all these attitudes which I am about to outline. Also, before embarking on my opinions on these three subjects I want to state my disappointment that we seem to be no further advanced in instituting a sane, rational, detailed investigation of these important estimates. This, of course, cannot be done in a Committee of the Whole debating ‘in the open’ like this. We must have smaller, expert working committees to which we can call outside advisers and really seek information about the estimates rather than use the occasion to make some general points about defence as I am forced to do but which I would prefer to do in a general debate on defence if sufficient time were given in this chamber for such debates.

The first point I want to make concerns the argument about forward defence and fortress Australia’ - both of them inadequate phrases as indeed the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) said only half an hour ago - rendering most of the arguments concerning them fairly irrelevant. I want to say quite clearly that, along with my colleagues on this side of the House, I am a strong proponent of a mobile defence force based at home. This is not ‘fortress Australia’. This can be, and in my concept is, in itself forward defence. To drive home my point let me merely repeat the points made by the right honourable member for Higgins in his speech today. Unfortunately I was not able to hear all of it as I was called out of the chamber. But certainly at the annual dinner of the Imperial Service Club in Sydney on 18th June last he made clear a number of points. He made it clear in that speech, firstly, that the stationing of troops abroad is not the only way in which forward defence . can be achieved; secondly, that we must seek to achieve a Navy of worthwhile strength - I support what the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) had to say about this earlier in this debate this afternoon - and thirdly, that such a Navy must be properly and constantly covered by air power, and that means landbased airpower or airpower based at home to a great extent. The right honourable member for Higgins said in that speech:

And we can, and I think we must, keep an army in being which is capable of swift movement to the assistance of friendly nations if they are attacked. We can engage in joint planning with other countries who are willing to plan common defence. And all of these actions contribute to forward defence and would do so even if our forces were not actually stationed overseas.

These are not the words of a dedicated member of the Australian Labor Party; these are the words of a very recent LiberalCountry Party Prime Minister who is using his head and not playing politics or playing on the emotions and fears of the Australian people for temporary political expediency. In case it is not clear, I repeat the reasons for the fears of the Opposition of having troops stationed on the Asian mainland, whether in Malaysia or Singapore or elsewhere. That fear is based on the knowledge that there are underlying racial and other tensions in those countries. We do not want to get caught up in those tensions or in the politics of that region. Contrary to what is heard in this country, that point of view is well understood in influential quarters in those countries. Lee Kuan Yew is not the only person in the Asian region with views. I venture to say that there are other Asian Ministers who hold a different point of view and who understand the ALP attitude. I have had the opportunity to speak privately to some of those Ministers and to put our position on forward defence - not fortress Australia but forward defence - in a nutshell, and I quote from a defence statement of my leader as long ago as 5th March 1969 but which is still relevant today. He said:

A Labor government would re-organise Australian defences around highly-trained, highlymobile professional forces. Under a Labor government, Australia would acquire the capacity to deploy its military strength within 72 hours at any point within the South East Asian region. We -would maintain that capacity and affirm our involvement in regional defence by entering into joint training arrangements with our neighbour nations. We would expect our forces to train constantly throughout the region, and we would encourage the forces of other regional powers to train in Australia. A Labor government would, as a matter of the highest priority, negotiate arrangements designed to achieve a maximum standardisation of defence equipment throughout the region. We would enter into agreements with other regional powers to share the production of most of the necessary equipment, and to put procurement outside the region on a collective basis. These are policies more practical by far and more advantageous both to our neighbours and to ourselves than the pieties of the Prime Minister and the procrastination of the Minister for Defence.

Those remarks apply now just as much as they did when the statement was made in March 1969. The second point that I wanted to mention in the few minutes that I have was the integration of our armed forces. The debate on integration and restructuring which has made defence organisation more effective and economic in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and western Europe has barely touched Australia. Vague gestures have been made to defence reorganisation but little has been achieved. I remind honourable members that in 1957 a committee was established under the late General Sir Leslie Morshead to examine defence organisation. The committee’s report was never made public and, quite ridiculously, 14 years later is still classified as a secret document. I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) to tell me whether it still needs to be classified as a secret document.

Mr Bryant:

– They lost it; they posted it to the Prime Minister.

Mr HURFORD:

– From what we hear about the present Ministry that could well be true. The Morshead committee recommended that the separate departments of Defence, Army, Navy and Air be amalgamated into a single Department of

Defence under one Minister. This would have restored the basic direction of defence policy which existed until World War II, the demands of which created separate Service departments. I believe that those demands do not exist today; that there would be better co-ordination and better forward defence planning if there was integration and that the Morshead committee’s report should be public property and available to this Parliament as an additional aid in the thinking of this nation on defence.

The third point I want to mention briefly in the very few minutes left to me is the matter of conscription. Most people would agree that the loss of personal freedom entailed by conscription is an evil, but many believe it to be a necessary evil. Of course, these people are in the Government parties in this country at the moment. From an economic point of view the last belief is unwarranted. Under conscription men are inducted into the military forces without regard either to their civilian productivity or their personal preferences. Uncertainty as to whether they will be called up encourages potential conscripts to take hedging or evading actions which are costly to themselves and to society at large. The military services are encouraged to use manpower wastefully with respect to both quantity and quality. For all these reasons the real costs of maintaining a conscripted army are likely to be higher than those of maintaining a volunteer army. Unfortunately, conscription appears to be the cheaper alternative, but it appears so only because under it implicit taxes in kind on conscripts are substituted for explicit money taxes levied on all taxpayers.

It is understandable that governments should often take a narrow budgetary view of the costs of alternative action rather than a broad social view. The additional taxes required to raise an all volunteer army may weigh more heavily in the political scales than the additional civilian production foregone. I believe that these points have not been made often. We are hearing the alternative point of view, particularly from the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch), at the moment which suggests the terrible cost that would be involved to have an all volunteer army. I believe that there is an alternative point of view and I am only sorry that I have not time to put it in this debate.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

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

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

– I intend to deal with what at least potentially is the most significant item of the estimates - the fact that the Navy aims to toss a huge sponge into the very shallow pool of available defence resources. I refer to the DDL concept, which has already been dealt with by one or two previous speakers. This plan follows a technical thought - that the Navy has probably produced a masterpiece to meet Australia’s requirements. But the subject I wish to deal with in connection with this matter is one which really belongs to the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) with his wider conceptual responsibilities rather than to the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) with his rather more narrowly confined responsibilities. The Navy has done an enterprising thing. It has assembled a first class team of experts in all aspects of naval construction and other ancillary matters. It has welded these experts into a design team to produce a ship which answers as nearly perfectly as possible the technical requirements specified by the naval staff. The idea is that gradually these projected new ships which follow in the existing pattern of strategic planning will produce a series of ships which will be more formidable than their predecessors which they will replace as their predecessors grow old. We shall at the end of 20 or 25 years or some extended period be equipped with much more formidable ships cast in the same mould of thought as the ships we have at present. Clearly the cost will be astronomical. This is the time for honourable members to think about this and to offer their views to the Government. We have been told that no decision to go ahead with this plan or even to complete the full scale designs has yet been made. So this is now the time to offer the Government what advice we can and also seek from it the kind of information we want before we approve this huge expenditure. The programme is obviously conceived in technical naval terms rather than on the basis of Australia’s resources available for defence.

It is proposed to construct these vessels at the Williamstown and Cockatoo dockyards. Of course, in the process we shall re-equip these dockyards with more up to date equipment, and we will spend a lot of money on that. We shall also ‘ encourage several electronic firms to expand their capacity and industry at large to conceive and construct a number of items which it will be necessary to put into the new DDLs. But there are Australian shipbuilding resources in addition to those at the Williamstown and Cockatoo dockyards. These 2 dockyards have a horrible history of industrial relations. Bad industrial relations are liable to flare up at any time and to hamstring the programme and delay matters, and this, in addition to all the other disabilities associated with bad industrial relations, gets in the way of a proper construction programme.

There are other shipbuilding resources which might be used for the naval shipbuilding programme. I refer to Walker Brothers ship building yards at Maryborough, the Evans Deakin at Brisbane, the New South Wales State dockyard at Newcastle and the shipbuilding yards of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd at Whyalla. All these are potential sources of shipbuilding which should be considered in relation to out total seagoing programme. In the recent edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships’ the editor wrote a very interesting article. Similar thought have also been written in a number of American publications. Basically, the thesis of these articles is that technological factors have changed entirely the basic concept of sea power. The Russian Navy has led the way. It has concentrated on perfecting surface to surface missiles mounted on relatively cheap ships which provide a platform for these weapons. These ships are much more cheaply constructed than most naval vessels. They are cheap to maintain and to crew. When they are armed with proper guided missile systems they can be as formidable as any other ships and could well hold at bay larger, more modern and more powerful ships belonging to other navies.

Recently West Germany conceived and was about to execute a programme similar to our own DDL programme, but after reconsidering the proposal the West German Government decided to scrap it and proceed to build a larger number of cheaper ships which are to be equipped with surface to surface guided missiles. This is a sphere in which I think undoubtedly the West has fallen behind the Soviet Union in thought and in evolution because it has stuck very largely to surface to air weapons, which are not especially designed to meet our purposes. Obviously our circumstances are different from those of West Germany. Its Navy operates in the narrow waters of the Baltic; therefore it has a very much more restricted area in which to operate than has the Australian Navy, but there are undoubtedly many common factors which need to be carefully examined. Certainly our new DDLs will be as near to naval perfection as we can get them. But relatively they will be RollsRoyce ships, whereas our capacity and the new technological factors dictate that sea power can be asserted with much cheaper ships and more numerous ships. Conditions of this kind offer Australia for the first time the prospect of becoming a considerable naval power. The same factors apply to Indonesia and our other neighbours in this area. A united effort of defence cooperation with our neighbours along these lines could in fact make the whole area and all the countries in our part of the world very much safer, and it would be extremely difficult and costly, in terms of losses and casualties, for any other power, however big. to attack.

I believe that we should be examining the prospect of embarking on a programme which is less expensive than the DDL programme but which would provide cheaper ships and enable us to use all our naval shipbuilding facilities. We want to make sure that what we want is not just a few hand picked, very carefully conceived Rolls-Royce type ships but quite a considerable number of Holden type ships. Noone, who is not equipped with naval information and all the technical factors involved, can be sure on this question, but we can count upon the fact that the Navy will do its best to produce the types of ships not only to do the kinds of jobs which the present ships do but also to do those jobs rather better. I hope that the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), if he has not gone into these matters as yet - and I do not think he has because no decision has yet been made - will explain to this chamber the DDL programme now suggested by the Navy and also examine the alternative which, in the terms of Australian resources in the broad sense, may be a better investment for Australia.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

– I think that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury), as a back bencher, has done this chamber a better service in questioning the defence programme of this country than he ever did while he was highly placed in the Ministry. What puzzles me about the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) and the honourable member for Wentworth is that in fact they have been practically running the country for a number of years and now they suddenly find that there are some aberrations in it. But I believe . that the point of view, which suggests that the Parliament ought to have placed before it all the arguments in each of these areas so that we can examine them thoroughly before we make a decision involving tremendous expenditure, is a valid one, and 1 think that the honourable member for Wentworth is on the side of the angels as far as that suggestion is concerned.

There are one or two other points that have been made in the debate, lt seems to me that my friend the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Hamer) is still a little ship struck, particularly if they are Russian ships. He used some beautiful phrases which have been used so often that they are now part of the mythology of Australia. He talked about us being like King Ethelred the Unready. 1 do not know from what part of history the honourable member got that. He also talked about us becoming internationally selfish. What does he mean by that? Has he charged off to help the people of East Pakistan? Has he gone to open the Suez Canal? Is he trying to protect the people of Belfast? Not on your life. But if somebody makes an error somewhere along the line in South East Asia, particularly if it is a very bad sort of government, he will send young Australians to defend that country.

On this question of international selfishness, it might not be a bad idea to ask some of our neighbours where they stand. Last year I had discussions with people in Thailand. I spoke to Thailand’s Foreign Minister. He said: ‘Australia must not retreat to isolationism; it must not become internationally selfish’ - almost the words used by the honourable member for Isaacs. I said: ‘That is very well, but if we have trouble with some of our neighbours and call for help, will you turn up with a few regiments or divisions of your Army, with your Air Force and so on,’ He said: ‘Oh, no’. I said: ‘Why not?’ He said: ‘That is different’. In fact, what we have managed to do is to make ourselves available for other people’s errors and follies, and I do not believe that this is what we are in business for. I think that the honourable member for Isaacs, in some of his terminology, demonstrated the 1938 and 1942 neurosis with which we are still inflicted.

The right honourable member for Higgins - a former Minister for the Navy, a former Prime Minister and a former Minister for Defence - now finds that 500 lives later it was an error to go into Vietnam. He also referred to one or two other matters that I may have a moment or two to examine before my remaining seven or eight minutes have expired. As far as I could tell, the right honourable member for Higgins defined all the need for defence out of the argument. What are the threats? The honourable member for Wentworth said that Australia had to be made safer. The first question we ought to ask is: Safer from whom’? It would be a good idea if during the debate on the defence estimates and in foreign policy debates we were to hang on the walls of this chamber a very large map of the area involved. We could then look at the facts of life. This year alone we are spending $ 1,200m. Is it China of which we are afraid? I am told, not any more. The Government will have to find different sorts of arrows for (he next lot of pamphlets it puts out. Is it Japan of which we are afraid? Not when the Japanese practically get us for free. Is it Russia? Not a chance of it! Then what could be the threats?

None of us is going to say that because we cannot see any threates now we will not see them in the foreseeable future and that the defence budget should be removed altogether. So honourable members should look at what could be the threats. We could face invasion from the air or the sea, or perhaps overland into New Guinea. We could face assault from the sea or air. By that 1 mean people firing on us without actually trying to land. What is the only valid threat? Is anybody going to turn up in the foreseeable future with an invasion army? Of course they are not. Nobody has said they could. 1 have not time to debate it here this afternoon, but anybody who cares to look at the record and sees what is involved in an oversea invasion will realise that nobody within 3,000 miles of Australia could possibly launch an invasion in the foreseeable future. If anybody can produce a counter argument to that, I will be interested to hear it.

So the threat must come from the sea - either on the surface or from submarines. Which one? I do not claim to be a scientific expert, but experts tell me that with the new satellites it is almost possible to track every ship that moves on the surface of the ocean. So if somebody is mobilising a sea force to attack us we will know it is coming. Even the present Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) will probably know it is coming. After all, it would take 10 days to get here from the nearest part of China, and the information that they were on their way would seep through the corridors of power and the lobbies and would reach the Minister’s desk and be sent on to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), and eventually we would have a day’s notice. But that is not likely to happen. So it seems to me that the threat would be from submarines. I am not obsessed about submarines but I believe that that is where we ought to turn the major part of our attention, because the submarine is still the hardest thing to find. It is still possible that the Russians and the Americans, in confrontation for some reason «r other - I do not believe it will happen but we have to look at the possibility - will have the North West Cape base and Pine Gap in their sights. I hope, for his own welfare, that the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) will be absent at the time.

So what is our task? It is to find submarines in the water. I believe that we ought to be turning all our scientific effort to the solution of that problem. In the Defence Report it is stated to be our major scientific effort. It is one of the tragedies of this time that the Government parties in particular have been inclined to write Australians out of the system and say that they are not really good enough to do these things. I believe that our scientist; are as good as any others. So what is to be done? We must produce a system which will inhibit the use of Australian waters by submarines. I am taking a very special exercise this afternoon because of the restriction of time in this debate. There are a number of ways in which to track submarines, none of them as yet very effective. It can be done by sonar from surface ships, by sonar from submarines, by sonar from helicopters, by sonar buoys in conjunction with aircraft, by various airborne detectors, by radar in ships and aircraft, by fixed sonars in the ocean, by shore, ship or aircraft direction finders and by electronic warfare.

That is a formidable list, but as yet none of those methods provides a total answer. I believe that we ought to be turning our major effort to them and at the same time we must make a rational analysis of the situation. I am not going to say that I am the only person in this chamber or this community who has applied a rational analysis to the problem. What I am suggesting is that there ought to be better public debate and better parliamentary participation. What we need is some system to find submarines in the water and to examine and keep under examination by radar all of the sea and air space around Australia for a certain distance. What we do not need are expensive missile destroyers. As I understand it, the faster they go the less chance there is of their finding anything, because sound is the essence of the contact. We should not be spending $400m on new fighters and bombers at this stage. There is not a single fighter within 3,000 miles of us that could reach us that could not be handled even by the Sabre. The same applies, I should think, to bombers. How could anybody bomb us and get back home?

What we do not need is a national service system. If there is a greater irrelevancy than the national service system - apart from the wickedness of it - I would like to hear about it. I do not believe that the calling up of 20-year-olds is the best way to find soldiers. Let me refer to figures relating to the age of soldiers of a battalion in August 1945. Only 150 of them were under 21, 253 were between 22 and 25, 189 were between 26 and 30, more than 100 were over 30. Of the 711 soldiers, 328 were over 26. We should have a full public debate and a total examination of the situation. We must forget the phoney appreciations of our friends opposite and take a good look at the situation. We do not live in Europe. We are not victims of the aberrations of the imperial dominations of Europe of 30 or 40 years ago. We live in a totally new world.

Perhaps a parliamentary committee of some sort should be appointed to examine the situation. Perhaps we should sit down and bring the rationale that the honourable member for Wentworth and the right honourable member for Higgins were inclined to bring, to the debate this afternoon. Unfortunately it was too late to have Cabinet effectiveness. Perhaps Australia should start to look at the situation, get rid of the theorism which has stricken us for so long and take a look at the real facts of life. I am agreeably surprised by the public acceptance of the admission of China to the United Nations. People are starting to take a new look at China. I would think that in the long run the Chinese are likely to be more rational neighbours than the Russians, or even the Americans in some contexts.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr KILLEN:
Moreton

– I agree with the proposition of the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) that we are living in a totally different world. Nevertheless I would try to encourage from the honourable gentleman his concurrence with the view that benevolence has not become the dominating characteristic of this world. That is precisely why a nation needs defence. I agree with the honourable gentleman that it is a matter of looking sensibly and realistically at the defence threats posed to this nation. The great pity is that in the Estimates debate 10 minutes is scant time to examine this, even superficially. I ask the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) at the earliest opportunity to give the House an opportunity of discussing, on a defence statement, the relationship between defence and foreign affairs. One cannot be isolated from the other. I think it is quite absurd to discuss defence considerations and to put to one side attitude* regarding foreign affairs.

In the 10 minutes available to me 1 am not able to answer some of the points made by my honourable friend - not out of any discourtesy or reluctance to engage in dialectics with him. Time is against me and 1 am sure that, with his immense sense of charity, he will understand that. I agree., at feast in pari, with the remarks passed by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) regarding the light destroyer programme. The light destroyer programme in Australia has been started off by an immensely talented and dedicated band of Australians. These people have worked very hard at their job. 1 had the opportunity - albeit for a short time, punctuated for reasons which one day may possibly intrigue the historians - of seeing something of their work at first hand. They are a superb bunch of men. But we cannot build on their talents alone. A government decision is required. In this matter time is very much against the Government and very much against the country. In the late 1970s the Royal Australian Navy will be on the threshold of a critical time in relation to the age of its ships. This is not a revelation of something that is secret or confidential. All one has to do is go to Jane’s Fighting Ships’, see when the ships were launched, make appropriate adjustments and reach the conclusion that the late 1970s will be a very critical time indeed. I do not envy the Government in having to make a decision on this, but if we are to be committed to the DDL project simpliciter then it will call, as the honourable member for Wentworth said, for the diversion of immense resources to sustain the project. There must be an acceptance by the Australian people of the burden which it will represent. But my point is that there is a critical time and that time is not very far away from this day.

The second point I want to make concerns defence organisation in the general sense. T do not agree with those who have this untrammelled enthusiasm to have one amalgamation of forces. I think it defeats the psychology of people who enlist in the Services. For example, I think a young man joins the Navy because he is interested in ships. I think a person joins the Air Force because he likes messing about with aeroplanes and a person goes into the Army because he is attracted by Army life. We cannot get rid of these subjective attachments. It is very fine to hammer out some blue print and say: ‘Here it is, the Australian Services machine’. A young man is not interested in this, and one of the difficulties that I feel at liberty to say that I would see in the establishment of any joint defence college is that we would get precisely the young man who goes from school at an impressionable age with all the enthusiasm in the world and who is interested in a particular Service. If we throw him into a college where he starts out for the first 6 or 12 months mixing with fellows who do not share the same interests as he has I think we may diminish the value which he would be in the position to offer to the Australian nation. So I would say that whereas the emphasis should be and must be upon joint operations in every possible respect and upon understanding the climate in which the various Services work, please do not be susceptible to the proposition that we can put the one uniform on the man and he can be an Air Force man today and a naval officer tomorrow. It simply will not work.

Having said that, may I briefly turn to some of the remarks which were passed this afternoon by the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) and in particular to his conception that in the future Australia will be very much on its own. I believe that this is the dominant factor in the defence of Australia today. The assurance which the Tight honourable the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) got from the distinguished leader of the American people regarding ANZUS is a welcome assurance, but these assurances have been given before. What I do want to put to the Committee is this: This country cannot in all circumstances and at all times depend for its existence upon some other power. If we look at what was written by Mr Nixon in ‘Foreign Affairs’ in October 1967, when he wrote as a private individual, long before he assumed the awesome responsibility of President of the United States, we see that he wrote on Vietnam to this effect:

One of the legacies of Vietnam almost certainly will be a deep reluctance on the part of the United States to become involved in a similar intervention on a similar basis.

He went on to say:

If another friendly country should be faced with an externally supported Communist insurrection - whether in Asia or Africa or even Latin America- there is the serious question whether the American public or the American Congress would now support a unilateral American intervention, even at the request of the host Government.

I believe - and it is no disrespect to Mr Nixon to say this - that there in its inchoate state was the Nixon doctrine, and 1 believe that all of our defence planning must be based upon the fact that we are substantially on our own. This is an a fortiori argument as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. If the United Kingdom goes into the Common Market then the political identity of that country in the years to come will succumb and be lost within the framework of a European federation. The political significance of that, I believe, is deep and far-reaching, and as yet unplummetted by us all. The defence significance of it is stark, it is clear and it is emphatic. We cannot depend upon the sentiment of yesterday. In the consideration of our defence responsibility and capability it would be unreal to place heavy reliance or, indeed, much reliance upon British involvement. There are the coming generations of those who will be born within the British Isles who will be influenced by new considerations and new convictions as citizens of a new Europe. It is not for me to condemn in any shape or form that development, but this will, I believe, be the development. The old links will have shredded and this is the adjustment this country must make in so many respects. We are not going to make it if we believe that we can, by looking back in some sentimental fashion to the past, find the encouragement and the wherewithal to sustain our defence effort today. We cannot depend upon the dewy dawn of memory. We must look to our own skills, our own resources and our own sense of will.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– First of all, I support the amendment. In so doing I want to draw the attention of the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) to a situation that is arising in South Australia. It was the subject of a question by the honourable member for Port Adelaide (Mr Birrell) this afternoon. I refer to retrenchments that are about to take place at the Hawker Siddeley Electronics Engineering Division. I am prepared to supply the

Minister with copies of letters that have been posted up within the precincts of that establishment and also the names of a number of people within my electorate who are expressing grave concern that the Commonwealth Government is not measuring up to its responsibility insofar as the employment of Australians in defence projects generally is concerned. It is time that the Government realised its responsibility to Australians who are contributing to the defence of the country.

I want to deal briefly with what was said earlier by some of the speakers from the other side of the House. I have mentioned this before and I will mention it again. Honourable members on this side of the House get sick and tired of hearing honourable members opposite suggesting - we heard it again from the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder) - that nobody on this side of the House has any regard for the defence or the security of this nation. It would appear that those who sit on the Government benches feel that they and only they have the God-given right to murmur anything about the defence of this country. We had a classic example of this from a Government supporter at question time this afternoon. May I remind honourable members opposite that the political party that has played the most important role so far as the defence of this country in its hour of greatest need is concerned is neither of the Government Parties and they should always remember that.

I also want to make some brief reference to the remarks of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Killen). He dealt with the amalgamation of the three Services into one on the basis that one day a fellow has an Air Force uniform and the next day may appear in a naval uniform. This is the wrong approach to the whole question of a united defence force. The ultimate in defence from a Service point of view - and I remind honourable members opposite of this - is a combined operation, and the proper concept of a combined operation is to have the 3 Services welded together. One of the greatest failures of combined operations during the early part of the last World War - in fact this occurred more or less during the whole of the war - was that they always seemed to be disadvantaged by the fact that-

Dr Mackay:

– That is exactly what he said as 1 understood him.

Mr FOSTER:

– No, it is not. Although you are the Minister for the Navy, do not interrupt on the basis that that is what you think he said. I am putting this proposition to the House. 1 am on my feet and you are sitting down, and you should remain so for the time being. What I am trying to point out to the Minister for the Navy is that the proper concept of a combined operation is a joining of the 3 Services. The honourable member for Moreton hoped that as far as training and identification were concerned the 3 Services would remain as they are at the moment. My reply to that is that we ought to get away from the concept of the 3 Services because the ultimate in a defence concept is that the 3 Services will work closely together. So why the hell should we continue to live in the past by keeping them separated from almost every purpose but the most crucial of ail from the defence point of view? That is the point I wanted to make.

I agree with the honourable member for Moreton that it is time the Minister for Defence made a statement on defence in this Parliament, so that it might be debated, instead of raising matters of defence during the adjournment debate. Instead of quarrelling with his officers, as he was last week, and perhaps being prevailed upon by some members of his Party to take the big stick to his Department, he should present in the Parliament a statement that could be properly debated. I would hope that such a statement would be different from that made by his predecessor, which covered some 46 pages. At the time all that Minister could do was drive a knife in the back of his chief executive officer and twist it. I hope that the present Minister will approach this matter in a different way.

This Government’s defence policy is totally inadequate to the needs of this country even accepting, as I do, that at this point of time we will not be trodden underfoot tonight by a great horde of Asiatics. The way this Government has gone on in the last week in regard to the Cambodian situation is not only shocking but absolutely amazing. I believe, as many others in the community believe, that what Alan Barnes said in an article in today’s

Melbourne ‘Age’ is correct. Somebody is telling lies to somebody else. If this is the way honourable members opposite approach questions relating to our defence how can they claim to be members of the only Party in the Commonwealth to whom the security of this nation can be entrusted? Here is a classic example. Let me turn to another which concerns every honourable member. I refer to the Press conference held by our Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) when he was in New York. A copy of that conference ought to be framed and given to every school child in this country to reveal to these people, who might live in an age when they will need to be defended, the type of situation which confronts this country today as a result of this Government’s policies - a government that is absolutely divided on this issue. The Prime Minister was asked this question in New York:

Sir, was there a request from the Cambodian Government to our Government to train their men in South Vietnam?

This is the reply:

That I don’t know. 1 don’t think there was . . . What I am trying to do . . . you are “putting me through a crossexamination at a time when 1 have had so many tremendously important problems to deal with.

I have never heard so much trash in all my life. Honourable members opposite should take the Prime Minister to task on his return from overseas. Honourable members can go into the Parliamentary Library and obtain a copy of the Prime Minister’s Press conference which he held before he left this country. Once again he was questioned by members of the Press. Surely they have a right to question the Prime Minister. That conference was a complete and utter shambles on a simple question. 1 want to take up a matter raised here last week. I hope to goodness that the House will listen to the honourable member for Moreton tomorrow on the matter which he gave notice of today. I want to draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that what was said in the ‘Age’ was not disputed, so somebody is covering up. This matter was discussed by the Cabinet of this country almost 6 months ago. Why was it hidden from this Parliament? The Minister for the Navy interjected earlier. He may nol have been a member of the Cabinet at that time but the question 1 pose to the present Minister for Defence is: Why did he stand in this House during the course of most of last Wednesday afternoon, along with other members of the Government, making excuses for this intolerable mess over the training of Cambodian forces in South Vietnam. The Cabinet itself had dealt with the question just after the Prime Minister became the Prime Minister, if he is one. The fact is that the Minister withheld it from the Parliament. He has not been honest in his deliberations as far as this Parliament is concerned. You do not play this matter down as easily as you seek to play down the guilt of those responsible for over involvement in Vietnam. We have never been fully informed as to how we became involved. The grovelling attitude of the Prime Minister on his trip overseas in regard to the defence of this country is nothing short of shocking and I do not say that because of the fact that we will not regard certain treaties as being on the basis on which they ought to be regarded. I do not think there is any need for any Australian to carry on in the manner in which the Prime Minister has carried on in an endeavour to make a cheap political point.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr GARLAND:
Minister for Supply · Curtin · LP

– The honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) has made his usual speech characterised more by heat than by light. But he did refer to one matter which I would like briefly to touch on. He took up the question of the Government’s attitude to defence and its foreign policy when he suggested that the Opposition was every bit as interested in defence forces as is this Government. I want to make the point to this Committee that it is natural for Government supporters to take that view because every speech made by members of the Opposition on foreign affairs has stressed that there are no threats to our security and that there is no potential danger to us. In short the Opposition is prepared to put the most optimistic construction on events to strategic forces and the objectives of other nations. The Government has a responsibility to be more realistic than that, so it is natural that when the Opposition claims that it wishes to see built up the defence capacity of this country, Government supporters will say that it is interested only in-

Mr Cope:

– It cannot be China.

Mr GARLAND:

– I am flattered by the many interruptions but I intend to make my point. It is obvious to those who have listened to these speeches on foreign policy that all that concerns the Opposition is the employment involved. The honourable member for Sturt referred to this matter which has particular connection with a number of factories and other establishments which are of concern to my Department. 1 wish to point out, as has been said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard) on occasions, that it is silly to think in terms of building a defence capacity simply in order to provide jobs. I pass those remarks on to the honourable member so that he might think about them.

I want to make particular reference to a few of the comments made by the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) in relation to the aircraft industry because the Opposition has seen fit to move a relevant amendment to these estimates. At the outset I want to say that on the question of rationalisation of the aircraft industry in the Fishermen’s Bend area, to which he referred, between the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation and the Government Aircraft Factories, no decision of any kind was made in relation to this on 12th October. It is regrettable that so many rumours are circulating in respect of purported conditions which are the subject of investigation and consideration. - 1 suppose there is a very understandable desire on the part of some to know in advance what the final decision, if there is to be a decision, will be - which parts might or might not come within the merger and also the other terms. Many suggestions have been made in the speech by the honourable member and by others. Because there is not sufficient time to deal with them in this debate I want to say that of all the suggestions I have heard made by him and others as to the final decision, most of them are not true, some of them are not fully in context and others are, as yet, not fully negotiated, let alone decided. The honourable member mentioned, I think, 2 important points. Firstly, he said that he could not see that a private profit organisation - he was referring to the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Limited - could be fitted adequately into the defence pattern. Surely the quick answer to that is that it is already. He questioned whether what he called the profitable sections of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation - the helicopter and engine sections - would be included. He suggested that they would not be. This, I repeat is part of the negotiation.

But to get this matter into context I should like to say briefly, at the risk of some repetition, what is the present position. The Government’s policy concerning the aircraft industry has been, and continues to be, to maintain an effective defence aircraft industry in Australia. In looking at the scope of the industry, and in order to be clear what that scope is, let me refer briefly to the establishments. There are 3 main production organisations. Firstly, the Government Aircraft Factories operated by the Department of Supply at Fishermen’s Bend and Avalon, Victoria, having capabilities of design, manufacture, assembly, testing and overhaul of aircraft and guided weapons; secondly, the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, also at Fishermen’s Bend, Victoria, with capabilities in airframe design and in the manufacture, assembly, testing and overhaul of air frames and jet engines; and, thirdly, Hawker de Havilland Australia Pty Ltd at Bankstown and Lidcombe, New South Wales, with some design capability and capabilities in the manufacture, assembly, testing and overhaul of air frames, and the manufacture of piston engines and the overhaul of piston, turbogroup and turbojet engines. These 3 organisations, along with other contractors associated with the industry, employ some 7,000 persons. The Government has invested heavily in the fixed assets operated by the industry. The cost to the Commonwealth is in excess of $30m.

A brief look at the past workload of the industry will clearly demonstrate the outworking of the Government’s policy to support an effective defence aircraft industry. Since the Second World War, which gave rise to the establishment of this productive capacity, we have seen a major productive undertaking for all requirements where the numbers have justified tooling up in Australia. This is true of the Sabre, the Canberra, the Vampire, the Mirage and the Macchi. Over the same period support has been given to such well known local projects as the Winjeel piston-engined trainer, the Malkara anti-tank weapon, the Ikara anti-submarine missile and the Jindivik pilotless target aircraft.

The important matter, however, for consideration is the present effort of the Government to support its stated policy. It is recognised by the Government that the defence aircraft industry relies heavily on defence orders for its basic workload. At the same time we find that workload peaks and troughs occur in meeting defence orders because the life of an aircraft is longer than the period of manufacture and the difficulties in staffing and management are a cyclical. At present we are in a trough between the end of the Mirage production run, the substantial completion of the Macchi production run and the major reequipment programmes of the Services. A great deal of effort has been put into developing work for the industry. I shall mention the major projects. The first is Project N. The Government has agreed to the expenditure of some $4m on the development of a local design for a light utility STOL aircraft. The first prototype of the aircraft has flown successfully and the Government expects to be giving consideration to the production phase of the aircraft in the near future. This project has provided valuable work for the design and engineering group at the Government Aircraft Factories.

The Government also has approved an arrangement for light observation helicopters whereby, as a condition of receiving an order for 75 military helicopters the Bell Helicopter Company of the United States of America also will produce 116 helicopters in Australia for the commercial market and build up to a pre-determined level of Australian content. This project will not only assist with the workload for the industry, particularly in the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, but also will fill a gap in Australia’s aircraft industry capacity and provide effective support over the life of the helicopters.

Thirdly, the Government has approved the design of a high speed pilotless target drone for low level missile attacks, called the Turana. The drone is being developed by the Government Aircraft Factories and has undergone successful flight trials, which are continuing. Further, efforts have been made by the Government in developing workload opportunities for the defence aircraft industry through off-sets, coproduction or sub-contracting and they have been substantial with prospects for a greater increase. Special machinery has been created for the purpose. Some success has been achieved but long term effort is becoming involved. A joint Department of Supply and industry team is leaving Australia this week to seek orders from France. It is being made apparent to the overseas suppliers of major defence and other equipments that a great deal of attention will be given to the opportunities offering to Australian industry from proposals received.

The projects that I have mentioned evidence the effort being made by the Government to encourage and develop workload for the industry, particularly workload utilising local design and engineering capacity which is so important to the role of the industry in Australia in providing support for the Services.

In referring briefly to the possible rationalisation of the industry at Fishermen’s Bend, I say that the projects that I have mentioned will not meet the problems if the industry is not in itself economic and effective. The Government believes that the defence aircraft industry needs to be more commercially oriented and that there is some scope for rationalisation of activities in the industry, particularly in the Fishermen’s Bend area where the Government Aircraft Factories and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation operate on adjacent sites with much of their plant being complementary. This matter is under active consideration by both the Department of Supply and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation. The results of about 12 working parties can be expected to receive consideration by the Government in the new year. But I emphasise that any rationalisation scheme that might be adopted will have, as its aim, the achievement of a more effective and economical defence aircraft industry which it is the policy of the Government to support. The interests of the present staff of both the

Government Aircraft Factories and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation will be kept very much in mind.

Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo

– Earlier today we had a number of discussions on the foreign policy aspects of defence policy in Australia. I should like to pursue this issue a little further. Later I shall refer to the position of the Citizen Military Forces in Australia and comment on some of the ways in which the Government’s defence force policy is affecting people in my electorate. It is high time Australia evolved a foreign policy which placed its first consideration not so much on the defence interests of Australia but on getting on well with our neighbours. Unfortunately for 20 years the Government has been obsessed with the primacy of defence policy in its foreign policy. Indeed, defence policy has been raised to the level of the absolute goal in foreign policy. So in fact we do not talk about our relations with our neighbours; we talk about our relations with allies.

We do not talk about trade and diplomacy. The Government talks invariably in terms of the American alliance. Since the early 1950s all of our foreign policy objectives have been subordinated to satisfying what we believe to be the interests of the United States. Regrettably the conservative government which has ruled this country for 2 decades has adopted lock, stock and barrel the presumptions and prejudices of American foreign policy as laid down by John Foster Dulles in the 1950s. With that identity of ideology and outlook upon the world, we have adopted similar objectives. Consequently we have not only followed the United States into some of its gravest errors in South East Asian and foreign policy; we have actually egged it on, and in doing so we have done damage to the objective that originally was pursued. In the case of the Indo-China and Vietnam war we have followed a policy which has frustrated its own objective. That objective, of course, was to keep the United States involved in South East Asia.

The Government’s foreign policy today is in ruins. The United States is withdrawing from South East Asia; it is withdrawing from Indo-China. The United Kingdom is withdrawing from the MalaysiaSingapore area. The policy of the United States towards China is changing. On all these counts the Australian Government is still thinking and acting as though it were living in the congenial myths of the 1950s and 1960s, but Australia has now reached a stage where we must start to think for ourselves. We should be quite ruthless in working out what are Australia’s interests in our relation with our neighbours. Those interests are not always the interests of the United States. The United States is a global power. She has innumerably treaty relationships with other countries. Australia is a local power in South East Asia. We have to live with our neighbours. We are not distant from them. The best way that we can live with our neighbours is not in an atmosphere of the synthetic fear which is being continually whipped up by this Government but in an atmosphere of positive and deliberate understanding with our neighbours.

At the present moment the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has just left the United States, and in the United Kingdom he has been doing some campaigning for the next, election. He has aimed to tell the Australian people that ANZUS and the American alliance still mean something, and undoubtedly when he returns he will again tell the people of Australia, as he has told them for the last 20 years, that the ANZUS relationship is as strong, as valid and as vital as ever and that the Australian Labor Party is opposed to the American alliance. ANZUS is not as strong, as vital and as valid as it ever was. One very interesting point is that in the 2 major statements on foreign policy made by President Nixon, that is the statements of February 1970 and February 1971, no mention was made of ANZUS. As the former Prime Minister himself is quoted in the paper today as saying, those understandings and assurances which the Prime Minister has been given in the United States about ANZUS are no different from those that other Prime Ministers - Mr Gorton, Mr Harold Holt and Sir Robert Menzies - had been given before. The situation is just as indefinite as it ever was.

Australia must recognise that in dealing with a great power she is bound to be frustrated. Of course it might be said that that is part of the normal price that may be paid for an alliance, but I do not believe that Australia’s objectives will always be the same as those of the United States. Luckily, on the other hand, American policy is now developing in such a way that I think it is becoming more and more acceptable, certainly to supporters of the Australian Labor Party. We have the almost incomprehensible position where recently a representative of the Australian Government in the United States virtually chided the American Government because of the liberal policy it was pursuing on the question of China, and he was virtually telling the United States Government that American policy on China must change if the United States wanted the Liberal Party to be preserved in power in Australia. That is the extent of the gulf that has developed between the United States and this Government. Again I say American foreign policy these days is directed towards greater flexibility, greater understanding and greater ability to make concessions. We on this side of the chamber strongly support and welcome this tendency in American foreign policy. It is encouraging to see . that the United States has now developed to a stage where it is negotiating through the person of the President himself with the Government of China, because this can only do good for South East Asia, our part of the world. It can only be to the good of our future if the two major powers which have been so antagonistic for two decades can live in a way in which it is possible for them to make concessions.

In view of the comments I have been making it is clear that the policy of forward defence we have been pursuing is now archaic and should be abolished entirely. We have deceived ourselves, and regrettably the Government has deceived many Australians into believing that by having a battalion of troops in the MalaysiaSingapore area we are actually defending Australia; that up there there is a hole and that unless we shove our finger in it those Asians will come pooring down. Regrettably I have heard this sort of view expressed many times. But this is a deception; it is a fraud. Not only will it not benefit Australia by keeping troops in Malaysia-Singapore; it can actually do us harm because of the dangers it can get us into. As one member on the Government side said today, unless we ourselves very quickly get around to withdrawing our troops from that area very soon we could be faced with a position where we are asked to do so.

I want to speak very briefly about the position of the Citizen Military Forces. I am particularly concerned at the deterioration in the strength and also to some extent, I believe, in the morale of the Citizen Military Forces. As one who believes in having a strong defence force and who also believes very strongly in the voluntary principle in defence, I am very impressed by the Citizen Military Forces. 1 personally would like to see far stronger citizen military forces than we have had so far. Reluctantly, however, I Have to admit that the strength of the CMF is declining. In 1968 the Citizen Military Forces consisted of 35,762 men. By 1971 this number had dropped to 29,364, a drop of 6,000 from 1968. That is a very serious matter. I think this drop perhaps can be put down partly to the fact that the Government has been shadow boxing with defence. It has been obsessed with the idea of forward defence. If we spend all our time organising and equipping our army for the defence of South East Asia and if we pursue that mirage, we will be put in a position where the domestic forces within Australia will be downgraded. Unfortunately that is the attitude that has led to this decline in the Citizen Military Forces. I personally am very impressed by the work that the CMF is doing. I am therefore concerned that the CMF is in many senses under-equipped, that some units are under strength and that there is such a high turnover rate of staff. I would urge the Government to look at this matter very closely.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– It is a strange atmosphere that we find in the chamber this afternoon. An air of despondency has been detectable in the various speeches that have been made. I would like to express some views clearly and concisely to those honourable gentlemen who have addressed the chamber from the other side and to those who have spoken from the Government side. (Quorum formed.) Mention has been made of the programme that has been announced in relation to the Navy. The worries and concern felt in some quarters about the cost of the DDL ships for the Navy are of great concern to the Government. In my opinion, the House should give its support to the programme. Even if each of these ships is going to cost something of the order of $100m over the next 15 years or so, it is my firm conviction that time will reveal that the programme is vital, that there will be a need for the ships and that they will play a significant part in the future defence of Australia. I say this because in a world environment which is changing throughout the 1970s - this may be a cause of alarm to my friend from Wills (Mr Bryant) - we will have a situation where, by 1990, the greatest naval power on this earth will be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I am firmly convinced that pragmatists as the Communists are, they are not creating the greatest naval force known in the history of mankind without having a real reason for so doing. In this environment it will be absolutely essential for the people of Australia, irrespective of rising costs, to find the courage, the capacity and the dedication to the welfare of their country to put forward their own best capacity in the defence of Australia. The United States, in the terms of the doctrine of President Nixon, has made it clear that it is not deserting its friends and that it is prepared in the case of overt attack or open aggression against them to defend them. However, it has asked those people who are bound to it by alliances to do the utmost they possibly can to make the greatest possible contribution in terms of their own defence, so as to be worthy of the defence effort of the United States. In these circumstances, what a poor and miserable lot Australians would be if they were prepared to avoid that necessary defence effort which will earn the respect of our powerful allies.

It has been said in this place that Australia must be seen as standing alone. In my judgment this is arrant and utter nonsense. I accept the statement of the President of the United States of America, just as the leaders of the Australian Labor Party accepted statements of one of his predecessors almost 30 years ago. From that day to this, such statements have meant that the men and women of the

United States of America would stand side by side with Australians against aggression. I am firmly convinced that that is the situation today. I am also firmly convinced that whether or not the United Kingdom enters the European Economic Community, the forces of the United Kingdom will be available to defend Australia in the rare circumstances of Australia being attacked without there being a global war in progress. I repeat that the United States of America, through its President, has made it clear that it will stand with us and all that it expects us to do, in the terms of the local jargon, is to pull our own weight. We can do this only when we are prepared to meet the cost of modern, sophisticated equipment. This the Australian public will accept if the Government goes out, talks to the people of Australia and explains the problems to them. (Quorum formed)

It is only fair to comment that there are 4 times as many Government supporters in the chamber as there are members of the Opposition and, from what I know of my colleagues, they are 4 times as good, too. I should like to make it quite clear that the greatest threat to the future of Australia is the type of covert war which we have seen as the modern pattern of warfare. I instance the wars of national liberation, which are based upon subversion and the destruction of the fabric of a prosperous and permissive society. Here is the basis of the very threat that exists in this country and throughout the rest of the world.

The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) lamented the fact that Australia has troops stationed in Malaysia and Singapore and he referred in particular to racial tensions which may erupt into civil war within these 2 countries and other Asian countries. Perhaps this does constitute a threat to Australia but it is in fact the very weakness that the Communists are always seeking to exploit. Again and again I have heard members of the Opposition asserting that the subversion and the destruction of the fabric of the society of Indo-China is simply an illustration of civil war and that we ought not to be taking part in the attempts to defend our friends. The wars of national liberation are now familiar in many parts of the world, and the Communists and their friends are the people who supply the arms and ammunition. The other day a large aircraft loaded with arms was leaving Europe to go to Northern Ireland; there is not much doubt that those arms came from behind the Iron Curtain.

As I have only about 45 seconds remaining, I shall say this: I am in favour of the warships for the fleet; I am in favour of better aeroplanes for the Air Force; I am in favour of more and more Australians being put into uniforms and taught to be able to stand up straight and be men. I am not prepared to support people who are going to grovel to a group of oriental potentates stretching from Peking down to Hanoi, people who do not have the moral courage to stand up for what the Australian flag and its people have always meant.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– We are to spend $l,255m on defence this year. Apart from questions of whether the amount is enough or too much, there is the very important question of whether we shall get good defence value from the money. One of the very important costs in defence expenditure, of course, are those associated with the training and employment of personnel themselves. I understand that it takes about 62 per cent of the defence budget just to maintain the machinery as it is without the purchase of any new equipment. I want to raise questions tonight of the defence training methods, some aspects of defence administration and, if time permits, the issue of conscription.

The former Secretary of the Department of Defence, Sir Henry Bland, raised some very important questions in a talk in Perth in September 1970 during the 21st Roy Milne Memorial Lecture when he called for a review of military training. He reminded us that a very large proportion of our defence forces is devoted to the training of others and large numbers are always undergoing training. A general is reported to have said recently that in his whole career one-fifth of his Service life had been devoted to training. On the matter of the training of people in the higher ranks of our defence forces, apparently Australia still looks to other countries, chiefly the United Kingdom, in regard to its most senior training. This is seriously questionable. Sir Henry Bland is one of those who would know about this aspect. He says that we should call this practice into question. He has questioned how relevant it is to our particular needs to have the higher echelons of our defence personnel being trained overseas. He suggests - and it might be well for this Committee to take notice - that:

We ought not delay too long doing this for ourselves.

Very much more importantly, Sir Henry went on to question how extraordinary it is that with all the training that is done in our defence forces there has been no real examination of training methods for quite a number of years. Possibly the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn), who is at the table, might answer this when he gets up to speak in this debate. He might be able to tell us what review there has been of training methods in the defence forces of Australia.

Sir Henry says that despite the plethora of reviews of training in many other fields such as universities, technical colleges, schools and industry itself, little has been done in the defence forces. He suggests that we ought to be looking at the character of the training, its value, what methods are used, whether they are up to date, what resources are devoted to training; what continuity is provided in the way of instruction, what the content is of the courses, and whether it is relevant to those defence needs. These are very important questions that ought to be asked in a defence estimates debate. Therefore, I ask the Minister - and I hope that he will answer - to inform me what has been done to answer this query raised by the former Secretary of Defence in regard to a review or re-examination of training methods in the defence forces.

Sir Henry went on to say there are other factors of concern such as those associated with recruitment policies. Here he raised the question of 3-year Army engagements. He asked how feasible these are; whether they could be of distinct value to the Services: and what the defence departments are doing in respect of recruitment of graduates from outside as officers in the Services. He questioned also the use the defence forces are making of normal civilian establishments such as universities, technical colleges and colleges of advanced education. He asked: Are the defence forces making adequate use of those facilities for their professional and subprofessional training? He also went on to question - and so do I - some aspects of personnel management philosophies of the Services.

According to Sir Henry it is said that the present or prevailing philosophy is to give an officer training and experience over as wide a field as possible. He suggests that one of the immediate consequences of this is a succession of postings. In order to give an officer this wide experience a rotation of postings is provided for him and this is criticised very much overseas as being excessively costly, very wasteful and contributing to inefficient management. This is the criticism that has been made in respect of trying to give an officer all round experience. In addition, the constant rotation of officers’ duties involves frequent new postings and transfers with all of the consequent disruption of family life, the schooling of children and so on. It has been pointed out in other reports that this system often leads to an abnormally high number of resignations and failure on the part of many defence personnel to reengage after their term has expired.

This all points to the need for modern, up to date management concepts in the administration of our Services. Interestingly enough, the former Defence Secretary also referred to the ‘quasi monastic life’ led by military men separated in their training and everyday living apart from the ordinary flow of community life. These men are living in military establishments divorced from contact with community life. Sir Henry wondered whether this is such a good thing. He asked whether it would not be better for people who are concerned with defence to be more associated with the ordinary run of community life. He thought that this in the long run would make for a better serviceman and would be more beneficial for his all round development.

Sir Henry also questioned , and this has been questioned in this House plenty of times , the business of Army procurement - the obtaining of military hardware, if I can put it that way. He said that the problems arise from our insistence on compatibility of weapons and equipment with those of the United States of America. This has been a cardinal principle. We have tried to integrate our defence hardware with that provided in the United States. He seriously questioned this and wondered whether in the long run this might not be a great disadvantage to Australia. He pointed out that invariably the equipment is complex and is integrated into an even wider complexity. As a result we find that we are committing ourselves to equipment which is more likely to be designed for theatres of war and operations in which we are unlikely to be engaged. We are committing ourselves to equipment which is inevitably horribly costly.

Therefore the questions of training, research, procurement and management have all been raised by no less a person than an expert in the field - the former Secretary of the Department of Defence. I trust that the issues that he raised about a year ago are now being researched by the political heads of the defence forces.

I turn ever so briefly in the few minutes I have left to the matter of conscription. I have indicated that manpower is a very important part of our defence budget. Indeed, 62 per cent of our defence grant goes simply in maintaining the defence structure. What do other countries do in respect of voluntary forces as against conscripted forces? Great Britain and Canada, just to name two, have relatively successfully used an all-volunteer system. We know now that the United States aims to do likewise. That country agrees that one of the reasons why it has not been able to get the volunteers is that it has asked for standards that are too high. In our own country 70 per cent of those who apply to join the regular forces are rejected. Are we asking for too high standards? Are many of our young men who go into the defence forces being essentially undertrained and underemployed? I have some evidence of this especially in the case of the Navy, of young fellows who went in with high ambitions of service and found themselves employed in routine types of tasks. As a result they have become absolutely discontented and are doing everything they can to get out of the Navy. We can ask of ourselves whether we are demanding such high standards that lead to this 70 per cent rate of rejection.

I think that conscription has been identified as a form of tax in kind. This is one of the few such taxes that still exist where people are expected to pay a tax by service on the cheap. It is inequitable because only some have to do it. Somebody has estimated that national service, this service on the cheap, is equivalent to an average income tax rate over and above what everybody else has to pay of 48 per cent. It is about time, it is suggested, that we had a cost benefit analysis to show the value of mixed forces, that is, volunteers and conscripts, such as we have now as against an all volunteer force. Some attempts have been made to do this. Roy Forward of the University of Queensland has pointed out that 4 times as much time is spent on conscripts entering and leaving the Army, 4 times as many conscripts need training and 4 times as many Regular Army men are needed to train them. I cannot continue in the time left to me to point out that whether conscript forces are in fact the cheapest in the long run is seriously questioned.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

– During the course of this debate I have listened to a tremendous amount of wide ranging ideas, through international policy to home policy. I would like to confine my contribution to our local problems, those a little nearer to home. I would like to discuss the allocation of funds for training Army personnel, both in the Citizen Military Forces and the Australian Regular Army, and with particular reference to the northern Queensland bases. No doubt honourable members are aware that each year the training staffs of the various military units and areas forecast what their training programmes will be and then request the necessary funds from their own command to meet these requirements. Commands in turn make their applications to the Department of Defence through the Department of the Army. In many instances the amounts requested are never provided in full and, consequently, right down the line training programmes have to be revised in keeping with the amount of finance allocated. This 1 know, having had to draw up not so long ago some of these training estimates. It can readily be seen that many an ambitious training programme to maintain the interest and increase the efficiency of serving soldiers, either in the CMF or the ARA, has been reduced to a somewhat monotonous programme due to a lack of foresight in the allocation of finance.

Areas vary considerably and in some instances, especially in the north, units have to travel long distances in order to participate in collective training. For instance, for CMF task force collective training in northern Queensland, which would be conducted in the Army training area known as the high range area, units of the CMF task force will have to travel from places as far apart as Rockhampton, Mackay, Cairns and Mount Isa, all quite a distance away. Honourable members are well aware that such collective training conducted during the annual camp period is the culmination of the training done by the personnel in their various unit areas and as such is very necessary for the senior staff members, both in administration and training in battle exercises. It has been announced recently that a CMF task force to be known as the 1 1th Task Force will be formed in northern Queensland and will include units as far south as Rockhampton, as far west as Mount Isa and as far north as Cairns. To me this is a tremendously ambitious move and one for which the local area commander and the Northern Command should be commended for attempting. I wish them well.

It is well known that in the event of any international crisis, if we as a nation are committed to war, the CMF would form the bulk of the Army. With this in mind CMF units should be given every encouragement to keep their training programmes interesting and efficient and to see that personnel comprising these units are not restricted in this regard because of lack of finance for these programmes. I am sure we all feel there is a definite requirement to build up the strength of the CMF in all areas and we can attract recruits and hold them only if the training programme is interesting and satisfying.

Again let us look at the overall picture. There are many opportunities for diversion for our young men today and if we wish to attract these young men into the CMF, with the CMF being a worthwhile additional interest for them, we have to match these other civilian interests for spare time diversion by making such training worth their while. I feel that the employers of young people could assist tremendously in this regard if the situation were properly explained to them so that if necessary the small amount of additional time off from work to meet a CMF training requirement could be granted. If it was properly explained to the employer that the younger members of his staff would be trained in personnel management, control and administration, which would assist tremendously in building up their confidence to face the future, at no expense to the employer, 1 feel that the employer would become a willing partner with the Army in assisting to build up the CMF both in numbers and efficiency.

However, this cannot be done if the people who control the allocation of finance keep too tight a rein on the purse strings. I am not advocating that finance be allocated without serious thought. What I am advocating is that the various commands, with their different problems regarding training opportunities, should be studied sensibly and planned for well in advance in order that both the country and the CMF member will obtain the maximum benefit from the money that is spent. In speaking of the training of troops there is another matter which could well bear investigation by members of the Department. It relates to situations where regular Army units are based within or near a civilian community. Co-operation between the public and the Services is a necessity to ensure that goodwill on both sides is maintained and increased because without that goodwill and co-operation from the public the morale of any unit, be it CMF or ARA, must suffer tremendously. It is well known also that for training purposes members of a unit cannot be confined solely to their unit training area but must travel. To do this they use the highways and access roads to reach their training areas. Some of these access roads, naturally enough, are only second grade roads which are quite adequate for the small civilian population that uses them but entirely inadequate if Army vehicles use them to any great degree. I have found this a major cause for concern on quite a number of occasions. When, perhaps due to inclement weather, such a road has been cut up to a degree which causes inconvenience to the civilian population using it, I feel it is the Department’s responsibility to restore that road to its former condition. Where there is an Army establishment containing an element of an engineer corps, this restoration can be done by the unit itself, as has been done in the past quite effectively and to the satisfaction of all concerned. But where there is an Army establishment without an engineering component and roads are damaged, this becomes a matter of great concern.

For instance, where we have an Army establishment which necessitates the use of an ordinary gravel-surface road to maintain communications between it and the highway it is not long before the passage of Army vehicles destroys the surface of the road rendering it an absolute dust menace to the civilian population residing in that area. The civilians naturally enough object to having their houses continually closed against this dust problem, especially in the northern tropical climate. There is nothing more guaranteed to destroy goodwill and public relations faster than for the Services to be responsible for inconveniencing a civilian in his own home. This problem, which occurs in only a very few areas, can be easily overcome by obtaining the co-operation of the local shire council. It would possibly mean that the surface of the road would have to be sealed or oiled, but I will not agree with some who think thae the Department cannot afford it. This has been put to me before. What we lose in good public relations is worth a great deal more than the cost of sealing or oiling a roadway for a distance of 3 to 4 miles. This becomes a matter of co-operation wilh the public. When the planning for financial allocation is made by the Department I strongly suggest that this matter, which may appear very small here but which looms large in many areas, be taken into consideration. The shire councils, I know, would be only too willing to help. As I have said, good public relations between the people and our Services is worth more than the solution of this aggravating problem would cost in cold cash.

Mr BENNETT:
Swan

– -We enter yet another period of debate of the Estimates with Western Australia still being an isolated area of land. Western Australia does not as yet have an all-weather road link. If it were to require urgent defence equipment by land at the wrong time of the year - when it was raining - would this Government call ‘Parley’ to the opposing forces so that the road could dry out and the equipment could be brought across? What a ludicrous situation. It is not impossible to imagine rail links also being cut. It would be impractical to bring equipment any way other than by road or rail. These estimates make no provision for alternative means of transport. In a country ideally suited for air-cushion vehicles or hovercraft, there is no provision for their supply or even for experimentation with them in our forces. If we are not going to have proper road links or satisfactory rail links completely around Australia and if we are not to provide for the total air mobility of our forces, an imaginative approach is required. We have a failing aircraft manufacturing industry which is totally capable of manufacturing air-cushion type vehicles. It is important that this area of defence mobility and manufacture is investigated immediately not only to ensure adequate defence but also to bolster and retain the development of the Australian industry, and so prevent these estimates from being a year to year record of overseas expenditure with no coherent plan for the future.

It is useless for honourable members opposite to talk of outside threats without paying attention to the internal defence policis. These policies must include complete mobility, and one important facet would be the joining of the east and west of Australia by the sealing of the Eyre Highway. The Government’s answer to this type of thinking would be to string a couple of strands of barbed wire along the top of the rabbit-proof fence; it would not provide the necessary S6m to give an allweather road link with Western Australia. Western Australians generally appreciate the provision of the Cockburn Sound base, but this does not seem to lessen their desire not to be treated in a cavalier fashion by the Commonwealth, and unfortunately this is what is transpiring.

In October 1970 I asked the then Prime Minister to institute a detailed ecological study of Cockburn Sound, prior to the construction of the causeway, in an effort to prevent the pollution of the Sound with its resultant deleterious effect on marine life. I further asked whether he would investigate the proposals to have Garden Island declared a prohibited area to the public, with the resultant adverse effect on the availability of public open spaces in the area, and the proposed eviction of some 60 holiday home owners without compensation being paid to them. In all these aspects I met with refusal. In reference to the ecological survey the then Prime Minister admitted: . . clearly the matter of tidal flow and the amount of area through which the tide could flow, that amount being, if I could put it this way, the bridge part as distinct from the hard causeway part, would have an effect on the general area and I am sure would be taken into account by the construction authorities.

This has not happened. Construction has taken place as a matter of convenience to design and not on any basis of pollution or ecological control, lt is imperative that this situation be rectified before the Sound is ruined for posterity. It is not as if we are not aware of the situation; it is something which should be above and apart from party issues. An assurance from the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairbairn) is required in this matter.

As for declaring Garden Island a com.pletely prohibited area there arises another problem for which no solution has been found. In addition to the holiday home owners, this area has been used by members of a power boat association for over 10 years. Some 20,000 power boats are registered in Western Australia, and their owners will be denied access to some 7 miles of safe anchorage and beaches and could be further denied an area of water up to, I think, a quarter of a mile, which is defined for security reasons around the Island. The people most affected will be the 380 members of the Cockburn Sound Power Boat Association, which is a club of 10 years standing. Surely allowance can be made for clubs such as this. We are not at war. Club members would have no cause to go more than 100 yards inland. Whytake away from them and the numerous other users of this area what has been an unspoiled and safe recreation area? Surely there is room for all activities to be conducted in the area. Let the Minister not use the excuse of the Americans being offered the use of the base, as this offer to the Americans or, more importantly, the manner in which it was made, has created deep resentment in Western Australia. The Premier of Western Australia, Mr Tonkin, accused the Prime Minister of riding roughshod over the States. He said:

I think he might have consulted us as a matter of common courtesy.

This illustrates the general attitude which has been evident throughout the establishment of the base. There has been a complete disregard of the need for cooperation with the State, a disregard of the ecology of the Sound and a disregard of the citizens of Western Australia who have been dispossessed of their areas of relaxation. All this could have been avoided by personal contact, by discussion and by investigation. Even at this late stage it is not beyond hope that the Commonwealth could restore its image by consulting with the State authorities in these matter. I believe that all that the people desire is to be advised fully in these matters and to be given the opportunity to agree with what is proposed rather than to have something thrust upon them by Canberra.

A number of my constituents have been alarmed to find that the Department of the Army does not in fact intend to ensure that all troops are home from Vietnam prior to Christmas, as was the impression given in the initial announcements. It has been estimated that up to 1,000 servicemen could remain in Vietnam, lt is up to the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock) to spell out what is to happen to these men so that they and their families can plan for the future. Surely with an expenditure such as that envisaged in these estimates it would not be impossible for the Minister to assure the Committee that the maximum number of men will be returned home - even if it means a return trip for some. But there is no excuse for the atmosphere of indecision which exists today. Honourable members and the public need to be more fully informed of these matter by statements in the Parliament, not in pronouncements made at a luncheon or Press conference in the United States of America or in the United Kingdom, which has been the recent practice of our absent Prime Minister (Mr McMahon). Let Australia be administered in Australia by Australians for Australians and not to please some passing political leader of another nation. Let the Government put first loyalty to the Australian public and the State governments.

Mr JESS:
La Trobe

– We are allowed 10 minutes to speak on the defence estimates which appropriate money for 5 departments. In my opinion it is a complete waste of time, as I have said every year when debating these estimates, to expect to have a realistic debate on defence when honourable members are allowed a period of 10 minutes in which to deal with defence matters. But after listening to the debate that has taken place in this chamber today I believe it is interesting to see the dilemma in which the Opposition Party appears to be placed in advocating a uniform defence policy. Perhaps one could say that it is intriguing to listen to the various facets being put forward by honourable members opposite in the socalled defence estimates debate. Let me just equate-

Mr Reynolds:

– Did you hear John Gorton this afternoon?

Mr JESS:

– Yes, and I hope later to come to what the right honourable member for Higgins said. Let me quote what was said by one of the front bench members of the Australian Labor Party - and f presume being on the front bench he is a member of the potential Ministry. I refer to the honourable member for Lalor (Dr J. F. Cairns). In the ‘Australian Left Review’ of May 1971 he was asked this question:

What prospects are there for the ALP left wing to win the leadership of the ALP federally, and what policy differences do you think would be likely to eventuate if this occurred?

The honourable member for Lalor answered as follows:

The ALP left wing has a very good chance of winning Federal Conference and Executive Leadership of the ALP. Among the changes in policy this would bring are:

An end to the principle that the US alliance is crucial, and a beginning of support for the “human rights’ revolution around the world most often expressed in the national liberation movements.

Here is one of the front bench members of the Labor Party stating that the left wing, if it got control of .the Labor Executive, would move for the removal of the word crucial’ from Labor policy. I have read it and agree that it is a fact. In other words, the Labor Party no longer regards the United States alliance or the ANZUS Treaty as crucial. The honourable member for Lalor has just returned from an overseas trip. One of the countries in which he spent a considerable time was the Soviet Union. According to a headline in the Sunday Observer’ he referred to it as a place where there is no dissent, a place where people are all content. I suggest that the people of Australia could say to him that there is no dissent because the Russians do not tolerate people such as the honourable member for very many minutes. If he says there is no dissent, perhaps he should ask the Jewish people and those people who have moved out of the Soviet Union and the areas over which the Soviet Union has control.

Let me refer to the defence policy of a Labor government. Again we come back to this same front bench member. The Age’ this morning referred to his great revival meeting of 3rd December. Whenever he has been to the Soviet Union there has been a revival within months of that visit. Talking about American policy - and this is how he and the Labor Party encourage recruiting - he said:

It’s changing the colour of the corpses. It doesn’t matter how many corpses there are as long as they’re not white.

He goes on:

  1. . future national servicemen were not being trained to defend Australia, but to ‘kill Asians in Asia’ and in New -Guinea.

That is magnificent recruiting. It must give encouragement. The article continues:

On defence policy Dr Cairns said: ‘To be spending S 1,300m a year on war and defence is completely unjustified. It should be cut down to spend on education or other needs’.

This is the basis on which the Labor Party tries to present to the people of Australia a defence policy, lt talks about cutting out conscription. If conscription were cut out - and the Labor Party claims that it would do this if it became the government - the army would be reduced to somewhere in the vicinity of 33,000 to 34,000 troops.

Mr Reynolds:

– That is not right at all.

Mr JESS:

– That is the figure of the volunteer force as against the total regular army strength. The Opposition claims with its war of words - they are nothing but words - that it would not reduce the defence vote. But with the way wages are continually going up under Mr Hawke and those who support him we would be paying the same amount of money for fewer troops. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. Prior to conscription the volunteer army consisted of about 33,000 to 34,000 men. The field force would be somewhere in the vicinity of 19,000. In a field force of 19,000 there would be approximately 5,500 infantrymen. The balance would be in the supporting and the logistic arms. A further 10,000 would be in the training schools and the administration. So what the Labor Party has said about defence in its pre-election conferences is that it considers that an infantry force of 5,500 in the field force is approximately what is necessary at this particular time.

People should not only listen to the words of blandishment of that figurehead with the grey hair but also analyse in detail what is being said and endeavour to observe what this means for Australia. I have heard it said that there is no threat to Australia from the Soviet Union. Of course the Russians are all contentment! There is no dissent; they want to be friends with everybody. There is no threat from Mainland China, says the Labor Party. That may be so as far as some sections of the Labor Party are concerned, but as far as Australia and the rest of the world are concerned that has yet to be proven. We wish to live in friendship with the Chinese, but to say that there is not going to be subversion or any threat of trouble in South East Asia is absolute rubbish.

The people of Australia must accept that we have to spend more money on defence. Indeed, the right honourable member for Higgins said that either we have to spend more on defence or we have to cut down our manpower or our capital equipment. In 1968 defence expenditure was 4.6 per cent of the gross national product. In 1 969 it was 4 per cent. In 1970 it was 3.6 per cent and now it is running at about 3.4 per cent. I am glad to find that the right honourable member for Higgins now believes that the defence vote should be kept up. I support what the right honourable member for Higgins said when he hoped that a defence statement would be made that could be debated fully in this House. The last defence statement made in this House was in March 1970, and 6 people were allowed to debate it. The debate was adjourned and it has never come on the agenda again. I am merely agreeing with the right honourable member for Higgins that there is a need for a full debate in respect to defence.

I agree with what he said about forward defence and the Fortress Australia policy. These are slogans that are coined by the Press and occasionally linked on to by particular speakers. Over the last 10 years I and others in this chamber have said that there is a need for Australia to form a balanced defence force. There is a need to have a force that can carry out the role of defence of the homeland as well as meet our obligations overseas. I am glad to find that the right honourable member for Higgins is now prepared to adopt that. We do not contend that the battalion in Malaysia at this particular time is all that would be required in the event of a war in which we were involved, but at least it shows our allies that we are prepared to accept some responsibility and to stand with them and be counted. This is of value. If we just pulled in behind what is called Fortress Australia’ - I do not agree with it though, I agree with defence of the homeland - and did nothing, who would believe us?

We have a requirement in the army today to retrain soldiers. In the past we have trained them for jungle warfare and for warfare in the rice paddies and Vietnam area. We must assess our whole defence policy - of the army, navy and air force - to see that we are capable of defending the homeland and at the same time maintaining our lines of communication and logistics, as well as being able to provide for any threat or commitment in which we may become involved overseas. I believe that we have to spend more on defence. I think that the people expect us to spend more on defence and I think that they will repudiate the Labor Party for the policies it has propounded.

Dr GUN:
Kingston

– I want to make a plea to the Government to make a more sober approach to the important question of the Indian Ocean. Firstly, the Government has, I believe, overestimated the size of the Soviet naval presence there. Secondly, it has inflated the significance of that presence. Finally, by its response of sabre rattling it is clearly taking an approach which is at best irrelevant and at worst harmful to the security of this country. First of all I refer to the size of the Soviet presence. In this House on 14th October the Minister for the Navy (Dr Mackay) said that the Russians have more than a score of surface warships and an unknown number of submarines in the area. I believe that his authority was ‘Jane’s Fighting Ships’. However, I would like to draw upon the authority of a Mr Spiers, the Director of the Bureau of PoliticoMilitary Affairs of the United States State Department. This Bureau is the section responsible for the Indian Ocean. Mr Spiers stated:

We have some figures of the most recent Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean and as of now it consists of about 4 ships. As of July 20th, the Soviet presence consists of t destroyer, 1 LST and 2 fleet minesweepers. The Soviet presence fluctuates but that is the most recent reading unless my defence colleagues have something more up to date.

So there appears to be considerable uncertainty as to the accuracy of the Minister’s figures. What is the significance of the Soviet naval presence? Again I quote from the evidence given by Mr Spiers to a Congressional committee. He said:

Specifically, we would be concerned if Chinese or Soviet influence in the area extended to control of the water areas or significant parts of the littoral. We do not envisage an immediate threat of this nature, however.

He went on to say:

Therefore, there appears to be no requirement at this time for us to feel impelled to control, or even decisively influence any part of the Indian Ocean or its littoral, given the nature of our interests there and the current level of Soviet and Chinese involvement. We consider, on balance, that our present interests are served by normal commercial, political and military access.

So the Indian Ocean situation seems to he causing enormous concern to the Australian Government, but this feeling does not appear to be shared by the Government of the United States. Let us also remember that the Soviet Union has some perfectly legitimate interests in the Indian Ocean. It is from there that they get about one-third of their fishing catch, and it is of enormous importance to Russian shipping itself. It should not be forgotten that al least during the winter ships going between European Russia and the Pacific ports such as Vladivostok must traverse the Indian Ocean. If these facts are considered, the Soviet naval presence is clearly modest indeed. In fact, its 4 ships reported on 20th July seem to be comparable with the United States presence of 3 ships. Furthermore, the Russians have no bases in the Indian Ocean, even in Indian ports, and India is the country which has just signed a treaty with the Soviet Union. Only last week Mr Gandhi told a meeting of the Royal Institute of International Affairs that India had no intention of offering military bases to the Soviet Union. So it is quite clear that in measuring our response to the Soviet presence we are responding to something whose size and significance has been greatly over-stated by this Government.

The reaction of the Government has been to make sabre rattling gestures; we are going to build an $80m naval base at Cockburn Sound, we are going to acquire a couple of dozen destroyers at $70in or $80m a pop and the Prime Minister has apparently cajoled the United States Government into saying that United States vessels will use the facilities at Cockburn Sound. What a disastrous policy. What a short-sighted policy. Surely there could not be a quicker way to start an escalation of arms build-up than by such a hawkish response. Why does our policy always have to be defence first and diplomacy last?

Let us compare the attitude of the Australian Government with that of the other governments in the Indian Ocean area. I would like to quote from a statement issued after a conference of non-aligned nations at Lusaka in Zambia in September 1970. It said:

A declaration should be adopted calling upon all States to consider and respect the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace.

The Government of Ceylon has repeatedly stated its interest in declaring the Indian Ocean a zone of peace. This was propounded by the Ceylonese Government at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference earlier this year and supported by the Governments of both India and Pakistan. In fact, the Ceylonese Government submitted this as a formal proposal to the United Nations General Assembly in its current session. The subject of declaring the Indian Ocean a zone of peace was the main subject of the address of the Ceylonese Prime Minister, Mrs Bandaranaike, to the United Nations General Assembly. The Indian Government is clearly very interested in the proposal, as shown in the Soviet-Indian communique of 30th September which I unfortunately do not have time to quote.

What is the Australian Government’s response to all this? A naval base, gun boats and trying to push the United States Navy into a commitment, but not a word on the subject of a zone of peace. Why the silence? The answer, of course, is that the Government is scared stiff of the Democratic Labor Party. I implore the Government to disregard short term electoral considerations and make a genuine move for world peace. This is the age of nuclear weapons, remember, and there can be only one policy for wars in this day and age; that is to prevent them from taking place.

But I want to ask one more question to take this argument a stage further. What could be the significance of naval commitments anyway? Even if there were a substantial Soviet force in the Indian Ocean, what would it mean? I think it is time that we seriously questioned the thesis that you can exert great influence on governments by deploying gun boats on trackless wastes of ocean. The battle for influencing people’s minds depends on whether you can also help raise people’s standards of living. As far as Australia is concerned, we must seek to do what we can for peace in the Indian Ocean, not by floating ships on it but by helping the countries around it.

For about the fourth time this session I ask the Government to act in the interests of the security of the area in which we live by taking real diplomatic initiatives, particularly having in mind India and Pakistan which are going through a particularly critical period. This is what we should be doing to try and advance the security of our nation. By continuing to cave in to DLP blackmail the Government is acting against the national interest and against the interests of world peace. If the Government will play its part to achieve world peace and disarmament, I am sure everybody in this House will support it.

Over the years man seems to have developed a conditioned reflex of settling differences by bloodshed. I think we can no longer afford this. I think it is time our altitudes on defence were completely rethought. I conclude by drawing attention to this paradox: We are faced with the strong possibility of disaster from a world ecological crisis, but little danger from foreign invasion. Where therefore is the logic in spending $ 1,200m annually in preparing for imminent invasion but nothing, almost literally nothing, on defending ourselves from ecological disaster?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Defence · Farrer · LP

– I have listened with great interest today to the debate. I will, unfortunately, have only a very short time to reply, so I do not believe I will be able reply to anything like the great number of points which were brought up. But, as far as possible, if I am unable to do so I will try to see that honourable members are informed by letter. I do take note of what the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Jess) has said. I believe it is quite impossible for honourable members coherently to discuss a defence matter in a debate of this sort in 10 minutes. As I stated earlier, it is my intention, if this is possible, that either I or the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) will make a defence statement during this sessional period. Quite frankly, and I must tell the House this, I doubt that this can be done. Cabinet has already studied this matter and we are making further studies, but I would be less than truthful if I said that I believe it is likely that there will be a statement now. If there is not we will work it in in the early part of the next sessional period. We are still working on this but it does depend on the Prime Minister himself, who will probably be making the statement.

In this short time available to me tonight let me start off by asking: What is the ultimate purpose of. our defence policy? I believe that the ultimate purpose of our defence policy is to maintain Australia’s independence and, more than that, to seek to prevent or remove threats to our independence. In this our defence and our foreign policies march together. Neither will succeed without adequate armed forces. I believe that today Australia’s defence forces are at the highest level of professional skills and are using the most modern equipment that this country has ever possessed in peace time. This position will be maintained, lt is not an easy position to maintain. Modern defence requires vast sums of money and planning of a very high order because the decisions we are making today affect the equipment that is to come into service in the next 5 or 10 years and which will remain with us into the 1980s or perhaps even later. It is this situation which has led to the development of our so-called 5-year rolling plan.

Honourable members will recall that previously we had a 3-year defence programme under which we made what we hoped were going to be the decisions for 3 years but it never really worked out that way because some equipment did not come forward as expected and other equipment was substituted. But one of the troubles with this was that towards the end of the 3-year programme we reached a stage where we were not making decisions 3 years ahead but perhaps only 3 months ahead. The present programme is to take a 5-year period and to look at the equipment that is likely to be required and to fit it into this programme. To give honourable members an example of the problems that are faced in defence planning, today the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Bury) and others drew attention to the effect on this programme of the DDL project. The situation in the Royal Australian Navy is this: We know that in 1972 one fleet destroyer will be retired. In the early 1980s two other fleet destroyers will be retired, and in addition two training destroyers will be retired in the mid-1970s. Obviously plans have to be made for their replacement. So we have a problem. Do we design and build locally or do we take possibly a lesser capacity overseas, and by doing this get probably an earlier delivery or a lower cost? Are the additional costs warranted? For example, if we increase the capability of a DDL we increase the cost. But do we increase our effectiveness to compensate for the increased cost?

The honourable member for Wentworth said that it might be possible to have more smaller ships and to equip them with surface to surface guided weapons to get greater capability. This is the sort of thing that is being looked at and assessed by the Defence Forces Development Committee. Eventually the Government will have to decide on its programme. The honourable member for Wentworth asked whether the

DDL would be a big sponge in a little pool. This is where we have to look at all the bids from the Services; they will have to be assessed and worked into the programme on a basis of priorities. One has to assess how much one is likely to have and therefore whether one can work in all the high priorities or the lower priorities in their order. We have these sorts of requirements coming up in the future. We know that the carrier HMAS ‘Melbourne’ will reach the end of its Service life probably in the early 1980s. We will, of course, have to study developments in carriers and decide whether we will go for a carrier again or on other sorts of aircraft platforms that are available. There are vertical take-off aircraft even in the fighter field. We also have helicopters. One could use hovercraft or hydrofoils in the search, for submarines.

These are the sorts of things which have to be assessed. As well as this we know that there are other big programmes that will come forward in the not too distant future. There is the matter of replacing one of the Neptune squadrons which probably has a life of only about 5 years. A replacement will have to be considered for the Mirage during this decade. There is also the possible- acceptance of the Fill; the question of replacement for the Hercules and Macchi; a new tank requirement, and one could go on and on. Th:r one comes to a great number of smaller items, all of which add up to a considerable amount. All these competing bids must be assessed. Then it comes down to the question of whether we have the resources and how much goes on new equipment - this was a matter referred to by both the honourable member for La Trobe and the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton) - and how much goes on the maintenance of forces and existing equipment. One has to be careful not to reach a stage where a large amount is spent on looking after the comfort of troops with a smaller amount being available for equipment. These are th~. sorts of decisions that the Department of Defence and eventually the Cabinet have to face up to. This is the problem we are working on.

How does the policy of the Australian Labor Party fit in with this aim and where does it differ? I say now, and I have said it before, that I feel it is a great pity in the matter of defence and in the matter of foreign affairs that Australia, unlike some of the great countries overseas, has never been able to get a bi-partisan policy on either defence or foreign affairs. I regret this. There have been some honourable members opposite who have said that we want more defence. There have been other honourable members like the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant), whose speech I listened to - this is as far as I could assess his speech - who have said that there is absolutely nothing that we are doing today that we need to do and therefore we do not require any defence at all.

But I ask ‘What is the difference between our defence policy and the defence policy of the Labor Party?’ First of all, there are very basic differences. I believe that on a number of issues we are completely in agreement. In fact, some of the matters put forward by the Leader of the Opposition are already being done. But there are 3 or 4 basic issues. First of all, the Labor Party believes that we should abolish national service. The result of this would be that immediately the strength of your Army would drop to about two-thirds of the size it is today. It is said by some members of the Opposition that we would pick this up through volunteers. By increasing emoluments, immediately there would be a greater inflow and we would have an Army of the same size, but made up of volunteers instead of by a certain amount of compulsory national service.

As honourable members know the Government has done a great deal to improve the conditions of the armed Services. Only within the last few months I made a statement here on the first 2 reports of the Kerr Committee. We know that that Committee has increased the salaries of members of the armed Services by about $30m in a year. However we have not seen until now any great effect as a result of the increase. In fact the effect on recruitment has been very minimal. It is true that there has been a slight increase in reengagement rates but in 2 of the Services the re-engagement rate is good. But of course there are other things. There are the conditions of service relating to accommodation. This is a matter which we are looking at now and it is a matter in which the Government has been very active. Houses have been built but there is still a need for a lot more to be built and there is a need to improve the standard of these houses.

My colleague the honourable member for La Trobe is chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Legislation and I believe that he will soon be bringing in a report on this subject which we will be able to look at. There are also repatriation, rehabilitation and so many other things about which we are already doing much and in which we are looking at ways to improve the conditions of service. The honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) said that the United Kingdom and Canada were able to obtain recruits without compulsory national service. It is true that some countries have done this. But the majority of countries do have national service. The United Kingdom has reduced its commitments enormously but that country has had a tradition over the centuries of fathers, sons and grandsons joining the same regiment. Canada expends a very much smaller proportion of her gross national product on defence than we do. Canada has been able to attract the numbers required apparently without national service. But if you look at even the United States of America with its quite considerable reduction in the size of its Army, it has still had to retain national service. That is the first difference between our defence policy and that of the Labor Party.

It must be remembered that by abolishing national service the national servicemen who now go on to the Reserve would not then be available. Today we have some 40,000 people who have undergone national service and who are available for the Reserve.

Mr Barnard:

– What do you have to say about the CMF?

Mr Morrison:

– Yes, what about the CMF?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– If you want to know about the Citizen Military Forces, my colleague is preparing a report for the Parliament and it will be debated. That report will reveal the work that is going on and what the Government has done about the CMF because from the point of view of recruitment it is certainly not as popular as one would want it to be. However, this is a matter which will come up separately. The Labor Party is opposed to foreignowned, operated or controlled bases in Australia. Here again the Opposition is acting in opposition to our allies and our great colleagues. Incidentally, I think it was the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) who said that United States congressmen are treated at some of these bases differently to the way in which members of the Australian Parliament are treated. I can assure him that this is not so. It is true that in both the United States of America and Australia a small number of people have a need to know about and are entitled to visit these bases but otherwise congressmen and members of the House of Representatives or the Senate are treated on exactly the same footing.

The defence of the free world would suffer through Labor Party policy. The policy of having no forces overseas would allow small nations to be overrun. It would damage the confidence in Australia’s role in the Five Power regions and of course it would immediately abolish the logistic support of the ANZUK forces and would mean that we would have unilaterally taken this step without adequate consultation with our neighbours. Due to insufficient time in this debate I apologise for not answering a point raised by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison). I will write to him and give him the information he requires.

Mr Foster:

Mr Chairman. I rise on a point of order. Is what the Minister says correct? Has not the Minister unlimited time?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Mr Foster:

– Has he not unlimited time?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Sturt will resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Macquarie.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

- Mr Chairman-

Motion (by Mr Giles) agreed to:

That the question be now put.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mr Scholes’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 47

NOES: 53

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

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

Mr Chairman, I suggest that the order for the consideration of the proposed expenditures agreed to by the Committee on 4th November be varied by postponing the consideration of the proposed expenditure for the Postmaster-General’s Department until after consideration of the proposed expenditures for the Repatriation Department and the Department of Social Services.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Is there any objection to this suggestion? There being no objection, this course will be followed.

Repatriation Department

Proposed expenditure, $374,545,000

Department of Social Services

Proposed expenditure, $51,118,000

Mr WHITLAM:
Leader of the Opposition · Werriwa

(9. 10>- Australia is one of the richest countries in the world and one of the least generous. Last year our gross national product increased by 10.5 per cent to $30,I53m, which makes us in per capita term the fourth richest country in the world. Our average weekly income is now $89.70, and in terms of average income we are the fifth or sixth richest country in the world. Despite great affluence and good fortune, we provide less generously for our retired citizens than all but a handful of the world’s least privileged nations. Sixty per cent of Australians eligible by age rely for an income on pensions, which have increased by only 39.5 per cent in a decade when average weekly earnings have risen 70.8 per cent and award wages 49.2 per cent. Up to 25 per cent rely on supersuperannuation and other forms of fixed income which are steadily being reduced in value by inflation projected for the current year at more than 5 per cent. Fewer and fewer Australians look forward with any measure of confidence to receiving in retirement incomes adequate to sustain the living standards of their working lives.

An overwhelming majority are overshadowed not in retirement alone but throughout the second half of their working lives by the prospect of impoverishment. Retirement is anticipated not as a new phase of life rewarded in its own right but as an interlude of deprivation between work’s end and death. Let me affirm at the outset my conviction that national wealth is neither the creation of a single generation nor the property of a single generation. Our present prosperity rightly belongs not only to current members of the work force but also to its retired members. Affluence enjoyed by employed citizens alone is generational theft.

Australia’s expenditure on cash social service benefits amounted in 1967 to 5.5 per cent of our gross national product, whereas the Common Market countries spent 15 per cent, Scandinavia 11 per cent, Canada 10 per cent, Britain 8i per cent and the United States 6 per cent. Nor is it in terms only of expenditure that public provision for retirement is deficient. As Professor Downing has pointed out, ‘we share with Barbados, Guyana, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago the distinction of being the only countries in the world to retain a means test on eligibility for age pensions’. The Australian age pension is designed neither to provide citizens with an income geared to the earnings of their working lives nor to guarantee them the ‘frugal comfort’ of which the former Prime Minister so frequently spoke, but rather to keep within respectable bounds overt poverty and the incidence of death from malnutrition, exposure and avoidable disease. It is based on a definition of human need which excludes both dignity and hope.

This is an approach which countries comparable with our own have long since abandoned. Contributory national superannuation schemes of one sort or another now constitute the rule and means-tested pensions of the Australian kind a rare exception. This development reflects the fact that national superannuation is an expression not of charity but of equity. National superannuation guarantees the retired citizen his full and fair dividend from a life-long investment of labour. Governments which hold back or understate that dividend are diminished in the eyes both of their own people and of the world.

I have no time tonight to touch on detailed national superannuation proposals put forward by Professor Downing of Melbourne or Professor Gates of Queensland. I cannot detail either proposals devised by my colleague, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who will speak later in the debate. The Government has twice - on 25th September 1969 and 6th May 1971 - - voted against my Party’s proposition that a committee should be appointed to inquire into and report upon Australian proposals and overseas practices in respect of national superannuation. It has voted on 3 occasions - on 17th September .1970 and 1st April and 9th September this year - against my Party’s proposition that a national superannuation scheme should be established. Yet the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), who on all 5 occasions voted against national superannuation, agreed on 24th August that a green paper on national superannuation should be presented to the House for discussion. He admitted to me 2 days later that the draft proposals upon which such a green paper could be based had been prepared by his Department. More than 2 months have now passed and there is still no green paper. The Minister’s interest in national superannuation has been rewarded by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) with a rebuke administered before the whole Federal Council of the Liberal Party. On no matter have Liberals been more confused or spread greater confusion than on national superannuation.

Let me recall an earlier chronology. Answering a question on 18th June 1937. Mr Menzies, as he then was. said:

I should have thought it was abundantly clear to the average intelligence that the present administration was extremely anxious to have the opportunity to submit national insurance proposals to this Parliament.

Introducing legislation 11 months later, Mr Casey, as he then was, said:

It Is now recognised in nearly every country in the world that only under a national system of insurance, involving the joint co-operation of the Government, the employer and the employee, can a satisfactory and comprehensive scheme be devised for the protection of the wage-earners against the various vicissitudes of life.

He added:

In view of impending liability of the existing pensions scheme, 1 say quite frankly that unless something is done to put these schemes on a contributory basis, no government of the future, however well intentioned, could embark upon any worthwhile extension of our social services without seriously threatening the whole financial fabric of the Commonwealth.

In this respect at least there is no difference of opinion between present Liberals and their distinguished predecessor. The Menzies-Casey legislation was passed and with the coming of the war abandoned. Mr Menzies undertook in his 1949 policy speech to devise a national superannuation scheme and to submit it for approval at the 1952 election, but nothing was ever done. For 20 years the Liberal Government - as the Menzies Government, the Holt Government, the Gorton Government, the McMahon Government - has been mute on national superannuation, and now it speaks with mutually contradictory voices.

The introduction of national superannuation will not supplant existing superannuation schemes and individual superannuation entitlements, but supplement them. Canada and Britain have long since clearly shown that its introduction can bc undertaken with complete co-operation of life assurance offices and private pension plans. National superannuation will end the ritual annual farce in which retired Australians figure as victims of Liberal electoral manipulation. First there are the authorised leaks through which the Minister for Social Services tries to influence the Cabinet and promote his own image. Then, closer to the Budget, comes the cant about the cost of an increase. Finally, on Budget night itself, providing an election is pending, the mountain at last brings forth a mouse. It is a procedure utterly degrading and destructive of human dignity which makes pensioners dependent upon the timing of elections or the downfall of Prime Ministers for a meagre 50c. Overseas practice and proposals put forward by Australia’s own experts clearly show that these indignities need no longer be borne.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) is continuing his mini-policy speech by trying to confuse the people of Australia with a Jot of words. He read his speech so quickly that I could not really follow him. Whoever wrote it should be congratulated on the cleverness of the words used. I can appreciate that aspect, but there was no sense behind the speech. He referred back to the days when Sir Robert Menzies, then Mr Menzies, had some trouble with this problem of a superannuation scheme. I remember those days very well. I can sympathise in one way with the Opposition in its frustration. Members of the Opposition do not have the ability to bring out a scheme that could be said to be in any way a workable one. The whole problem is that ever since those days that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) spoke of,

Ministers have been trying to produce a scheme which could fit in with existing superannuation schemes and life insurance policies under which the Australian people have been able to provide for their retirement in a way that has not been possible in most other countries.

Although we may not have a national superannuation scheme, I would not like to say that we will not have one at some time in the future. Over many years a great many people in Australia have expressed the view that we should have such a scheme. This is not the preserve of the Leader of the Opposition only, or of the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden). We would all like to be able to introduce such a scheme but nobody has yet found one that will work. Therefore, it is idle for the Leader of the Opposition to try to bamboozle the Australian people with a story that has no foundation. He has made no offer; he has made no plan. He has referred in his usual manner to a couple of professors - people who have no responsibility. Neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the honourable member for Oxley can show that they are capable of bringing forward a plan that will work.

But, Mr Deputy Chairman, sufficient of that. One of the unfortunate aspects of this debate is that we are debating at the same time the Estimates for 2 departments, the Department of Social Services and the Repatriation Department. In such circumstances we have no continuity of debate. I want to speak about repatriation; the Leader of the Opposition wanted to speak about superannuation - and no doubt the honourable member for Oxley will want to do so later on. I would just like to use a minute or so of my very valuable time to say that the whole basis of debating these Estimates in this House is completely haywire. This debate should not be used by honourable members to put forward their ideas in the way that they have been doing. It should not be used by the Leader of the Opposition to get some cheap political gain by making an appeal to people who think they may be able to get some more money. In the debate on the previous items, we had to discuss the Estimates for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Department of Supply all at the one time, and for all this honourable members were given only 10 minutes each. I know that we are told we can take a second period of 10 minutes but we are not very popular if we do so.

Let me come back now to the Estimates for the Repatriation Department. I do so for one reason. 1 have been putting forward an idea for a long time which I now wish to repeat. I shall keep on repeating it until its merit is given due weight. I refer to people who are receiving Service pensions. The report of the Repatriation Department tells us that these total 57,989. Service pensions are now costing us $42,188,000 a year. There are 103 recipients from the South African War, 28,500 from the First World War, 29,200 from the Second World War and 107 from the wars since then. There has been an increase in the last year of 4,899 in the number of recipients, so we must not think that this is a benefit which is diminishing. It will stay with us for a long time. Of course the 28,500 from the First World War are all 70 years of age or over and at present the main benefit from these Service pensions is received by that group. One can reasonably expect that the group will diminish, but on the other hand the pensioners from the Second World War will increase in number.

My point is that it is quite unfair that when an increase is made in Repatriation compensation for war disabilities, or social service pensions rise so that the Service pension increases, many of the recipients do not get any increase. The Minister pointed out quite recently the basis on which one can compare the benefits received by totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners in this country with what is received by people in similar circumstances in other countries. A TPI pensioner now gets $42.50 a week. This for a single man, is equivalent to the residue from a taxable income of $48.30. This is greater than the minimum wage of $46.20. In these circumstances we congratulate ourselves on the fact that we are providing more for the TPI pensioner than is received by a single man on the minimum wage. The TPI pensioner who is married and has 2 children receives $49.30 in actual cash, which is approximately $6 a week more than a person, married and having 2 children, receiving the minimum wage after the deduction of tax. A civilian, or a non-Service pensioner, would be receiving $43.44 as compared with the 349.30 received by the TPI pensioner. But if the TPI pensioner had no other income and both he and his wife qualified for an age pension the means test would cut the age pension back.

I make the point that the TPI pensioner, or any Repatriation pensioner, has been given his benefit for war-caused injuries or disabilities which put him at a disadvantage as compared to people who did not undergo the same experiences. There are civilians who become injured or handicapped but the point is that we have accepted an obligation to do something specific for the person whose injuries or handicaps are entirely due to war service. What we pay those people is wrongly called a pension, but that is just the way things have developed. If the TPI pensioner is eligible for a Service pension he would get only $6.13 a week, not the $15.25 which would be the normal pension rate.

I could go on at great length to elaborate on this but time will not permit me to do so. All I want to do tonight is to reiterate what I have said previously, that it is time we realised that although, as the Minister has said, the pension is not taxable, as soon as a person applies for a Service pension the means test is applied and the Service pension may not be paid in full. I believe that if this were not the case the extra amount that would be paid to the TPI pensioners would not be unreasonable.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– I was rather intrigued while the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) was addressing the House to note that, apparently for inspiration, he had a small effigy of the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) in front of him, carved approppriately from soft soap. This was rather interesting because he had recently lost his Liberal Party endorsement for the seat of McMillan. At least, I thought that this was rather curious until 1 noticed that, rather than caressing the effigy, he was stabbing pins into it.

I welcome the presence of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) on the opposite side of the House at this point, lt is quite obvious from what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) said to the House earlier tonight that the Labor Party is committed to a national superannuation scheme for Australia and that it will take prompt action upon becoming the government after the next election to introduce such a scheme. But, initially, of course, we would conduct a comprehensive inquiry to establish the full ramifications of an appropriate national superannuation scheme and. equally importantly, allow those people in the community - and that is the totality of our population - who will draw on it at some time to express their views as to how best to operate the scheme; how the scheme would be likely to affect currently operating private superannuation schemes and similar retirement schemes; how we could best adjust the proposals we would have in mind so that undue strain would not be placed upon the resources of such people. But I stress that we would do this.

We would conduct this inquiry, assuming that no inquiry has been conducted between now and then. Therefore, I propose to put to the House a little later details of some action which, I trust, will attract the support of members on the Government side - it will certainly attract the support of members on this side - in the hope of having such an inquiry well beforehand so that this House may be adequately informed of the implications of a national superannuation scheme.

I am particularly honoured to have the Minister for Social Services sitting opposite because he is a man who had made m;<ny promises to the electorate. He made brave promises from the back benches of the House where for several years he argued consistently that the means test was an impediment to the accumulation of capital. He said that it was a positive disincentive to saving by the people. He went on to assert repeatedly that the means test could be eliminated within 3 years. Well, the Minister has been the Minister for Social Services for much longer than 3 years. What has he achieved in relation to the abolition of the means test? It has not been abolished. In fact, we now have 2 means tests. The more recent one which has been applied in the last 12 months or a little longer excludes 17 per cent of pensioners from receiving increases in pension rates granted in the recent Budget and in March earlier this year. So that is I he great achievement of the Minister for Social Services. That is how his brave words to the Australian electorate were fulfilled. After nearly 20 years of promises to the Australian community that he was the man to eliminate the means test - and justifying his argument on the basis which I have already mentioned - we find that, when he was projected into the situation where the Minister can take constructive action to eliminate the means test, he has failed, and failed sadly.

Let me mention another aspect of the means test which the Minister has applied and toughened up to the disadvantage of pensioners. People who retire and go on to a pension are finding that the fringe benefits they have looked forward to - the things that the Government has spoken about in great platitudes in the past - are not available to substantial numbers of these people. For instance, a single person in receipt of a pension of $13.80 a fortnight or less will not be able to get the benefit of the national medical service. Husband or wife, who are pensioners in receipt of $12 a fortnight or less, will not get a medical entitlement card. Nor will a married person, being the only one of the couple to be the pensioner, have the entitlement if the pension is $15.50 a fortnight or less.

Incidentally I mention another anomaly in relation to the way these means tests work. I point out that a married pensioner couple who earn $24 a fortnight between them, or just a little over $24 a fortnight, get the benefit of a medical entitlement card. But if only one of a married couple is a pensioner the couple are allowed to have only $15.50 to get this benefit. If the couple earn a little over $15.50 a fortnight they miss out on a medical entitlement card. So that is the great achievement of this man who has spoken so frequently of how he would strive to improve the benefits benefits for pensioners.

The present system of pensions is totally inadequate for the needs of the community; it is unacceptable by any sense or scale of social or moral justice. Consider this:

The pension increases in the last Budget, in the case of the married rate, marginally lifted the payment above the updated Melbourne poverty survey rate. But using the projections mentioned in the Budget of how average weekly earnings will proceed over the next 12 months, I find that the married rate will be $2.24 below the poverty level by the end of this financial year. That is a deuce of a lot of money for a married couple to be below the poverty level.

The standard rate, even with the increases put forward in the last Budget, was still $5 below the updated Melbourne poverty level. That rate will be more than $7 below the updated Melbourne poverty level at the end of this year. It is obvious that the present system of paying pensions is unacceptable and creates grave injustice and social and economic deprivation for many people in the community. The Melbourne poverty survey showed that one of the areas of greatest risk to poverty is the age group of aged persons and here is the clear evidence of the parsimony of pension payments provided by the Government. We will introduce a national superannuation scheme.

The most recent gallup poll indicates that 4 people out of 5 support this principle, so why should such a scheme not be introduced? We know that 60 per cent of wage earners in Australia have no superannuation cover at all. lt is obvious that such people, on retirement, will be in considerable need. But we must create more than an adequate level of payment. We must tie superannuation payments to some appropriate index so that every year there will be an automatic adjustment according to the cost of living movements. That is a pledge that the Labor Party gives and will in fact undertake as part of its national superannuation programme.

Australia is in a better position than most countries to introduce a national superannuation scheme. Yet most advanced countries have already done this. We are in a far better position not only because we are one of the wealthiest nations in the world but in particular, in comparison with European countries, we have a better age distribution of the community. For instance, according to Interim Projections of the Population of Australia 1968 to the year 2,000, issued by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, the number of people above 65 years of age will move from between a little over 7 per cent to around 8 per cent in that period. That is a substantially lower proportion than most comparable countries such as those in Europe are able to present. The age groupings between 20 and 64 years, the people who will be supporting a national superannuation scheme under any concept, be it by way of a funded scheme or by a pay as you go scheme, remain at around 54 per cent to 55 per cent of the community. Therefore, Australia is in a very strong position to maintain such a scheme. I costed one such scheme and the total cost would be a little over $1,800 of this, over $700m-

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP; IND LIB from Oct 1977

– You mean million.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Yes, $l,800m. We are already providing something over$700m in current outlays and the extra cost is only about $ 1,000m. Let us weigh this up against the fact that insurance claims for income tax deductions in 1966-67 exceeded $565m. Incidentally, the greatest benefit went to those on the highest incomes. Some 26 per cent of taxpayers earned above average weekly earnings. They claimed 77 per cent of the total value. We cannot rely on the Government to bring in such a scheme. Conservatives failed us in 1913, 1928, 1938 and 1949. The Minister for Social Services failed us as recently as 2nd July this year.

In an address to the Council for the Aging at Brisbane the Minister virtually promised the introduction very soon of a national superannuation scheme. Later he repudiated that promise in this House and then in a television debate in which he and I confronted one another. I suggest that the only way in which a just provision can be made for the aged in their retirement is through a national superannuation scheme and only the Labor Party has the credibility and the ability to introduce it.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

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

Mr Hayden:

– I move:

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– The honourable member should have moved the motion during his speech. Strictly speaking he is out of order in seeking to do so now. In the circumstances, so that a decision may be reached, I feel that the Committee should deal with the motion. The Standing Orders are established by the House sitting as a House and cannot be amended or suspended by a Committee of the whole. The Committee is a creature of the House and has no right or power to vary a decision of the superior body. This is an established procedure of the House and for that reason the motion is out of order and cannot be accepted.

Mr Hayden:

– On the advice of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, I move:

I do this so that the House may resume and the motion I have moved in Committee may be moved in the House.

Question put:

That progress be reported.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Mr P. E. Lucock)

AYES: 42

NOES: 50

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr GRAHAM:
North Sydney

– This evening members of the Committee already have referred to the fact that we are dealing with the estimates for the Department of Social Services and the Repatriation Department. My remarks were to be addressed to the estimates for the Repatriation Department, but firstly I believe that 1 should make one or two comments about the statements which have been made in the last half hour by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) when speaking for the Opposition on the matter of social services. A national superannuation scheme, to which they have referred in glowing terms and with the utmost optimism and certainty that they will be able to attract political support in Australia for their proposals, has been a dream for members of this Parliament over a long period. I venture to suggest that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who is at the table tonight, has dedicated himself and has given as much time and has done as much research and hard work towards achieving a solution to this problem as has any other human being who has ever sat in this chamber. I hold the view that if the problems are to be solved then this Minister of State will solve them. I have no doubt that in the near future his programmes will be considered by the Australian Government and if they are found acceptable in the light of current economic circumstances they will be of tremendous political significance in terms of providing part of a political platform.

As I see it, the problem has been one of cost. The honourable member for Oxley, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, made a rather brief reference to a figure of $ 1,800m. If we repeat this figure solemnly and in a straightforward manner we must admit that we are facing an enormous sum. The honourable member referred to cost of living adjustments but, of course, he neglected to refer to the corresponding increases in taxation which would be necessary during each financial year in order to provide for the extra sums of money which would need to be found to compensate for cost of Jiving adjustments or, to put it in straightforward terms, the inflationary effect in the developing Australian economy.

As honourable members know, in the 1937-38 financial year a former Prime Minister was dedicated to the concept of national superannuation, but his Government found that it would be impossible of fulfilment. At that time, having made certain promises to his electorate, the right honourable gentleman resigned from the Cabinet. In the post-war period when Australia was wealthier than ever before in her history, when she had just passed through a great war and when she had a balance of payments position without parallel in the history of economic development of our country, the last Labor Prime Minister, the late Right Honourable J. B. Chifley, wrestled with this problem concerning a national superannuation scheme and, if any human being at that time could possibly have introduced such a scheme, he would have done so. The facts are that the economics of the problem were such, the costs of the operation were such, that he knew full well that in an aging community the impact of this extra taxation upon the young people would be so great and so intense that they would never support it, and that problem exists today. It will require the best brains that we can brins to bear on this problem for a national superannuation scheme to be introduced with financial commitments being met by taxpayers over and above income taxation and over and above the indirect taxation which they must meet from day to day in their normal lives. Over and above all these things there will have to be a particular commitment from the young people in an aging community.

If a national superannuation scheme is to cost $ 1,800m in this financial year - and I venture to suggest that the honourable member for Oxley would not be exaggerating that figure because in political terms I suspect that it helps his argument if he can keep it down to a minimum figure - then I suggest that in the present economic environment, with inflation in the community and with the rising cost of living, the cost of the scheme over the next three or four financial years would increase at an alarming rate. I very much doubt whether the younger people and the lower and middle income groups, who were paying taxation at such a high rate some years ago that there was enormous political pressure from people in the civil service and from people throughout the community to reduce the rate of taxation upon the lower and middle income groups, would be prepared to meet that extra commitment. Like every other honourable member, I admit that the very operation of the means test is in itself an injustice; it prevents thrift; it encourages people to spend their money in order to qualify for the pension; it brings out in the community qualities which we do not wish to encourage.

Whilst all this is true, the fact remains that the cost of the introduction of a national superannuation scheme at this stage of Australia’s economic development would result in large increases in taxation having to be met by every individual seeking to make a contribution in the hope that when his turn came to receive a retirement allowance, that allowance would be increased with a cost of living adjustment each year. One can imagine the problem when one looks at the necessity and the demand in the community for proper assistance for those in most need. When one looks at that aspect of the matter one sees that it would be difficult in these circum stances to help people with a national superannuation scheme unless one put upon that scheme another hardship by way of an age and invalid pension to be added to the sums which the actuaries would work out for us.

I hope that the Minister will be able to introduce a satisfactory scheme. I will give him all the support I possibly can. 1 wish him well, and I have no doubt that all of those good men who sit opposite and who are interested in adopting a compassionate and humane approach to life would agree with me. But the problems are economic and social, and there will be antipathy from the younger people in the community; of this there can be no doubt, and anyone who denies this and so tries to mislead this chamber does the nation no real service. As I said previously, I hold the view that if a national superannuation scheme can be introduced, then the Minister for Social Services will do it. I hope that he will be successful. I regret that these asides by the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Oxley have prevented me altogether from speaking about the Repatriation Department which I still regard as one of the great magnanimous departments in this country, a tribute to governments over a long time, and I even include in that favourable remark governments of the political persuasion of my colleagues opposite.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I want to deal with the estimates for the Department of Social Services and the Repatriation Department which embrace returned servicemen, pensioners, the sick and frail, aged and handicapped persons. The Government’s record in this regard is of insensitivity and lack of concern and compassion. Its record in this field is a clear indictment of its total bankruptcy of any constructive attitudes or policies to alleviate the suffering that is rife throughout the community. The question which ought to be asked is: Why, after 2 decades, has this conservative government failed so tragically? The answer, as I have said before, is simply that the Government blatantly supports private affluence and condones public squalor. Let us look at its record over the last 20 years.

We have an appalling density of poverty - of one million people. This means that one in every 12 people is living in a condition of poverty or marginal poverty. The Department of Social Services recently conducted a survey of poverty, but the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has refused to table the documents, which reveal that 50,000 age pensioners - or one out of 16 - are living in hovels. The Government may consider that a satisfactory record. I consider it a national disaster. In my area there are 2 splendid institutions, one for cerebrally palsied children and the other, Bedford Industries, which is the largest sheltered workshop in Australia. 1 wish to draw the attention of the Committee and of the Minister to what I consider are some extremely absurd anomalies arising out of the Handicapped Children’s (Assistance) Act. A ludicrous situation exists in that there is a differentiation between training and treatment as far as the Federal Government’s subsidy is concerned. A subsidy is available for buildings and equipment in the area of training, but not for treatment. This is preposterous. Training and treatment are so closely related that there can really be no differentiation. The majority of voluntary agencies working with handicapped children have recognised the importance of combining both. In the treatment area they provide such things as physiotherapy, speech therapy and occupational therapy.

The handicapped children of Australia have been further handicapped because of the non-availability of subsidy for the provision of these services. The situation becomes really ridiculous in relation to the provision of a swimming pool, which is a necessity for hydrotherapy treatment. If such a poo] is used for training handicapped children in physical education and teaching them to swim it is presumably eligible for subsidy. But the same pool, if it is called a hydrotherapy pool, is not eligible. Training and treatment need to be carried on together and on the same site. It is obviously more economical financially, and certainly more economical in time, that they should be undertaken on the same site.

A handicapped child already suffers in its education and training because of the time taken in treatment. If these 2 things are separate and isolated more time would have to be spent travelling between one place and another. So the handicapped child becomes further handicapped because of longer time gaps in his or her education because of the preposterous legislation. In the case of sheltered workshops we find exactly the same anomaly. In the area of rehabilitation of the handicapped it is commonly agreed that there are 4 areas - medical, social, educational and vocational. While it is true to say that the majority of sheltered workshops are in the vocational field, a great deal of their work lies also in social rehabilitation. For many of the handicapped who attend sheltered workshops their social development is largely dependent upon social activities within the workshop area. There is one item of equipment which can be a common benefit to all handicapped people in their social development, and that is the swimming pool. Surely this is one area of physical activity, recreation and social activity which can be put to advantage by the physically handicapped as well as by the mentally and socially handicapped.

A swimming pool for hydrotherapy treatment is an essential element in the rehabilitation of these people, whether they be quadriplegic, paraplegic, haemophiliac or epileptic. Yet this one item - the swimming pool - is deliberately excluded from capital subsidy under the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act. The rehabilitation section of the Department of Social Services, as the Minister well knows, provides swimming pools at full cost in its centres throughout Australia. Surely sheltered workshops and the people who do so much for rehabilitation should not be placed in any different position especially as they would not receive the total cost but only two-thirds of the cost.

Why should this discrimination exist? Therapeutic advantages are available to the client for rehabilitation in the Commonwealth rehabilitation centre but apparently it is not recognised by the Government as necessary for voluntary agencies to provide them for the very much larger group of handicapped persons that come under their care. In the last month I have conducted a survey and I cannot And a specialist in Adelaide, whether he be a pediatrician or an orthopaedic surgeon, who does not support the necessity for hydrotherapy treatment for handicapped people in sheltered workshops. So there is no medical reason that can be trumped up for the rejection of this application.

In my view this anomaly needs immediate revision. No longer can the Government justify an outright rejection of this claim. I ask the Minister to intimate his Government’s attitude to applying the capital subsidy for the installation of these pools which are so essential for the rehabilitation of these people. In 1967 the Government introduced a sheltered employment allowance. At the time of its introduction the allowance was selected by the Government as an area for easing the means test so that handicapped people would have an incentive to help themselves by attending sheltered workshops. Now the situation exists that there is no incentive for handicapped people to help themselves by going to a sheltered workshop. In fact, in many cases, due to increased fares, the handicapped worker at a workshop is disadvantaged by his attendance there. The number in receipt of the sheltered employment allowance is exceedingly small. This is clearly an area in which the Government could ease the means test so that there would be incentives for handicapped people to work.

Is the Minister aware that there are many cases now in which handicapped persons attend workshops for only a few hours a week or a few hours a day because working beyond those hours would mean a financial loss to the handicapped worker? Here I am taking into account the reduction in the sheltered workshop allowance, the increase in taxation and the increased cost of fares to and from the workshop. Under all these circumstances the Government ought immediately to review the present means test policy as applied to the sheltered employment allowance. I submit that there is an immediate case for at least $28 a week received by the single pensioner to be free of the means test under the sheltered employment allowance. This is the Government’s own figure regarding the poverty line. The cost to the Government, if this applied to the sheltered employment allowance only, would be extremely small. It would be an incentive for workshops not at the moment paying the sheltered employment allowance to do so. At the same time it would show recognition by the Government of a policy to ease and finally abolish the means test for all pensioners.

Let me turn to the matter of production aids and training aids. Will the Minister take immediate steps to rectify and eliminate what is obviously an absurd anomaly? Items of a capital nature which are deemed to be aids for production are eligible for a capital subsidy, but training aids such as switchboard monitors are not. Surely where a workshop needs a training aid in order to make handicapped persons productive this is an area for priority in subsidy and not for exclusion of the subsidy. The Minister cannot possibly justify the continuation of this preposterous situation. I ask the Minister to reconsider urgently the whole area of supplementary allowances. The supplementary allowance is usually paid to those with less capacity. There is an immediate need for a considerable increase in this allowance and for its release or partial release from the iniquitous means test. Tn my view it is quite obvious that the Government is committed to the continued imposition of the means test on all pensioners despite the fact that throughout all the affluent nations it has long been thrown out as archaic. Surely if there is any semblance of compassion left in this so-called Liberal Government at least it ought to extend some sense of justice and equity to the physically, mentally and socially handicapped, including the quadriplegic, the paraplegic and the epileptic. If the Government is not prepared to abolish the iniquitous means test across the board, surely these people are entitled to all the assistance-

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

Mr CORBETT:
Maranoa

– In speaking to the estimates for the Department of Social Services and the Department of Repatriation I wish to say that I believe the Government’s record in these fields is a very good one and it has been particularly good in the period we have under review. Just before proceeding to put forward the ideas that I have on this subject, I would like to deal with something that was mentioned by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). He criticised the Government’s record over the last 20 years. I will quote a few figures to refute his argument. I will take, as a base, June 1949, a time that is often used as a basis for comparison, and use the figure 100 as a measurement base. The maximum rate of age and invalid pension is 376.S whereas the consumer price index, with a base year of 1966-67, readjusted to 1949, is now 254.3. So pension rates have increased considerably faster than the consumer price index over that period. Taking the basic wage and using the figure of 100 as a measurement base and the base year of 1949, the average wage is now 374 whereas age and invalid pensions are now 376. So gauged in this way they have also kept pace.

It is true that average weekly earnings have increased at a faster rate but mat is because a lot of overtime has been paid. That is the argument that was used by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) but he chose that particular line of argument because overtime has made this an unreal comparison. But in comparison with the basic wage honourable members will find that pensions have kept pace. I think that is a fair comparison and the consumer price index shows that the pensioners have a considerable advantage. I believe the accusation that the Government has not shown a good record over the last 20 years can be completely refuted.

In referring to the national superannuation scheme the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) mentioned that the Australian Labor Party was the only party which would be able to bring in such a scheme. What he in fact said was that Labor would conduct an inquiry. Apparently Labor does not have the scheme that it is talking about so much because it must have an inquiry before such a scheme is introduced. I believe that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and the Government are keen to provide a national superannuation scheme if it can be brought into being consistent with reasonable economies. I support that idea. I believe that if it is possible to bring in a national superannuation scheme it should be introduced, but it will have to be brought in in a way which will allow it to be incorporated into our economy without placing an undue strain on the community generally. For that reason it may have to be introduced in stages.

I agree with the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Graham) that the Minister for Social Services has given it very serious consideration. I also agree with the honourable member that if a scheme which is economically sound can be introduced the Minister will do so. I believe too that no-one is more interested than he in doing that. I have already mentioned the basis upon which I refute the charge that the Government has not kept faith with the pensioners, but at the same time T agree that much more remains to be done. We are not doing as much as the pensioners need to enable them to live at a standard we would all like to see in the dignity that they deserve. But I want to emphasise that I believe that this is something that could be very gravely undermined if the Opposition ever got into office. It must be borne in mind that the very heavy cost of adequate pensions can only be provided by a country enjoying national prosperity, because it is from this prosperity that will come the revenue needed to provide the pensions that we would all like to see. Despite the lack of prosperity in rural industries, due largely to rising costs, low world prices and drought conditions, prosperity has been maintained in this country, lt has been maintained by sound Government measures. This is something that is very rarely conceded, but it is something that has happened. We see, when we look at world conditions, just how greatly overseas investment is attracted to this country. This is due to the fact that we have an economy which is recognised throughout the world as being particularly sound.

Pension increases this year have been higher than in past years and I commend the Government for this. The increase in the single rate and in the pension for A class widows pension was Si. 25. There were many other increases perhaps slightly lower than that. There was an increase of $1 in the married rate, in the rate of B class widows and in the wife’s allowance. But the total social service bill will amount to over $l,182m, an increase of 141 per cent over the expenditure for 1970-71. One point I want to make in regard to the way in which these rates have increased is that the percentage rate of increase has been much higher last year than it has been in recent years. Again taking the consumer price index as a base, between 1970 and 1971 it rose by 5.4 per cent while the standard pension rate rose by 11.3 per cent. So there are many aspects which can be used as a guide to show just how advanced has been the programme of this Government in regard to pensions. I compliment the Minister and the Government on what they have achieved.

Before 1 conclude 1 want to say a word about repatriation. I would like to quote from the ‘Journal’ of the Queensland branch of the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association of Australia. The editorial states:

Let it be our pledge that they who made the supreme sacrifice will not be forgotten and they who suffer will be aided to the full.

I believe that this should be the aim and objective of . governments and I believe that in the recent Budget we have seen the best step in that direction that has been taken in recent times. Because I do not have time to develop it any further I would like to quote a couple of instances in the repatriation field that show just what benefits have accrued to the TPI pensioners. I know that the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) did quote some other instances. A married TPI pensioner with 2 children will make a net gain of no less than $5.12 while a widow with 2 children will gain $6.65. This is a very considerable advance, and as in the case of social services - as mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech - the greatest benefit shall accrue to the area of greatest need. This has been followed by the efforts made in the field of repatriation. I would like to pay a tribute to the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten), although he is not here, for the work he has done during the time he has been Minister. I believe his finest effort has been in increasing TPI pensions. I do not have time to go through the whole list. He has even been commended by honourable members opposite. I believe that actions speak louder than words. I believe that if pensioners in all categories have not, as a result of this Budget, received all that we would like them to have received, they have been given every reason to look forward with real hope to the future.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suppose that to many honourable members in this chamber tonight and to many people listening to the broadcast this is an occasion for very great disappointment that the attempt by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) to bring to a head the subject of a national superannuation scheme has again failed. It is not without significance that on a number of occasions this request for an inquiry into a national superannuation scheme has not met with the support of the Government. I have with me copies of amendments moved by the honourable member for Oxley to the Social Services Bill 1970. Here again was a request that a national superannuation scheme be established and the means test be eliminated. I also have with me an amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) to the Superannuation Bill 1970 in which he requested that further consideration of the Bill be deferred for several reasons, one being that the whole matter of superannuation could be considered in the context of overseas practices in relation to a national superannuation scheme.

I suppose that in recent years on five or six occasions the Opposition has attempted to encourage the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) to honour the undertaking which he had given, to honour the agitation which he had made for many years prior to becoming the Minister, to eliminate the means test and introduce a national superannuation scheme. Preceding this debate tonight the honourable member for Oxley advised honourable members generally of his intention to move in this direction. He had had his attention drawn to what some honourable members oppo-site regarded as a misdemeanour in that he had not given sufficient notice on previous occasions, so he attempted tonight to accommodate those honourable members but without success.

This Government has lost interest in social services. Australia once led the field and we were emulated by many other countries. But if honourable members look at the figures they will see why our social services are declining and why people who are dependent on social services are becoming more and more unhappy. The official figures show that Australia spends a relatively small proportion of its gross national product on social services. I will give some of the figures. European Economic Community countries spend 15.2 per cent of their gross national product. Sandinavian countries spend 10.9 per cent. Canada is spending 9.9 per cent. The United Kingdom is spending 8.6 per cent. Switzerland is spending 8.2 per cent. New Zealand is spending 6.6 per cent. The United States spends 5.9 per cent and Australia is down to 5.5 per cent. Is it any wonder that there are many areas of social services which are slipping into decline?

I understand that the maternity allowance, for example, has been unaltered for 25 years and, of course, confinement costs have increased at a very rapid rate, especially in the last 5 years. Child endowment has remained unaltered for the first child for about 18 years, for the second child for 20 years and for the third child for 4 years. In 1949 families with 3 children received endowment of 11.5 per cent of average male earnings but a family with 3 children now receives 5 per cent. They should get $12 a week in endowment if the value of the male weekly earnings had been maintained but in fact they get $6.75. These are very real figures which adversely affect the living standards of people in this country. I suppose honourable members will recall that almost immediately after the present Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) took office he unexpectedly made a very small increase in age pensions. In fact it was almost an off the cuff announcement - that might assist honourable members to recall the incident. If it had not been for the fact that the Opposition moved for an extension of time he would not have been able to increase the age pension on that occasion. When he made that announcement he said: _We will follow this immediate pension increase with a fundamental review of social services and related pensions and also of methods of adjusting such benefits. This review, which has already been commenced, will be under consideration in the near future with the object of bringing emergency decisions into effect for the year 1971-72.

I am not sure how long ago the Prime Minister took office.

Mr Foster:

– March 10th.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– March 10th. It seems to me that a reasonable time has elapsed for the honouring of this promise. If the Minister for Social Services, who is now sitting very dejectedly at the table, is to say anything at all in this debate he should be very anxious to uphold the reputation, the prestige and the honour of the Prime Minister who unfortunately is not in Australia at the present time. Let me remind the Minister in a very unambiguous and unequivocal way of this assurance that was given by the Prime Minister to undertake this fundamental review and go into all the aspects with the object of bringing decisions into effect for the year 1971-72. We are in the year 1971-72. We have already reached it, so there is a belated implementation of the Prime Minister’s undertaking and we cannot wait much longer. Will the Minister for Social Ser-vices remain in his seat tonight without giving some justification or some explanation for the Prime Minister’s failure to honour what I believe was the first undertaking he gave to this country?

I feel very strongly because the matter has been brought to my attention by the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners Federation whose members naturally enough feel very strongly about this matter and regard such announcements by Australian Prime Ministers with some significance. I hope that the day will never come when pensioners or anybody else will not treat announcements by Australian Prime Ministers significantly. The fact of the matter is that the most deserving people in our community have been let down and a promise has been denied.

Mr Hansen:

– And 80,000 of them have missed out.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As’ my colleague has said, 80,000 have missed out. The honourable member for Oxley has made many speeches, radio talks and Press releases about the intention of the Opposition to get on with the job of eliminating the means test and of introducing a national superannuation scheme. Is it realised that the Minister has already acknowledged that 123 countries have a national superannuation scheme? He has actually listed the countries concerned. The countries start with Afghanistan and run through Albania and Algeria to Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia and Zambia. But Australia, which once led the field, has been left behind. There is no need for the Minister to feel insecure in moving in this direction. He has all these precedents upon which he can draw. Then there are people like Professor Downing who have outlined several alternative schemes. I have them available in precis form if the Minister should like some assistance in this matter. I also have the Canadian pension plan which takes into account all the requirements of people who are dependent on social services in the context of a national superannuation scheme. The Prime Minister has given an undertaking about a review. The Minister for Social Services actually got his job because he advocated eliminating the means test and advocated a national superannuation scheme. I believe that both he and the Prime Minister will stand in dishonour unless they start to get on with the job of implementing their promises.

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

Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell

– This evening we have heard some peculiar statements. One often wonders why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) speaks to money and economic Bills. Unwittingly this evening he gave the Government a great boost when he spoke of Australia’s great prosperity. He inferred that the stability in government has brought about this great prosperity but I venture to suggest that since he started his campaign no computer has been devised that could calculate the cost of the benefits that he would try to bring to Australia. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) said: ‘We are committed to a scheme’. I ask: Committed to what? The Labor Party has no idea of the cost, although the honourable member made a stab in the dark when he mentioned $ 1,800m for a national superannuation fund. I understand that in the Labor Party’s proposal the present pension scheme will continue.

The honourable member for Oxley then made unsavoury remarks about the Minister for Social Services, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth). I do not suppose there is any honourable member in this Parliament who has put in so much work and intelligence into preparing social service schemes that he has created. If a workable scheme is to be introduced, honourable members can be assured that it will be introduced by the Minister for Social Services. He is a math ematician of great ability. At one period of his life he was economic adviser to the New South Wales Government. The Minister is a man with practical experience and ability. As I said, he is an able mathematician and if a workable national superannuation scheme is to be adopted the Minister for Social Services will be responsible for it. He has devoted much of his time in trying to overcome all the difficulties and anomalies associated with a national superannuation fund. It is all right for airy-fairy people to speak about a national superannuation fund. In most cases they refer to settled countries and settled communities where there is not an influx of migrants of varying ages which makes the adoption of such a scheme difficult. But I have confidence in the Minister.

The honourable member for Oxley spoke of the brave words of the Minister for Social Services. I believe that his brave words will be backed by a scheme that will be workable instead of a scheme devised by economists who have had no practical experience but who have been lecturers in universities and who have not been associated with any great business undertaking. Economists work on a theoretical basis. Those who have had practical experience know that in practice frequently theories do not work out. We have heard much play concerning the abolition of the means test, but the tapered means test has resulted in some benefit. For instance, a married couple can have an income of $72 a week before the pension is affected. Anomalies must be adjusted but while the present pension scheme operates it is difficult to go further than the Government has gone. Once the anomalies in the tapered means test have been overcome, I think that is as far as the Government can go until a national superannuation fund is devised.

Tonight 1 want to speak more particularly about the estimates for the Repatriation Department. I congratulate the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) and the Government for setting up an independent committee to examine all aspects of repatriation. No previous speaker has referred to repatriation. Speaking from memory, I believe that such an investigation has been undertaken only twice or perhaps 3 times since our repatriation legislation was passed back in 1915-16. It is recognised that Australia has a proud record in the field of repatriation - perhaps the best in the world. However, that does not mean that it cannot be improved. The Minister for Repatriation is fully conscious of his responsibility and he desires to do his utmost for all servicemen who have served Australia well. Whatever is done for our ex-servicemen it is nothing more than they deserve. The Australian repatriation system effectively provides for those who have suffered as a result of their war service and for those who, though there may be no identifiable link with war service, may be suffering from the intangible effects of such service. Repatriation provides war pensions and allowances to each group and to those who have a proper claim for them.

Service pensions and allowances are provided for those who served in a theatre of war - to men aged 60 and to females aged 55 - or who are permanently unemployable or who suffer from pulmonary tuberculosis and who can satisfy a means test. Provision also is made for a comprehensive medical service, for rehabilitation training for disabled members and for national servicemen, widows and children. The effectiveness of the repatriation system is maintained through regular reviews by the Government, quite apart from the independent committee which it has set up, to ensure that pension rates are maintained at a proper level and that new benefits are introduced as required to meet particular needs. Sympathetic administration affords every assistance to claimants and beneficiaries. There is a continuing review of medical facilities to ensure the highest possible standards of service. Inevitably the system has its critics but most criticisms are either directed towards the rates for pensions and allowances or seek to widen conditions of eligibility. That the benefits and services are generally free from criticism is a clear indication that they are maintained at a satisfactory level.

I refer now to the onus of proof provision which applies to servicemen claiming pensions. I make a plea for those men who were gassed in the First World War. It has been extremely difficult for them over the years to establish the fact that they were slightly gassed during the war because it took some years before the effects of gas were felt by these men. During my service and many years with the Returned Services League I have found that it has been very difficult to prove that men were suffering from the effects of gas to which they were exposed during the war. On some occasions by going through the men’s record of service I have found, in their paybooks, notations which have enabled me to gain TPI pensions for them. If these men had been able to prove earlier that they had been slightly gassed and had continued on duty they would have received the TPI pension some years before they did. Whatever we do for the returned soldiers is no more than each and every one of them deserves, and I am sure that a proud country would like to do the utmost for them.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Ten minutes is not long in which to criticise the way in which each Federal government in turn over the last 20 years has allowed the social services and repatriation systems to run down. The honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Irwin) seemed to spend his 10 minutes lauding that which has been done by the Commonwealth Government. I think that my colleagues on this side of the chamber who have spoken already have indicated statistically and otherwise the shortcomings of the systems that operate at the moment. There is much talk about the tapered means test. The honourable member for Mitchell said that this was an improvement. I remind him that my Party has as a part of its policy and platform the abolition of the means test, not its tapering as happens at the moment, because we are aware of the situations that could exist with a tapered means test unless it were constantly upgraded. To give an example, I point out that those pensioners who are not receiving the maximum rate of pension have received only a 50c increase in their pension since 1969, and if that is not bad enough, those who are not on the maximum pension are taxed 50c in the $1 on any increase in their earnings. These are not people on huge incomes. They are not people on $14,000 or $15,000 a year. But for every $1 they earn in excess of their permitted income they are taxed 50c, so they lose half of any additional income they earn. I should not think that that is a very good recommendation for the tapered means test.

Many people are affected by this very poor social services system that we have in Australia and not the least of those affected by the anomalies that arise are the invalid pensioners. Invalid pensioners are disadvantaged in 2 ways. Firstly, the invalid pensioner cannot work - that is why he receives an invalid pension - and he does not enjoy the benefit of being able to earn something over and above his pension. He is restricted to his pension. If his wife works his pension is reduced, and in effect she is taxed 50c in the dollar. Because of their disabilities, generally speaking a telephone is a necessity for invalid pensioners. Even though concessions are given on telephone rental, it is an expense that must be incurred. I think there would be nothing wrong with the Commonwealth Government waiving rental charges for invalid pensioners.

The present Liberal-Country Party Government seems to have ari obsession with thrusting its responsibility down the line of government. In this respect it follows a general pattern of passing responsibility through the State governments right down to local government bodies which cannot defend themselves. Appeals to municipal authorities are made by people on pensions for a reduction in their municipal rates. Municipal rates, I remind the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), are rising only because of various costs that are thrown upon municipalities by the action or the inaction of this Government. Municipal rates are rising at a much faster rate than are pensions. Pensioners who own their own homes and who must pay rates are in a very bad position. As I understand it, in New South Wales the municipalities may give a 50 per cent reduction in the rates, and that 50 per cent reduction is made up by the State Government. I believe further that that process was introduced into New South Wales by a Labor government.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Commonwealth does not help them.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– As my colleague indicates, the Commonwealth does not help them. Take an area such as my electorate. The city of Broadmeadows is certainly not noted for the prosperity of its inhabitants and certainly is not without pensioners and other people in necessitous circumstances. So what the Minister for Social Services and his Government are asking the municipal council of Broadmeadows to do is to say to people in circumstances only marginally better than those of people on social service that they must make an additional contribution in their rates to provide the social services for those who need them because this Government is too mean, too niggardly and too miserly to do anything about it.

May I return to a subject that I mentioned just briefly. I skipped right over it because of the shortness of time. It is a matter that could well take up a good deal of debating time in this place because it is so serious. The honourable member for Mitchell told us what a fine job the Minister for Social Services has done in the whole field of pensions. All I say to that, without any malice aforethought, is that as the Minister is a member of the Ministry, his powers of persuasion in influencing his colleagues cannot be very good.

Many people come to this country as migrants from overseas. The honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) has handed to me a copy of a letter that he has received from the Federation of Netherlands Societies in New South Wales. He tells me that he has received up to 50 letters on this subject. The number I have received is no fewer than that. These letters express the view, commonly held by people from Europe, that the social service benefits in every European country are far and away better than they are in Australia. Although this letter comes from the Netherlands Societies, what it says is nonetheless true of people who come to Australia from Italy, Malta and most other European countries. The letter reads:

The members of the Federation of Netherlands Societies in New South Wales in General Meeting noted with much regret the unrest amongst migrants and Australians alike caused by the absence of an adequate system of social services in Australia. The absence of a feeling of security is one of the main reasons why so many migrants return to the country of their birth.

That is a sentence which I think deserves a good deal of consideration. The letter continues:

The Federation has further noted that an estimated one million people in Australia are living below Kie poverty line.

That is in a population of 134 million. The letter goes on:

According to the statistics Australia spent only 5.5 per cent pf its gross national product on social services in 1968-69. A complete overhaul of the whole system of social services is necessary and we urge your Government to start this overhaul now.

It is not our government; it is the Government of honourable members opposite. We of the Opposition have already indicated our plans for a national superannuation scheme, something which the Minister for Social Services propounded but, as I said before, his powers of persuasion proved to be not great enough to. convince his Cabinet colleagues.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This could be the reason why migrants are returning home.

Mr Keith Johnson:
BURKE, VICTORIA · ALP

– This could very well be the reason why migrants are returning home; perhaps one could work out the cost of that and do a nice statistical exercise on it.

In the short time that remains I should like to read to the House the recommendations which were made by a group of prominent citizens on what they called post-retirement payments’, which I think is a much better term than pensions. The recommendations are:

The present situation and likely future needs and problems of (he various categories of retired people in our community;

How they are presently being maintained by pension payments and other concessions, and how this help squares with the assessment of needs;

Whether the pension covers all persons who should be covered;

Whether there should be changes in any areas and if so what areas;

How what we are doing in Australia compares with comparable countries overseas;

Whether the present method of determining pensions is the best or other alternatives should be considered;

Whether the pension should be tied to some other economic yardstick-

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

Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley

– In dealing with -the Estimates for the Department of Social Services and the Repatriaton Department I wish first of all to deal with an individual case, because I think it exemplifies the lack of justice which has been provided in this current Budget. I referred this case to the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) on 21st September and I have received only an acknowledgement from him. He undertook to inquire into the matter. 1 referred this case to the Prime Minister because it involves a review of policy. The only way to correct this injustice is to review policy fully right across the board in respect of social services, as I shall explain.

The background of the case of the individual concerned - I shall call him Mr X - is that he was in receipt of State superannuation of $23.65 a week which, as a result of action by the New South Wales State Government, was increased to $28.45 a week and back-dated to 1st January this year.

Mr Kennedy:

– Bad luck for him.

Mr ARMITAGE:

– As the honourable member said, as it turned out it was bad luck for him. He received advice of this increase from the Superannuation Board on 14th May 1971. The Committee will appreciate that this action . by the New South Wales Government was taken to restore the purchasing power of State pensions but, as a result of this increase, my constituent’s social service pension was reduced from $16.20 a fortnight to $10.80 a fortnight, together with a loss of fringe benefits, including the telephone rental concession, the pensioner medical service and the reduced radio and television licence fees. He was advised of the loss of these fringe benefits by the Department of Social Services on 8th September this year.

Mr Webb:

– What about transport?

Mr ARMITAGE:

– That covers transport as well. The Committee therefore will see that for a net increase, including State pension and social services pension, of $2.10 a week he has lost all fringe benefits which, at his stage of life, would be far more valuable than the $2.10. Furthermore, this loss of income has resulted from Commonwealth action, whilst the State pension was originally increased to compensate the recipient in respect of rising costs. I also pointed out to the Prime Minister that this would mean not only that he did not receive the special 50c increase that was given earlier this year but also that he will not receive the $1.25 increase provided in the current Budget. Surely this is a case which should be considered? Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister for a complete review of policy right across the board. It is obvious that unless there is an urgent review of policy, people in this category will be done a severe injustice. While the State government increases their superannuation to account for rising costs, the Commonwealth Government grabs more than the increase - that is the effect of it - which was provided by the State government.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer. I quote from the ‘Daily Mirror’ of 26th August where it is stated:

An estimated 154,000 aged, invalid and widow pensioners will not receive a cent from latest pension increases. They will be excluded because the Government has decided to tighten the means test.

The Government has decided not to alleviate the means test but to tighten it. The article continues:

It is understood the tapered means test introduced by the former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, will not be available to thousands of pensioners this year, Mr Gorton decided that, instead of a pension being reduced by, the amount -by which a pensioner’s means exceeded the permissible limit, only half the excess was cut from the pension. But when introducing this year’s Budget the Treasurer Mr Snedden, said full increases would be given only to those pensioners receiving the current maximum rate.

I think this is exemplified clearly in a table to which I shall now refer. This table shows that the total number of age pensioners who will not benefit from the current increase is 148,000. The number of invalid pensioners who will not benefit is 17,000 and the number of widow pensioners who will not benefit is 16,000, giving a total of 181,000 which, expressed as a percentage of the total number of pensioners, is 17 per cent. In other words, 17 per cent of pensioners who, when they first read the paper the morning after the Budget was presented believed that they were to receive an increase of $1.25 a week, have now found to their sorrow, just as the constituent to whom I referred earlier found, that they will not receive any increase whatsoever. If I recall the position correctly, the same situation applied with regard to the 50c increase earlier this year. So, is there any justice in the proposals which are being brought forward?

While on this subject, I refer the Committee to the position of the single age pensioner. In 1949, when the Australian Labor Party went out of office, he received 24 per cent of the average weekly earnings as estimated for June 1972. In 1967 the percentage had dropped to 21.4 per cent, in 1971 the figure was 18.9 per cent and in 1972 it will be 18.7 per cent. Taking similar figures, based once again on the estimate for the year ended June 1972, in 1950 the amount paid in child endowment for one child under 16 years of age was 2.6 per cent of the average weekly earnings; in 1967 the figure was .8 per cent; in 1971 it was .6 per cent; and in 1972 it will be .5 per cent. The same thing applies in respect of child endowment for 3 children under 16 years of age. In 1950 the figure was 12.9 per cent; in 1967 it was 4.9 per cent; in 1971 it was 3.5 per cent; and in 1972 it will be 3.8 per cent.

As I said, surely this is indicative that there is no justice in the proposals being submitted by this Government in respect of the whole range of social services. Surely it is indicative that this situation applies not only to the pensioners but also to the average family grouping, the most important grouping in our society and the basis for the future generations of this country. My electorate has the youngest average age of any electorate in New South Wales. There are more young people in my electorate that in any other electorate in New South Wales. These people will be vitally affected and are being vitally affected by the refusal of this Government to give justice to the young family groupings. Of course, the Government also refuses to give justice to the older people, the invalids and the civilian widows, in my electorate.

Finally I should like to deal with another matter. There have been petitions brought before this House recently along the line that any person who is eligible for a social service pension may receive or should be able to receive it without any limitation outside the Commonwealth of Australia. Of course, this affects a large number of migrant people - people who come to this country to settle. If in their very old age they wish to return home, they will not be able to benefit from the social service benefits which would be available to them if they stayed in Australia. For some years now, the Maltese people - the Minister knows about this; 1 have been to him on a deputation- have asked for reciprocal rights. They are British citizens. They have asked for reciprocal rights in respect of social services which other British citizens, such as those in the United Kingdom, receive. The Government undertook in the 1969-70 Budget that there would probably be a decision before the 1970-71 Budget. No such decision has been forthcoming. Of course, I think that limited assistance has been given. However, the basic requirement of those people has not been implemented by the Government. I think it is very important that justice should be given to them. I think that justice should be given not only to Maltese people but to all other people who have come from Europe to make their home here and help build this country.

Mr CALDER:
Northern Territory

– In discussing the estimates for the Department of Social Services I would like to mention the amendment which the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) attempted to introduce. The honourable member has proposed the establishment of a joint select committee on aspects of national superannuation schemes and I am sure that he has heard of the tremendous efforts which are being made by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) in this direction. I strongly suspect that in wanting to introduce this proposal by way of amendment the honourable member was just trying to cash in on what the Minister has been working on so hard and so well. Indeed, I imagine that the Minister will be introducing his proposals shortly in a very successful way.

I commend the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) on his introduction of the independent inquiry into the repatriation system. The Minister worked on this matter last year. At that time it was envisaged that it would take the form of a departmental inquiry, but this has since been widened to an independent inquiry. Also, the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare is to inquire into all aspects of repatriation. Therefore it is to be hoped that those who are in real need will receive this assistance early next year.

I turn now to the estimates for this Department. I see that the total amount has risen by $268m to $2,095m and that repatriation benefits have risen by $40m to $355.4m. I commend both Ministers on the strenuous efforts they are making in their respective fields. They are sincere in what they are doing to assist both civilian and Service pensioners.

I would now like to deal with some of the individual items in the estimates for social welfare and repatriation. I note that there is to be an increase of $3m in respect of numerous items such as aged persons homes, sheltered employment, telephone rental concessions, rehabilitation services and handicapped children. Also the Royal Flying Doctor Service receives an increase of over 100 per cent. This is a vital service to the outback. It serves Europeans and Aboriginals alike. In some areas more Aboriginals are served than Europeans. However, it serves without any consideration and flies in all sorts of weather. The people who back up this service are sterling citizens. The Flying Doctor Service continues to spread the feeling of safety and confidence to people who live in outback areas. I am always pleased to see the Service receive support from this Government in addition to the strong support it receives from the public.

The drug education campaign is to receive additional assistance. It is vital that the young people of today should receive education to warn them against, and to help them combat, the trend which seems to be overtaking the world - that is, to get the young hooked on some sort of drug as soon as possible. Money spent in this campaign is a very safe investment for the future of this country.

I would now like to mention the situation confronting the pensioners and others in the Northern Territory who live on fixed incomes. I again make a plea on behalf of these people for consideration because north of the 28th parallel the dollar does not go so far as it does down in tht city areas. In this chamber I have raised this matter on numerous occasions in a number of ways. I have spoken about it three or four times during the last 12 months. Also, I have made representations to the Minister.

Mr Foster:

– You have raised it 3 times?

Mr CALDER:

– Yes, 3 times during the year. My plea is based on the fact that in the Territory it costs a few cents extra to buy everyday items of living such as food, fruit, tobacco and beer. The people on receipt of pensions and on fixed incomes have to foot the bill and they receive no differential whatsoever. Their money does not go so far. Once again I ask the Minister for Social Services to look at this matter. I will continue to battle for pensioners in the Northern Territory in this regard. There was a time when because of cheap shipping freights the costs in the top end were comparable, but this is not so today, because costs have been forced up by the men who are handling the cargoes on the wharf. But more of that in a later debate. It is enough to say that the wharfies in Darwin have tended tq raise the costs and they are in turn inflicting a hardship on all the community. The wages of many people have been rising at a much faster rate than the incomes of pensioners. Therefore, this should be remembered by the men who are going slow on the wharves.

Briefly I would like to mention some opinions held by Australian Labor Party visitors to the Northern Territory on what I have trying to achieve - and I am trying to achieve something - since they have been coming up there. In particular I would like to refer to what they have to say about my efforts to get the Northern Territory pensioners some sort of a differential. A Labor Party senator said that my efforts were complete hypocrisy because nothing had been achieved. He considers that pensioners in the Northern Territory should not receive a pension higher than the rate elsewhere. He criticised me for trying to obtain a differential for them. The honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) could not stop a typical Labor outburst when he was in the Northern Territory and said that he noticed the shocking cost disadvantages. I would like to ask what these parliamentarians have done for pensioners in their own electorates. They have done nothing - absolutely nothing. They have not stood up here and battled for pensioners in the way I have. All they do is to ride up to the Territory and criticise the bloke who is trying to do something. I would not mind if they got behind me and helped me in my efforts. By the way, Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish the honourable member who is trying to interject, would address his remarks through you. But these men just come up and knock a fellow who has been trying for years to do something for Northern Territory pensioners.

Mr Kennedy:

– That is you?

Mr CALDER:

– Yes. The Minister will tell you that ever since I have been here I have endeavoured to do something about it. But instead of saying: ‘Good old Sam, we are behind you’, honourable members opposite just say: ‘No, we are not behind you’. No member of the Labor Party has supported me. The Labor Party has done nothing except criticise my efforts to do something for northern pensioners. This is typical. They are just a bunch of knockers. They come from the south and disappear in a cloud of dust. They know nothing. If these members who come to the Northern Territory got behind me we may be able to do something about this situation. I shall continue to battle for the northern pensioners and for a differential for them because I realise it costs far more to live in the Northern Territory than to live down here. They are on their fixed-

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

Mr BERINSON:
Perth

– I take the opportunity of this Estimates debate to raise a number of matters concerning the operation of the Aged Persons Homes Act. Some of the comments I intend to make will have to be critical and, so that I will not be misunderstood and in order to keep my criticism in proper perspective, 1 should make 2 preliminary comments. In the first place, 1 acknowledge that the present scheme resulted from a genuine and original initiative by the present Government parties. It was a good initiative. To the end of June 1971 the scheme has cost $125m and this has been money well spent. If, as 1 intend to do, I suggest that in part these funds could have been better spent or, even without any additional cost at all, the administration of the Act might have been improved, this is not intended to qualify the general approval of the scheme which I have already indicated. Secondly, I intend, time permitting, to comment on some administrative aspects of the homes. I should add here that I fully appreciate the time, energy and devotion of the many voluntary members of the respective management bodies. Indeed, I should think that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) would agree that without their assistance the scheme might not have worked at all; certainly it could not have operated as economically as it has done.

There are 4 topics on which I hope to be able to comment: Firstly, the restrictions of Commonwealth assistance under the Act to capital expenditure only; secondly, the tendency of the scheme to give least assistance to those most in need as a result of the system of donationlinked entry which has developed; thirdly, the virtual absence of Commonwealth interest in the homes made possible by the Act once building has been completed; fourthly, the unfortunate reluctance by some management bodies to take residents into their confidence and to encourage their participation in the management work and decision making. The Aged Persons Homes Act commenced in 1954 on the basis of a £1 for £1 subsidy and was amended in 1957 to provide a £2 for £1 subsidy. From its inception, however, the subsidy has been limited to capital costs only and it is not at all clear that this limitation is either warranted or desirable. Indeed, to interpolate problems from other areas, the very common tendency of the Government to support capital but not maintenance costs is questionable, to say the least. For example, why should we grant tax deductibility for donations to build independent schools but not for donations towards teachers’ salaries at the same institutions? Why do we subsidise buildings for handicapped children but not the costs of providing physiotherapists, speech therapists, doctors or nurses within them? Similar questions can be asked in relation to aged persons homes.

I have heard it said by social workers and geriatricians that our past tendency to favour large aged persons homes and in some cases such as in the Menora subdivision of my electorate, aged persons villages, is misdirected. The suggestion is that a much larger number of smaller developments in the original communities of the aged persons concerned would be preferable. There appear to be some very sound arguments in favour of this proposition. However, having developed in a different direction we should at least take the maximum advantage of what we have and the Commonwealth could very properly assist in this respect. Contributions towards maintenance costs, recreation facilities and occupational therapists would all be logical extensions of the present scheme which could be achieved at relatively small cost and the Government’s continued emphasis on capita] contributions should surely be relaxed to accommodate them.

A more serious problem of the scheme, however, has risen from the development of donation linked entry. The theory is simple and attractive. An aged person donates one-third of the cost of his accommodation, the Commonwealth grants twothird of the cost of his accommodation, and the result is that the home can be built at no cost at all to the sponsoring organisation itself. At least until 1969 the situation was that on the death of the first occupant the process could be repeated a second time and so on ad infinitum. The result was that only aged persons with relatively substantial means could afford accommodation in these homes and low income pensioners, that is, those able to go into units on a minimum rental basis only, were effectively excluded. The annual report of the Director-General of Social Services for 1969-70 indicated official recognition of the problem and an attempt to tackle it. At page 42, under the heading Donations by residents’, the DirectorGeneral said:

A new form of legal agreement with organisations receiving capital grants has been introduced. This agreement requires organisations to apply donations received by or on behalf of intending residents only towards the establishment of new accommodation. A long-term effect of this provision should be a gradual increase in the number and percentage of units allocated to non-donor residents.

However,. I am not at all sure that the new agreement will necessarily achieve its stated aims. The appropriate parts of clause 3 of the current agreement read as follows:

The Organisation shall not . . . use donations of money or other valuable consideration given to the Organisation by, or on behalf of, or in respect of, aged persons who are occupants or prospective occupants of an approved home, for any purpose other than purposes in connection with the purchase, construction or furnishing of the approved home or other approved homes. In particular, such donations of money or other valuable consideration shall not be used in connection with the day-to-day running costs or the maintenance costs of an approved home.

The relevant parts of clause 4 (2) state:

When accommodation in an approved home is vacated by the aged person who occupied that accommodation on the first occasion … the Organisation shall allocate that accommodation in accordance with the object of reaching, as early as practicable, the position where at least half of the total number of aged persons accommodated in the home is made up of aged persons by whom … a donation has not been made to the Organisation.

Putting these clauses together it means that an organisation, once it has reached the stage where half of its units are rented outright, can continue to sell the other half indefinitely while it is engaged in improving its existing buildings and furnishings or while building other units elsewhere. Moreover, the last section of clause 3 is simply incapable of. regulation, at least where donations are made by the families of residents rather than by the residents themselves.

In addition, the thousands of units built prior to the 1969 formula are not subject to the current limitations at all and in theory at least can continue to be sold in perpetuity. Can we then claim to be gaining maximum value out of the scheme while these real and potential barriers exist to the entry of low income pensioners? I am sure all honourable members will share my own observations as to the importance of the role of low cost accommodation to social service recipients. This does not apply only to aged pensioners; it applies to invalid pensioners and to working mothers who are widowed or single or separated. How often do we find that the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable living standard is constituted by the availability of reasonable and genuinely low cost housing? I believe we should tackle this head-on by amending the agreement to allow any unit to be ‘sold’ no more than once, as a general rule, and no more than twice where the second payment is to be devoted to hostel or hospital facilities for aged residents in independent units who lose the capacity to care for themselves. Moreover, uniformity should be brought to the scheme by persuading pre- 1969 homes to accept the same conditions as apply to developments under later agreements. In most cases I am confident this would be accepted willingly and voluntarily but if necessary, as a last resort, it should be legislated.

The third problem which I refer to concerns the lack of continuing Commonwealth interest in the buildings once they are established. I believe that it should be continued for 3 reasons: Firstly, out of concern for the residents; secondly, out of concern to safeguard the very large Commonwealth investment in the scheme; and, thirdly, to assist the residents to safeguard, their own interests. It must be remembered that at the Government’s insistence aged donors can receive no contractual or other legal rights to their accommodation. Without even suggesting possible impropriety by managements - I have seen no instance of this at all - the need for some different, form of protection for these elderly people can nonetheless be visualised.

Let me take the example of charges for rental accommodation. In my own electorate - and we are dealing purely with rental accommodation - rental charges range from $3 a week in the best instance to an instance which I have in my hand, in circular form, of $11 a week for the rental of a unit subsidised by this scheme. At $11 a week we are virtually operating at commercial rental rates. I also have correspondence here showing that these homes are not required to pay shire rates or water rates and in most cases in Western Australia they are exempt from land tax as well.

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

Mr BERINSON:

– As no other honourable member has risen- I will take my second . period now. As I have already stated, with rented accommodation costing $11 a week we are reaching the stage where we are operating virtually on a commercial basis in an area which was surely intended to be anything but commercial. The question which arises is: Was any such possibility envisaged by the Government when the scheme was introduced? Surely it was not. Yet the only check which the Government has retained is to be found in clause 11 (2) of the current agreement which reads:

Hie Organisation shall furnish to the DirectorGeneral, at his request-

I stress the words ‘at his request’ for reasons which I will indicate shortly - all records, books of account and documents relating to the approved home or homes, in the possession or under the control of the Organisation and afford all requisite assistance to enable the Director-General or bis agents to ascertain the true financial position of that home.

All that happens is that the organisation may be obliged, on request, to supply this financial information. My understanding is that no such request for information has ever been made in my own State. I do not know whether it has been made in any other State either, but I am also informed that even if this information were demanded it would not be made available, for example, to members of Parliament or even, strange as it may sound, to the residents of the homes who may be interested in the financial standing of the institution which they themselves occupy.

This last point is linked to the fourth matter which I indicated that I wanted to raise, and that is the lack of information and the lack of communication which appears to arise at least in some cases between the residents of homes and their managements. I think this is unfortunate. I have never been able to discern for myself any good reason why the financial position of a home should be kept confidential from the residents, that is, from the people who in some cases pay substantial sums to go into the home and who in other cases are paying maintenance and/or rental charges. I think it would be a highly desirable development for the Commonwealth, in expansion of its current interest in the further welfare of these homes, not simply to require that the financial position of the homes should be made available on demand to the Director-General, but that it should be made available annually as a matter of course to the Director-General, and also that any information appearing therein should automatically be available to the residents of the homes themselves.

I want to say and emphasise, as I did at the outset, that there is nothing in what I have said to suggest or to imply in any v/ay that I believe that there is any impropriety in the conduct of these homes. That is far from the position. But we are dealing with elderly people, people who need some understanding and need to feel that their opinions do count in the spheres in which they are operating. I put it to the Minister that the matters which I have raised in relation to the Government’s actions and to the way in which the relationship between management and residents of these homes might be improved should be given due consideration.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · Mackellar · LP

– I have listened with interest to the debate, which has now run its allotted course. I do not think that I merit either the praise which has been given to me from the Government side or the condemnation which has been given to me from the Opposition side. I am neither as meritorious as that nor do I think I am as incompetent as that. Let us try to find a middle course. As I said, I have listened to the matters which have been mentioned on both sides of the chamber. I particularly mention the things which were said by the honourable member for Perth (Mr Berinson) and the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). The honourable member for Perth made two or three points which I feel are worth consideration. Firstly, he spoke about the size of some of these groups of aged persons homes. I think that in this matter we do not want to lay down any uniformity. Some people prefer a bigger group. I have some preference for the smaller group, but I would not like to impose my preference one way or the other. I would think there is a proper place here for the exercise of individual responsibility and choice.

Secondly, the honourable member made a point in regard to donations and to the fact that something could be sold twice. If he will look at the monthly returns which are available to honourable members he will see that more than half the units are occupied free of any donation. I think about two-thirds of the units being constructed are occupied free of any donation at all. If the honourable member will consider what he was saying a moment ago about units being sold and resold indefinitely 1 think he will come to the conclusion that he is wrong. New units form part of that half or so of the total number occupied free of donation. I believe that, as the honourable member admits, this scheme will demonstrate that it is being successful. It is true that in 1969 we made some changes in the fundamental deeds which these organisations sign when they construct a new home with a government subsidy. But in general the scheme is working very well. I think even the honourable member will admit that.

He spoke of the difference between a capital subsidy and maintenance subsidy. I think this matter was also mentioned by the honourable member for Hawker. In this field the Government is trying to avoid duplication with State functions. I will admit that it is difficult. But even in the field of age persons care the Commonwealth does not have sole responsibility. A person who is a citizen of Australia is also a citizen of New South Wales or whatever the State may be and also perhaps a citizen of a city, Sydney, Melbourne or whatever city we may like to name. In all these things there is a concurrent responsibility. The Commonwealth has not the sole responsibility. What is the proper function of the Commonwealth is also, to some extent, a function of the State and the municipality, because they should be looking after their own people. When we come to divide these responsibilities in terms of the functions that we carry out we try to avoid duplication and to make the line between the Commonwealth and the State as clear-cut as possible. It is not possible to provide this absolutely, so we try to keep our subventions roughly in the capital field where they do not interfere with the administration which is the proper prerogative of the State.

This is something which is done in the interests of the organisations and of the people concerned whether they be elderly, disabled or handicapped. It is not a bad rule. As I have said, we cannot carry it out absolutely but we do try to have this general guiding principle. I feel that there is some substance in what the honourable member for Hawker said, but I would ask him to remember that the Commonwealth assistance to sheltered workshops is only 4 to 5 years old. It has been developing immensely. We did not originate this idea of sheltered workshops. They ante-dated the Commonwealth subvention. But what the Commonwealth subvention has done is to accelerate their growth immensely. This is good thing. The accelerating growth is still going on. But I agree with the honourable member that there are still some areas of uncertainty in which the Commonwealth has not yet finally made up its mind. He instanced swimming pools. I do not think the Commonwealth should engage in expenditure on what perhaps some people would consider to be almost a luxury. On the other hand, the honourable member is quite right when he speaks about the therapeutic value of pools for certain disabled people. Although the Commonwealth does not subsidise them, this does not mean that they cannot be built. They may be built from other funds. But I think the honourable member has a point which is worth considering as the scheme develops. I felt that he was not on such sound ground when he was talking about fares. I think we do make an allowance of $4 a week for fares to persons attending sheltered workshops. When the honourable member spoke about people who worked only a few hours or a few days in the week because they were finding their fares burdensome, .1 felt that he was on unsound ground. He was not quite speaking in accordance with the facts. However, I listened with some attention to what he was saying because I realised that he is studying this programme and is actively engaged in its support. I am only too happy to receive opinions from people who are earnest in this regard, whether they be on that side of the House or are my own side of the House. This is a developing programme which is npt frozen and fixed in any regard at all and which I and the Government are developing very rapidly. It may be that other improvements can be made. I acknowledge this.

Finally I would like to say something about the main points that have been raised by honourable members opposite. It would not be proper for me at the present moment to commit the Government in regard to policy. I am not trying to do that. But the Opposition seems to be a little confused in what it is saying and is perhaps not quite practical. It is of course possible to introduce national superannuation straight away if people are prepared to bear the cost. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who speaks for the Opposition on social service matters, mentioned airily a figure of $ 1,800m a year. It is his figure. I believe that it is not altogether a fair figure. I think it may be too low for what he has in mind. But I will not go into that. Let me accept his own figure and take it at its face value. Even by itself it is an immense amount But if one also takes into account the commitments which are being made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) for housing, invalid pensions, education and one thing and another one will see that the Opposition would impose on the Australian taxpayer a burden which he could not possibly be expected to bear. Even though it may be said that $ 1,800m a year is a very large sum to spend on national superannuation- I should think myself that it would be an insupportable amount - it should be remembered that it does not stand alone. If one takes into consideration the education proposals, the housing proposals and all the other things which are being scattered abroad from the Australian Labor Party’s cornucopia one will come to the conclusion that its members are not really practical people but that they just say what they think will be popular.

Mr Foster:

– That is only the Minister’s opinion. How would he know?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The honourable member for Sturt has a habit of interrupting debates in this Parliament. He is showing himself to be a left winger. He is establishing himself as one of the left wing people in this Parliament. I repeat that the honourable member for Sturt, who continues to interject, is establishing himself in this Parliament as a left winger. He is establishing himself not as the representative of the bulk of the people in his electorate but as the representative of a small, militant section which is itself not even representative of the trade unions.

Mr Foster:

– We looked like having a good sleep a minute ago but now you have gone off the deep end.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The interjections from the honourable member for Sturt show quite clearly the kind of character which he is establishing for himself in this chamber and in his own electorate- that of an extreme left winger. The members of the Opposition have spoken tonight of poverty in Australia, of the poverty line and of how pensions in Australia are not as good as those overseas. I want to read to honourable members - this is the last thing 1 will do in this debate - a letter which was written recently to the London Times’ by Professor Henderson, who is the creator of the poverty line and to whom the Opposition refers. I will quote exactly what he said. Professor Henderson said:

I might add that our poverty line is considerably higher than the supplementary assistance standard generally accepted as the poverty line in Britain. In spite of that, the proportion ‘in poverty’ in Australia is at 5 per cent, much lower than in Britain.

He went on to say:

In contrast to Mr Moreton-Evans’ original statement that ‘distribution of wealth in Australia is among the most inequitable in the civilised world’, it is our judgment-

This is what Professor Henderson said on behalf of himself and his fellow workers at the University of Melbourne - that the incidence of poverty in Australia is lower than in any country in the world with the possible exceptions of New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries, and that the distribution of wealth and income is more equitable than in any other country, with the same possible exceptions.

If the Opposition wants to call into evidence what Professor Henderson said about the poverty line, this is, in point of fact, what he did say and I think it had better go into the record. Of course things in Australia are not perfect. They are not perfect in any country but at least here we can say that there are comparatively fewer people in poverty than there are in other countries, with, as the professor says, the possible exception of New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries. If honourable members will look at the level of our social services and compare them with the social services available in the United Kingdom, for example, they will see that they compare very yell indeed for the individual. The comparison will be to Australia’s advantage. It may be that we do not have some of the very high payments which are being made in other countries in Europe, but remember at the same time that we do not have the very heavy rates of taxation contribution which those same countries exact and which are necessary in order to pay for the services they give. But for those at the bottom of the scale - the people who are really in need - the Australian provision is among the best in the world. That is the fact of the matter. I have quoted what Professor Henderson, the original measurer of the poverty line has had to say in that regard.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr Giles:

– I move:

That progress be reported.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Scholes) - Order! Does the honourable member for Sturt claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr FOSTER:

– Yes.

Mr Giles:

– I am sorry; I withdraw my motion.

Mr FOSTER:

– The honourable member is very gracious. During the course of his reply the Minister described me as an extreme left-winger. I claim to have been misrepresented on the basis that I am well aware and at all times conscious of the distortion of which the Minister is capable. The distortions that he has levelled at members on this side of the House will be used in an unscrupulous political manner at some future date.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- Order! The honourable member is debating the matter. Where does be claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr FOSTER:

– I claim that the Minister is misrepresenting me in referring to me as a left-winger. I want to let him know that you need 2 wings to fly and it is a long time since he has been able to do that with any degree of success.

Proposed expenditures agreed to.

Progress reported.

page 3201

SUPPLY BILL (No. 3) 1971-72

Bill returned from the Senate without requests.

House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.

page 3202

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Cigarette Smoking (Question No. 3790)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report by Professor Ford in the Medical Journal of Australia of 29th May 1971 that among 13,000 asthma patients in a survey of allergic patients in South Australia most did not smoke, few had destructive lung disease such as emphysema which is common among smokers and only one, who smoked 30 cigarettes a day. for several years, had bronchogenic cancer.
  2. If so, will the Minister arrange for a graphic dramatisation of these and other facts for short repeated commercial type television films.
Mr Swartz:
LP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to the article referred to in your question. The preliminary findings of Professor Ford’s survey support medical evidence accepted by the Government that cigarette smoking has a causal relationship with carcinoma of the lung.
  2. The Commonwealth’s policy in respect of educating the public on the hazards of smoking is to intensify health educational programmes directed primarily towards young people. In the Territories for which the Government is responsible health education programmes include material such as films and brochures. Graphic demonstration of facts in T.V. commercials is not considered to be the appropriate approach in educating young people.

Road Injuries (Question No. 4087)

Dr Everingham:

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

Will the Minister follow Victoria’s example by making road injuries notifiable disorders in Commonwealth Territories.

Mr Swartz:
LP

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

The Commonwealth is guided in these matters by the advice of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which to date has made no recommendation that road injuries should be included in the list of notifiable diseases.

However, the Traffic Injury Committee of Council considers all relevant medical aspects relating to road injuries. At its next meeting the Victorian decision to make road injuries notifiable will, I am informed. be discussed.

Tariffs (Question No. 4100)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. What is the number of items upon which tariffs have been (a) applied, (b) varied and (c) discontinued in each of the last 3 years for which figures are available.
  2. What is the (a) minimum and (b) maximnm . cost of investigations to determine the rate of tariff on one item.
  3. What is the estimated (a) import value before tariff and (b) tariff raised on items (i) 8a of the Fourth Schedule and (ii) 591b and 1140b of the Fifth Schedule.
Mr Anthony:
CP

– It is not practicable to furnish precise replies to the honourable members questions for the following reasons:

  1. The number of tariff items varied in any year may amount to several hundreds. Frequently, whole sections of the Customs Tariff are restructured as a result of Tariff Board recommendations. Administrative changes are also made from time to time. Rents are fragmented and in other cases’, amalgamated. It is seldom possible, in these circumstances, to compare the Tariff, item by item, before and after re-structuring. It is, therefore’, not possible to advise the number of items on which tariffs have been applied, varied or discontinued.
  2. Protective tariffs are determined only after public inquiry and report by the Tariff Board. The Board furnishes some 20 to 30 reports each year. A single report may cover anything from very few to over 100 separate tariff items. It is not, therefore, possible to assess the costs to the Commonwealth of investigation on an itembyitem basis.

The total expenditure by the Tariff Board over the last 3 years was:

  1. Item 8a, Fourth Schedule

This item covers sorbitol in aqueous solution which is dutiable under tariff classification 29.04.4, with rates of duty 40 per cent (General) and 30 per cent (Preferential). However, because sorbitol in aqueous solution is included in the fourth schedule, it is also liable to a Support Value Duty equal to 90 per cent of the amount by which the landed duty paid cost of imports is less than $17.50 per cwt.

In 1970-71 dutiable clearances (other than bylaw entries) of all sorbitol (including sorbitol in aqueous solution) totalled 107,000 lb, valued at $10,500 f.o.b. giving an average unit value of 9.85c/lb. Duty paid on these imports amounted to $4,143, or 3.87c/lb. These are average figures only, and the calculations for individual shipments could vary having regard to different prices, qualities, etc.

In 1970-71 support value duty paid on sorbitol in aqueous solution amounted to $998, all in respect of imports from Japan.

Item 591b, Fifth Schedule

This item no longer exists. However, prior to a tariff amendment of 24th August 1971, it covered bags of regenerated cellulose, not printed to embossed, otherthan disposable ileo-colostomy drainage bags. The effect of inclusion in the Fifth Schedule was to make import from New Zealand subject to a special rate of 274 per cent. However, this provision is inoperative, as the normal Preferential rate is 20 per cent and New Zealand imports consequently paid this lower rate.

In 1970-71 imports from New Zealand were valued at $27, and duty paid amounted to $5.

Item 1140b, Fifth Schedule

This item covers copper nose rings for animals and copper clips, tags, rings and the like, for the identification of animals, birds or fish. Normal rates of duty are 52½ per cent plus 5 per cent (General) and 274 per cent (Preferential). However, the effect of inclusion in the Fifth Schedule is to phase out, under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the duties on imports from New Zealand. The current rate of New Zealand goods is 16½ per cent.

In 1970-71 imports from New Zealand were valued at $93 and duty paid amounted to $15.

Wool: United States’ Import Surcharge (Question No. 4137)

Mr Reynolds:

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

  1. Are representations being made to the United States Government to permit entry of Australian wool as an agricultural product; if so with what result.
  2. Would this application, if successful, provide relief from the present 10 per cent import surcharge.
Mr Anthony:
CP

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

  1. The Government is aware that the application by the United States Government of a 10 per cent surcharge on imports could adversely affect many Australian export industries. Accordingly, representations have been made to the United States Government requesting the removal of the import surcharge on a number of products, including wool.
  2. The United States Government has not as yet answered our request. I shall inform the honourable member when a reply has been received

Exports to China (Question No. 4345)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for

Trade and Industry, upon notice:

Are Australian iron, steel, zinc and aluminium exports to the People’s Republic of China suitable for use in producing armaments?

Mr Anthony:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is yes.

Health Insurance: Migrants (Question No. 4358)

Mr Kennedy:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Can the Minister break down by (a) numbers and (b) percentages the countries of origin of the 26,893 and 25,691 migrants shown in his answer to question No. 2550 (Hansard, 16th September 1971, page 1497) as being enrolled in medical and hospital insurance organisations, respectively, under the terms of the subsidised Health Insurance Scheme.

Mr Swartz:
LP

– The Minister for Health has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The information sought by the honourable member is not available.

Royal Australian Navy: Dental Hygienists (Question No. , 4548)

Dr Everingham:

asked the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

Where may public hygiene authorities obtain details, as a basis for assessment of the Navy programme, of the training, organisation, methods and effectiveness of dental hygienists in the Royal Australian Navy and similar workers.

Dr Mackay:
LP

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

Details concerning the training, organisation and effectiveness of dental hygienists in the RAN may be obtained by writing direct to the OfficerinCharge, Dental Training School, HMAS ‘Cerberus’, Westernport, Victoria 3920.

Education: Teacher Resignations (Question No. 2421)

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– In Hansard, 6th May 1971, page 2862, my predecessor indicated that details of teacher resignations requested in part (1) of the above questions would be provided at a later stage. This part of the question asked for updating of the information which was shown in reply to a previous question (Hansard, 20th-21st May 1970, page 2486) on the number and percentage of male and female primary teachers who resigned from the Education Department in each State.

The following is the latest available information on teacher resignations published by the various State Education Departments and authorities. Percentage resignation rates are only shown for New South Wales and have been taken from the recent report of the Committee of Inquiry into Teacher Education in that State.

Because percentage resignation rates have not been published for other States and because of the different periods to which the statistics relate, I think it would be misleading to calculate percentages. In particular the figures for Queensland and South Australia do not relate to a 12 months period and a percentage comparison with total numbers of teachers would be misleading due to seasonal factors in resignation patterns.

Ministerial Visits Overseas (Question No. 3595)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

On what occasions and for what purposes have his Ministers attended conferences overseas since he became Prime Minister.

Mr Anthony:
CP

– Although the honourable member’s question refers to attendance at conferences, the following answer lists all overseas visits by Ministers, since Mr McMahon became Prime Minister, whether to attend conferences or for other purposes.

Tertiary Education: Unsuccessful Applications to Enrol (Question No. 3642)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for

Education and Science, upon notice:

What was the (a) number and (b) percentage of qualified students in each State who unsuccessfully sought enrolment this year in universities and colleges of advanced education.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

The matriculation examination seeks to do two things. It marks the end of secondary schooling and also in different forms is used as a test of students’ qualifications for university. Because the examination in itself serves two purposes there is sometimes confusion about its implication and meaning. A student can successfully complete secondary schooling and still have a relatively small chance of successfully completing a university course, and thus the standard set to indicate the successful completion of secondary schooling is not the same as the standard which universities set for their own entry. Although it is quite a while ago, the Martin Committee recommended that the university student should be able to pass in minimum time plus one year. At the standard at which students now enter universities even a number of Commonwealth scholars do not achieve that performance. This merely goes to show that the fact that a proportion of the applicants to universities who have qualified for matriculation or successfully completed secondary schooling is unable to be accommodated, is not proof of inadequate numbers of places at universities.

The number and percentage of students qualified for matriculation in each State who are recorded as unsuccessfully seeking enrolment in universities this year is set out in the following table:

It should be remembered that, after the submission of applications for admission to universities there are always some applicants who decide to enrol in colleges of advanced education or other tertiary institutions, others who decide to return to school in the hope of gaining a scholarship in the following year and others who, for onereason or another, decide not to proceed with tertiary education. Moreover, the numbers include multiple applications made to universities in more than one State and applications from overseas. Thus the figures in the above table significantly overstate the number and proportion of applicants qualified for matriculation who wish to gain enrolment at the universities but are unable to do so; the figures should therefore be treated with great caution. For example, in the metropolitan universities in Sydney, about one-quarter of students qualified for matriculation who were offered places in 1971 did not enrol and in Victoria about one-third of such students offered places did not accept them; the corresponding proportions among those less successful students who were not offered places would-be likely to be higher.

As was the case last year (see my predecessors reply to question No. 1344, Hansard, 16’ September 1970, page 1693), it is not possible to provide comparable information in respect of colleges of advanced education. However, I refer to honourable member to the information Riven in parts (10) and (11) of my anwer to his question No. 3645 when this appears.

Television Programmes: Station TVQ 0 (Question No. 3752)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that Universal Telecasters Qld Ltd (TVQ 0), in its original application for a television licence, proposed that a minimum of 40 per cent of programme time would be occupied by Australian programmes in the second and third years of operation
  2. If so, was this promise fulfilled.
  3. What percentage of programme material is presently devoted to programmes of Australian origin on this station.
  4. What types of programme make up this percentage.
Sir Alan Hulme:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

  1. In its original application for a commercial television station licence, Universal Telecasters Qld Ltd (licensed to station TVQ Brisbane) staled that it proposed that the proportion of Australian content of programmes would reach approximately 40 per cent in the third year of operation, based on a transmission schedule of 61 hours weekly.
  2. In July, 1968, following the completion of 3 years operation, 51.1 per cent of the weekly 87 hours transmission of TVQ was occupied by Australian programmes.
  3. Station TVQ is at present credited with televising Australian programmes for 54 per cent of transmission time of about 97 hours weekly.
  4. Australian programmes at present televised by station TVQ consist of Drama, Light Entertainment, Sport, News, Children’s, Family Activities, Current Affairs, Religious Matter and Education.

Postal Department: Giro System of Money Exchange (Question No. 3942)

Dr Klugman:

asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has his Department investigated the Giro system of money exchange as practised in the United Kingdom and other European post offices.
  2. Have the private banks made any representations opposing the introduction of the Giro system into Australia.
  3. If so, what was the basis of these representations apart from a likely drop in bank profits.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Yes. However, the costsinvolved in establishing such a service are high and the profitability is doubtful. The British Post Office lost approximately $A13m in 1969-70 on its Giro system. About half of the main Giro systems in the world operate at a loss.

The Australian Post Office will continue to observe progress overseas.

  1. No.

United States Officials: Visit to Australia (Question No. 3969)

Mr Morrison:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did Mr William Bundy of the State Department of the United States of America or another senior member of President Johnson’s administration visit Australia in December 1964 or January 1965.
  2. If so, (a) was the visit made public, (b) what was the purpose of the visit and (c) with whom were discussions held.
Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

No senior members of the United States Government visited Australia in December 1964 or January 1965. A reference in the so-called Pentagon Papers to a visit by Mr William Bundy in December 1964 was not correct.

Income Tax Deductions (Question No. 4032)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will be bring up to date the answer which his predecessor gave on 15th September 1970 (Hansard, page 1155) on income tax deductions.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

Income tax statistics are available of deductions allowed in the assessments of taxable individuals included in the main statistical tabulations for the 1968-69 income year. Estimates of the cost to income tax revenue of deductions for the maintenance of dependants and outer deductions in respect of which statistics were compiled for the 1968-69 income year are set out in the table attached.

I point out that in the method used in preparing these estimates, and those supplied in answer to previous questions on this matter, the cost of revenue of Total Deductions was estimated, first end the portions of this total cost attributable to each type of deduction for which statistics were available were then estimated. However, the cost to revenue of allowing each type of deduction considered separately is less than the amount shown for each type of deduction in the table, because of the effect of the progression in the income tax rates.

The position is most conveniently explained by the example of a taxpayer with a taxable income of $3,900 per annum who had been allowed deductions totalling $200, comprising $100 each for superannuation payments and net medical expenses. The tax payable on each of the relevant amounts of income for the 1968-69 income year was as follows:

The cost of allowing both deductions in this example, the difference between’ the tax payable on a taxable income of $3,900 and a taxable income of $4,100, is $69.18. However, the cost of allowing only one of the $100 deductions (the difference between the tax payable on taxable incomes of $3,900 and $4,000) is $32.90, i.e. an amount less than half of the cost of both deductions.

Bank Investments (Question No. 4033)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information which his predecessor gave on 13th October 1970 (Hansard, page 2071) on bank investments.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The Reserve Bank has provided the following information bringing up to date the earlier answer referred to-

Cigarettes (Question No. 4041)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What was the cigarette consumptionin Australia in the years ending 30th June 1955, 1960, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971.
  2. What was the return in excise to the Commonwealth from cigarettes and tobacco in each of these years.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Apparent Consumption of Cigarettes in Australia. (Apparent consumption in the table below is estimated on the basis of total customs and excise clearances of cigarettes for home consumption. No details are available on changes in stocks of cigarettes held after clearance and therefore it is not possible to calculate consumption by making allowance for these changes.)
  1. Gross Excise Duty Paid on Cigarettes and Tobacco.

Planning Schemes: Postal Department’s Participation (Question No. 4056)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Postmaster-

General, upon notice:

  1. What machinery has his Department developed for maintaining liaison with State, semigovernment authorities and local government authorities concerning zoning and planning schemes (Hansard, 2nd May 1967, page 1634).
  2. To what extent and on what conditions does his Department reticulate telephone services underground in areas where electricity authorities are required to reticulate their services underground.
  3. To what extent and on what conditions does his Department co-operate with electricity authorities in underground reticulation.
Sir Alan Hulme:
LP

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

  1. Close liaison is constantly maintained with metropolitan, provincial and country planning authorities in matters of mutual concern affecting Departmental plant and property and discussions with State planning bodies ensure the coordination of long-term planning. Liaison is also maintained and close co-operation given to highway, railway and public utility authorities and, wherever possible, the Department complies fully with the requirements of these authorities and development groups.

Some examples of the liaison channels used are the Local Government Engineers Association, the National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, and the Central and State Joint Committees which comprise representatives of the Electricity Supply Association of Australia and of the PMG Department.

  1. and (3) My Department co-operates with electricity authorities, private subdivides, municipal councils, etc, in providing underground reticulation. Where this is not the most economic construction, the extra cost incurred must be reimbursed to the Department by the requesting party.

Visits to China by Qantas Employees (Question No. 4509)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Why were the visits to China by employees of Qantas in 1957 and 1964 (Hansard, 13th October 1971, page 2339) omitted from the answer by Prime Minister Menzies on 17th August 1965 (Hansard, page 147).

Mr Anthony:
CP

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

The honourable member’s question in 1965 was about visits to mainland China by employees of the Commonwealth and of Commonwealth statutory authorities. Qantas is a company the capital of which is owned by the Commonwealth and as such does not fall within the terms of the question. I assume this is why visits by Qantas employees were not included in the answer.

Social Services: Reciprocity (Question No. 4126)

Mr Grassby:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for

Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Did be state on 18th August 1970 that he would discuss with his colleague, the Minister for

Immigration, the case of William Martin of 21 Park Street, Orange, New South Wales, who found he lost his entitlement to pension from the West German Government when he became an Australian citizen.

  1. Is it a fact that at the same time Mr Martin was unable to secure his Australian pension if he had to return to Germany for urgent personal reasons.
  2. Did the Federal Republic of Germany discuss the matter of social service reciprocity with Australian authorities in 1969.
  3. If so, did the Federal Republic indicate its willingness to enter into an agreement.
  4. Would the reciprocity of pensions mean a considerable inflow of Deutschmarks into Australia.
  5. Will he confer again with his colleague, the Minister for Immigration, with a view to having this reciprocity implemented in the interest of both Australia and Australian citizens.
Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

  1. In my reply of 20th August 1970 to representations made to me on behalf of Mr William Martin by the honourable member for Calare I informed him that I would discuss with the Minister for Immigration the matter of the loss of German pension when the recipient becomes an Australian citizen.
  2. Except in the case of a temporary visit to Britain or New Zealand, with which countries Australia has reciprocal agreements, Australian pensions are not payable overseas. However, on return to Australia after a period of temporary absence, a pensioner may receive payment of pension for up to 30 weeks of that absence.
  3. and (4) It is understood that in the course of discussions on a wide range of subjects, at Bonn in July 1969, an official of the West German Ministry of Labour requested the then Minister for Immigration to take up with the Australian Goverment the question of a social security agreement.
  4. I have no information which would support a contention of this kind.
  5. The matter is under consideration and discussion.

The Average Family (Question No. 4160)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What is the average family of children under (a) 14 years of age and (b)15 years of age, compared with the year occurring at the beginning of each decade prior to 1970.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has provided the following table showing the average number of children per ever-married male at each Census from 1911. To obtain these averages the total number of children in each age group has been related to the total number of ever-married males aged 20 to 59 years.

International Council of Scientific Unions (Question No. 4189)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Is Australia a member of the International Council of Scientific Unions.
  2. If so, (a) when did it join, (b) how much has it contributed to the Council (c) has it been represented on the executive committee and (d) on what scientific unions of the Council is Australia represented and what has it contributed to each.
Mr Malcolm FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes. The Australian Academy of Science is the Australian adhering body.
  2. (a) In 1931, the year in which ICSU was established. The Australian National Research Council was the adhering body until its dissolution in 1955.

    1. The Australian Academy of Science is unable to provide details of the total amount contributed to the Council. The Academy’s current annual contribution to the Council is US$5,850.
    2. Individual countries are not represented on the executive committee. Two scientists from Australia have served on the executive committee in recent years, the late Dr D. F. Martyn and Dr A. L. G. Rees.
    3. Australia is represented on the scientific committees and unions of the Council that are listed below. Details are not available of the total amount contributed to each body. However, the current annual contribution to each is as shown in the following:

Consumer Price Index (Question No. 4229)

Mr Barnard:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will he bring up to date the information which the then Treasurer gave on 21st May 1969 (Hansard, page 2096) on the percentage changes in selected components of the Consumer Price Index using the December quarter figures for 1969 and 1970 and the latest available figures for 1971.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that the percentage changes in the selected components of the Consumer Price Index for the periods specified are as shown in the following table:

Organisation Internationale de Metrologie Legale (Question No. 4186)

Mr Barnard:

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

  1. Is Australia a member of the Organisation Internationale de Metrologie Legale.
  2. If so, when did it join and what has it contributed.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Australia joined the Organisation Internationale de Metrologie on 18th September 1959 and its contributions are given below:

Petitions (Question No. 4321)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many petitions were presented to the House in each of the last 5 years.
  2. How many of the petitions were (a) granted, (b) refused and (c) not acted upon.
Mr Anthony:
CP

– In answer to the honourable member’s question, the Clerk of the House of Representatives has supplied the following information:

  1. The number of petitions presented in each of the last5 years and in 1971 to date was:
  1. In regard to this part of the question the relevant standing orders are as follows: 131. The only questions entertained by the

House on the presentation of a petition shall be - 1. “That the petition be received”; 2. “That the petition be received and read”; 3. “That the petition be printed”; or 4. “That the petition be referred to the select committee on “ (in the case of a petition respecting any subject then under consideration of a select committee). 132. No Member- may move that a petition be printed, unless he intends to take action upon it and informs the House thereof.

It can be seen, therefore, that there is no provision in the standing orders for the action envisaged in the honourable member’s question. However the following action has been taken in recent years under the terms of standing orders 131 and 132:

  1. On 12th May 1970, Mr Fox presented a petition on kangaroos, moved that it be printed and informed the House that he intended to take action upon it. The subsequent action was taken on 14th May 1970 when Mr Fox moved for the appointment of the Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation which motion was agreed to by the House.
  2. A petition on the arbitration system was presented on 13th May 1970 by Mr Howson and was ordered to be printed when he informed the House that he proposed to take further action. Mr Howson then gave notice of a motion on 14th May 1970 in connection with the petition for General Business Thursday No. 10. In accordance with established practice, this notice was withdrawn in August 1971 when Mr Howson became a Minister.
  3. A petition relating to the repeal of the National Service Act was presented by Mr Bryant on 26th August 1971 and ordered to be printed after he had stated that he proposed to take action in connection with it. Mr Bryant then gave notice on the same date of his intention to move a motion to appoint a select committee to inquire into the subject matter of the petition. This notice still appears on the Notice Paper.

Perth Airport (Question No. 4365)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Can the Minister say what is the market value per acre of land to be resumed for Perth Airport in Newburn.
  2. What is the price per acre being offered to residents.
  3. Can the Minister say what is the value of adjacent residential and industrial property per acre.
  4. Has an estimate been made of the cost to Newburn residents to establish themselves on properties of similar acreage and equal amenity at a similar distance from the City of Perth.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for the Interior · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

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

  1. The Commonwealth’s valuers are still preparing detailed valuations of the several properties affected. These values will be the subject of negotiation between the owners and the Commonwealth. I would not be prepared to provide the details sought.
  2. No offers have been made.
  3. No.
  4. No such estimate has been made. Properties will be purchased in due course by negotiation and on the basis of fair market value.

Land Purchase: Newburn (Question No. 4366)

Mr Bennett:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Were any offers of purchase of property made to any property owner in the Newburn area prior to August 1971.
  2. If so, who were the property owners and what price was offered per acre.
  3. Were any purchases or guarantees of purchase made; if so, what was the. final agreed price per property.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. No.
  2. and (3) See answer to (1).

Income Tax: Deductions (Question No. 4375)

Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is the cost involved in moving themselves, their families and their belongings to a new place of residence an allowable deduction for income tax purposes to farmers, farm workers, miners and other people in rural or gold-mining areas who because of the critical situation in those fields have been or will be in the future forced to move elsewhere to obtain employment.
  2. If so, how is it applied.
  3. If these costs are not allowable deductions will he (a) state the reasons and (b) take steps to ensure their inclusion in the Income Tax Assessment Act at an early date with retrospectivity for at least the last 2 years.
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to (1).
  3. (a) The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that there is no provision in the income tax law under which costs incurred by a taxpayer in moving to a new place of residence for the purpose of obtaining employment may be allowed as deductions. Decisions of the Taxation Boards of Review have confirmed that such expenditure is of a private or domestic nature which is expressly excluded from the field of allowable deductions.

    1. The allowance of these costs could hardly be confined to the particular classes of persons to whom the honourable member refers. I will arrange to have the question of general (but not retrospective) deductibility examined when the concessional deductions provisions of the income tax law next come under review.

Petrol Sales: Trading Stamps (Question No. 4409)

Mr Enderby:

asked the Minister for the

Interior, upon notice:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the growing practice of certain service station proprietors in Canberra being required by oil companies to purchase trading stamps and to offer these stamps to their customers.
  2. Can he say whether this practice has been declared illegal in all States, except New South Wales, because of the unfair exploitation that it encourages.
  3. Will the Government take immediate steps to make the practice illegal in the Australian Capital Territory.
Mr Hunt:
CP

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

  1. I received a deputation on the matter on 26th October 1971.
  2. Trading stamps are illegal in all States, except New South Wales.
  3. I am giving urgent attention to the question of whether or not the use of trading stamps should be prohibited in the A.C.T.

Gross National Product (Question No. 4421)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

What was the percentage of the gross national product at factor cost which was made up of wages, salaries and supplements in each year since 1950.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following table which shows the percentage of the gross national product at factor cost which was made up of wages, salaries and supplements in each year since 1949-50.

Annual Labour Report (Question No. 4422)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

When will the Annual Labour Report for 1970 be available for distribution.

Mr Snedden:
LP

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

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that he expects the 1970 issue of the Labour Report to be published in February 1972.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 9 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19711109_reps_27_hor75/>.