Senate
24 August 1966

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1966

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 23

REPRESENTATION OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from His Excellency the Governor-General a certificate of the choice by the Parliament of Western Australia of Reginald Greive Withers to fill the vacancy in the representation of that State in the Senate caused by the death of Senator Sir Shane Paltridge.

Certificate read by the Clerk.

page 23

LEADERSHIP OF THE OPPOSITION

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– by leave - Mr. President, I have to advise that at a meeting of the Australian Labour Party on 17th August last the resignation of Senator McKenna as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate was accepted with regret and following a ballot I was appointed to fill the position of Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - On behalf of honorable senators on this side of the chamber and, I think, on behalf of the Senate as a whole, 1 take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Willesee on his appointment to the high position of Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. His colleagues have placed him in a position of very high importance and great responsibility. We on this side of the chamber wish him well in this position. He joined the Senate in 1949. Like others of us, he is a forty-niner. It is good to see him, after that long period of service, come into a position of responsibility. I trust that he enjoys the position and carries out its duties with dignity, as I believe he will. We on our side, I am sure, will endeavour to do all that we can do to keep him in this position for as many years as possible.

page 23

QUESTION

IRON ORE

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Has the Broken Hill

Proprietary Co. Ltd. been granted a licence to export iron ore from Koolan or Cockatoo Island other than for shipment for experimental purposes to Japan? fs the Minister aware that the Western Australian Government has agreed to the export of ore from these islands only on condition that the B.H.P. company develops iron ore deposits at Deep Dale in Western Australia? Has the Minister any information as to whether the B.H.P. company intends to develop the Deep Dale deposits in accordance with the agreement entered into between it and the Western Australian Government?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I think that this question is important enough to warrant a direct answer from the Minister for Trade and Industry himself. 1 am not aware of the details of the agreement between the Western Australian Government and the B.H.P. company. I am sure that whatever that agreement is the company will honour it. As to the other part of the question, I am not in possession of details, and I ask the honorable senator to put it on the notice paper.

page 23

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I wish to ask the Minister representing the Treasurer a question. Is he aware of the grave hardship caused by rising prices and the cost of services, including those increases following upon the Budget, to persons on superannuation or small fixed incomes who do not benefit from wage increases or social service pension increases? Will he and the Government give consideration to the claims of these people for relief, whether by an alteration of the means test or taxation relief?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I understand that a similar question was asked of the Treasurer in another place yesterday. If I remember correctly, the answer he supplied was that he would look at the position of superannuation funds but that, it being a matter of policy, he was not prepared to discuss it in answer to a question without notice. The position is the same in this chamber.

page 23

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation a question which relates to the use of portable dictating units in aircraft. Has he seen the letters issued in the last few weeks by Ansett-A.N.A. and TransAustralia Airlines to business houses, indicating that a particular make of portable dictation machine is the only unit completely free of interference to radio navigation equipment and therefore the only one that can be used in aircraft? Were the makers and distributors of other brands of similar equipment given the opportunity to submit their units for testing as to suitability and, if so, were those distributors advised regarding the result? If not, will the Minister provide these other distributors with such an opportunity and request the airlines to notify business houses accordingly?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have not seen the correspondence in relation to portable dictation machines but I will bring the question to the notice of the Minister for Civil Aviation and endeavour to get a prompt reply for the honorable senator.

page 24

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. By way of preface I point out that he recently gave details of a new trunk line system by carrier wave being developed between Adelaide and Perth at a cost of approximately $8 million. He stressed the great facilities that this new trunk line service would afford to those taking part in interstate telephone conversations. Will the Minister ascertain from the Postmaster-General what improvement will result to the trunk line services within South Australia en route to Western Australia, including the middle and upper north areas and the Eyre Peninsula area?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I shall obtain the information from the PostmasterGeneral and convey it to the honorable senator.

page 24

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. Is provision now being made for the stationing of a third Australian battalion force at Baria in South Vietnam?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– From my recollection, the Prime Minister was asked a ques tion the other day in the House of Representatives as to whether there was any arrangement or any intention to increase the size of the Australian forces. He replied that there was none.

page 24

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES TRIBUNAL

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to (he Minister representing the Attorney-General. 1 refer to the very lengthy delay in the appointment of the Commissioner for Trade Practices. Has the Government now appointed all the necessary staff to enable the Trade Practices Act to be administered with full efficiency, or is more time to be wasted while the practices continue to the public detriment?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– 1 do not think that Senator Murphy has chosen the correct words when he speaks of wasting time, lt is perfectly true that it did take some time to select Mr. Justice Eggleston and the other Commissioners, but I think the honorable senator will agree with me that in the establishment de novo of a court - and that is what it is - or a tribunal of this importance, it is not really a waste of time to try to get the best people available for the job. If the question refers to the staff to work wilh the Commissioners, then I do not know the answer to that at the moment, but I would be very happy to get it for the honorable senator.

page 24

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SERVICE MEDAL

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the fact that the Government has issued a service medal to Australian troops who have taken part in the conflict in Vietnam, will the Government now issue an appropriate medal to Australian veterans of the Gallipoli campaign, as requested by the Gallipoli Legion of Anzacs and other ex-servicemen?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I shall refer the question to the Prime Minister.

page 24

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Will the Minister inquire into and advise the Senate of the reason why the 10 a.m. service of

Trans-Australia Airlines to Wynyard and Devonport last Saturday was cancelled, without any explanation of the reason, five minutes prior to the scheduled departure time, thus requiring 20 or more passengers for the north west coast of Tasmania to proceed to Launceston and thence by road service some 90 miles in a number of cases, thereby occasioning them considerable inconvenience, while the Ansett-A.N.A. service to the area proceeded on schedule? Why did not the aircraft land at Devonport, since it flew over that airport? Why was the 10 a.m. service to Launceston on the previous day, the Friday, cancelled while the Ansett-A.N.A. service proceeded as normally? Finally, is there a lack of sufficient suitable aircraft available to enable T.A.A. to meet its business requirements? If so, what steps are being taken to overcome these problems?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Disregarding the latter part of the question for the moment, I make it clear that I will seek an explanation from the Minister for Civil Aviation as to why a number of flights to Wynyard and Devonport did not run on schedule. I think that in the case of particular inquiries related to a single flight or even a double flight, it might be far easier for the honorable senator to obtain the information if he sought it directly from the Minister’s Department. If the honorable senator considers that it is of such national importance as to prompt a question about it, then that is his judgment. But I do hope that in seeking the information he does not attach some political significance to an ordinary flight.

page 25

QUESTION

RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, lt refers to rolling stock requirements, including the 30 new sleeping cars necessary to meet traffic demands on the completed standardised railway system. Having particular regard for the need to encourage increased employment for Australian workers and continuing industrial activity, will the Minister urgently confer with the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner and State authorities with a view to allotting this work to efficient railway workshops such as the South Australian Islington workshops, or in part to Australian private manufacturers should the manufacturing capacity of the railways be limited to partial participation in such work?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honorable senator has asked a fairly comprehensive question. I will certainly convey it, and the proposals contained in it, to the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 25

QUESTION

NATURALISATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. In view of the very potent reasons that prompted the Minister for Immigration to decline to approve of the naturalisation of Tomislav Lesic, can he give an assurance that the recent conduct of that gentlemen in Canberra will not weaken his original resolve?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will certainly express the opinion of the honorable senator to the Minister for Immigration whom I represent in this chamber. However, I think the statements that the Minister already has made concerning this particular case have been very clear. But I will refer the question to him.

page 25

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH MEDICAL SUBSIDIES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will Che Minister advise the total amount of Commonwealth subsidy paid to doctors at the Bowen Medical Centre in North Queensland on behalf of pensioner patients treated in the financial years 1962-63, 1963-64 and 1964- 65? Will the Minister also advise, if figures have not been completed as yet, the estimated amount to be paid to doctors at the Bowen Medical Centre for the financial year 1965-66 on behalf of pensioner patients?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Quite early in this session I will draw the attention of honorable senators to the fact that long and detailed questions are a waste of time at question time and that they should be put on notice. I direct that the honorable senator’s question be placed on notice.

page 25

QUESTION

VIETNAM CASUALTIES

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the repeated requests I have made in this chamber, extending back almost 12 months, that lists of war casualties not be announced until the families of those affected are notified, and in view of the Minister’s answer being always that the matter was being looked into, I ask, again: Could not effective security measures be introduced to cover overseas news services supplying Australia and thus save great mental suffering to many thousands of families? Further, will the Minister confer with his colleague, the Minister for Repatriation, and arrange an immediate call upon the wives or parents of the lads affected in the recent Vietnam war battles and ensure that every benefit and assistance is given immediately to those involved and thus make certain that every help is available to them in this period of their very great sadness?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I think the position was dealt with very fairly by the Minister for Defence in his statement on war casualties, particularly when referring to the last battle and the 17 deaths which occurred in that heroic effort of the Australian troops in Vietnam. The Minister explained that there is a number of Press services and other services which communicate directly from Vietnam and that, in this particular instance, as news that this battle had been fought had been made available to and had been published in the Press he thought it was in the interests of all concerned to make the announcement prior to contacting the relatives. I should think that the desire to assist those who have suffered would commend itself to a lot of senators. I shall put to my colleague the aspect of the matter that has been raised to see in which way we can assist the next of kin.

page 26

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research. Has the Government received representations urging the institution of an official national inquiry into the state of the arts in Australia with a view to devising means for improving what are widely held to be deplorable deficiencies in the various fields of artistic activity? If so, is the Government considering those representaT tions? fs it ready to take positive action to set up such an inquiry?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I ask the honorable senator to put that question on the notice paper, because I have not seen an approach on those lines. I have heard of an approach concerning the establishment of an arts council. I do not know whether that is what the honorable senator has in mind. If so, the matter has not yet come to my desk. It is for that reason that I suggest that the question be put on the notice paper.

page 26

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address to the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question similar to that asked by Senator Fitzgerald. Will the Minister assure the Senate that in future the next of kin of all casualties in the Vietnam war will be notified by Army authorities before the names of those casualties are released to the Press or radio or television stations? I have in mind a recent case in Western Australia where the wife of a soldier was caused additional distress because the news was broken to her by a radio announcement of her husband’s name.

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The honorable senator has referred to an isolated instance. Naturally, she would not expect me to have a knowledge of that. If that did happen, I would like the Minister for the Army to inquire into it. 1 shall convey the question to my colleague and ask him for a reply.

page 26

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator CORMACK:
VICTORIA

– Will you, Mr. President, undertake to examine the public address system in this chamber to see whether it works properly? If it does, will you ask honorable senators opposite not to make their questions a continuous rumble of vowels unpunctuated by some consonants?

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall have the system checked. 1 should think that it is in quite good order.

page 26

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator CANT:

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation whether his colleague has received proposals from Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. and the Australian National Airlines Commission for a review of the Government’s domestic airline policy. If he has received such proposals, will they be made available to honorable senators prior to any alteration of the Government’s policy by means of legislation?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I shall refer the question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. There has been some controversy in the columns of the Press about the two airline policy. I take it that is what the honorable senator is referring to. That policy has served Australia very well, indeed magnificently. We have probably the best civil aviation arrangements in the world. Any alteration of the policy is a matter for decision by the Government and my understanding is that it is not the practice to discuss policy changes in answers to questions.

page 27

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. No doubt the Minister will have noticed a statement by Mr. Dean Rusk yesterday to the effect that the premature withdrawal or weakening of American forces in Vietnam would be the occasion to accelerate or cause a third world war. Will the Minister consider seriously making a statement setting out fully the involvement of Red China in the conflict in Vietnam and so resolve this matter clearly in the minds of myself and members of the public?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I shall direct the attention of the Minister for External Affairs to the suggestion made by the honorable senator. That is all 1 can do.

page 27

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator CAVANAGH:

– 1 direct a question to the Minister in Charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research. Is it a fact, as reported in the Warrnambool “ Standard “, that the Minister stated at a public meeting in Melbourne that the standard of living in Australia would have to be reduced to provide sufficient funds for education?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– I am not sure whether I heard the honorable senator correctly. I believe he asked whether it was true, as reported in the Warrnambool “ Standard “ at some unspecified time, that I said the standard of living would have to be reduced to provide sufficient funds for education. I did not see the report to which the honorable senator has referred as I do not read the Warrnambool “ Standard “ frequently. However, it could be that something of that sort, or close to it, was said because I think almost all Australians of sense would agree that if government expenditure, not only on education but in all fields of government expenditure, were greatly increased, that could be done only by taking more money from the citizens and diverting it to fields of government expenditure. That would reduce the amount of money in the hands of the citizens and in that sense the standard of living would be reduced. The honorable senator might have something like that in his mind.

page 27

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator McMANUS:

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Do the defence authorities guarantee that a serviceman in Vietnam who nominates for the next Federal election will be repatriated and discharged to undertake his campaign? If not. what is the procedure in such cases?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– Recently the Prime Minister was asked a question on the same lines and his reply was that he did not anticipate there would be any great difficulty in such a person standing for election. I suggest that the honorable senator put his question on notice so that a firm answer can be given. Normally, a discharge from the Services is given to enable a member to contest an election but I think the honorable senator should have a considered reply.

page 27

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the Minister for Housing: What is the extent of the slump in the housing industry? Why has the Government been unable to correct it?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I think the honorable senator has not been reading the very obvious comments which have appeared in the Press showing that there has been an upward trend in housing. The improvement which has occurred in the last quarter has shown, of course, that the action taken by this Government in the early part of this calendar year has indeed been effective. Of course, we want more houses and we are always concerned at shortages. The subject of housing is kept very much in our minds. As the Treasurer has said, we will always do what can be done to assist in this matter. I think we need to be reminded, as Senator Murphy has obviously forgotten it. of what has been done in the field of housing this year and of the additional $15 million which was made available last March. The improvement which has resulted in the housing industry is of benefit. We will constantly keep this matter before us. We are concerned when there is a housing problem and the state of the industry will be constantly before us.

page 28

QUESTION

CAPTIVE NATIONS WEEK

Senator WHEELDON:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that various members of the Government, including the Treasurer and the Minister for the Army, have taken part in a function in connection with what is known as “ Captive Nations Week “, one of the objectives of which is to deny that the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are properly part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? If so, does this reflect the policy of the Government? Does the Government intend to take further action on this matter within the United Nations or elsewhere?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I am not in a position to account for the movements of some of my colleagues, as the honorable senator suggests I should do. 1 have noticed with interest that members of the Opposition have attended meetings of the Defend Australia Committee. I suppose this type of situation is similar to that referred to by the honorable senator in his question. I do not suppose he would expect to be held responsible for the actions of his colleagues in being members of or attending meetings of the Defend Australia Committee.

page 28

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– In view of the great danger facing mankind as a consequence of escalation of the war in Vietnam which could eventually involve China, would the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs make representations to the Minister who, having refused to fall flat on his face, could at least pull his head out of the sand and instruct our representative in the United Nations General Assembly to support the entry of China into membership of the United Nations with a view to ending the stupid deadlock that is so dangerous to the future of the world?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The honorable senator must know the announced policy of the Australian Government on this specific matter and must know that there has been no announcement of a change of policy. The danger that faces the world springs from the fact that there has been armed aggression of one country against another. That danger can be removed when that aggression ceases.

page 28

QUESTION

CANADIAN TRADE FAIR

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that in the recruitment of hostesses to staff the Australian exhibition at the Canadian Trade Fair the selected girls are expected to pay their own fares to Canada. If so, does not the Minister consider that this could exclude excellent types of ambassadors for Australia, due to personal financial limitations?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I noticed in the Press advertisements calling for applications for the positions to which the honorable senator has referred. I do not remember the details and 1 am not conversant with whether the successful applicants will have to pay their own fares. I shall inquire into the matter from the Minister and let the honorable senator know the result.

page 28

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Repatriation been drawn to a Press report that the National Executive of the Returned Services League has stated that a young man totally and permanently incapacitated in Vietnam would exist for the rest of his life on compensation that is less than the federal basic wage? Can the Minister give the Senate information as to the case stated by the National Executive of the R.S.L.?

Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– In anticipation of a question of this nature I obtained some relevant figures. I believed that the Opposition would be firing this question at me.

In addition to studying the newspaper article, L had the advantage of having a copy of a letter sent to the Prime Minister by the National Executive of the R.S.L. A single T.P.I. pensioner receives a war pension of $30.50 a week together with certain fringe benefits from government and other sources, namely, radio and television licence concessions and telephone rental concessions, sales tax exemption on motor vehicles, public transport concessions and, in some areas, municipal rates concessions. In addition, he does not pay income tax on the amount received. If a T.P.I. pensioner is married and has a wife and two children aged, say, 15 and 13 years living at home, he may receive a total repatriation pension of $55.54 a week made up of a war pension of $30.50 for the member himself, $4.05 for his wife and $2.75 for his two children. He receives also a standard rate service pension of $7.23 for himself, $4.48 for his wife and $1.75 for his two children. In addition, he receives an education allowance of $1.90 for the younger child and $2.88 for the older child. This makes a total, as I have said, of $55.54. Of course, the fringe benefits that I mentioned in relation to the single pensioner apply also to the married pensioner.

page 29

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator COHEN:

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs relates to the question asked of him by my colleague, Senator O’Byrne. The Minister said that there had been no announcement of any change in the Government’s established policy in relation to the admission of China to the United Nations. Did the Minister mean to imply that policy on this issue was under some reappraisal here as it apparently is in the United States Administration?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The honorable senator should restrain himself from reading too much into simple words. As far as I know, the Government’s policy is not in the course of examination. I merely wished to direct Senator O’Byrne’s attention to the fact that there is an existing policy.

page 29

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Repatriation.

Was I correct in understanding from his reply to Senator Drake-Brockman’s question that a member of the forces totally and permanently incapacitated while serving in Vietnam would receive benefits equal to the basic wage if he had two children? If this is the case, will the Minister try to ensure that in future men with a number of children are the ones selected to take this risk?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– Obviously the answer is: No. In fact, the question is not really worthy of an answer.

page 29

QUESTION

AFFORESTATION

(Question No. 806.)

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

Has the Government considered the advisability of making loan money available, for the purposes of re-afforestation, to private or public companies or other institutions as this method of financing re-afforestation would not only encourage the private sector of the community but would also eventually return tax payment to this Government?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows -

It was recently announced that the Commonwealth had made an offer to the State Governments to provide long-term loans on generous terms to be used for afforestation purposes. The intention of these loans is to lift the planting rate in Government softwood plantations from the current level of about 30.000 acres to about 65,000 acres per annum.

The question of government loans to private persons, companies or institutions for the purpose of afforestation is a matter for the States. I understand that the Government of Victoria has taken such action and makes loans available to landholders for afforestation purposes on favorable terms.

page 29

QUESTION

SUBSIDIES TO INDUSTRIES

(Question No. 810.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What industries have received or receive financial assistance by way of subsidy?
  2. Under what Acts are such subsidies granted, and what has been the amount involved in payment of such subsidies in each of the years since 1950?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The following information is provided in response to the honorable senator’s questions -

page 32

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

(Question No. 811.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice -

  1. What increases or decreases have been made in overseas shipping freights since 1949?
  2. What is the total cost of such freight on Australian imports and exports; and what has been the cost involved in each year since 1949?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers -

  1. Detailed information is not available on individual freight variations on imports for the period requested. The following figures are provided as an indication of the general order of export freight rale variations in the major trades. Figures arc available from 1949 for the United Kingdom and Continent, New Zealand and West Coast of North America trades; from June 1951 for the Japan, Hong Kong, Philippines trade and from 1956 for the Malaya and East Coast of North America trades. General freight variations often exclude certain commodities and the honorable member will appreciate that it is practicable to list only the major groups of cargo.

UNITED KINGDOM AND CONTINENT.

In the United Kingdom and Continent trade between 1949 and 1966 the freight rate on wool and refrigerated cargo rose by approximately 100 per cent. and between 40 and 140 per cent. on various general items.

The actual increases were as follows -

NEW ZEALAND.

Between 1949 and 1966 the freight rate rose by approximately 163 per cent. on general cargo.

The actual increases were as follows -

WEST COAST, NORTH AMERICA.

Between 1949 and 1966 the general cargo rate rose by 36 per cent.

The actual increases were as follows -

PHILIPPINES, HONG KONG, JAPAN.

The Australian and New Zealand Eastern Shipping Conference was not fully constituted until 1951. For this reason rates are not available for the period 1949 to 1951 inclusive.

Further as all rates in this trade are calculated on an individual commodity basis no general freight rate is shown in the following figures.

In the period under review the freight rate fell by approximately 8 per cent. on malt; 5 per cent, on apples and pears; 1 per cent. on butter; 1percent. on meat in cartons and 7 per cent. on mutton carcasses.Freightsrosebyapproximately 33 per cent. on milk (cases); 20 per cent. on tallow (drums) and 5 percent. on greasy wool to Japan.

The actual increases and decreases were as follows -

MALAYA.

Detailed records for this trade are incomplete prior to 1956. Between 1956 and 1966 the freight rale on general cargo and on condensed milk rose by approximately 12 per cent, and 4.5 per cent, respectively. On flour the rate fell by approximately 11 per cent.

The actual increases and decreases were as follows -

EAST COAST, NORTH AMERICA.

Although information exists on freight rate movements in this trade it is not possible to accurately determine the individual freight rate changes before 1956, because, before that date the basis of fixing rates was constantly being reviewed and altered to meet the changing needs of the trade.

In the period under review the. freight rale on wool fell by approximately 10 per cent, and on general and refrigerated cargoes rose by approximately 10 per cent, and 26 per cent, respectively.

The actual increases and decreases were as follows -

  1. The Commonwealth Statistician has advised as follows! -

Statistics are not available to show the total annual freight charges for exports, which, by the conventions of balance of payments accounting, do not form part of the Australian balance of payments.

Estimates of total freight payable overseas on imports in each of the years since 1948-49 are -

page 34

QUESTION

SOFTWOOD PLANTING

(Question No. 820.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

In relation to the statement by the Minister on 24th February 1966, announcing long-term loans to the States for softwood planting expansion, will the Minister state -

whether, in the proposed 3 million acres of plantations by the year 2000, he visualizes certain north coast regions of New South Wales being converted from dairy farms to forests, and

whether such forestry expansion will have some similarity to the situation in the American State of Michigan which successfully reclaimed much farming land for forests?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answer to the honorable senator’s questions is as follows -

In my statement of 24th February 1966 to the Press and my subsequent statement in this House on the 9th MarchI indicated the Commonwealth’s intention to assist the States in lifting the planting rate in government softwood plantations to about 65,000 acres per annum for the next 35 years.

However, the allocation of land for afforestation purposes in the States is entirely a matter for the individual State Governments. This situation would not be altered in the case of softwood plantations which might be financed by the loans offered by the Commonwealth Government.

My Department has been informed, however, by the New South Wales forestry authorities that it is probable that individual farm properties in the north coast and other regions of New South Wales will be included in the areas for softwood planting.

Land originally cleared for farming and later abandoned has already been successfully planted with softwoods by the Forestry Commission in several districts of New South Wales. To this extent therefore a situation similar to that described by the honorable senator as obtaining in Michigan may develop in New South Wales.

page 34

QUESTION

DECIMAL CURRENCY

(Question No. 830.)

Senator BISHOP:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government received representations from the Meat and Allied Trades Federation of Australia and the South Australian Master Butchers regarding conversion costs of computing scales resulting from the adoption of decimal currency?
  2. Is it a fact, as claimed by these organisations, that in 1964 the Government agreed to convert at its own expense all new price computing scales purchased between 1st January 1946 and 30th September 1965?
  3. Is a distinction now made between owners of scales and owners of cash registers and other bookkeeping machines, which imposes on members of the meat and allied trades travelling costs, costs of loan scales and the cost involved in reverification of scales by the weights and measures authorities?
  4. Will the Minister review this policy, with a view to covering all necessary costs of such conversions?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. These arrangements were later found to be impracticable. An announcement in May 1965. extended Government compensation to all pricecomputing scales, regardless of age, in the form of a cash payment to the scale owner after the conversion of the machine had been verified by an authorised weights and measures authority.
  3. There are fourteen types of monetary machine for which Government assistance is being given under the conversion programme. The form of assistance varies considerably depending upon the value of the machines themselves, the uses to which they are put, the incidence of official inspection and control, and the manner in which the machines are marketed and serviced. The rates of cash compensation payable to scale owners include some provision for average travelling, costs as a percentage element in the labour charges but no allowance for loan scales as, in most cases, these are unnecessary for the conversion operation. The reverification fee charged by weights and measures authorities is normally incurred by scale owners every two years, and scales may be converted at any convenient lime when reverification is due. Moreover, agreement has been reached with the State authorities to permit the use of £.s.d. price computing scales for up to five years after C day.
  4. The Government has not undertaken to re compense the community for all the costs of conversion. The assistancegiven to owners of price computing scales under the official programme is consideredadequate particularly in view of the absence of any age limit for the eligibility of scales, and no further changes are proposed.

page 35

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT CAPITAL EQUITY IN INDUSTRY

(Question No. 831.)

SenatorDEVITT asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

Is it a fact that the New Zealand Government has expressed its intention to retain 25 per cent. equity in a proposed iron ore industry now under consideration in that country?

If so, what is the primary reason that such an attitude is not adopted by Australia in a manner consistent with that of the Chifley Labour Government when it established the Bell Bay aluminium industry in co-operation with the Cosgrove Labour Government in Tasmania?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. It was publicised some 12 months ago that the New Zealand Government would hold 25 per cent. of the equity capital in the New Zealand Steel Co., which was to be formed to make iron and steel from iron beach sands. I have not heard of any change in this proposal.
  2. The Government’s policy is not to engage in commercial undertakings where private enterprise can be reasonably expected to do the job. How ever, the only Australian iron and steel manufacturer, the Broken HillPty. Co. Ltd., is Australian managed and largely Australian owned. Any overseas shareholding isonly minor and of a portfolio nature.

page 35

QUESTION

VOTING RIGHTS OF SERVICEMEN

(Question No. 836.)

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister repre senting the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister of New Zealand has announced his intention of bringing down legislation soon to cover the voting rights of New Zealand troops serving overseas?
  2. Will the Prime Minister give sympathetic consideration to the proposal that voting rights be given to members of our armed forces, between the ages of 18 years and 21 years, now serving overseas?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

  1. Legislation was introduced into the New Zealand Parliament on 10th June providing that servicemen who are under 21 years of age will be qualified to vote if they arc serving overseas in a special service area as members of a unit of the naval, military, or air forces of New Zealand stationed in that area.
  2. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1966, which was passed during the autumn sittings of the Parliament, provides for the extension of the franchise to persons under 21 years of age who are or who have been on special service outside Australia as members of the defence force.

page 35

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 839.)

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representingthe Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Did the 1954 Geneva Agreement provide for a free election in South Vietnam within a given period?
  2. Is it a fact that there has not yet been a free election held in South Vietnam? If so, why?
  3. Have at least ten Governments been in office in South Vietnam since the 1954 Geneva Agreement, and have they been military takeover governments, dictatorial and corrupt and not representative of the South Vietnamese people?
  4. With reference to the reply of the Minister for Supply to a question, asked by Senator Murphy on 16th March 1966, as to whether or not we are at war in Vietnam, in which he stated that Australia was committed in Vietnam at the request of the Government of South Vietnam - (a) which one of the ten or more Governments of South Vietnam made the request; (b) was the request made on a Government to Government level or on a diplomatic level; (c) was the request in written or verbal form; (d) on what date, or even in what year, was the request made; and (e) will the Prime Minister produce evidence of this so-called South Vietnamese request for Australian participation in South Vietnam?
  5. Will the Prime Minister stale unequivocally whether or not we are at war in Vietnam?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. Article 7 of the Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference reads - “The conference declares that, so far as Vietnam is concerned, the settlement of political problems, effected on the basis of respect for the principles of independence. unity and territorial integrity, shall permit the Vietnamese people to enjoy the fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot.

In order to ensure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, general elections shall be held in July, 1956, under the supervision of an international commission composed of representatives of the member states of the International Supervisory Commission.”

See also the answer to Question No. 879 on 5th May 1965 (“ Hansard “, House of Representatives, page 1198).

  1. Elections in recent years in South Vietnam have included -

    1. general elections in March 1956; August 1959; and September 1963;
    2. elections for the Presidency and VicePresidency in April 1961; and
    3. provincial and municipal elections, the most recent of which were in May 1965.
  2. There have been several governments in office in South Vietnam since the 1954 Geneva Agreement, but the description in the second part of the question does not apply to them. At the time of the conclusion of the Geneva Agreement of 1954, Ngo Dinh Diem was Premier of Vietnam and Bao Dai was Head of State. In October 1955, a referendum was held in South Vietnam as a result of which Ngo Dinh Diem replaced Bao Dai as Head of Stale and became President of the Republic of Vietnam. On 1st November 1963, the Government of President Ngo Dinh Diem was overthrown by a military coup. The subsequent governments of South Vietnam and the manner in which they came to power are described in the answer to Question No. 620 on 20th October 1965 (“ Hansard “, Senate, page 1043).
  3. Australia has provided military assistance to the Republic of Vietnam in its resistance to communist aggression in response to official requests by duly recognised governments of the Republic of Vietnam including those of Dr.Phan Huy Quat and of Air Vice-Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky, and in the light of continuing consultations on this matter between the Australian and Vietnamese Governments. The most recent request was made prior to the official decision to increase Australia’s commitment to approximately 4,500 men, as announced in Parliament on 8th March. See also House of Representatives “ Hansard “ for answers to questions Nos. 392, 395, 408 (pages 2130 to 2132, 20th October 1964), 760 (page 3058, 16th November 1964) and 1274 (page 3313, 26th November 1965).
  4. See Statement by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on1 5th March 1966 (“ Hansard “, page 207).

page 36

QUESTION

NATURAL GAS

(Question No. 847.)

SenatorWEBSTERaskedtheMinister presenting the Minister for National

Development, upon notice -

Is the Department of National Development keeping in touch with the developments in gas and fuel supply being brought about by offshore drilling in Victorian waters?

Is it a fact that substantial sums of money will be needed by the Victorian Government to develop the distribution of the gas finds?

Will this need for finance by Victoria in the next few years meet with ready assistance from the Federal Government by way of special project grants?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. Yes.
  2. The amount of money required by the Victorian Government for the utilisation of the natural gas discoveries will depend on that Government’s decision as to the extent to which it will become involved in the transmission and distribution of the gas. One of the recommendations which Dr. Charles Hetherington made in the report which he recently presented to the Victorian Government was that consideration be given to returning the Gas and Fuel Corporation to private enterprise. If the Victorian Government decided in favour of this course of action, the Government’s capital requirement could be small and of a temporary nature only. Dr.Hetherington estimated that the total capital requirement over a five year period, including the cost of trunk pipelines, conversion of appliances, mains extensions, and acquisition of private gas companies, would amount to $A116 million.
  3. This is a hypothetical question to which a specific answer cannot be given at this stage.

page 36

QUESTION

LAND TENURE: AUSTRALIAN EQUITY

(Question No. 853.)

Senator BISHOP:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

With reference to the recent report that 15,000 square miles of prime Cape York Peninsula cattle grazing land had been ‘leased to American controlled syndicates, and that the Chairman of the Australian Wool Board had acted as agent for most of the American purchasers, to what extent are efforts made by the Commonwealth Government, in concert with the State Governments, to maintain an Australian equity in such transactions?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

The administration of matters to do with land tenure, including the transfer of pastoral leases, isa responsibility of the State Government concerned. For its part, the Commonwealth Government has made it plain that it welcomes arrangements that provide for Australian equity participation in ventures undertaken in Australia by overseas interests.

page 36

QUESTION

COFFEE

(Question No. 862.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice -

  1. From which countries does Australia import coffee?
  2. What are the percentages of coffee produced in Australian Territories relative to imports from overseas countries?
  3. Whatform of price control operates at either Commonwealth or State Government level?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. In addition to imports from Papua-New Guinea, Australia purchased coffee from the following countries during the last twelve months (ended April) - Aden, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote FrancaisDes Somalis, Ethiopia, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Rwanda, Tanganyika, Portuguese Timor, Uganda, United States of America.
  2. In 1964-65, Papua-New Guinea production represented 61 per cent. of Australia’s total imports of raw coffee. The relevant figures are -

Papua-New Guinea production - 8,687 tons raw coffee.

Total Austraiian imports (including imports from Papua-New Guinea)- 14,349 tons raw coffee.

In the same year Australia imported 5,110 tons raw coffee from Papua-New Guinea. Thus PapuaNew Guinea provided over one-third of Australia’s import requirements of raw coffee.

  1. There are no price controls on coffee at either the Commonwealth or the State Government level.

page 37

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

(Question No. 864.)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. Did the Army charter an aircraft to transport Western Australian trainees to their home State for the Easter holidays?
  2. What type of aircraft was used?
  3. Was the fare charged $140, which amount approximates the economy rate on commercial airlines?
  4. How many travelled on this flight?
  5. How many were unable to travel because of the expense?
  6. Has any consideration been given to establishing a training camp in Western Australia? If not, will the Government consider conscripting a small portion of wealth to enable Western Australian servicemen to travel to their homes on leave free of charge?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. The staff of 2 Recruit Training Battalion did arrange the charter of an aircraft to transport Western Australian trainees to their home State for the Easter holidays. However, the staff merely acted as agent for the trainees, as travel was not at public expense, but at the expense of the trainees.

The staff arranged for a special aircraft out of Mangalore with T.A.A. to save the trainees the time and expense of travel to Essendon Aerodrome.

  1. The aircraft arranged by 2 Recruit Training Battalion was a T.A.A. DC6B.
  2. The fare charged, because two way daylight travel was involved, was the special excursion rate of $138.10 return. A saving of S24.50 over normal tourist (economy) faro resulted, plus the saving in time and cost of rail travel PuckapunyalMelbourne.
  3. Approximately 80.
  4. The number unable to travel because of the expense is not known. Some trainees may not have wished to travel home and it is nol possible to obtain specific details now.
  5. The number of Western Australians involved for both regular soldiers and national servicemen does nol at present justify the establishment of a regular basic training unit in Western Australia. Apart from this basic training all trainees would haveto complete their Corps training at depots in the eastern States. Servicemen on full time duty on the Australian mainland arc already granted free return home travel once every twelve months when proceeding on annual recreation leave.It would not be expedient to extendthis to take in Easter or other short term breaks, for which local leave is normally granted, falling between individual annual recreation leave periods.

page 37

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

(Question No. 874.)

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Now that Britain’s Labour Prime Minister is reported to have said that his Government is not only ready but willing to join the six-nation trading group, provided Commonwealth interests are safeguarded, has the Australian Government any plans to present so that Australia’s interests will be protected, or does the Australian Government intend to take a different line of thinking just because Britain’s Government is an efficient Labour Government?
  2. Has this symptom been strangely displayed at the United Nations in the last few days when the Government failed to give clear directions to the Australian Ambassador al the United Nations about Rhodesia, and did the ministerial spokesman in Australia accuse the Australian envoy of making a faux pas?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. The British Government has recently made a number of statements regarding its attitude towards joining the European Common Market but none of these have amounted to a proposal to join.

The Australian Government will continue, as circumstances require, to stress to the British

Government its concern that adequate consideration be given to Australian trade interests if Britain should eventually negotiate for membership of the Common Market.

  1. Senator Gorton answered the second part of the honorable senator’s question on 26th April (“ Hansard “, page 547) and gave further information in reply to a question from Senator Cavanagh on the same day (“ Hansard “, page 548).

page 38

QUESTION

TRADE WITH COMMUNIST CHINA

(Question No. 885.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice -

  1. Does Britain trade with mainland China? If so, in what products?
  2. Does Australia trade with mainland China? If so, in what products?
  3. To what extent can any such goods be used for war materials?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. Yes. In 1965, according to the overseas trade accounts of the United Kingdom, Britain exported goods to the value of $A62,190,000 to mainland China whichincluded -
  1. Yes. In 1964-65, according to statistics on trade published by the Commonwealth Statistician, Australia exported goods to the value of $A 135,633,000 to mainland China which included -
  1. The Australian and British Governments operate controls to prevent the export to Communist countries, including mainland China, of goods on the list of strategic materials drawn up by the Western powers. The goods traded are, therefore, not regarded as strategic materials.

page 38

QUESTION

INDONESIA

(Question No. 886.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Does Australia trade with Indonesia? If so, in what products?
  2. Does Australia service Indonesian planes in Australia?
  3. Are Indonesian servicemen being trained in Australia? If not, when and why did this training cease?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

  1. Yes. Australian imports from Indonesia for the financial year 1964-65 amounted to$A64 million, the principal items being petroleum and petroleum products ($A57 million) and tea ($A4 million). Australian exports to Indonesia for the same period amounted to $A7.4 million, the principal items being machinery, metals and metal products ($A2.3 million) and foodstuffs ($A2 million).
  2. Yes. Indonesian registered aircraft are from time to time brought to Australia for overhaul and renewal of certificate of airworthiness. These include DC3 aircraft owned by P.T. Shell Indonesia and Cessna aircraft operated in West Irian by missionary aviation fellowships.

Qantas Empire Airways Ltd. currently overhauls, under contract. Allison gas turbine engines and propellers and other components for Lockheed Electra aircraft owned by Garuda Indonesia Airways. Some DC3 and Convair components are also received on an infrequent basis under this contract.

Hawker De Havilland performs some overhaul work for the Indonesian airline Merpati Nusantara, the Indonesian civil air service operating to West Irian.

  1. No. Limited training facilities have been provided in the past for Indonesian Service officers at the expense of the Indonesian Government. Thelast of the training provided was completed in November 1964. Since then no applications have been received from the Indonesian Government.

page 38

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMED FORCES

(Question No. 893.)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. How many persons made application to join the Army, Navy and Air Force in the years 1961, 1962 and 1965?
  2. What was the total number accepted in each of the Services?
  3. What was the total number rejected on (a) medical (b) educational and (c) unsatisfactory civil record grounds?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following information -

  1. The numbers of persons who made application to join theServices in 1961, 1962 and 1965 -

These figures include applications for entry into cadet colleges and apprentice and junior recruit schools for which only limited vacancies are available.

  1. The numbers of persons accepted in each Service -
  1. The numbers refused on (a) medical (b) educational and (c) unsatisfactory civil record grounds-

Note. - Applicants are refused enlistment on other grounds, e.g., over or under age, below required training potential or failed trade lest. In addition many either withdraw or fail to proceed with their applications.

page 39

QUESTION

BEEF ROADS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 897.)

Senator BISHOP:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Does the statement made in Adelaide on Friday, 29th April, by the Minister for National Development, that an officer from his Department would soon be in Adelaide to discuss with South Australian officials the possible construction of beef roads in the north of South Australia, mean that the Commonwealth Government has now accepted in principle South Australia’s claims for financial assistance for beef road construction?
  2. Is it proposed that further area inspections will be made in South Australia or will the proposed discussions take the form of negotiations?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answers -

  1. The statement by me on 29th April that an officer of my Department would discuss with South Australian officials the possible construction of beef roads in the north of South Australia does not necessarily mean that the Commonwealth Government has now accepted in principle South Australia’s claims for financial assistance for beef road construction. The Government has indicated that it intends to continue assistance for beef roads but it has not yet reached decisions in relation to the actual programme of road construction for which assistance will be given. The claims for assistance for roads in the north of South Australia are being considered concurrently with claims for roads in other States.
  2. The discussions between an officer of my Department and South Australian officials have now taken place. These discussions were arranged at the request of the South Australian Government for the purpose of providing further information to the Commonwealth Government. Further ininspections of the areas involved in South Australia at the time of the discussions were not carried out.

page 39

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 901.)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the former Federal Government allowed donations to a Freedom from Hunger Campaign to be allowable as taxation deductions during a two year period?
  2. Will the Government consider allowing donations to the current Freedom from Hunger Campaign to be allowable as deductions for income tax purposes for a two year period as from 30th June 1966?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. In 1960, the Government agreed to a proposal from the Executive Heads of F.A.O. and U.N.I.C.E.F. that a joint public appeal for funds be held in Australia, the proceeds to be divided equally between U.N.I.C.E.F. and the F.A.O. Freedom from Hunger Campaign. The appeal was originally to be held in 1961, but was in fact mainly conducted in 1962-63 and 1963-64. Having regard to the Commonwealth sponsorship, of this appeal, it was agreed that donations made to the Australian National Committee of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign up to 30th June 1963 should be allowed as deductions for income tax purposes, and Section 78 of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act was amended accordingly. When the appeal was not completed by 30th June 1963, the Government agreed to extend the termination date to 30th June 1964, and the Act was further amended to give effect to this decision. Commonwealth sponsorship was considered at an end when the joint appeal was completed in 1963-64.
  2. The position is therefore that with the completion of the joint appeal and the ending of Commonwealth sponsorship, appeals conducted in Australia after 30th June 1964 for the Freedom from Hunger Campaign are of a private nature. In the light of this and having regard to the very large sums which the Commonwealth is contributing, or is committed to contribute, for direct overseas aid, the Government has been unable to accede to the requests that donations to appeals conducted after 30th June 1964 for the Freedom from Hunger Campaign be allowable as deductions for income tax purposes.

page 40

QUESTION

TELEVISION FILMS

(Question No. 902.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. What has been the total expenditure involved, in each year since 1956, in the importation of films used in Australia for showing on television?
  2. From which countries have such films been imported and what has been the amount of expenditure involved in regard to the countries concerned?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows - 1 and 2. The following table shows allocations of overseas exchange which I am informed have been authorised for the purchase of televisoin programme material since television commenced operating in Australia. Statistics are not available for payments to individual countries. However, the undermentioned payments to the sterling area and non-sterling aera would be predominantly for material of United Kingdom and U.S.A. origin respectively.

page 40

QUESTION

TELEVISION FILMS

(Question No. 903.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. From which countries have films been imported and allowed to be credited by commercial television stations as part of their Australian quota?
  2. What has been the total expenditure involved in the purchase of such films?
  3. As a result of the use of the films referred to, what has been the percentage credited to each of the commercial television stations operating in the Australian capital cities?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answersto the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. Britain is the major source of such television programmes. A small amount of Canadian material has also been taken into calculations, as well as a few travelogue and documentary films produced in New Zealand, Jamaica and India. 2 and 3. The total cost of television rights to these films is difficult to estimate because of variations between stations in the amount of usage of the material and between the costs of individual programmes. The following table, however, indicates that an average of about 6 per cent. of transmission time or about four hours weekly on each metropolitan commercial station is occupied by Commonwealth produced programmes. Exact information about the costs of particular series is for business reasons not usually disclosed by stations, but a reasonable estimate of the total cost of Australia-wide rights to this amount of Commonwealth produced programming is probably between $10,000 and $20,000 per week.

The extent of usage of Commonwealth produced material by metropolitan commercial stations is indicated in the following table which is based on programmes televised during the period from 1st July 1965 to 3rd April 1966.

page 41

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

(Question No. 905.)

Senator CANT:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has the Prime Minister seen a press report stating that, at a joint Government Party meeting on 4th May 1966, the Treasurer announced that a $30,000,000 non-repayable, interest-free grant would be made to the State of New South Wales for drought relief and a $9,000,000 grant to the State of Queensland?
  2. Is it a fact, as alleged in the press statement, that the two State Governments will make low interest loans to drought affected land owners? If so, does the Government agree that the two State Governments should have the right to make repayable interest-bearing loans to drought affected land owners out of non-repayable, interest-free grants made to them by the Commonwealth Government?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. As the Treasurer announced in his Second Reading Speech on the States Grants (Drought Assistance) Bill, drought assistance of up to $17 million will be paid to New South Wales and assistance of up to $9 million will be paid to Queensland in 1965-66. Payments will take the form partly of grants and partly of repayable advances. The advances by the Commonwealth will be available on an interest-free basis, repayable over a period of ten years but without any repayments in the first two years.
  2. The Governments of New South Wales and Queensland are making low interest loans to drought-affected farmers for carry-on and restocking purposes. It is understood that the interest rate being charged by the States is designed to enable them to meet the administrative costs of the loan schemes and, within reasonable limits, any losses which may arise. These factors were taken into account in determining the basis on which Commonwealth drought assistance would be made available to the States. However, as indicated by the Treasurer in his Second Reading Speech on the States Grants (Drought Assistance) Bill, if the losses incurred by the States on these loans should prove to be beyond the financial resources of the States at the time, the Commonwealth will be prepared to assist the States in meeting the losses.

page 41

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No. 908.)

Senator McMANUS:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

Will the Minister comment on reports that efforts by Canada to get both sides in Vietnam to negotiate with a view to peace have received the same refusal from the Hanoi Communist Government as previous efforts by Britain and other countries?

Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply -

The Prime Minister of Canada made a statement on 1st May in which he spoke of the possibilities of phased withdrawals from South Vietnam by North Vietnam and by the forces of other Governments under international supervision accompanied by arrangements to ensure that the people of South Vietnam were free to choose their own form of Government without the threat of terrorism. When asked to comment on this statement, a Chinese Communist spokesman is reported to have said “ This is an old American manoeuvre which does not merit comment “.

page 41

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN

(Question No. 910.)

Senator WEDGWOOD:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen a newspaper report that delegates at the National Women at Work Conference had resolved to recommend to the Minister that a Women’s Bureau, similar in structure to the one operating in the United States of America, should be set up in Australia at Commonwealth level?
  2. Will the Minister give consideration to this recommendation and, also, to an alternative proposal to set up a Women’s Consultative Committee to advise the Minister on matters relating to the employment of women?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers -

  1. Yes.
  2. It has often been suggested that the Department should establish a Women’s Bureau on the lines of that established in the United Slates Department of Labor. It is overlooked that the United States Bureau goes well beyond labour department matters and is concerned with social and political aspects of women’s activities. Also overlooked are the different constitutional and political circumstances of the United States of America. Arrangements that are apposite to a situation of SO States are not necessarily applicable to ours of six States, where attitudes to women are, to say the least, more uniform than in some of the American States. Many of the wider aspects of women’s place in society, for example education, health and welfare are, in Australia, the concern of other authorities, both Federal and State, and consideration of these would hardly be appropriate in a Bureau set up in the Department of Labour and National Service. Furthermore, . there are not in the United States bodies such as our Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and State arbitral bodies which have the responsibility of considering labour matters, particularly wages and working conditions.

The Department is, and has been, active in relation to the problems of women in the labour and employment field. As the honorable senator knows, a Women’s Section was established in 1963 to co-ordinate policy and research in this area. Through it the Department has been actively engaged in opening up wider employment opportunities for women and has studied the effects of the increasing participation of women in our work force. The Department throughout its wide network of Employment Offices and through its whole structure is constantly concerned with women’s employment as an integral part of our total work force. Women’s employment should not be considered in isolation, and I feel that the setting up of a Women’s Bureau would separate the employment of women from consideration of employment as a whole - a step which would work against the interests of women.

I am giving consideration to the question of setting up a women’s consultative committee.

page 42

QUESTION

PESTICIDES

(Question No. 912.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the large scale use of poison 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) to eradicate rabbits, have any tests been made to see if suchusage has any effects on Australian fauna?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided me with the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

Many poisons used for control of pest animals arc potentially hazardous to native fauna, and poison 1080 is in this category. This poison is now widely used in all States, principally to control rabbit populations. Its use is under the strict control of either Stale or local authorities which are responsible for the administration of State Acts for the control of pest animals.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Division of Wildlife Research maintains a close liaison with officers of the Slate Departments concerned with control of pest animals and with conservation of native fauna. None of these organizations, or other groups interested in the protection of fauna, has been able to find field evidence of significant damage caused to the native fauna by poison 1080, despite the very widespread use of this poison. This conclusion was reached also by the Committee of Enquiry into the Effects of Pesticides in Victoria which recently reported to the Victorian Government.

In many of the areas of grazing land where rabbits are being controlled with poison 1080, neither native mammals nor birds are at great risk. In the case of mammals this is because grazing by rabbits and by sheep and cattle, and pasture improvement by man, have made the areas unsuitable for many of the native fauna. Birds have the advantage that they are much more resistant to poison 1080 than are mammals.

In some fauna reserves which areinfested with rabbits, control of these pests may be desirable to allow the habitat to be improved for the native fauna. Poisoning may be the only control measure which can be effectively and economically used and, providing the poisoning is done by trained staff at the most suitable strategic time, the longterm risk to the native fauna will be minimized because the need for repetition of poisoning or other control work will be reduced. Such losses of native fauna as may occur in this way should be balanced against the advantages gained by effectively controlling the rabbit population which, if left uncontrolled, would adversely affect the suitability of the area for the native species.

page 42

QUESTION

MILITARY LAW

(Question No. 914.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. In what circumstances does Imperial legislation apply to the Australian naval, military and air forces?
  2. When did the Government commence its review of this legislation?
  3. Has the Government yet given consideration to preserving, modifying or annulling the doctrine of condonation in military law? If so, what decision did it make?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has furnished the following replies -

  1. Provision has been made by the Australian legislation applicable to the various Services, for the application to those forces of the disciplinary provisions of Imperial Acts with modifications, adaptations and exceptions to suit Australian conditions. Details are -

    1. Navy

The Imperial Naval Discipline Act 1957 and the Queen’s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions (in each case as in force on 6th November 1964) are applied to the Naval Forces by section 34 of the Naval Defence Act- 1910-1965. This legislation applies subject to such modifications and adaptations as are prescribed and is applicable at all times.

  1. Army

Imperial Legislation applies to members of the Army under the following circumstances -

  1. at all times -

Under section 88 of the Defence Act, the provisions of the U.K.. Army Act and the Rules of Procedure made under that Act, as in force at 29th October 1956, in relation to the composition, procedure and powers of courts-martial, the confirmation, revision, effect and consequences of their findings and sentences, and the mitigation, remission, commutation and suspension of those sentences, apply to the Australian Military Forces subject to such modifications and adaptations as are prescribed in the Defence Act or in the Australian Military Regulations;

  1. when on war service whether within or without Australia, or at any time when serving outside Australia, or on their way to or from such service.

Under sections 54 and 55 of the. Defence Act, members of the Australian Military Forces are subject to the Army Act as in force at 29th October 1956 except where it is inconsistent with the Defence Act, and subject to such modifications and adaptations as are prescribed in that Act or in the Australian Military regulations.

  1. Air Force

The Imperial Air Force Act as amended to 1939 is applied to the Royal Australian Air Force by section 5 of the Australian Air Force Act. This legislation applies subject to such modifications and adaptations as are prescribed in Air Force Regulations made under the Air Force Act 1923-1965 and is applicable at all times.

Members of the Australian Services may be attached temporarily to the United Kingdom services under the Defence (Visiting Forces) Act. Having been accepted for attachment by the United Kingdom authorities they become subject to United Kingdom law relating to discipline, subject to any modifications agreed to by the United Kingdom and Australian authorities.

  1. Defence legislation has been under constant review since World War II. Amendments have been made to Defence legislation as circumstances have dictated. In the disciplinary field, for example, the following important changes have been made:

The Imperial Naval Discipline Act 1957 was applied by section 34 of the Naval Defence Act 1910-1965 and appropriate adaptations and modifications were made to it by regulations to adapt it to Australian conditions;

In 1964 the Imperial Army Act, as modified by regulations, was made applicable to all members of the Military Forces serving overseas, whether on war service or not (formerly this act as only applied in these circumstances when members of the Army were serving with Imperial Forces).

The replacement of applied Imperial legislation with purely Australian legislation has been under active review for some time by an interdepartmental committee. This review is nearing completion and the results will be submitted for governmental consideration in the near future.

  1. The Government has not yet given consideration to the doctrine of condonation. This matter will be considered by the Government as part of the general review I have referred to.

page 43

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

(Question No. 919.)

Senator DAVIDSON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister seen a report in the Adelaide “ Advertiser “, dated 10th May, allegedly made by the South Australian Attorney-General, Mr. Dunstan, that the Commonwealth Government was giving preferential treatment to Victoria in the matter of public relief assistance and that no similar allowance was being made to South Australia?
  2. If this statement is correct, what are the reasons for the allocation?
  3. Is it envisaged that consideration will be given to an allocation for South Australia?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. Yes. 2 and 3. No allocation of funds is made to the State of Victoria for the specific purpose of providing relief assistance to wives whose husbands are in gaol, as slated in the report. Wives in these circumstances may qualify for the widow’s pension after their husbands have been in gaol for six months.

The maintenance of wives during the first six months of their husband’s imprisonment is a State responsibility but since 1947 the Department of Social Services has paid a special benefit in needy cases where no Stale assistance is available. Victoria is the only State where State assistance is not provided for the wives of men in prison and where special benefits are paid.

page 43

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT

(Question No. 921.)

Senator COHEN:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. During the Budget session in 1964, did the Prime Minister, who was then Treasurer, indicate that amendments were pending to the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act? If so, why has the Government delayed so long in introducing amendments to remedy the many anomalies and injustices suffered by Commonwealth public servants and others covered by the Act?
  2. Since the Act applies to large numbers of members of the Armed Forces, will the Treasurer indicate whether amending action is to be taken in the present session of the Parliament?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The answers to the honorable Senator’s questions are as follows -

  1. The then Treasurer indicated in 1964 that, arising out of representations, suggestions from honorable members and senators and from experience in the administration of the Act, he had a number of proposals for amendment under consideration. He also gave assurances that all the amendments circulated on behalf of the Opposition would be carefully examined. The work of investigating the many proposals, involving examination of the practices under other State legislation, has proceeded as expeditiously as possible consistent with the number of proposals for amendment, and the claims of other issues upon the Department.
  2. Action will be taken to introduce a Bill as soon as the necessary investigations have been completed and considered by the Government.

page 44

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

(Question No. 884.)

Senator FITZGERALD:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. What are the rates of pay for Australian servicemen serving in South Vietnam?
  2. Do Australian servicemen in Vietnam receive any additional pay over and above the rate of pay for other Australian servicemen? If so, what amounts per soldier are involved?
  3. What percentage of persons called up for National Service is rejected?
  4. What percentage of persons volunteering for service in the armed forces is rejected?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. The basic rates of pay for Australian soldiers serving in Vietnam are the same as those for soldiers serving in Australia or elsewhere. That is, the basic rate for a Private Group 1 in the Army wherever serving is $4.60 per day plus 28 cents per day if single or $1.93 per day if married.

  2. Members receive Vietnam Allowances as follows -

    1. Living in Allowance. Payable when rationed and quartered:
    1. Officers- $1.70 per day

    2. Other ranks- $1.55 per day

    3. Meal Allowance. Payable to all ranks who are required to purchase meals in United States messes:
    4. In Saigon area - $2.70 per day (if) Elsewhere - $2.25 per day.
  3. My colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, recently released the following details concerning National Service call-ups since the inception of the scheme in 1965.
  1. The percentage of persons who volunteered for service in the Army and have been rejected since 1960-61 is as follows -

page 44

QUESTION

DETENTION OF SERVICEMEN

(Question No. 894.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

  1. How many servicemen have been detained in military detention centres in each of the last five years?
  2. How many servicemen, at any time during the period of their detention, have been ordered to be placed on a bread and water diet?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. Servicemen detained at 1 Military Corrective Establishment, Holdsworthy -

page 45

QUESTION

TRAINING OF INDONESIAN ARMY OFFICERS

(Question No. 909.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Ministerfor the Army, upon notice -

Does the Government propose to revert to an earlier practice of providing facilities for Indonesian Army officers to participate in Australian Army School exercises?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

The last Indonesian Army officers to train at Australian Army Schools completed their courses at the end of 1964. No requests have been received to recommence such training.

page 45

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 913.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice -

Will the Minister list the number of naval establishments which occupy portions of Sydney Harbour’s foreshores, and the areas involved?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Navy has furnished the following reply to the honorable senator’s question -

page 45

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN REGULAR ARMY

(Question No. 916.)

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice -

Are young men, who have been in a reform school or who have been before a court, and placed on a bond or court order, in some cases for trivial offences while they were juveniles, refused permission to join the regular Army? If so, will the Minister take steps to have this position altered so that young men, who have rehabilitated themselves, may join the Army to serve their country?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

There is no automatic rejection of volunteers of the general category covered by the question. Each case is considered on its merits, regard being paid to the type and frequency of offence and the period which has elapsed since it/they were committed.

page 46

QUESTION

KANGAROO MEAT

(Question No. 924.)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representingthe Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. How much kangaroo meat was exported tor the period 1st January to 30th June 1966?
  2. What was the total amount of kangaroo meat exported for the year 1965?
  3. Has the Government given further consideration to representations from certain sections of the meat industry who seek to have this type of export terminated?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

  1. 1,457 tons.
  2. 5,882 tons.
  3. Yes.

page 46

PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator HENTY:
LP

– On29th March

Senator Fitzgerald:

asked a question about deductions from the salaries of Commonwealth Public Servant’s for payment to credit unions as savings.

The Prime Minister has informed me that there are numerous credit unions with Commonwealth public servants as members and it would not be practicable for the Commonwealth to restrict the facility sought to one or two organisations. In the New South Wales State Service deductions are limited to two credit unions in any one Department, one of which is selected by the Permanent Head of the Department; in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania deductions are limited to one approved credit union; and in Victoria and South Australia such deductions are not allowed.

The volume and variety of existing deductions from salaries, including taxation, superannuation, medical and hospital funds, National Savings Group deposits, and rent of and mortgage repayment on Commonwealth dwellings, impose a considerable amount of clerical and accounting work on Departments. As long ago as 1946 the matter was examined and it was decided to refuse any further requests for the Commonwealth to act as a collecting agent for non-governmental organisations, however worthy their objects. In subsequent reviews the Government has confirmed this decision, taking the view that it could not justify the additional expenditure that would be necessary if the scope of the deductions was extended.

page 46

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– Pursuant to statute, I present a report by the Special Advisory Authority on -

Polyvinyl chloride products.

I also present reports by the Tariff Board on -

Glassware.

Hot water bags.

Hollow bars, tubes and pipes of iron or steel.

page 46

QUESTION

REPORTS OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

H.M.A.S. “Leeuwin”, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I present the report of the Public Works Committee on the following proposed work -

Master Plan for Progressive Rebuilding and Construction of a Combined Mess, Galley and Recreation Centre at H.M.A.S. “ Leeuwin “, Fremantle, Western Australia.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator BRANSON:

– The recommendations and conclusions of the committee are as follows -

  1. There is an urgent need to embark on a rebuilding programme to replace the existing temporary and sub-standard buildings at H.M.A.S. “ Leeuwin “.
  2. The Committee emphasise the urgency and the need for continuity in the rebuilding programme.
  3. The adoption of the master plan submitted to the Committee is endorsed.
  4. Complete redevelopment in accordance with the Master Plan is estimated to cost $3,250,000.
  5. There should be a more permanent arrangement for the use of outside playing fields.
  6. The Commonwealth should erect a chapel to replace the one proposed to be demolished.
  7. The replacement of the existing medical care facilities is an urgent requirement and should have priority in the rebuilding programme.
  8. The existing mess and galley facilities are sub-standard, inadequate for current requirements and unsuited to the purpose for which they are being used. They should be replaced as a matter of extreme urgency.
  9. The first stage in the rebuilding programme should be the new mess, galley and recreation centre.
  10. The Committee recommend the construction of the proposed mess, galley and recreation centre for junior recruits and junior sailors.
  11. 1 . The estimated cost of the mess, galley and recreation centre is $725,000.

Nightcliff School, Darwin, Northern Territory.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I present the report of the Public Works Committee on the following proposed work -

Nightcliff High School, Darwin, Northern Territory.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator BRANSON:

– The summary of recommendations and conclusions of the Committee is as follows -

  1. Overcrowding of Darwin High School will occur after 1968.
  2. Additional high school facilities will be needed no later than the opening of the 1970 school year.
  3. Initial places in a third high school should be available no later than the beginning of 1974.
  4. It is appropriate for the second high school in Darwin to be built in the Nightcliff district.
  5. The site selected is most suitable.
  6. Subject to the qualifications which follow, the Committee recommends the construction of the works in this reference.
  7. The on site car parking area should be redesigned to provide about 50 spaces.
  8. The proposed school should be built under one contract, the first stage to be ready for occupation in January 1970 and the second in January 1971.
  9. Steps should be taken to ensure that roads, paths, landscaping and playing fields are completed concurrently with the building contract.
  10. The estimated cost of the proposals referred to the Committee is $2,200,000.

page 47

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– by leave - I propose to make a statement on international affairs in the terms in which it was made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for External Affairs. Therefore, where I use the personal pronoun, it refers to the Minister for External Affairs. The statement is as follows -

Naturally, having regard to the course of current events, a considerable part of my statement to the House tonight will concern Vietnam, China and Indonesia but first I shall say something about the South-East Asia region as a whole. Asia has to be seen as part of the total world picture. Our own security cannot be isolated from relations between the great powers. Our economy is linked at almost every point with the economic activity of other continents. The basic problems of peace and particularly the problems of nuclear armament, are global. Principles of international conduct have to be applicable in all parts of the world and not only in selected quarters. Consequently, in world economic discussions since the war, in our external aid programmes, in security matters, in discussions on disarmament, and in our work in international organisations we have taken no narrow approach. Australia is concerned with the sort of world in which we live, because only in a world that is free, prosperous, and secure can we ourselves be free, prosperous, and secure. We are an aligned nation because that sort of world is a matter of contest at present. Our objective is not the contest itself, but to help build a world in which we can live.

Our policies in Asia are the result of this view. We are seeking positively to promote stable and progressive conditions in this region, through the national efforts of the countries in the region and through international co-operation. In some cases we have found ourselves in armed combat because the conflicts were unavoidable if we were to remain true to our national interests and the principles for which we stand. We have found ourselves involved, for example, in the fighting in Vietnam because our own national assessment is that the wrong sort of outcome there would not only destroy the future well-being of the people of Vietnam but would also threaten and perhaps make impossible the achievement of a peaceful and prosperous South-East Asia free from threat. The wrong outcome would affect directly the security and the confidence of many neighbouring nations. It would have farreaching effects on the prospects of world peace. Thus it would threaten Australia herself.

A point was reached where the Austraiian Government decided that, in our national interests, we should commit forces in Vietnam. So far from being dragged into Vietnam by the Americans, the Australian Government has been glad and reassured that the United States has been prepared to undertake such heavy commitments in support of international security in a region where our own danger is immeasurably greater than any danger to America and where the stake in peace is more fateful for us than for them.

Just as in Indonesia confrontation had to end so that we can all co-operate on important tasks of reconstruction, so too in Vietnam the resort to force must be ended so as to allow greater effort in the tasks of helping to build the future Asia. Fortunately, the Americans take the same view, and President Johnson has made mammoth pledges of aid which will greatly stimulate and sustain national and international programmes for economic development in the region once peace is established.

There has to be great diversity in our Australian approaches to Asia, just as there is great diversity of interests among the countries of the region. We cannot take one course only, but each line of action should lead in the same direction. For example, social and economic aid are essential. But, by themselves, they are not enough. Some of the economic assistance we have given in Vietnam in the past has been deliberately destroyed by Communist guerrillas and. unless military measures provide a shield behind which economic reconstruction and development can take place, many useful efforts at promoting welfare would not be started or would have to be abandoned. We cannot succeed by military measures alone; but neither can we push ahead with peaceful growth without military measures also being taken to make men and women safer from death and terror.

Again, we have to pursue our objectives through a number of organisations, partly to cover different fields and partly to take account of differing memberships. There is, for example, the Economic Commission for

Asia and the Far East - a regional organisation of the United Nations - to which Australia attaches great importance. E.C.A.F.E. comprises countries of differing ideologies, including the Soviet Union, and offers the opportunities that come from its comprehensiveness. There is, too, the Asian Development Bank, membership of which is open to all members of E.C.A.F.E., and which is just coming into being, with Australia contributing initially SUS85 million. Then there is the South East Asia Treaty Organisation - which held its annual Council Meeting here in Canberra in June - comprising countries of the region which have come together in an alliance against aggression. There is also the security arrangement between Australia, Britain, New Zealand and Malaysia; A.N.Z.U.S., which is a most vital element in Australia’s security, and our association with Britain which is none the weaker for not being enshrined in a treaty. Then there is ASPAC - the Asian and Pacific Council - representing nine countries of the region, which met in Seoul in June. All those are associations of which Aus ra/ia is a member. There are other bodies, such as the Association of South East Asia - which is referred to as “ A.S.A.” - comprising Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia, of which Australia is not a member, as well as bilateral pacts.

We should not look for one single structure and only one viewpoint in South East and Eastern Asia. Countries do not normally have completely identical foreign policies, and consequently they can pursue certain common objectives while recognising that for various reasons they will not have identical objectives on other matters or be able to act in concert on all things. They may prefer one method to another or their choice of method may be limited by their circumstances. For example, India, as a non-aligned power, does not wish to be associated in S.E.A.T.O. Yet, as explicitly stated in the joint communique between the Indian Minister for External Affairs and myself last March, India and Australia each has an interest in the maintenance of both countries as independent, progressive nations and also in the advancement of the whole of the region of South and South East Asia and in the preservation of the national independence of the states of the region. India has been, and continues to be, the victim of aggressive policies of Peking, which are a threat to the whole of South East Asia. Australia and India co-operate and understand one another very well, but we are not bound together by any formal alliances, nor do we accept one another’s views on all questions.

ASPAC came into being in June as a result of the meeting in Seoul of Ministers from Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of China, the Republic of Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand, with an observer being present from Laos. This represents a very considerable body of Asian opinion - all the countries of eastern Asia north of the Equator except Cambodia which, for reasons which the Australian Government fully comprehends, does not wish to participate, lt is a very impressive move and one that deserves attention, that all these countries have come together in this way. The objectives are wide and dynamic - to promote co-operation in many fields so as to help economic progress and build up a greater sense of regional identity and understanding. The diplomatic representatives in Bangkok of the countries represented at the Seoul meeting will meet this month to discuss practical ways of giving effect to some of the thoughts that were expressed at that meeting.

The result of these and other moves is, I think, the emergence more than ever before of a consciousness of our common interests and the identity of our hopes in South and South East Asia and the Western Pacific. Australia plays a full part, is accepted by the other countries and is glad to be with them. I shall now say something in more detail on Vietnam, China, and Indonesia, taking them in that order.

page 49

VIETNAM

The military situation in South Vietnam has improved greatly during the past year, although it is difficult at present to see it as being other than a lengthy struggle. The Communists are continuing their build up, and their total strength, both guerrilla and regular troops, is now believed to be more than 250,000. North Vietnam is still infiltrating personnel and supplies to the south by land through Labs and the demilitarised zone and, to a lesser degree, by sea. It is estimated that infiltration of personnel from the north is about 4,500 a month. Allied forces on the other hand are continuing their expansion and consolidation and, in addition to South Vietnamese Government forces, there are more than 320,000 troops from six countries engaged in the struggle. Improvements are being made to the logistical and administrative structure within South Vietnam for the successful conduct of operations.

Allied operations on land, sea and in the air have kept the Communist forces off balance, restricted their capacity to supply their forces, reduced their control of the rural areas, and lessened their ability to conduct offensive operations. The improvement of security also requires measures other than armed engagement with the enemy. Local security has to be strengthened by police and paramilitary forces and by creating a stronger attraction of the people towards the administration - for example, by restoring or creating social services and opening the prospect of a more satisfying life once terror is removed. These are heavy and laborious tasks.

The use of allied airpower in the Vietnamese conflict has been closely supervised at the highest policy levels. Severe target limitations have been imposed on United States Air Force and naval aircraft operating over North and South Vietnam. It is to be emphasised that the bombing of North Vietnam has been directed exclusively against military targets, particularly lines of communication, both road and rail, and supply depots, which arc providing support for the Communist effort in the south. Industries, harbours, centres of administration and sources of food production have not been attacked. These air strikes have been gradually intensified to increase the cost and effort to the North Vietnamese of continuing their aggression in South Vietnam. In South Vietnam the use of air power has played an important part in the successes of our ground forces and once again it is stressed that this air power is carefully regulated to minimise the risk to noncombatants.

Although the Vietnamese Communists have now been denied the possibility of military victory, that fact only opens the way lo a new phase of the struggle. What has to be achieved is a viable, healthy society in South Vietnam through the progressive restoration of government control, through economic and social advance, through strengthening of the administrative structure and through political reforms in keeping with the community’s own needs and wishes.

The present leaders of South Vietnam are realistic and purposeful men, nationalist in outlook, who have expressed an awareness of the need for reform and development. They face enormous problems of reconstruction and consolidation, and of developing national cohesion in the face of armed attack and a brutal campaign of terror. For example, since the beginning of this year alone, the Vietcong have murdered some 2,000 officials., teachers and other innocent civilians, apart from the death and destruction caused in actual fighting. Despite the disruptions of war and insecurity, despite political unrest and some inflationary pressures, the leaders of South Vietnam have come well through a most difficult period and have demonstrated a clear resolve to press ahead with needed reforms in many fields.

The political turbulence of recent months has now abated, and the Government has moved ahead in establishing the foundations for more representative and broadly based institutions. For the present transitional period, the National Leadership Committee has been expanded to include 10 civilians representing important social, religious and political groups, in addition to the 10 military members. An Army People’s Advisory Council comprising 20 Army officers and 60 civilians has also been established to act as a consultative organ. National elections are to be held next month for a constituent assembly of 1.17 seats. This assembly will draft a constitution, as the first step in a programme of constitutional development designed to establish permanent representative institutions.

As I have said before in this House, we would expect that in a situation of such intensive military activity, in which so much of the nation’s human resources are directed towards the war effort, the Government of South Vietnam would possess - as indeed it does - a strongly military flavour and influence. But there is ‘an appreciable and effective civilian participation in the running of the country which is all too often ignored by the critics. It is well to have proper regard to these facts and a fair appreciation of the tremendous difficulties in trying to shape a modern nation from a complex grouping of regional, religious and political interests, while maintaining a vast war effort and seeking to promote economic, social and administrative reform.

On the economic side wide-ranging measures, including devaluation of the currency, have been introduced on advice from the International Monetary Fund to help stabilise the economy and combat inflation. It is too early to assess the effects of these steps but they are an earnest of the Government’s determination to deal vigorously with its economic difficulties.

Of still greater importance for the long term is the Vietnamese Government’s ambitious programme of “ revolutionary development “. The aim is to improve and extend security in rural areas, to assist the villages and hamlets to make economic and social progress and to manage their own local affairs, and to instil a spirit of confidence and loyalty in the population as a whole. An intensive programme is in operation for training 59 member teams including specialists in all aspects of community development. The first group of some 4,500 cadres graduated in May under the new programme. Others have followed. The aim is to try to get more than 30,000 into the field by the end of. next year.

In support of Vietnamese efforts, the vast United States civil aid programme is forging ahead with strong emphasis on health, education and economic development. To this must be added the efforts, necessarily modest by comparison, of many other countries, including Australia. Our own civil aid programme, with projects such as the provision of surgical teams, the construction of town water supplies, the publication ot primary school text books, and the equipment of technical high schools, make a distinctive Australian contribution. We will continue and expand these efforts.

I recall these developments not in order to raise a sense of optimism or complacency about the situation or the immediate prospects in Vietnam. My purpose is to suggest that the day to day reporting of events and incidents must be seen in the broader perspective of the immensely complex and difficult process of building an independent, viable nation in an area which has been made a testing ground for the theory of so called “ wars of national liberation “.

Unfortunately we must recognise that the present outlook is for a long and hard struggle. We should not allow complexities or details to obscure the essential reason for this grim prospect. The plain fact is that Hanoi still shows no disposition to turn away from the path of aggression. Recent statements by the Communist leaders of North Vietnam, as well as by the Chinese Communist leaders, continue to reject absolutely all efforts towards peace, including those put forward by neutral and non-aligned countries and also the United Nations. The North Vietnamese leaders, with the full support of Peking, continue to demand a settlement which would be solely and exclusively on their own terms, and which would represent a complete success for their aggression. These terms are well known: The internal affairs of South Vietnam must be settled in accordance with the programme of the National Liberation Front; the Front must be recognised as the sole representative of the South Vietnamese people. This is a demand for unconditional surrender by the people of South Vietnam. Yet while taking this stand the authorities in Hanoi also contend that they seek a return to the 1954 Geneva Agreements, which contain no reference whatever to the Front or its programme.

The Chinese Communist leaders have gone still further than the North Vietnamese. They have gone so far as to suggest that calls by the Soviet Union and other powers for an end to bombing attacks on North Vietnam conceal a sinister “ plot for peace “. They have also described the Geneva Agreement as being “ torn to shreds “, and have rejected suggestions for a settlement of the Vietnamese question on the basis of those Agreements.

This is a matter for profound regret. It was the great value of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 and 1962 that they repre sented a common effort by the great powers to bring about an internationally agreed framework of security in the area. A return to the basic provisions of the 1954 Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam, and compliance by North Vietnam with the Geneva Agreement on Laos, could provide a starting point for the attainment of a just and stable settlement in Vietnam which would accord with the legitimate interests of all of the powers concerned.

It is sometimes suggested that a solution might be found if the Vietcong and the Front could be parties principal to negotiations and included in a coalition government. This approach ignores that the Front has no international status, and that it is a subversive movement directed and supported from the North with the aim of forcibly imposing a totalitarian Communist regime on the South Vietnamese people. This approach also ignores what Hanoi and Peking have themselves said about the conditions for a settlement. Yet it has always been clear that there would be no difficulty in obtaining any views that the Vietcong may have, distinct from the views of North Vietnam, in the course of negotiations.

Proposals concerning a coalition government require careful examination. The history of attempts at coalition with the Communists in Asia is discouraging. The rigid Communist regime that rules North Vietnam today itself began life as a “Fatherland Front” ostensibly balancing Communist and non-Communist elements. But no non-Communist has any position of authority in North Vietnam today. Many who tried to work with the North Vietnamese Communists originally are in fact now living and working in South Vietnam. In Laos the Communists were given a place in the Government of national union, but when they found they could not dominate it they withdrew into the Communistcontrolled region of the country and resumed guerrilla warfare, sheltered and supported by troops from North Vietnam.

For years the South Vietnamese Government armed forces and millions of the people have at great peril resisted the Communists. Their views are of great importance. Would the advocates of a solution by coalition expect the Government and people of South Vietnam to drop their fears of the Communists who for years have engaged in brutality, terrorism, and assassination as part of their political tactics? What conditions and guarantees would be necessary before the nonCommunist leaders of the South could have any real confidence that the highly organised and tightly knit Communist apparatus would abandon its revolutionary aim for a unified Communist Vietnam? Would the Communists in any coalition arrangement expect the South Vietnamese Army to absorb the tens of thousands of Communist troops and guerrillas? Would the Communists, in their turn, yield up their arms and trust there would be no reprisals against them? The questions are posed not to dismiss these issues, but lo indicate their gravity and their complexity. The Geneva Conference drew a line which for a while had the effect of geographically separating the Communists and the non-Communists in Vietnam and it provided for unmolested movement for those who want to live on the 0!her side of the line. No other practical starting point has yet been devised. It is no use putting forward the idea of a coalition as if it provided a ready made solution, as if it were a realistic alternative policy, as if the pronouncement of such ideas did away with the need for resisting the armed aggression.

In the same way, appeals to have recourse to the United Nations completely ignore that Hanoi and Peking have repeatedly rejected the right of the United Nations to concern itself with the Vietnam question.

We all are understandably distressed at the failure to bring peace to this troubled area. We all wish earnestly for an end to the fighting and for a just and durable settlement. But it is not enough simply to urge negotiations. We must have a realistic appreciation of the difficulties which we face and the consequences - for both the South Vietnamese, ourselves and our allies - of yielding ground where our vital interests are concerned.

Our aims are limited but they can and must be achieved. We are not out to destroy the North. We seek only to deter aggression. We want a situation in which North and South can co-exist in peace, and, from that starting point, work out their relationship with each other. We want a situation, in which the South Vietnamese can decide their future for themselves.

Our actions and aims in Vietnam are understood and respected by the nonCommunist countries of South East Asia. Our relations with these nations grow steadily closer in many fields - military, diplomatic, economic and cultural. Some of them are with us in the military struggle. In recent months Korea has doubled its military commitment, Thailand has sent its servicemen, and the Philippines has decided to send an engineering battalion and supporting troops. Others have given support in various ways. Our commitment in South Vietnam has made clear - as did our efforts in Korea and Malaysia - Australia’s readiness lo make sacrifices and incur casualties for the national survival of those who seek our aid to defend their freedom against aggression.

page 52

CHINA

As 1 have said many times before, in this House and elsewhere, the great question facing Australia and the other nations of the region is how to live with Communist China. For example, talking in London on 12th November 1964 - and this was widely reported in Australia - I said that, in order to establish in Asia the sort of conditions under which Western Europe has developed in the past few years, we must first establish the same sort of detente with the power that is the major cause of fear among the nations of Asia today. I have developed this theme on a number of occasions, for example in Adelaide on 2nd September 1965, when I said -

The rest of the world, and not China’s neighbours alone, have an immense problem of finding a way in which to live with China. No one but a fool would think that China can be ignored, or destroyed or reduced, or forced to become something else other than China. The problem is to come to terms so that China and other nations can live alongside each other in the same world. Whether or not China will fit into a peaceful and progressive world will be the major problem of diplomacy in this generation, and the handling of events in South East Asia at the present time is part of the application of that diplomacy. This is not a problem that we can expect to face in ton years’ time. It is one we face now. South East Asia today is a testing ground in more ways than one. 1 reassert that today. Perhaps the word “ problem “ is not happily chosen for it suggests that there may be a single and exact solution as in mathematics. International affairs is not like that. Rather must we think of adjustment bringing changes in attitudes, in policies and in conditions, and thus in the relationships between China and neighbouring countries and other great powers. We have to work for many things. We have to try to bring the Peking authorities to see that direct and indirect aggression will not succeed and that if persisted in, it can work only to China’s own disadvantage. We have to try to bring about greater regional cohesion among the countries of South and South East Asia and the Western Pacific so that they will be better prepared to play their part in maintaining the common security and in promoting economic advances. We have to try to make plain both to Communist China and other countries what are the limits beyond which policies cannot be forced by one nation in disregard of others and to reveal those places where it will be to the common advantage and politically practicable to reach some understanding. These things will take a long while to work out, and we cannot expect them to happen quickly. Moreover, we should not think of a static international society. Conditions will change both inside each country and in the world. In respect of China we should be ever on the walch for the opportunities that change may bring rather than aggravating the present strain by trying to force openings that are firmly shut against us.

Recognition of Peking is not a key that is going to open all doors, nor is admission to the United Nations. If we were to recognise Communist China today, and seat it in the United Nations, the great problems of substance would persist. It has been argued that there would be opportunities for closer contact, and that in the United Nations Peking would be in a body where she had accepted certain obligations and where she could be made accountable. I do not sweep those contentions aside, but their weight can be exaggerated. Looking at the matter realistically, can one really believe that taking a seat in the United Nations would mean much in practice in the conduct of Peking’s policies? But indeed Peking itself has in effect imposed unacceptable conditions for diplomatic recognition and its claims for a seat in the United Nations stand against a background of virulent attacks on that body.

The Chinese Communists insist that recognition of Peking means recognition of its sovereignty over Taiwan and abandonment of the Government of the Republic of China. Could we agree to that? Of course we could not. On Taiwan there are 13 million people, who do not want to come under Communist control. Great economic progress is being made. The Republic of China participates constructively and peacefully in international affairs and in international bodies, and is playing an honorable part in the international community. Some persons have said that the overriding objective is to come to terms with Communist China with its 700 million people and its great actual and potential power, and that we should not allow Taiwan to stand- in the way. According to those persons, if Taiwan has to be jettisoned, in the interests of a settlement with Peking, so much the worse. That is an argument which I find repugnant, and which the Australian Government will not accept. Could any Australian accept the argument that a political entity of nearly 13 million people is unimportant or should be sacrificed to satisfy the imagined interests of others: Australia, which like the majority of member states of the United Nations, has itself a smaller population than Taiwan?

Our determination that the Government of the Republic of China and the people on Taiwan should not be abandoned has been underlined by the decision which the Australian Government has recently taken to reopen our embassy accredited to the Republic of China. This does not mean any formal change in relations between our two Governments, because diplomatic relations have existed throughout and a Chinese Embassy has been maintained all the time in Canberra. The presence at Taipeh of an Australian ambassador, in addition to underlining the point I have just mentioned, is necessary for the conduct of our own affairs in a country where economic progress has led to a rapid expansion in trade and travel and it will also facilitate the growing co-operation in international organisations for economic development and political co-operation of which the Republic of China and Australia are both members. The lack of representation in

Taipeh was a gap in our effective participation in the diplomacy of the region.

I have referred to the admission of Communist China to the United Nations, and said that, in my opinion, many persons exaggerate the possible advantages. We should view Communist China’s admission to the United Nations against the background of a statement by the Communist Chinese Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister, Chen Yi, on 29th September last year. He said that the United Nations must undergo a thorough reorganisation and that, among other things, it should cancel its resolution condemning Communist China and North Korea as aggressors and should adopt a resolution condemning the United States as the aggressor. In other words, he demanded the reversal of a position which the Australian Government, with the support of all parties in this House, adopted when the Republic of Korea was invaded in 1950. He called for the expulsion from the United Nations of all “ imperialist puppets “, in which no doubt he includes many countries friendly to Australia and working to keep themselves out of Chinese influence.

This l/aads me to stress another point. Some of those who call for recognition of Communist China and its admission to the United Nations bring all their pressure to bear upon other governments and they call for all the concessions to be made by others. We are the ones that they call on to recognise what are termed realities of the situation. We are called on to reach friendly relations with Peking by, in effect, giving the Communist Chinese everything they ask for. That is neither realistic nor just. Peking must also make moves. It cannot be a onesided affair. Peking must make moves that indicate a readiness to live in harmony with its neighbours, and to accept international obligations and enter into arrangements for their effective performance. The need for Peking to do something along these lines is not recognised widely enough by many of those who want to move towards a better relationship with Peking.

The Australian Government has been proceeding in accordance with the ideas I have expressed. We have not, on the one hand, recognised Peking, as has been done by some other governments, who have, I am afraid, gained neither goodwill nor influence in Peking as a result. Nor have we followed the United States, which for many years maintained an almost complete ban on trade and private contacts with Communist China. Australia has not recognised Peking, and we have actively resisted Chinese Communist aggression and expansion when it has occurred - with military forces in Korea and Vietnam, and with military equipment and other assistance to India when it was treacherously invaded in 1962. But we have not sought to cut off all intercourse. Private Australian citizens have been able to visit the Chinese mainland. Trade has been permitted provided that it was not in items viewed as having strategic importance. We have clear objectives, but we have not been rigid in our working out of them.

The question of Chinese representation will probably arise in the forthcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly, and the Australian delegation will be guided by what I have just outlined to the House. We are in addition playing our part in strengthening countries of the region adjacent to China - helping to strengthen them so that they can resist aggression, and co-operating in regional and bilateral associations, as I have outlined earlier. This is no sterile negative policy Australia is following: It is realistic and positive. We know Communist China is there; we want to live with it, and are willing to explore new ways of doing so; but we are not prepared to fall flat on our face before it.

Communist China, too, has its problems. A great purge is going on, reaching to high levels in the Chinese Communist Party; there have been divisions at the highest levels of leadership; educational institutions have been closed to provide a period for eliminating teachers who are asking awkward questions; technicians and scientists are complaining about the amount of time they have to spend in undergoing political indoctrination. In their own published statements the Peking authorities assert that there is widespread dissent from some of their policies and practices. All this, after 20 years of Communist control on much of the mainland, is a warning not to paint mainland China in too rosy tones, or to see it optimistically as a pattern for underdeveloped countries.

page 55

INDONESIA

I turn now to Indonesia. On a visit last week I found in Djakarta a genuine friendliness and respect for Australia. Now that the confrontation of Malaysia has ended and the sole source of disagreement between us has been removed we look forward to close co-operation with Indonesia on matters affecting our bilateral relations and the South East Asian region. The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr. Malik, has already expressed his view that Australia and Indonesia share a large measure of common interest.

The major problem facing Indonesia at the moment is economic rehabilitation. The Indonesian Government leaders are well aware of the urgency of this task and of the difficulties involved. Australia is sympathetic and willing to assist constructively. One of Indonesia’s major problems is that it is at present unable to meet payments falling due on the very large foreign indebtedness which has been accumulated in recent years. Australia is not a creditor of Indonesia, as all our past aid to that country has been given in the form of outright grants, but we are taking a close interest in discussions on arrangements to reschedule Indonesia’s payments on her foreign debts. The new Government in Indonesia has recognised the need to draw up .an economic rehabilitation programme and in this connection, we hope that early consultations between the International Monetary Fund and the Indonesian Government will lay the foundations for the reconstruction of the economy. We particularly welcome Indonesia’s application to rejoin the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Apart from the wider question of long term rehabilitation of the economy, there is an immediate and urgent need to revitalise industries and basic services. I informed the Indonesian leaders that we shall provide new aid under the Colombo Plan in the form of certain essential raw materials such as carbon black for tyre manufacturing and spare parts for Australian vehicles and machinery in Indonesia.

Another matter which we discussed was the important one of our co-operation in New Guinea. We noted that our joint surveying teams were making good progress in the demarcation of the border between West Irian and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. The Indonesian Government gave an assurance that Indonesia will honour its obligations under the 1962 agreement with the Netherlands to hold an act of ascertainment in West Irian by 1969 or earlier.

The agreement terminating the hostility which has existed for more than three years between Indonesia and Malaysia was signed in Djakarta on 1 1th August. 1 am sure that this development, already warmly welcomed by the Australian Government, is welcome to all members of this House, and indeed to every section of the Australian community. In all the circumstances, this must be seen as a sensible and honorable settlement, and a framework for co-operation between the parties who have negotiated the agreement.

A point of direct concern to ourselves is of course that the shooting is to stop. The Malaysian and British Governments are already in consultation concerning the withdrawal of British forces from East Malaysia and we are, through our association with the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement, a party to these discussions. Australian troops will phase out of East Malaysia in accordance wilh arrangements worked out with the Malaysian authorities.

We can take heart from the fact that a settlement has been reached, and pay high tribute to the wisdom and statesmanship of those directly concerned with it. Moreover, the ending of confrontation is only one - though doubtless the most important - in a whole series of inter-related events of an encouraging kind in South East Asia. Since I made my last report to the House on 28th April, the Philippines has established diplomatic relations with Malaysia and has recognised the Republic of Singapore. Indonesia has also recognised Singapore. The Foreign Ministers -of the member countries of the Association of South East Asia - Thailand, the Philippines and Malaysia - have met in Bangkok to set the seal on the revival of their organisation as a vehicle for regional co-operation. I will not try to predict what these and similar processes will lead to, but the point stands out most clearly that there is, in the minds of a growing number of responsible leaders, an optimistic consciousness of the need to work together in peace for the good of all their peoples.

Another development in this direction is the indication of willingness on the part of Cambodia and Thailand to accept a representative of the United Nations SecretaryGeneral to help lessen tensions between them.

What I believe is happening is that Asian countries themselves are purposefully trying to do away with the old frictions left over from the colonial times and the new frictions in the period of adjustment among newly independent neighbouring countries. They are erecting their standards of conduct for good neighbourly relations in the region. They are the ones who know that stability and security in the region are essential conditions for internal progress and a better life for their peoples. They are judging whether a neighbour’s conduct is detrimental to regional stability. An unstable neighbour or a neighbour which generates instability abroad, is going against the spirit which is now prevailing in the region. This is also the Australian outlook. We will use all opportunities to work with them for effective regional co-operation.

page 56

AFRICA

Although Asia and the Pacific are the areas of most direct and immediate concern to Australia, we cannot be indifferent to events in the rest of the world or to some of the conflicts being worked out elsewhere. In Africa since the Second World War a large number of countries have emerged from colonial rule to independence. Several of these countries are members of the Commonwealth of Nations and all are members of the United Nations. Not unexpectedly, the newly independent nations have faced considerable strain and stress. They have had to bear the international responsibilities that go with independence; grapple with the tasks of developing their resources; compose their communal and tribal divisions; and tackle their immense social problems. In some countries the strain has produced conflicting bids for political power and internal strife. Africa is still under strain. That strain has probably been increased because the rivalries of the outside world have also been imported into the continent. The instability of Africa has become a matter of deep concern to many nations outside Africa who appreciate both how high are the aspirations of its peoples and how great are the difficulties ahead of them.

Furthermore, in Africa, the racial antagonisms that are the ugliest impediment to human welfare wherever they arise present themselves starkly and dangerously, not as a series of incidents but as a perpetual contest. That contest, too, is carried from Africa into all forums of the world. At the present time two of these African issues are posing questions of particular urgency.

The Rhodesian question is certain to be a subject of discussion, at the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London next month. Australia regards the United Kingdom as still having sovereignty over Rhodesia, and at the request of Britain, we have taken various steps, including drastic restrictions of imports from Rhodesia, to try to induce the regime under Mr. Ian Smith to return to constitutional government. We continue to believe that the objective should be a government in. Rhodesia responsible to all the people of the country and with effective safeguards for all elements of the population, European and nonEuropean. We are opposed to the use of force in Rhodesia both because of the practical difficulties of bringing force to bear and because of the human suffering and -material damage that its use would cause. But we cannot close our eyes to the explosive situations that will build up in Rhodesia and elsewhere in Africa and the world if no practical possibility of peaceful transition appears.

The other question under notice - South West Africa - has come more prominently before us as a result of the decision of the International Court of Justice on 18th July. This judgment has aroused particular interest in Australia because the President of the Court is an Australian, Sir Percy Spender, and because he had the responsibility, as President, to exercise a casting vote when the Court divided equally.

Although Sir Percy Spender is an Australian, he did not give his decision as a representative of the Australian Government. In our view, it would have been improper for him as a judge of the Court to seek advice from the Australian Government or consult us in any way and in fact he did not do so. Nor did the Australian Government seek to give him instructions or to discuss the case with him. It would be quite alien to our way of thought for an Australian Government to intervene in any way, formally or informally, with the judge of a court in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Sir Percy Spender acted as an individual in discharge of his responsibilities as he saw them. The decision was not a matter in which the Australian Government could participate in any way. Whoever from Australia might sit on the International Court of Justice will, 1 am confident, reach his conclusions honestly, on the basis of the law as he sees it, and without fear and without expectation of favour from the Government of Australia.

The Court, in its latest judgment, did not express a view on the substance of the question of South- West Africa. The Court, ins ead, gave a ruling on a narrower point, namely, on the standing of Ethiopia and Liberia, as members of the former League of Nations, to raise questions in the Court about the performance of a mandate held under the League. The Court has in its latest decision held that the rights previously resident in the League of Nations had not devolved on the individual States that were members of the League at the dale of its dissolution. The Court placed itself at the point of time when the mandate system was instituted. As part of that system, member Stales of the League could take part in the administrative process only through their participation in the League organs. They had no right of direct intervention relative to the mandatories; this was the prerogative of the League organs. lt will be seen, therefore, that the International Court of Justice ruled on a legal point and did not rule on any issue concerning the present or future administration of South-West Africa. On some of these substantial matters the Court gave advisory opinions in 1950, 1955, and 1956 at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. These advisory opinions were, in brief, that the mandate continues; that South Africa cannot alter the international status of the territory of South-West Africa without the consent of the United Nations; that South Africa continues to be bound under the mandate to accept United Nations supervision, to submit annual reports, to transmit petitions to the United Nations General Assembly and to promote to the utmost the material and moral well being and the social progress of the inhabitants.

As far as the Australian Government is concerned, we adhere to views which we have expressed both privately to the South African Government and publicly on several occasions. Australia’s attitude is governed by the fact that we regard SouthWest Africa as a non-self-governing territory, one in respect of which there are specific international obligations. Consequently, the principles applicable to such territories apply to it; in particular, the need to advance towards genuine selfgovernment, the acceptance of the doctrine of self-determination and acceptance of the principle of advancement towards equality of status among all the inhabitants of the territory.

page 57

CONCLUSION

In this statement 1 have attempted to deal with only four of the major groups of the foreign questions now engaging the attention of the Government. At the same time we are keeping closely under notice events in other regions and particularly in Europe, both Western Europe and Eastern Europe. In the international economic field we are continuing to try to play a constructive and enlightened part. In the United Nations and its specialised agencies and in bodies such as UNCTAD, the international Monetary Fund, and the Development Assistance Committee, to which Australia was recently admitted, we are continuously engaged in studies and discussions, in the field of international aid for less developed countries we are playing a role of some influence. I will not have time to speak on these matters tonight.

Looking broadly over the world scene I ask myself, in conclusion, what it is that we and so many other nations are seeking. 1 see a common need and a common search by various paths for security, for freedom from threats of aggression, for freedom from the domination by other powers, for opportunity for social and economic advancement and the peace of our country and the welfare of our people. These are our own hopes and the aims of our own foreign policy and they are shared by many 0:hers. It will be the purpose of our foreign policy to do nothing that imperils them and to work with others to achieve them. The Government firmly believes that the policies and actions I have described tonight are necessary and right and serve the interests of Australia, both in our own security and progress and in the peace and security of the world. 1 present the following paper -

Foreign Affairs - Ministerial Statement, 24th August 1966- and move -

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kennelly) adjourned.

page 58

HIGH COMMISSIONER (UNITED KINGDOM) BILL 1966

Motion (by Senator Gorton) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an act to amend the High Commissioner (United Kingdom) Act 1909-1957, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

. -I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is threefold; first, to give the High Commissioner, Australia House, London, authority to delegate the powers conferred on him by section 9 of the Act in relation to the appointment of officers and the engagement of employees; secondly, to validate appointments of officers and engagements of employees made otherwise than by the High Commissioner, and thirdly, to validate salary increases paid by way of ministerial approval to locally engaged staff in excess of the rates set down in the Fourth Schedule to the High Commissioner (Staff) Regulations.

In respect of the first and second points, it has been the practice for very many years for the Official Secretary, Australia House, to approve appointments to the permanent staff and for the Administrative Officer, Australia House, to approve the engagement of temporary employees. Last year, following an Audit review of practices and procedures at Australia House, some doubt arose as to the validity of these arrangements. Under section 9 of the

Act authority to appoint officers and engage employees is vested in the High Commissioner without power of delegation. However, some conflict of purpose appeared to be raised by High Commissioner (Staff) Regulation 6 in which the High Commissioner is given authority to delegate all or any of his powers and functions. The Attorney-General’s Department examined the matter and informed us that the practice we had been following was not in accordance with the Act and to enable the practice to be lawfully continued the Act would require amendment and appointments and engagements made other than by the High Commissioner validated.

It has not been possible to determine just how long the present practices have been in operation or whether in fact the High Commissioner ever personally appointed officers or engaged employees. 1 point out that this power has been vested in the High Commissioner since the Act first came into operation in1 909. A large locally engaged work force is employed by Australia House and the turnover is quite high, particularly at the lower levels. Clearly it is undesirable that the High Commissioner be asked personally to approve all appointments and engagements. In point of fact he has been personally attending to these matters since receipt of the advising of the Attorney-General’s Department but 1 am anxious that he be relieved of the necessity for doing this as soon as possible.

The Bill now before the House is therefore designed in part to overcome a deficiency in the existing Act to allow the previous well established practice to continue and at the same time validate appointments and engagements made other than by the High Commissioner. In respect of the third point it has been the practice to vary the salary rates set out in the Fourth Schedule to the High Commissioner (Staff) Regulations by means of a Ministerial determination using the powers contained in Regulation 8 of those Regulations.

Following the review of Australia House practices already referred to, doubt was expressed about the validity of the arrangements for salary increases. The AttorneyGeneral’s Department examined the matter and informed us that despite the power given to the Minister by regulation 8 to vary the classification of an office this did not necessarily give authority for the payment of an increase in salary. Unless the new rates on reclassification were to be found in the existing scale in the Fourth Schedule there was no authority for the payment of any increase.

The Attorney-General’s Department indicated that it would be possible, retrospectively, to validate past payments, and to obtain the necessary statutory authority for the rates presently being paid. The practice of relying on ministerial approval for salary increases for locally engaged staff! at Australia House has been in operation since the Regulations came into force on 21st October 1960. All payments were made with the authority of the Government, and the necessary funds were appropriated by Parliament.

The lack of authority in the form of regulations for the payments has been a matter of very real concern to me and the Department and in order to remedy the situation regulations were recently made with effect from 1st January 1966 to give the necessary statutory authority to the rates presently being paid. The Bill before the Senate, in addition to the two items I have already mentioned, has been drafted to validate these payments made to locally engaged staff at Australia House. The Government has decided to keep the Bill, particularly as it relates to the validation of salary increases, to the simplest of terms. lt provides that all payments made between 21st October 1960 and 31st December 1965 under ministerial approval shall be deemed to have been lawfully made.

If the Bill were to spell out all the details of the changes in the rates of payment it would be a long and complicated measure. In the period I have referred to there were 25 variations involving all of the 34 categories of persons employed at Australia House. For the future, directions have been issued by the Government that payments will not be made in advance of the necessary statutory authority. The opportunity has also been taken to amend the existing Act in relation to the preamble and to the designation of the Office of High Commissioner. It is considered that it is more appropriate to describe the High Commissioner as the High Commissioner “for Australia” rather than for “the Commonwealth “. I commend the Bill to the favorable consideration of the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 59

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motions (by Senator Willesee) - by leave - agreed to -

That Senator Sandford bc granted leave of absence for two months on account of parliamentary business overseas.

That Senator Lacey be granted leave of absence for two months on account of parliamentary business overseas.

page 59

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 3) 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

[4.44. - I move -

That the Bill bc now read a second time.

This Bil] provides for amendments to the Customs Tariffs 1966. It deals with the collections of duties which have taken place prior to the 30th June last, and subsequent to the passage of the Customs Tariff (No. 2) Bill earlier this year. The Bill consists of 12 schedules and an amendment to section 25. For the benefit of honorable senators I shall take the schedules in numerical order. The First Schedule incorporates changes consequent on the adoption by the Government of the report by the Tariff Board on bonded fibre fabrics. The Board found that since its last inquiry into bonded fibre fabrics in 1961, the industry had increased considerably its range of production and also its share of the market. In the Board’s opinion the industry has progressed to a point where it now needs less protection against imports than is provided by the present duties. On its recommendation, therefore, the duties on bonded fibre fabrics are being reduced by 5 per cent, ad valorem to 15 per cent, ad valorem irrespective of the country of origin. The same level of protection is being applied to articles of bonded fibre fabrics.

The balance of the amendments in the First Schedule are necessary to improve the translation from the Customs Tariff 1933- 1965 to the new tariff which came into operation on the 1st July 1965 and is based on the Brussels Nomenclature. These changes continue the duty position existing prior to the 1st July 1965 and are in accordance with the undertaking I gave when the new tariff was introduced into this chamber in May 1965. The Second. Third. Fourth and Fifth Schedules are consequent amendments to primage and other rates arising from the amendments which I have just outlined.

The Sixth Schedule arises from the Government’s decision to admit a wide range of products from less developed countries at preferential rates of duty. Honorable senators will recall that legislation in the last session outlined the proposed treatment for a range of manufactured and semi-manufactured products covered by the scheme. These changes make provision for the duty free entry of a range of handmade traditional products of the cottage industries of less developed countries. The preferences, following requests from certain less developed countries that these handcrafts should be accorded preferential treatment, were delayed until Australia could seek a waiver under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which was given by an overwhelming vote by the members of G.A.T.T.

The Seventh Schedule varies the duties on certain glass ovenware and tumblers on which temporary duties were imposed in May 1964 following the recommendation by the Special Advisory Authority. These new duties replace the former combined ordinary and temporary duties and are in accordance with the recommendations of the Tariff Board. The Eighth and Ninth Schedules provide for imposition of temporary duties on alloy steel, hoop, strip, plate or sheet in accordance with the recommendations of the Special Advisory Authority. In respect of hoop and strip a temporary duty of $448 per ton less 40 per cent, of the f.o.b. price is imposed, while on plates and sheets a temporary duty of $448 per ton less 47 i -per cent, of the f.o.b. price is imposed. The temporary duties are in addition to the normal duties. The long term protective needs of the Australian alloy steel industry, which includes stainless steel production, have been referred to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report and the temporary duties will operate only until such time as the Government takes action following receipt of the final report of the Board.

The Tenth Schedule removes duties applying to concentrated citrus fruit juices and syrups, and substitutes merely an appropriate rate of duty on unconcentrated citrus fruit juices. Concurrently wilh the making of this tariff alteration an order was made under Section 29a of the Tariff directing that the. duty payable on concentrated citrus fruit juices should be on the basis of the quantity of unconcentrated juice into which the concentrate could be converted. This concentration is determined on importation and is a fairer method of determining the duty payable than the somewhat arbitrary concentration factors applied previously.

The Eleventh and Twelfth Schedule’s relate to the Tariff Board report on hot water bags. As a result of the Tariff Board’s findings, the normal Customs duties on imported hot water bags are being reduced. The new duties are 35 per cent, ad valorem, general, and 20 per cent, ad valorem, preferential. However, the Tariff Board found that some imported hot water bags have been dumped in Australia. I have taken the necessary steps to ensure that any imports at dumped prices are subject to appropriate anti-dumping duties.

In addition to these Schedules in relation to which documentation is now being circulated for the information of honorable senators, there is a change relating to section 25 of the Customs Tariffs 1966. The amendment to section 25 will clarify the interpretation of what constitutes a separate article. Section 25 provides, inter alia, that where goods are composed of separate articles the duty may, by direction of the Minister, be ascertained as if the articles had been imported separately. The idea of separate articles may be fully factual as in the case of a canteen of cutlery or more or less notional as in the case of a radio set where the valves would seem to be clearly separate articles but the capacitors and resistors arguably less so.

However, whenever the duty applicable to goods taken as a whole is greater or less than the duty applicable to the component parts it will often be that the level of duty payable is not quite equitable. In that event a direction under this section can be used to restore the intention of the Tariff. These directions are published for general information in the “ Gazette “. The amendment now proposed clarifies what constitutes goods composed of separate articles. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 61

QUEENSLAND BEEF CATTLE ROADS AGREEMENT BILL 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As honorable senators are aware, the Government has already announced its intention to continue ^participation in the financing of beef road development in the States after the ending of the schemes for the provision of Commonwealth financial assistance which have been in force since 1961-62. The report of the Northern Division of the Department of National Development on a possible future programme of beef cattle roads is at present under examination, and when that is completed we expect to hold discussions with the States concerned about various aspects of the future programme.

In the meantime, it is important that work on beef roads should proceed pending the outcome of the Government’s study and discussions with the States concerning a future programme. In the case of Queensland, of the total funds of $16.6 million authorised for payment to the State under the Queensland Beef Cattle Roads Agreement Act 1962, only about $600,000 remained undrawn at the end of the last financial year. The Government proposes, as an interim measure pending a decision about the future programme, to provide financial assistance to the State for the construction of beef cattle roads during the financial year 1966-67. The scale of the interim programme of assistance is intended to be of broadly the same order as has obtained in recent years.

The purpose of the Bill before the Senate is to provide this further assistance. The Bill will approve an Agreement, which has been signed on behalf of the Commonwealth and the Stale, to amend the existing Agreement so as to increase the limit of financial assistance available for beef roads in Queensland from SI 6.6 million to $20.5 million. This increase, together with the balance of funds available under the present Agreement at the end of the last financial year, will permit the provision of Commonwealth assistance of $4.5 million for beef roads in Queensland in 1966-67.

The increased assistance will be extended to the State on the same terms as have applied in the recent years of the current scheme. This means that half the assistance will be in the form of a grant and half in the form of a loan. The loan portion will be repayable over fifteen years commencing on 15th December, 1967. The roadworks for which the financial assistance will be available have been agreed in discussions between Queensland and Commonwealth authorities. However, provision is made for variation of the proposed programme if this should prove to be desirable.

The works on which expenditure in 1966-67 is proposed comprise the completion or continuation of work on roads in the existing programme, as well as the commencement of work on certain new roads. The work on roads in the existing programme comprises the completion of current contracts on the Julia CreekNormanton and the Georgetown-Mount Surprise roads, the construction to sealed standard of the Mount Isa-Dajarra road, the construction of several bridges on the Georgetown-Mount Surprise road and some works on the Winton-Boulia road.

As I have mentioned, expenditure will also be incurred on some new works. Between Dingo and Mount Flora, it is proposed to construct and seal a length of road north from Dingo, as well as to bridge the Isaacs River. On the road between The Battery and Townsville it is proposed to form and gravel the connection to the Ross River road. Between Mareeba and Laura, bridge construction is proposed as well as improvement of certain sections, while on the road from The Lynd to Charters Towers some road improvement work adjacent to The Lynd is planned, together with a bridge over the Basalt Creek.

The Government is confident that the road works outlined above will constitute a valuable addition to what has already been achieved under the beef roads scheme, which is making such a significant contribution to the development of the beef cattle industry in the north and to northern development generally. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by SenatorWillesee) adjourned.

page 62

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL (No. 2) 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland. · LP

[4.57]. - I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill seeks authority for the Treasurer to borrow$120,000,000 to be advanced to the States in the current financial year in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Agreement Act 1966.

At its meeting last June, the Australian Loan Council decided that $120,000,000 should be allocated for housing out of a total borrowing programme for States works and housing for 1966-67 of $645,000,000. The figure approved by the Loan Council, of course, represents the sum of the amounts nominated by each State Premier for advances under the Housing Agreement. I might mention that the State Premiers made their decisions in the light of a suggestion by the Commonwealth that the proportion of the works and housing programmes to be devoted to housing in 1966-67 should be no less than that for 1965-66. The distribution of the amount of $120,000,000 between the States is as follows -

These advances are repayable over 53 years and bear interest at 1 per cent. per annum below the long-term bond rate. The amount of $120,000,000 for which parliamentary approval is being sought is $18,000,000 greater than the amount originally allocated by the Loan Council for housing advances to the States in 1965-66. Honorable senators will recall, however, that housing advances last year included, on the initiative of the Commonwealth, a special allocation of an additional $.15,000,000 approved by the Australian Loan Council last March.

Housing advances to the States in . 1 966-67 and in each of the next succeeding four financial years, will be made under an agreement with the States, the form of which received the approval of Paliament earlier this year. It will take some time before all the administrative arrangements necessaryto the execution of the new agreement are made. In the meantime, the Housing Agreement Act 1966 makes provision, for the Treasurer to make such advances to the States as would be made if the Agreement were in force.

As in the case of the Housing Agreement which expired on 30th Junelast, the form of the Agreement authorised by the Housing Agreement Act 1966 requires that not less than 30 per cent. of the total advances made to a State each financial year shall be allocated for loans to private home seekers mainly through building societies. Thus in 1966-67 a minimum of $36,000,000 will be made available for this purpose leaving $84,000,000 for the erection of dwellings by the States.

At this point of time, it is appropriateto review the significant contribution made by the Commonwealth towards housing in the Slates under the 1945, 1956 and 1961 Housing Agreements. Up to 30th June 1966. the date on which the 1961 Agreement expired, a total amount of $1,348 million has been advanced to the States from loan funds for housing. Of that amount, approximately $268 million has been allocated to Home Builders’ Accounts since 1st July 1956 when this form of assistance to private home building was first introduced.

The amount of $120,000,000 to be provided in the current financial year sets a new record, lt demonstrates clearly the Commonwealth’s willingness to continue lo provide substantial assistance towards the housing needs of the States. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cavanagh) adjourned.

page 63

TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Gorton) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to bring under control restrictive arrangements relating to the carriage of goods by sea between Australia and other countries. When introducing the Trade Practices Bill 1965 into the Senate, I pointed out that restrictions in relation to ocean shipping were excepted from the ambit of that Bill. I indicated that the ocean shipping industry presented complex problems which were, at that time, still receiving consideration by the Government, and that special provisions designed to meet those problems would be introduced into Parliament at a later date. In the meantime, ocean shipping would remain subject to the Australian Industries Preservation Act 1906- 1960.

The Bill that 1 now present to the Senate contains the special provisions dealing with ocean shipping to which I made reference in 1965. This Bill was introduced in another place in April of this year, since when its provisions have been subject to scrutiny by those concerned with our overseas shipping trade. The Government has received a number of representations con cerning the Bill from shippers, shipowners and the governments of various maritime countries whose shipowners service our overseas trade routes. In the light of all the representations received, the Government has made one or two refinements to the Bill, but has seen no reason to depart from the approach embodied in the Bill as originally introduced.

That approach can be summed up by saying that the Government believes our overseas cargo shipping is so extensive, so important to our economy and so closely connected with our relations with other governments, that there should be a determination by Parliament itself, rather than by any administrative tribunal, that restrictive arrangements relating to our overseas cargo shipping are not in the public interest unless they are accompanied by appropriate safeguards, which Parliament itself should specify. At the same time, the Government believes that, if restrictive arrangements relating to our overseas cargo shipping are accompanied by appropriate safeguards, they can have beneficial effects for shippers, shipowners and Australian interests generally. The Bill accordingly provides for such arrangements to be permissible if, but only if, the parties to them give, and observe, certain specified undertakings determined by the legislation.

To appreciate the nature of the safeguards specified by the Bill, it is necessary first to understand the nature of the restrictive arrangements to which the Bill applies, and in this connection it may be of assistance to point out that there are two broad classes of overseas cargo shipping. One class is conducted by tramps and’ bulk carriers which are employed to carry special cargoes under arrangements specially made for the lilting of those cargoes. As a matter of law, the present Bill contains no exemption in favour of tramp and bulk carriers, but, as the services they provide are of a kind not normally associated with restrictive arrangements, the Bill is unlikely in practice to have any application to them. The other class of overseas cargo shipping is conducted within liner conferences. These are associations of shipowners which collectively provide regular scheduled services on particular trade routes. The cargo carried by the liner ships is made up of the consignments of any shippers who choose to use the service - just as, to use a homely illustration, a bus service covering a particular route carries any persons who may be waiting at any scheduled bus stop. In order to provide their regular services, the shipowners enter into rationalisation arrangements between themselves under which they pool their resources, apportion the traffic and charge uniform freight rates. In the Bill, such an arrangement is referred to as a conference agreement, and the agreements covered by that expression are indicated in the proposed section 90c.

The shipowners also enter into arrangements with regular shippers to ensure that those shippers ship exclusively with members of the conference. Without such arrangements the shipowners cannot provide the regular services which the shippers desire. The most common arrangement of this kind is what is known as a dual rate contract, which provides for shippers to be charged at one rate if they confine their shipments to conference vessels and at a higher rate :.f they do not so confine their shipments. Another method by which shipowners ensure the loyalty of regular shippers is to enter into deferred rebate arrangements, under which payment of rebates to the shipper is deferred for a period during which an exclusive dealing arrangement is operative, and the right to the rebate is lost if the shipper does not comply with the exclusive dealing arrangement. There are closed conferences and open conferences. The membership of a closed conference is controlled by the existing members but the membership of an open conference is not.

There is no competition in regard to freight rates in any conference, whether the conference be closed or open. It is, indeed, impracticable for a liner service to operate as such without an arrangement between the shipowners to charge uniform freight rates. In this industry, therefore, the Government has concluded that the attainment of better freight rates and other terms and conditions is most likely to be achieved by negotiations between shipper bodies and shipowners, which negotiations can reflect the economies achieved by better organisation, limitation of tonnaging and greater resort to modern cargo handling techniques.

The Bill accordingly provides for the giving and observing of undertakings by shipowners to take part in such negotiations when requested to do so by a shipper body. These undertakings will protect the interests of Australian shippers, and the requirements of the Bill in this regard are an important part of the safeguards which the Government considers to be necessary if restrictive arrangements in relation to the carriage of our goods are to be permitted.

Negotiation between a shipping conference and Australian shippers of terms and conditions for the carriage of Australian goods already takes place in relation to our export trade to Europe. At a conference between shipowner and shipper interests, convened in 1929 by the then Prime Minister, it was agreed that regularity and certainty in overseas liner shipping is best achieved by means of the closed conference system, with the conference undertaking to provide regular scheduled sailings on a given route, at rates agreed with a body representing the shippers using the route on condition that the shippers agree to ship exclusively with the conference.

In 1930, the Australian Industries Preservation Act was amended in order to give statutory recognition to agreements of this nature between shipowners and shippers. In order to receive the benefit of the exemption which the amendment gives from the offence provisions of the Act, the agreements must be approved by the Australian Oversea Transport Association, commonly referred to as A.O.T.A., a body consisting of representatives of the conference operating on the Australia-United Kingdom-Continent route and representatives of the shippers concerned with that route.

Commercial negotiations within the A.O.T.A. framework have been the means by which freight rates and other terms and conditions for the carriage of our exports to Europe have since been fixed. However, there are now a number of other important liner trade routes between Australia and other countries, and A.O.T.A. is not an appropriate body through which shippers and shipowners trading on these other routes should negotiate their terms and conditions.

The Government believes that it is desirable that, wherever possible, the terms and conditions on all of our liner routes should be reached through a process of commercial negotiations between, on the one hand, representatives of the relevant conference and, on the other, a strong shipper body representative of the relevant shippers. However, the Government also recognises the need for provisions enabling appropriate governmental action to deal with situations where the negotiation process does not operate satisfactorily, and for provisions which will promote the improved organisation upon which better freight rates depend. The present Bill gives effect to these conclusions.

The Bill inserts a new Part - Part XA - into the Trade Practices Act. This is the Part dealing with ocean shipping and it will be exclusive of the rest of the Act in the sense that the agreements and practices to which it applies will not be subject to the examination and order making processes provided for in the general provisions of the Act. lt follows that the Commissioner of Trade Practices will have no functions under the shipping provisions. As I have indicated earlier, ocean shipping is intimately connected with our relations with other governments. The Government has concluded that it should itself accept direct responsibility for the administration of this legislation. The ministerial responsibility will be vested in my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr. McEwen), and references in the Bill to the Minister should be construed accordingly.

All final decisions in regard to the permissibility of conference agreements will be matters for the Governor-General rather than the Trade Practices Tribunal. The Tribunal does have a role in relation to these matters, but it is merely to conduct fact finding inquiries at the instance of the Minister.

Like the Australian Industries Preservation Act, this Bill seeks to avoid jurisdictional conflicts under international law, and applies only to outward traffic - that is, to the carriage of goods from Australia.

I turn now to the main provision of the Bill. As I have said, the Bill proposes to insert a new Part - Part Xa, dealing with ocean shipping - into the Trade Practices Act. Part Xa consists of a number of proposed sections, all of which are in clause 8 of the Bill. For convenience, I shall refer to each proposed section as a clause, and the first one to which I direct attention is clause 90d. This clause empowers the Minister to require a shipowner to appoint a person resident in Australia lo represent the shipowner, and to nominate an address at which he will accept service of documents under the Bill.

Division 2 of Part Xa provides for the filing of conference agreements. For this purpose, particulars of the agreements are to be furnished to an officer called the “ Clerk of Shipping Agreements “. The Clerk is required by clause 90j to file the documents containing these particulars in a special repository. The public will not have access to this repository. The information in it will be available only to the administering authorities.

Clause 90m empowers the Minister lo require a shipowner party to a conference agreement to give him an undertaking that, whenever reasonably requested by a shipper body designated by the Minister, it will take part in negotiations with that shipper body, with regard to the terms and conditions that are to be applicable to the outward shipping to which the conference agreement relates. Sub-clause (5.) of clause 90m requires that the shipper body designated by the Minister shall be one which, in his opinion, is appropriately constituted having regard to the overseas cargo shipping to which the conference agreement applies.

The shipowner party must undertake, in particular, to do three things. First, it is to take part in the negotiations with the shipper body and to have due regard to matters raised by the shipper body. Secondly, it is to furnish an officer designated by the Minister with such information as the officer requests concerning the progress of the negotiations, to permit the officer to be present at negotiation meetings and to give consideration to any suggestions that he may make. Thirdly, it is to make available information that is reasonably necessary for the negotiations. However, its obligation to do this is conditional upon the shipper body making available information reasonably requested by the parties to the conference agreement.

Clause 90n provides for the disapproval of conference agreements by the GovernorGeneral. The grounds for disapproving an agreement are set out in the clause. If a shipowner fails to comply with a notice under clause 90d requiring it to appoint a person in Australia to represent it. or if the shipowner fails to give the Minister an undertaking as requested in a notice under clause 90m, the Governor-General may disapprove the agreement without the need for an inquiry by the Trade Practices Tribunal.

There are three grounds upon which the Governor-General may disapprove a conference agreement if he is satisfied, after consideration of a report by the Trade Practices Tribunal, that the ground for disapproval exists. The first of these grounds is that there has been a failure to comply with an undertaking which has been given pursuant to a notice under clause 90m. The second is that the agreement, or the behaviour of the parties, does not have due regard to the need for our overseas cargo shipping to be efficient, economical and adequate. The Bill directs that, in considering whether the agreement or conduct of (he shipowners does not have due regard to this need, consideration shall be given to the need to ensure the continuing provision of services, and, in that connection, the conditions under which, on a long term view, the shipowners may reasonably be expected to provide such services

The third ground is that the parties are preventing or hindering an Australian flag shipping operator from engaging efficiently in the trade to an extent that is reasonable. The expression “ Australian flag shipping operator “ is defined by clause 90a so as to cover an operator who normally operates on the relevant route with ships registered in Australia, and is an Australian citizen or a company incorporated by or under Australian law.

The effect of disapproval of a conference agreement is set out in clause 90p. Shortly stated, the agreement becomes unenforceable so far as it relates to outwards cargo shipping, and it becomes an offence for a party in any way to give effect to the agreement or to enter into a similar agreement. In addition, the Minister may, under clause 90r, obtain a court injunction to restrain a person who has been convicted of such an offence from further contraventions. Clause 90q provides that if the Governor-General considers it desirable to do so, he may revoke a disapproval, or approve parties to a disapproved agreement entering into another similar agreement, in which case it would nol, of course, be an offence to enter into the similar agreement.

Division 4 of Part Xa makes provision for situations where the particular route is serviced by a single shipping line, instead of by a conference of several lines. Such a line is sometimes referred to as a “ one line conference “. For practical purposes, the single line possesses the same sort of economic power which, by combination, is possessed by a multi-line conference, and the Bill accordingly provides for the single line to be subject to substantially the same obligations as apply to an ordinary conference.

However, as there is no agreement, there is some difference in the machinery requirements. There is no filing requirement, but the individual shipowner can be required to give an undertaking to the same effect as the undertaking that can be required of a multiline conference. Instead oi disapproving a conference agreement, the Governor-General is empowered by clause 90u to declare the individual shipowner. The grounds for such a declaration and the conditions precedent to its being made are substantially the same as those for disapproving an agreement. The effect of a declaration is that the shipowner is prohibited from engaging in agreements or practices designed to exclude competition. These agreements and practices are set out in clause 90v and cover dual rate contracts, deferred rebates, freight cutting with the object of damaging the business of another shipowner, the use of a fighting ship to forestall another shipowner in the obtaining of cargoes and retaliatory action against shippers who do not give exclusive patronage.

Clause 90x provides for references to the Trade Practices Tribunal under Part Xa to be made by the Minister. Clause 90y provides that the Minister is not to refer a matter to the Tribunal unless he has first endeavoured to carry on consultations with the parties, wilh a view to securing an undertaking or action that will render the proposed reference unnecessary. Clause 90za makes provision for the Tribunal to receive undertakings and for the Minister to withdraw a reference upon the basis of such an undertaking.

Clause 90zb provides for reports of the Tribunal to become public within 60 days after they have been received by the Minister or, if earlier action is taken by the Governor-General on the basis of the report, immediately after that action has been taken. Clause 90zc provides that prosecution proceedings under Part Xa cannot be instituted except with the written consent of the Minister. Clause 90ze ensures that the rights of persons who are not in breach of the legislation are not affected by illegal conduct by other persons. Division 6 provides a civil right of action to recover loss or damage resulting from a contravention of Part Xa. Jurisdiction to deal with such matters is vested in the Commonwealth Industrial Court. I recommend the Bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by SenatorMurphy) adjourned.

page 67

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION BILL 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on’ motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the International Finance Corporation Act 1955-1963 to take account of recent amendments to the Articles of Agreement for the International Finance Corporation, otherwise known as the I.F.C., enabling the Corporation to supplement its existing resources by borrowing from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, commonly called the I.B.R.D.

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development was established in 1945 to assist in overcoming postwar economic problems. Apart from loans to assist with the reconstruction of various European countries during its first two years of operation, the Bank’s major function has been to assist in financing the economic development of member countries. Thus, most of its loans have been for basic public facilities such as power, transport, heavy industry and irrigation - the foundations of economic growth. By 3 1st December 1965 the Bank had made loans amounting to $US9,519 million to 59 member countries.

Parliamentary approval of Australian membership of the I.B.R.D. is embodied in the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947-1963. Australia’s subscription to the Bank amounts to$US533 million, but only 10 per cent. of this sum is payable; the balance remains subject to call. In return for the$US53.3 million, which Australia has subscribed to the capital stock of the Bank, we have been able to borrow more than $US400 million from the Bank to help finance our own economic development.

Although the Bank has been largely concerned with providing finance for the public sector, it has always been aware of the need for growth in the private sector also. Thus a great many of the Bank’s loans are designed, either directly or indirectly, to stimulate private investment, especially in the less developed countries. However, direct Bank lending to the private sector has been inhibited by the provision in the Articles of Agreement for the I.B.R.D. requiring government guarantees for such loans. This requirement has severely restricted lending by the Bank to private industry because, on the one hand, private enterprises are often reluctant to seek government guarantees for the repayment of Bank loans and, on the other hand, governments often find it politically or constitutionally difficult to give such guarantees.

To overcome this difficulty, the Bank initially sought to promote the establishment of local development finance companies and to use these as intermediaries for lending to private industry in the countries concerned, thereby avoiding the problems inherent in government guarantees. Subsequently, the Bank sponsored the establishment of the International Finance Corporation in 1955.

The I.F.C. is an affiliate of the I.B.R.D., and its primary function is to help promote the economic development of member countries by stimulating and encouraging the growth of private industry. This the Corporation does by investing, without government guarantees, in selected private enterprises both by way of loans and direct equity participations. The Corporation usually operates in conjunction with other private investors, acting to some extent as a catalyst in this field. Australia, which is a foundation member of the I.F.C. has subscribed $1,996,000 to its capital stock. By 31st December 1965 the Corporation had made investments amounting to$US131 million in 34 countries, including two investments in Australia totalling $US975,000.

Notwithstanding these various developments, the Executive Directors of the I.B.R.D. concluded after further review of the problem, that there still remained a need for increased assistance to private borrowers that neither the local development finance companies nor theI.F.C, with its existing resources, could satisfy.

In. subsequent discussions as to the most desirable and effective way for the Bank to remedy this situation two possible approaches to the problem were considered. One alternative was for the Bank itself, with its much larger resources, to take over the role of making loans direct to private enterprises without government guarantees. The second alternative was for the Bank to make some of its resources available to the International Finance Corporation which, asI have already mentioned, was brought into existence specifically to supplement the activities of the Bank by investing without government guarantee in productive private enterprises. Both courses of action required amendment of the Articles of Agreement for the I.B.R.D. The second alternative also required amendment of the Articles of Agreement for the I.F.C. In the event, the President of the I.B.R.D. concluded that the second alternative was preferable and the Executive Directors of the Bank and the Board of Directors of the I.F.C. agreed with this view.

At the annual meeting of the World Bank group held in Tokyo in September 1964, the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Corporation adopted resolutions put forward by the respective Boards of Directors proposing that the Articles of Agreement for the two organisations be amended to permit the Bank to make loans to the Corporation.

As to the Articles of Agreement for the Bank, it was proposed that a new section 6 entitled “Loans to the International Finance Corporation “ be added to Article III, as follows: - “Section 6(a). The Bank may make, participate in, or guarantee loans to the international Finance Corporation, an affiliate of the Bank, for use in its lending operations. The total amount outstanding of such loans participations and guarantees shall not be increased if, at the time or as a result thereof, the aggregate amount of debt (including the guarantee of any debt) incurred by the said Corporation from any source and then outstanding shall exceed an amount equal to four times its unimpaired subscribed capital and surplus. (b). The provisions of Article HI, Sections 4 and 5(c) and of Article IV, Section 3 shall not apply to loans, participations and guarantees authorised by this section.”

In regard to the I.F.C, it was proposed that the Articles of Agreement be amended as follows -

  1. By deleting from Section 6 of Article IV the second sentence which read: “ The Corporation shall not lend to or borrow from the Bank “.
  2. By adding to Article III, Section 6(i) a sentence reading as follows: “ If and so long as the Corporation shall be indebted on loans from or guaranteed by the Bank, the total amount outstanding of borrowings incurred or guarantees given by the Corporation shall not be increased if, at the time or as a result thereof, the aggregate amount of debt (including the guarantee of any debt) incurred by the Corporation from any source and then outstanding shall exceed an amount equal to four times its unimpaired subscribed capital and surplus;”

These proposals received overwhelming support from the Governors of both organisations. The amendments to the Corporation’s Articles of Agreement entered into force on 1st September 1965. and the amendments to the Articles of Agreement for the Bank on 17th December 1965. Australia voted in favour of these amendments.

As the I.F.C. ‘s subscribed capital and surplus currently amount to roughly $US100 million, the resources of that institution can now be augmented by approximately $US400 million, by way of borrowing from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, for use in loans to private enterprises in member countries. The International Finance Corporation Act 1955-1963 approves Australian membership of the I.F.C. and the Articles of Agreement for this institution are set out in the

Schedules to this Act. The purpose of th Bill is to ensure that the Schedules to this Act reproduce the Articles of Agreement for the Corporation as recently amended. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 69

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY AGREEMENTS BILL 1966

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In my preceding speech on the International Finance Corporation Bill 1966, 1 gave a brief account of developments leading up to the actions which were taken during 1965 to amend the Articles of Agreement for both the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation, and I do not propose to traverse the same ground again with respect to this Bill.

The International Monetary Agreements Act 1947-1963 approves Australian membership of the I.B.R.D. and the Articles of Agreement for this institution are set out in a Schedule to that Act. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the Schedules to that Act reproduce the Articles of Agreement for the I.B.R.D. as recently amended.

I commend this Bill to honorable senators and, subject to their concurrence, suggest that it and the associated International Finance Corporation Bill 1966 might be considered conjointly during subsequent stages of their passage through the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 69

TRIBUTE TO RETIRING LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Supply · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - I feel that the retirement of Senator McKenna as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate cannot pass unnoticed. For more than 15 years

Senator McKenna, who has been succeeded as Leader of the Opposition by Senator Willesee, has sat opposite to the Leader of the Government in this chamber. He has been a courteous, able and worthy Leader of the Opposition and one for whom we on this side of the chamber have always had respect. Before his appointment as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator McKenna was Deputy Leader for 21/2 years. That period began with the time the Liberal-Country Party coalition came into power. Before that, Senator McKenna had been Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate from 1st November 1946 to 10th December 1949.

I have a particular and personal association with Senator McKenna because both of us represent Tasmania and both have stood for the Senate always at the same elections. I could never quite understand this fully, but it is a fact that (he people of Tasmania have held Senator McKenna in such high esteem that he has always gained by far the highest vote in the elections no matter what candidates opposed him. During my long association with Senator McKenna in election campaigns and on the hustings, I have been able to match him only once. I recall that we had to address a large gathering of the Associated Apex Clubs at New Norfolk and we agreed that on that occasion we should not be political. We tossed up to see who would speak first and I was lucky enough to win the toss. So I proceeded to deliver a speech on finance which Senator McKenna had given in the Senate a few weeks earlier. I did this because I largely agreed with it, and I did not attribute it to its source. I shall never forget the President of Apex saying after Senator McKenna had spoken that never before had he heard one politician agree with another so often and in so many ways. That is the only time I think I ever came near to matching the sagacity of Senator McKenna.

Senator McKenna first took his place as a senator representing Tasmania in July 1944. Two years later he entered the Ministry of the Chifley Government as Minister for Health and Social Services. During the remaining years of that Administration he was also at various times Acting Treasurer, Acting Attorney-General and Acting Minister for the Interior. Since moving to the Opposition front bench, Senator McKenna has served on several committees. He was Chairman of the Select Committee on the Constitution Alteration (Avoidance of Double Disolution Deadlocks) Bill 1950 and National Service in the Defence Force, 1950-1.

Senator McKenna was born at Carlton in Victoria and it is only fair to inform the Senate that he spent a good deal of his childhood in Pentridge gaol. His father was Governor of the gaol. This experience may or may not have had some effect on his choice of a career. After first joining the Commonwealth Audit Office in 1912, Senator McKenna qualified as an accountant. He practised in Townsville for two or three years and a fellow accountant there was Artie Fadden, later Sir Arthur Fadden and Commonwealth Treasurer. Senator McKenna returned to Melbourne to study law and while practising as an accountant, he qualified and was admitted to the Bar as a barrister in 1928. The following year he went to Hobart to join in practice Mr. A. G. Ogilvie who was to become Premier of Tasmania. He continued his law practice until he entered the Senate.

Senator McKenna has served the Senate well for 22 years. As Minister, he acquitted himself with distinction and he continued to do so in Opposition. His wide knowledge and application of the Senate Standing Orders have become a byword during his service in the Senate. He has upheld the dignity of the Senate and has always appreciated fully the value of this chamber in our parliamentary democracy.

Senator McKenna will be greatly missed from the seat opposite which he occupied as Leader of the Opposition. 1 know I speak for all my colleagues in the Senate when I wish him the good health and happiness which stems from a task well done.

Senator WILLESEE:
Leader of the Opposition · Western Australia

– by leave - Nobody could listen to a speech such as that delivered by the Leader of the Government in !he Senate (Senator Henty) and think back over the years we have been here with Senator McKenna without a sense of humility. This applies particularly to me as I have been chosen to try to emulate Senator McKenna in one section of the duties he has performed. We admire the work he has done for the Australian Labour Party in a parliamentary sense as well as in a party sense. 1 realise that I have not only to sit at his place at this table but also to attempt to emulate his deeds in the Party. As Senator Henty has pointed out, his services here were preceded by a unique record; first in the Commonwealth Public Service, next in accounting, and next in law, before he finally came to serve in this Parliament. A quick glimpse at his service here shows that he held the portfolios of Health, Social Services, Treasury, Attorney-General and Interior. In that service he established a tremendous reputation and record. Mention has been made of his chairmanship of some committees in 1950. I thought that after the 1951 election we would never have heard any more about those committees, but I am glad to hear their being mentioned today. Mention was also made of being in his father’s care in Pentridge Gaol. I can remember many times when the Government would have very much liked to have put him back there but was never able to do so.

Senator McKenna came to this Parliament on 1st July 1944 and it is interesting to see how long he has been in leadership. On 1st November 1946 he moved in as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. Since that time he has not been out of deputy leadership or leadership when the Labour Party has either been in Government or Opposition. In addition, as we all know, to honorable senators on both sides of the chamber, quite apart from his official duties, he has been guide philosopher and friend, irrespective of party. His sense of duty is well known. His application to duty - in other words, to plain hard work - has been legendary.

Senator Hannaford:

– And quite phenomenal.

Senator WILLESEE:

– That is so. I was always told as a young man that things would be difficult for me if I tried to follow Old Nick. I realise now how difficult it will be for me to follow this particular Old Nick. The final judgment, when Senator McKenna looks back over his life, will rest with himself. All of us in politics at times meet with people in success, and more frequently with people in defeat - people who have been removed from politics. They look back and wonder whether they have done the right thing. I think the only yardstick we can measure ourselves against - and I am sure that Senator McKenna will do this with his clear, concise and incisive mind - is whether at a particular time what we did was right under the circumstances of that time, lt is always very easy to have hindsight and to say that we should have done this, that we were wrong in doing that or that we failed because of this or that. Provided we face up courageously to all the circumstances of the day and then make our decisions, I think any one of us - and Senator McKenna can certainly do this - can look back over the years and say: “ I did what was right at the time under those circumstances.”

Senator McKenna has enjoyed very good health, and that is the main thing we wish him in his retirement. We know he will always have an active mind, however his bodily health might be. To Nick I say: We of the Labour Party and everybody here hope that you will look back with some fondness on the days you have had here; but above all, we wish you good health in the future.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– by leave - 1 would like to express on behalf of the Australian Country Party my admiration for the retiring Leader of the Opposition iti the Senate (Senator McKenna). As an individual. I believe T owe a lot to Senator McKenna in this chamber. 1 came here in 1959 and was here for a very short time indeed before I conceived a very great admiration for Senator McKenna and his skill as an outstanding debater. We would all agree that he is one of the outstanding debaters in this chamber. I have never heard him act in any way but courteously. [ do not think I have ever heard him interject. 1 have always felt, Mr. President, that new members could not do better than use Senator McKenna as a model for their own conduct in this Parliament.

Mention has been made of Senator McKenna’s application to duty. We all know what a tireless worker he was as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and what a thorn he has been in the side of the Government, at any rate, over the period that I have been here. Of course, that was his job. It is a matter of great regret to all of us that for quite a few years now Senator McKenna has had the burden and sorrow of a sick wife. His experience and his knowledge of the Standing Orders are such that they had to be experienced to be appreciated.

I would like to take this opportunity of expressing, even at this late stage, my appreciation of the assistance Senator McKenna rendered to me when I was Deputy President and Chairman of Committees. He could have made my task very much harder. Instead of doing that, I found him. to the contrary, helpful whenever he could help. All of us on this side of the chamber who represent the Country Party, without any qualification at all wish that Senator McKenna’s retirement from leadership will mean - and we know that it will mean - that he will have far less arduous tasks to perform in the future. We hope that his retirement, to a degree at any rate, from hard work will benefit him very much in health. Those of us who have studied him over the last two or three years ‘have realised - indeed, he has confessed as much to me - that he has been feeling the strain more than in the past. This is natural, particularly for a man who has worked as hard as he has worked. We wish Senator McKenna well and hope he will enjoy his retirement from the position of Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– by leave - Knowing the reluctance of Senator McKenna to be the subject of eulogies of the nature we have heard, I hesitate to embarrass him on this occasion when he is stepping down from leadership of the Opposition in the Senate to a back bench in preparation for his eventual retirement in 1968. However, I am sure that, with his sense of history and of the need to keep the record straight, he will forgive me. He realises that the printed word lasts longer than the spoken or unspoken word. For the record, for my own satisfaction and I am sure for that of my colleagues on this side of mp House, we wish to be associated with those speakers who have paid such elegant tributes this afternoon to Senator McKenna.

Nick McKenna has been and is a great Australian. Over the long years ‘he has been a staunch and unswerving member of the

Australian Labour Party, which he has served very well. He has been a most worthy representative of Tasmania in the Commonwealth Parliament. His meritorious record was referred to earlier by Senator Henty, Senator Willesee, and Senator McKellar. The width and scope of his interests have also been referred to, extending from his skill as a sportsman, accountant and lawyer to his career as a senator and Minister of the Crown. Above all. he has always been a gentleman in the truest sense of the word - a gentle man. I have been inspired by his ability to present a case or to sort out a problem; by his ability to marshal the facts and by the accuracy of the detail with which he expresses himself. He has shown a great self-discipline which has come, not only from his nature, but from the preparation that he had in his study of accountancy and the law for the tasks to which he eventually dedicated himself in the Commonwealth Parliament.

I have always been impressed by his great loyalty. He has been a very loyal colleague to us all. Each one of us knows of his generosity in the giving of his time and his advice whenever they were sought. He could be described as a very wise counsellor. He has been recognised as an asset to the Senate in its debating, its administration, its decorum, its dignity and in its usefulness generally. The Senate has been a richer place for his presence.

I wish my good friend Nick McKenna many years of good health for recreation and the enjoyment of so many of the rewards he has denied himself through his dedication to his work in- the Senate. His good wife and family will have added reason to be proud of him as a husband and a father when they know that on stepping down from his position of leadership to the back bench in preparation for his retirement in 1968, he has the full respect and affection of his colleagues on both sides of this National Parliament.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– by leave - Senator Gair, my leader, was kind enough to suggest that I should speak on behalf of the Australian Democratic Labour Party on the retirement of Senator McKenna as Leader of the Opposition in this place. He did so because I have known Senator McKenna for almost 50 years, first of all as a distinguished old boy of St. Joseph’s College, North Melbourne, which both he and I attended. Incidentally, Mr. Calwell also attended that school and I sometimes think that it is interesting lo reflect on that point when we read on occasions references to independent schools turning out everyone in the same mould and with exactly the same ideas. Later I knew Senator McKenna as a very distinguished member of the Australian Labour Party. When I. became a senator I admired him as the leader of his Party because he led it in accordance with its best traditions. I knew his late father who, in his 80’s, was playing a leading part in a very severe fight in the Coburg area of Melbourne to prevent infiltration by the Communist Party into the local branch of the Labour Party. Senator McKenna inherited his father’s fighting spirit and I hope that he will live as long as his father who passed away in his 90’s.

I always appreciated the manner in which he treated us. His views differed strongly from ours but he never allowed political differences to develop into personal antipathies. I always felt that as the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate he exemplified its best traditions. I wish him every happiness and long life in his retirement.

Senator MATTNER (South Australia).by leave - As one of the remaining four senators who have known Senator McKenna since he became a senator in 1944 1 want to say “thank you” to him for his work in this chamber. He has displayed two great virtues. The first is his correct parliamentary behaviour and demeanour in debate. Each and every one of us could well emulate him in that respect. Secondly, he achieved his aims because he always allowed his opponent to believe that he was having his own way. I wish good health to a great Australian and a distinguished senator who has always upheld the honour of the Senate.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– by leave- As the veteran of the Australian Labour Party in this Senate and, with Senator Sir Walter Cooper, the only other senator who was present in this place before Senator McKenna’s arrival, I want to say how much the Senate owes to Senator McKenna for all he has done over, the years. In the short time at my disposal I. do not intend to repeat what has been so well said by previous speakers but there is one debt which I. think the Australian community as a whole owes to Senator McKenna and to which very little service has been paid. The first bill he piloted through this chamber as a Minister was the bill which created the Australian National University. That will always remain as a monument Vo him and his work.

I am rather pleased that these tributes are being paid to Senator McKenna now despite the embarrassment they may cause him. I am pleased that he is here to be embarrassed by them. Generally these things are said only after a person has passed away. It is wonderful that he can know how much people on both sides of the chamber and from all parties appreciate what he has done in this National Parliament over the years.

I join with other honorable senators in thanking him for the great personal help he has been to me in the Senate and for his many acts of kindness. 1 join other honorable senators in wishing him a great deal of happiness with his colleagues in his remaining years as a senator and, finally, a long and happy retirement with the return to health of the members of his family so that he will be able to enjoy the many years for which we hope God will spare him.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

– by leave - I feel the need to defend myself against all the things which have been said against me. Let me begin, Mr. President, by saying that one of my very pleasant recollections will be that the last speech I made in my capacity as Leader of the Opposition was directed as a tribute to you for your achieving a record length of service in your most distinguished office.

It was very kind of the Leader of the Government (Senator Henty) to propose to the Senate that it should address itself to the matter of my retirement, and it was generous of all honorable senators to concur in that proposal. I thank very sincerely all those who have spoken. I shall, of course, treasure all the thoughts that have been uttered, realising that they have been spoken from the heart. I merely comment that I think honorable senators have been over-generous in their references to me. My record appears to be more varied and lengthy than even I had thought.

I should like to congratulate Senator Willesee upon succeeding me to the very onerous office he now occupies. I wish him well. I shall be happy to give him all the support of which I am capable. My retirement is due, of course, to the mere passage of time, the enemy that none of us can withstand for very long and the enemy that is the inevitable victor. I think, in hindsight, the Senate will see that I have been preparing for this occasion for quite a long period. During the past three years 1 have been handing opportunities for experience to those on my side who wanted it, realising that it was my duty to train a successor. I had hoped that one leader would emerge automatically. I was very embarrassed when the treatment I had been handing out resulted in about half a dozen promising colts coming good at the one time when I had only one race in which to enter them. So I add commiserations to the candidates who missed. They were worthy; they were deserving. I would have been happy to serve in the future under any one of them but of course only one could win the race.

Twenty years of work at a high level in the Parliament is its own reward. I do not know any more satisfying thing in life than to carry out the important work of serving others to the best of one’s ability. That service has been enriched in the past 22 years by association with distinguished Labour men of the calibre of Scullin, Curtin, Chifley, Forde, Evatt and now Mr. Calwell, the present Leader of the Opposition. It has been a rich experience in personal associations with men and women of both sides of politics.

I take a few moments, first, to thank the Tasmanian people who have given me the opportunity of such a rich experience for so very long. I have been proud to hold as their representative the important offices that were assigned to me in my Party and in the Parliament itself. I thank my own Party for its continued support of me in election after election down all that period. Above all, I thank my own Senate team - the members, in particular, who are present here - for their loyalty, hard work and support of me, and their tolerance of me down the whole of the period. Throughout the last 1 5 years I have had only two Deputy Leaders - Senator Armstrong, whom you will remember, and Senator Kennelly. I am deeply indebted to them both for their loyalty and their help throughout the years, and above all for the friendship and the mateship that they have extended to me. I must make mention, too, of the Whips that we have had down the period, again only three - Senator Critchley, Senator O’Flaherty and Senator Justin O’Byrne, my colleague from Tasmania - every one of them a very stout trooper and a most magnificent aide.

I should like to thank the Government Leaders and members of the Government Parlies for the consideration and courtesies that invariably they have extended to me throughout the whole period. 1 remember with respect and great regard the Leaders of the Government who sat opposite me - Senator Sir Neil O’Sullivan, Senator Sir William Spooner, Senator Sir Shane Paltridge, and now my fellow Tasmanian representative, Senator Henty.

It gives me pride to point out today to the Senate how strongly the smaller States are represented in this chamber: Senator Henty from Tasmania, the littlest of all the States, the Leader of the Government; the Government Whip, Senator Scott from Western Australia; the Leader of the. Opposition from Western Australia; the Opposition Whip, and the Deputy Whip as well, from Tasmania. So the small States are really having a disproportionate say in the conduct of affairs in the Senate, and it is a healthy thing to be able to state that the size of population of a State has nothing to do with the positions that may be attained in this Parliament, and above all in this chamber.

I should like to thank, in particular, Senator Magnus Cormack who, learning through the President that I was hoping to get a room adjacent to the Senate chamber, most generously surrendered his own room instantly. Above all - I leave them towards the end - I want to thank the members of my own small but most efficient staff who have given me the most enormous service down all the years and without whose loyalty and ready work and over work I certainly would not have been able to function adequately, if in fact I could have functioned at all.

So we come to the stage where, facing the inevitability of events, 1 can claim: Mission accomplished. Ilook forward to the next phase of my political career, which

I shall embark upon with all of the zest that I can summon. I leave behind me here a team on the Opposition benches that I say without doubt is the best team that the Australian Labour Party has ever put into the chamber. It is rich in talent, it is rich in experience, and it will give a very good account of the Party it. represents down the years that lie ahead.I have no misgivings about the future strength of debates in this chamber as I step down to a lower rung.

I feel amply rewarded. Mr. President, if I have, as some of the speakers have said, made any real contribution to the dignity and prestige of this chamber, then that loo is cream upon the reward of all of the work and all of the satisfactionI have got out of doing my best for such a very long period. I thank you for all your good wishes to myself and my family. I leave gladly and happily becauseI think the time has come, and Ilook forward in the next two years to getting to know everybody in theSenate very much better personally. I shall have a great deal more time. Leadership involves a certain degree of loneliness. There are decisions to be made that one has to make and make alone and stand by. and for other considerations attaching to the position one leads a rather lonely life. I am looking forward very particularly to correcting that position down the next two years.

Sitting suspended from 6.6 to 8 p.m.

page 74

QUESTION

BUDGET 1966-67

Debate resumed from 16th August (vide page 20), on motion by Senator Henty -

That the Senate take note of the following papers -

Civil Works Programme 1966-67.

Commonwealth Payments to or for the States, 1966-67.

Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the Year Ending30th June, 1967. Expenditure -

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service Of the Year Ending 30th June, 1967.

Particulars of Proposed Provision for Certain Expenditure in respect of the Year Ending 30th June, 1967.

Government Securities on Issue at 30th June, 1966.

Income Tax Statistics.

National Income and Expenditure, 1965-66.

Senator WILLESEE:
Leader of the Opposition · Western Australia

– Mr. President, to the motion - “ That the Senate take note of the following papers “,

I move as an amendment -

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof - “ the Senate condemns the Budget because -

It fails to recognise the injustices wrought upon wage earners because real wages have fallen as prices have risen faster than wages.

It makes inadequate adjustments to Social Service payments.

It fails to recognise the serious crisis in education.

It does not acknowledge the lack of confidence on the part of the business community in the future growth of the economy.

It does not recognise the need of further basic development, public and private, in addition to the need for adequate defence, and that balanced development can only take place by active encouragement to Australian industry and cooperation with the States.

It does nothing to relieve our dependence on a high rate of foreign investment to finance the deficit in our balance of payments.”

I will be dealing with only some of the six headings that 1 have given but, before this debate is out - . I understand we will proceed with it tomorrow and in the following weeks - my colleagues will certainly be covering the whole six of them. This Budget has attracted from imaginative people more names than any other budget 1 can remember. Some that come to mind are “Keep cool Budget”, “Banal Budget”, “Stay Put Budget”, “Timid Budget “, and “ Half Speed Ahead Budget “. Although I was not imaginative enough to think of names such as that while we listened to the Budget in the Senate last Tuesday evening . 1 noticed, even while it was being read, the vagueness of the verbiage and the generalisations that were rampant throughout it. When I had time to read it word for word, J saw clearly that it would do nothing to inspire the business sector which has been so worried for such a long period of time. Above all, it lacks evidence of the leadership which this Government should be giving to the community today.

I shall quote some of the words of the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) to demonstrate how vague and how general they are and what a lack of leadership is shown throughout his speech. Early in the document he said -

Given good fortune with the weather over the next few months it is expected that total farm output will rise.

We see a big proviso there. Further on he said -

Looking to the future, the level of activity and hence of output depends very much on the trend and strength of the domestic demand.

He also used phrases such as “difficult to access “, “ speaking generally “, and “ in the broad “. Is it any wonder that this Budget has attracted so many names and that people who had been waiting anxiously for leadership from the Government and who knew little about the economy before the Treasurer’s speech, knew even less after he had made it? In the whole of his introductory remarks he made only one definite statement. He said -

The effect of the Commonwealth Budget will be expansionary, as I shall show later and will affect many avenues of demand, including consumption.

He used the words “ as I shall show later “, but he did not put a period of time on his promise. He did not say how much later and we Shall have to wait and see. Neither in his speech nor in the monetary measures he introduced was there anything to indicate expansion. There was nothing to clear away the apprehension that is in the air. There was nothing to give the clear lead that the business community had been waiting for for so long.

If one glances through some of the papers attached to the Budget one sees some pretty alarming figures, which were well known to the Treasurer. We see thatthe gross national product rose by 4.5 per cent. last year as against 9 per cent. in the previous year; fixed capital expenditure rose by 8 per cent. as against 16 per cent. in the previous year; personal consumption rose by 5 per cent. as against 8 per cent. in the previous year and expenditure on business vehicles, plant and machinery rose by 9 per cent. as against 18 per cent. in the previous year. The Government knew all this. These figures have been taken from its own papers and they indisputably show that instead of making the bald statement that the Budget will be expansionary, the Treasurer should have done something definite to give a fillip to the economy. Very little is done by the Budget and 1 will deal with the things it does do in a moment or two. lt is very obvious that the Government is not relying on. the monetary measures announced in the Budget for the expansion that the Treasurer talks about, lt is relying on other things. It is relying obviously on the basic wage - something with which it had nothing to do. I do not remember any occasion on which this Government supported a basic wage increase, but I have vivid memories of its sending advocates into the court to do just the opposite.

Coming now to farm incomes, we are told that providing that the rain gauge shows a satisfactory result we shall be all right. So the Government is depending on the weather. Then we have the pensions rise, which is largely a rescue operation anyway, and the increase in defence expenditure, much of which will be spent outside Australia. A rise in the basic wage is always, fundamentally, a rescue operation, because it never anticipates rising prices. It merely attempts to make good the leeway by which the workers’ wages have fallen behind over the period of time under review. Yet the Government relies on this as an expansionary factor. Incidentally I notice that it has dropped the word “ inflationary “ in this election year. Soon after the Government came to office in 1950 it dropped its cry that it would put value back into the pound. Allegedly to prevent wage increases passing into the price structure it ended automatic adjustments of the basic wage. It has never done anything to raise wages yet it is claiming the most recent increase as a factor in expanding the economy.

What happens in the business world today? I do not exclude Government business from this. When the basic wage is increased, there is a mere arithmetical calculation made of how much the increase will cost the particular business and an appropriate amount is added to the price of the product. The attitude is “ we are square again “. The. increase is handed on provided the market can bear it - in an expanding economy it can generally bear it - but somewhere along the line somebody feels the pinch. A very definite lead should be given by the Government. It should move in and stop this mere arithmetical calculation being made and the wage increase being automatically passed into the economy.

The Government should encourage business to do something to absorb rising costs by means of added efficiency and by the use of the new machines that we have on hand today. Purchase of new machines - I am speaking of rural industries as well - could be encouraged by offering taxation deductions. We are standing on the edge of one of the greatest revolutions in history. We are moving into the age of automation in which computers will take over the work of human beings. In that way, with a proper and intelligent inquiry on the part of the Government and the placing of its resources behind those concerned, wage increases could be prevented from automatically going straight into the cost structure.

But the Government has shown a complete reluctance and, in fact, has refused to put even one tentative foot forward to do anything about it. One of the things that we hare faced continually under LiberalCountry Party Government since 1950 is the ever increasing price spiral. The Government has made no attempt to move into this very well known field of our arbitration system. High profits, with no limit on them, continue to be made. The Government has made no attempt to grapple with this fundamental problem. The recent basic wage increase will be eaten away in a dozen different ways. It will not provide the expansion on which the Government is relying.

Turning to farm income, we have had a tremendously bad drought on this side of the continent. Thank heavens, last year was a record year in the wheat fields on the western side of the continent. The Treasurer exhorts us to keep our eye on the rain gauge to see what is going to happen, but I imagine that no farmer, unless he is a very wealthy one, will use the money he receives from his next crop or from his next sale of sheep to pay off debts. Instead, he will restock and do the things that have to be done as a result of drought. I think that if the. Government intends to rely on farm income to provide expansion, it could well have another look at the situation. It is to be hoped that the weather, which is like the sword of Damocles, treats us as kindly as the Treasurer hopes it will.

I will not go fully into the question of pensions because on my side there are people who are just walking encyclopaedias on the question of social services. They know far more about that subject than I have been able to grasp. This limited pensions increase, with a very narrow basis, is another rescue operation to try to compensate the pensioners for the loss of purchasing power they have suffered in the price spiral since the last increase in pensions was made. After all, F do not think that even the optimistic Treasurer would say that pensioners will cause a tremendous amount of expansion or create a great demand for the goods that are lying in the shops today. 1 turn to the question of defence because this is one area in which a considerable amount of money will be spent this year compared with last year. There will be an increase of 34 per cent, on last year’s defence expenditure. My mind goes back to the many debates that we have had on defence, even in the palmy days. The amount of SI. 000 million which the Government will spend on defence this year is 2i times what was spent on defence in the late 1950’s, when year after year we used to see provision made in the Budget for the expenditure of $400 million on defence. In those days the Labour Party attacked the Government and asked it to provide some sort of a balance sheet setting out defence expenditure. Year after year we wanted to know where the $400 million was going and we implored the Government to put some form of developmental content into the defence programme. On the first count we got no satisfaction at all, and on the second we got the usual horse laughs. Government supporters asked “ What good can a road, or a port, or an air strip do in relation to defence?” Of course, those things are as basic to defence as anything else.

This happened during seven years of plenty. They were the days when we were having record crops, when droughts were almost lost sight of, and when there was no heavy commitment on defence projects because we did not have the troubles in the South East Asian areas that we have today. At that time the Government had a golden opportunity to put this money into developmental projects, as the Labour Party wanted it to do. In that way the Government would have been killing two birds with the one stone, lt would have been able to build up a decent defence and at the same time it would have been doing something for northern development from which the Government shies away. They were seven years of plenty. Today, $1,000 million is being spent on defence. So when we look back over the Government’s 16 years in office, the only epitaph we can write for the Government’s defence effort is that it has been a period of lost opportunities.

The amount of $1,000 million is being spent on defence today, but the burden of defence is being carried by a lonely few. I do not want to get off the track, but the money is being spent, not on defence projects, but where young Australians are sacrificing their lives. Many of them will carry the scars as long as they are on this earth. While these young Australians are dying in other parts of the world, not one of us in this chamber and not one person listening to the broadcast tonight has to put his hand into his pocket in order to contribute a 10 cent piece to this effort. This is the story of the “ first of the few “ being written all over again. I do not intend to pursue this course because I want to follow the Budget through. I know very well that we will have ample opportunity to examine this facet of Government policy before the Parliament rises for the election. But I ask honorable senators to remember that the $1,000 million being spent today is being spent on a lonely few Australians and the rest of us are getting off scot free.

The reference in the Budget to sales tax was an amusing one, if it is possible to be lighthearted about anything in the Budget. Why did the imaginative mind of the Treasurer select the items of electric fans and air conditioning units? The sales tax on these items will be reduced from I2i per cent to 2h . per cent. But here again I see evidence of the attitude which has been adopted in the Budget. The Government knows the problems. Its advisers are not fools. In fact, it has top advisers who can put these figures and problems before it.

The Government looked at this item. It realised that electric fans and air conditioners are no longer a necessity in the community today, lt said: “ Yes, we should reduce the sales tax on this item”. Why the Government wants to retain 2i per cent, sales tax on this item is beyond me. All that it will do is aggravate people. In the north of Western Australia we will build more homes in the next two or three years than we have built in the last 100 years of our development. The one thing that will make these homes habitable is the installation of air conditioning units. There is no way in which one can get away from the heat in the tropics. Heat is one thing that we will always have with us.

Development does not mean making grandiose speeches about the Ord River project, our great potential and what we are going to do, and then backing away from it. That, is not what the people who live north of the 26th parallel want. They want the normal things that we take for granted in the south, strati as air conditioning units. After all, a woman spends most of the day in the home looking after her children, cooking meals, getting her husband away to work and so on. Air conditioning equipment is one of the most basic things that could be imagined in these areas. I know this from my experience. I spent much of my life in these areas with my parents. My mother was born there and spent many years of her life there.

When you are thinking of going to live in those areas, you do not think of the money you are going to make there; but rather whether your children will have schooling opportunities, whether transport will be available and whether your wife and children will be able to enjoy some of the comforts that people have in the south. When the Government begins to adopt this sort of approach to northern development, it will be getting down to the grass roots of the problem, lt will always be hot in the tropics. The revenue received from sales tax on air conditioners cannot amount to a great deal of money in the Commonwealth’s coffers.

  1. turn to the question of education. Again the Budget is not without some humour, because under the heading “ Education “ it begins with the sentence -

Immigration increases the number of our people.

Is not that a profound statement? I do not know what else immigration is expected to do. Apparently it is thought the message did not get home, because it continues -

Higher standards of education help to raise the quality of our people as citizens and as contributors to the work and life of the community.

Well, if it does not then I do not know what all the fuss and bother about education is for. I mention this subject, Mr. President, for two reasons. One reason is to make an appeal to the Treasurer, for goodness sake, to cut out this gobbledegook - I think that is the American word. Language of that type should never be in a Budget or any other document in a national parliament. Language of that type would be better in a kindergarten. The second point is that I wonder when I look at the education vote whether the Government’s thinking, has got very far beyond those two sentences, because the increase on this occasion is to be $30 million. There is one thing about decimal currency; it always sounds twice as much. Last year the figure would have been £15 million.

Let me say, with respect to both sides, that there is no person who has not given thought to education because of the tremendous crisis that we know we are going through. We know this because of the increased technological demands and other demands that we have on education. I would suggest that this sum of S30 million will provide, on our present standards, only for the increased number of people who will be demanding education this year. I refer to the extra numbers of immigrants and the additional children going to school. This vote will not do anything to attack the crisis in education; and there is a crisis in education, both in public and private schools. The demand for teachers and other requirements of schooling is developing into a crisis - and developing very rapidly. The Government by this expenditure is doing nothing to move into the new subjects, the technological subjects and others despite the warnings we get from the great educators in Australia about these new subjects and new approaches which have to be made in education. Above all, Mr. President, the expenditure will do nothing towards looking ahead for the teachers. When I use the word “ teachers “ I do not mean school teachers. I mean people in technical trades, whether they be In the professions, the field of telecommunications, technicians or artisans. I say that because such people will be required, if anybody has half an eye, to teach in the Asian countries in a very few years to come. We are doing nothing about this today. The sooner we can get the Australians out of the South East Asian areas, get their uniforms off them and replace those uniforms with the mortar board of the university and the overalls of the technician and put them back into South East Asia, the sooner we will be doing something for Australia and the Pacific area generally and the uplift of its people. The Government will not do this unless it looks forward and educates these people in the near future. I do not want to mention the countries concerned by name but surely the Government can see them developing, can see the demands and see what is going to be required. _

We are in a peculiar position in the Pacific area in that we are the educated country. We are the country which for generations has had compulsory education for our children running in our veins. No person in Australia believes that children should not have to go to school and the law of every Slate Government demands that (hey do so. Therefore this is the one thing that we can contribute to the uplift of these people. We can educate these people. We can teach them to use the very rich products that they have in some of their own countries. They have to be educated and our people should do it. Not one bit of imagination is indicated by the figure of $30 million to provide for expansion of education this year.

Referring to external aid, I was going to be very hot under the collar about this subject until today when the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) read the speech on external affairs on behalf of the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck). I saw in it quite a positive paragraph as to how Australia is watching developments in Indonesia and is standing by ready to help. I do not want to be unfair, so I do not intend to pursue the notes I prepared on external aid. 1 intended to be pretty critical on the subject. If we can accept the words of the Government as set out in the speech this afternoon, let me pay the Government this tribute: I will take it at its word and we will see what happens. I do want to say that it is not sufficient, and it is not a true yard stick, to say, on the question of external aid, that Australia now ranks with the first four or five countries of the world. There is no solace in that yardstick at all. Australia is in a peculiar and unique situation in the Pacific area. What is done in Europe, Africa and the United States of America has no bearing at all on the peculiar and unique situation in which we find ourselves in (he Pacific area.

Might I turn now to the question which obtrudes itself - which juts out - in this Budget and the great debates that have been taking place since its introduction? I refer to the question of Commonwealth-State relations. I find a most alarming approach in this Budget. I find that there is a most cynical approach in this Budget. When the debate started between New South Wales and Victoria on the one hand and the Commonwealth Government ‘on the other hand, the Treasurer said that if the Commonwealth were to give the States more money then the Commonwealth would have to increase taxation. He said it as though this were a dishonourable thing to do and as though it was something that no government would ever do. Well, the Commonwealth Government had no such qualms last year. It increased taxation on that occasion and it has increased it in other years. What makes this year so different from other years? The answer is obvious, of course: This is election year. That is the only difference.

The politics of this are very plain, Mr. Deputy President. They are plain to anybody. You do not have to be a politician to see them but the morals of this are completely questionable. They are very questionable, if this is the attitude that is going to be followed. I say that because when the Commonwealth took over the taxing powers from the States it automatically assumed the responsibility of financing the States. This is the attitude upon which this Government has been forced back, step by step. On the question of education a year or two ago all the Commonwealth would say was that it was the responsibility of the States, lt did so until it realised that the crisis could go no further and it had to step into the breach. What is happening now is that the Commonwealth will not tax in its own field and it is going to force the States to go further into their very limited fields of taxation. What is the difference to the

Citizen? What is the difference to his pay envelope or the profits from his small business whether he has to pay X dollars to the Commonwealth Government in direct taxation or the money comes out in dribs and drabs by way of such things as increased shire rates, bus fares and the like? But there is a tremendous difference in the two forms of tax although the money the citizen loses in the end is the same.

When it comes to the question of taxation there can be no argument that the direct form of taxation is much more equitable, and much more measurable than is the indirect type. If the Commonwealth Government says that it is going to raise so many millions of dollars by taxation then it is a measurable amount, lt is able to apply that tax to those people who are strongest financially in the community and best able to pay it. Under our graduated system of taxation the single man pays more than the married man; the married man without children pays more than the married man with children. That is something which nobody can argue against and with which we all agree. But when we come down to the question of State taxation, there is an indirect form of taxation which is imposed in inverse proportion to the ability to pay because if shire rates are increased the shire council does not go round and ask the citizen about his commitments in the home. If the citizen is a single man living in his own home he is going to pay the same rate as a widow with children. The same situation applies all along the line.

If the tax be in the form of entertainment tax then the people with more mouths to feed have to pay more tax. If it is bus fares that are increased the people with more mouths to feed have to pay the increase. So there is a question of justice to be considered, quite apart from politics and morals, or ethics in the application of this tax.

But more alarmingly still, the matter goes even further because the Victorian Premier said the other day that there are going to be new taxes. I do not know whether this is authoritative or not but the Press is guessing that it will be in the form of payroll tax. If ever there is a bad form of taxation it is payroll tax. The Government has admitted this itself, year after year, because it has been moving towards the upper limits and away from the lower limits. The Opposition is hoping that it will be abolished. I. think I have said in previous years that I hope to be in this chamber long enough to see it abolished, lt would be justice itself if this form of taxation were abolished under the prime ministership of the right honorable Mr. Harold Holt because it was when Mr. Holt was a very young Minister that, under the lash of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, he introduced child endowment and then his Government introduced payroll tax, ostensibly to finance child endowment. Payroll tax did not finance child endowment after the first year or two of its operation, and for many years since it has borne no relationship to the amount that has been paid in child endowment.

Senator Wright:

– How would we ever give relief in the form of child endowment if we did not have payroll tax?

Senator WILLESEE:

– I thought I was making a maiden speech.

Senator Wright:

– I am sorry.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Really I do not mind. Let us take the honorable senator’s remark. He knows better than does anybody else that there is no equivalence between the amount that is collected in payroll tax and the amount that is paid in child endowment. Senator Wright knows quite well - I see by the mischievous look on his face that he agrees with me - that payroll tax is a bad tax. As a great States’ man he, above all others, does not want to see payroll tax introduced in Tasmania. Everybody knows that once anew tax is imposed, no matter how temporary it is intended to be it will be as permanent as is a temporary Commonwealth building; it will be with us forever. There is no such thing as a temporary tax.

The effect of the Budget is impinging upon the pockets of the people of New South Wales. Mr. Askin has said that free school buses will have to be cancelled. The effect of the Budget is impinging upon people who can least alford to pay. If a greater rate of direct taxation were imposed, this sort of thing would not be necessary. I have been long enough in this place to know how people cling to words. So lest it be said that I am suggesting an increase in taxation, I make it quite clear that I am far from doing that. I doubt the honesty of the Treasurer when he says that there is no other way in which he can balance the Budget. For years a tremendously large amount of taxation has been directed into the financing of capital works. This, of course, is the subject of an age old debate which I do not want to renew tonight. Taxation revenue has been applied for this purpose because the Government has never encouraged - or if necessary demanded - people who have surplus money - there is a lot of surplus money in the community - lo invest it in Commonwealth loans. The Commonwealth has taken such action in some areas; it has done so in relation to insurance companies and other organisations. If the Commonwealth were to direct surplus money into Commonwealth loans, the revenue content of the funds that are now applied to capital works would be reduced. The Government would not have to increase taxation; it would still be able to discharge its obligation as the one taxing and spending authority. Honorable senators know as well as I that in an expanding economy the Government cannot miss out.

If honorable senators opposite do not think that what I have suggested can be done - Senator Wright still has that look on his face - 1 invite them to let Labour try. lt can be done, and any economist in this country knows that it can be done and that the method of financing that has been adopted over recent years has not been sound. It has not been sound because the Government has not been prepared to go in after the tall poppies in the community and to demand that surplus money be used for the needs of the whole community instead of for (he needs of a few.

This Budget is only the first little bite at the financial cherry. It is often said that people want to take two bites at a cherry. The Treasurer intends to take three. In a few weeks’ time when the Prime Minister delivers his policy speech we will start to get some of the promises that should have been made in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. If the ethics of the Government were as high as they ought to be, provision should have been made in the Budget for certain benefits. But an election is looming, and the Government proposes to come out with these promises in the big policy speech telecast. To remain in office is dearer to the hearts of honorable senators opposite than anything else; they will sacrifice anything for votes. Sane government does not matter. The Government has shown in the past that it will turn political somersaults if it thinks it has a chance of gaining votes. With an election to be held in the near future, the guide lines can still be clearly seen. If the Government is returned to office, we can look for a supplementary budget in the New Year. Or should I be a bit more modern and call it a mini-budget? That is what it will be. As I have said, the Government will be taking three bites at the financial cherry.

Even though I read the Treasurer’s Budget Speech more carefully than I have read budget speeches in the past, I did not gain any solace from it as I read it. Even when I got lo page 16 I still found vagueness and uncertainty. On that page we read sentences such as this -

  1. . I said that the Government expected the general effect of the Budget to be expansionary.

This was not the last time that the Treasurer got back to the expansionary effect of the Budget. Further on he said -

Indeed, if the Budget were not expansionary we would be taking other measures to ensure that expansion took place.

In the House of Representatives I have a great friend who, when one is arguing with him, says: “ Look, this is the situation. I am quite dogmatic about it. I have studied the facts and I know what I am talking about. This is my policy, but if you dare to disagree with it I will change it.” That is precisely what the Government is saying. It is saying: “ If something changes we will have to change too, particularly as there is an election, in the offing.” The Treasurer said further -

This is not an easy task and we will require both sensitive judgment and continued attention whatever those things mean -

We do say that we will be ready to meet the changes and shall do our best to see that our objectives are achieved.

Do those words sound like those of a confident Government leading, as it should, the business world, the young man on the threshhold of life or the worker who is depending on job opportunity? Once again the Government is failing to lead. Once again it is neglecting the time factor, as it has done in relation to defence. To be content because we are among the first four or five nations in one department or another ls not enough. There is no yardstick from which we can take comfort. We see Australia in the economic doldrums, alone in the Pacific, with opportunity and challenge surrounding us. This is no time to vacillate. The Government should not leave its acceptance of the challenge until after the next election. It now has the opportunity to meet the challenge by marshalling Australian resources and Australian people. It should do this for the progress of Australia and her neighbours - as our contribution to prosperity and peace, not only in Australia, but also in the area north of Australia which is peculiarly, uniquely, ours.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– Without in any way acknowledging the substance of the argument that he advanced to the Senate, I should like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) upon his maiden speech in his new office. I should like to congratulate him also upon his assumption of that office. He has been a senator for quite a number of years and has a full and proper appreciation of the dignity and responsibility of the Senate. I am sure he will make a very valuable contribution to the debates in this chamber. I should like also to add a little to what was said before the dinner suspension in relation to the retirement of Senator McKenna to the back bench and to offer, him my personal congratulations and best wishes. Since I came to the Senate in 1953 I. have watched with tremendous admiration the pattern that was followed by Senator McKenna in debate. 1 do not recall an occasion when the honorable senator was rude in debate or interjected.

The debate on the Budget provides us with an opportunity to conduct a national stocktaking. It affords us an opportunity to consider the fiscal policy of the Government, the national scene, our national responsibilities, and our national security. Tonight the Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment which contains six provisions. The Leader of the Opposition made a wide coverage of the nation’s affairs. He went to the extent of reviewing shire rates, of dealing with a projected State payroll tax, of speaking about Commonwealth and State relations, and of talking about sales tax. Indeed, while the Leader of the Opposition would not acknowledge the fact and would deny it, he got perilously close to accusing the Government of not increasing taxation. A study of his speech tomorrow will show the clear pattern of criticism of the Government because it failed to increase taxes.

In the time available to me, I cannot follow the Leader of the Opposition into all his proposed amendments and all the points he raised but 1 can say that he failed to appreciate and understand the broad concepts and principles of the Budget. One cannot argue in isolation the associated items of the Budget. They can be argued in isolation only if one has understood first the purposes and the structure of a budget. The Budget that has been presented by the Government has clearly defined purposes and a clearly defined structure. Whatever else may be said and whether or not it is an election year, the Government will stand on the purposes of the Budget which it has presented. That is the issue on which we are prepared to debate the Budget now and on which we will fight the elections.

The Budget has two purposes. The first is to sustain and expand our defence effort so as to preserve our national security. Fundamentally, the Budget must be shaped around and based on Australia’s national security. The second purpose of the Budget is to preserve and stimulate the domestic economy because the first, purpose cannot be properly sustained unless the second is achieved in full measure.

I shall return to these fundamental principles in a moment but first I want to refer briefly to the structure of the Budget. Again, it Ls necessary to understand its structure. First, the Budget imposes no increases in direct or indirect taxation. That is important when we speak of stimulation of the economy because one reacts upon the other. Revenue in this financial year is estimated to total $5,397 million and the Budget provides for total expenditure of $5,930 million. In terms of stimulation this represents an increase in expenditure of about $600 million above last year. This expenditure is understandable if we study how it is to be broken up. The total expenditure of $5,930 million includes $1,000 million for defence or 17 per cent, of the Budget. The Budget provides $926 million or 16 per cent, for general purpose grants and drought assistance to the States; $1,677 million or 28 per cent, for works and developmental purposes, Territories, subsidies, immigration and education and $103 million or 2 per cent, for external economic aid. The Leader of the Opposition was going to develop an argument on that point but declined to do so eventually. That provision alone has been increased by 8 per cent, on last year. The Budget also provides $1,269 million or 21 per cent, for social services and repatriation; $686 million or 12 per cent, for administrative and operational services and $269 million or 4 per cent. for miscellaneous expenditure.

I want to make one point briefly about mathematics without dwelling on this subject. The defence allocation represents an increase of 34 per cent, on last year. That brings us back to my first point on the purposes of the Budget. The provision for general purposes represents an increase of 8 per’ cent, on last year. Other increases are: Developmental works, up 10 per cent.; external aid, 8 per cent.; social services and repatriation, 6 per cent. So it goes on.

Having traversed those figures quickly 1 return to the main purpose of the Budget. As I have said, the first real purpose is to sustain and expand our defence effort to give Australia the security we believe to be necessary. No doubt the Senate will discuss defence when debating the statement on foreign ‘ affairs presented today by the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton) on behalf of the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hasluck). The truth is that we have major commitments in Asia. We are part of Asia and we must accept our share of responsibility in that area. We have forces engaged in Vietnam. The Government believes that Australia’s security depends upon our ability to play our part as one of the leading nations of Asia in the defence of the area and resistance to Communist aggression,. In his statement on defence the Minister for External Affairs said -

Asia has to be seen as part of the total world picture. Our own security cannot be isolated from relations between the great powers. Our economy is linked at almost every point with the economic activity of other continents-

That is very true.. The Minister continued -

Australia is concerned with the sort of world in which we live, because only in a world that is free, prosperous and secure can we ourselves be free, prosperous and secure. We are an aligned nation because that sort of world is a matter of contest at present. Our objective is not the contest itself, but to help build a world in which we can live.

Anybody who sits in an ivory tower, as does the Opposition, and suggests that we take no cognisance of the threat to Australia from the downward thrust of Communism is living outside this world. It should be noted that while the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate was very careful in his comments on defence, the Leader of the Opposition in another place, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), was not so careful. He made it abundantly clear - and has always done so - that the Australian Labour Party’s attitude to defence is one of withdrawal and living in isolation. The Labour Party’s policy suggests that we should bring our troops home and separate national servicemen from other members of the Services. It has also been suggested by Mr. Calwell that our enemy in Vietnam is looking through his binoculars to see whether we are Australians with white socks or Americans with red socks. If we are Australians wilh white socks, they will not shoot at us. That story has been shown to be horribly inaccurate by the recent tragedy of war of which we are all aware. A fact of life is that our future depends upon our co-operation with the free world. We must be prepared to play our part along with our allies and to make a worthy contribution in the defence of freedom. This Budget has as its foundation the need for our defence commitment, for our support of our allies and an acceptance of our responsibilities. Only in that way can we, in the first instance, give to our people the national security that they are entitled to expect.

Senator Ormonde:

– We do not agree with the Government’s methods.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Honorable senators opposite cannot agree amongst themselves very much about defence. I do not wish to embarrass the Opposition on this point. It is not my nature. Nevertheless, I make the point that the Budget has as its foundation- the need for increased and expanding defence commitments in the name of our own national security. It is worthy of . note that our defence responsibility in money terms in the Budget has increased by about 90 per cent, in the last three years. This year our defence expenditure in the

Budget shows quite an extraordinary increase for one year of 34 per cent. This is necessary for the preservation of our free way of life and our democratic principles. The other purpose of the Budget is to preserve and stimulate our domestic economy. I think it is true to say that the Budget will be good for business. It ensures an increasing economic activity during this financial year. Taxation has not been increased, directly or indirectly. Despite the disappointment of Senator Willesee, that in itself must clearly be a stimulus to the business community and therefore in the best interests of Australia at this time. The stimulus of the recent basic wage increase, the stimulus which may result from a review of margins and the inbuilt expansion of about $270 million in the Budget over and above revenue raising and the normal loan provisions, will have a total effect which must be apparent to all.

Reference was made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to the drought. Australia is a primary producing country and, beyond a shadow of doubt, in every Budget since Federation consideration has been given to climate and productivity. Cruel drought conditions have prevailed in New South Wales and Queensland. Because of those conditions, the Commonwealth has made substantial contributions to the States to assist their economies and to help overcome problems brought about by the drought. In many areas, there is a prospect that drought conditions have eased. Certainly that is so in the wheat areas of north-west New South Wales. It is a budgetary fact that as a result of the stimulated and improving situation the primary producing sector of the community will benefit.

Senator Benn:

– -Is New South Wales still seriously affected by drought?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Because I have limited time to speak, I do not wish to be drawn away from my subject by interjections. 1 believe that the Budget will provide for steady growth. Certainly it will provide, as in the past, for full employment and a stable economy. The Budget is intended to be expansionary, within limits. Its purpose is to build up our population, develop our resources, enlarge our industrial capacity, increase our exports and improve our standards of health and education.

Senator Willesee referred to education and also to the consumer price index. The Budget papers make it quite clear that between June 1961 and June 1966 there has been a percentage increase in the consumer price index of 9.2. On 7th July 1961 the basic wage was $28.30, and at that stage it had just been increased. On 1 1 th July 1966 the basic wage was $32.80, after just having been increased. An increase of 13.9 per cent, occurred in the basic wage in that period. Senator Willesee said that he would wait to develop that argument at a later stage. I suggest to him that he will need to examine his argument very critically, because the figures would suggest that while the consumer price index has increased by about 9 per cent, in a five year period, wages have increased by 13.9 per cent.

I find it rather surprising that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate should have referred to education. Education is one subject which I thought the Opposition would have avoided like the plague. I suggest that it has been very embarrassing for the Opposition to consider the entry of the Commonwealth into the field of education. The Labour Party has held conferences in recent times at Hobart, Sydney and Surfers Paradise where the whole question of the Labour Party’s entering into the field of education has been the cause of a lot of embarrassment and misunderstanding. Even yet I do not think it is quite clear where Labour stands. But there is no doubt where this Government stands in relation to education.

Traditionally, education has been the responsiblity of the States. Following Premiers’ Conferences and Australian Loan Council meetings, the Commonwealth has made heavy contributions to the States to assist education. The Commonwealth in its own right this year will provide $147 million for education. There is no doubt where the Government stands in relation to education. I wonder where the Opposition stands - on which side of the fence - in relation to education. The Government has offered 21,000 scholarships to students at all levels from secondary schools to post-doctorate research. The number of students receiving all types of Commonwealth assistance for in-training this year will be about 41,000. The Government also has provided huge sums for capital improvement to various schools without regard to whether they are public or private schools. This is a matter of some delicacy for the Opposition.

I suggest that education presents no problems at all for the Government because our path is clear and defined. We are prepared to make this year the tremendous contribution of S 147 million for education. Huge sums have also been provided for State universities, the Australian National University and affiliated colleges. I do not have the time to develop this argument but I have no doubt that other honorable senators on this side of the chamber will complete the picture in relation to education.

I now wish to refer to the role of the Department of Customs and Excise in connection with the budgetary situation. At this time of the year the Commonwealth is given an opportunity to examine the Government’s proposed expenditure in all areas. 1 have the honour to be the Minister for Customs and Excise. My Department has a proposed expenditure of about SI 8 million for the maintenance of the Department during the coming year, as distinct from its revenue income. In talking to this point it may be interesting to contrast the proposed expenditure by the Department with the important and continuing policy role it plays in the development of Australian industry and the economy. Our traditional role is the gathering of revenue. This year, as a result o£ our gathering activities, income is expected to exceed some $1,400 million. But even this function may be insignificant beside the incalculable benefits afforded to the economy through the protection which the Department’s activities provide for Australian industries. That is not to say that a strong system of tariff protection is an unalloyed benefit to the economy. If opportunity offers I intend to say a few words on the efforts made by the Department to keep manufacturing costs at competitive levels by use of Customs by-laws and the drawback method. These devices are used to eliminate unnecessary duties when the only effect of their collection would be lo increase manufacturing costs and resultant increased costs to the consumer.

In the post war period Australia’s industrial development has been phenomenal. I think all honorable senators would recognise that. We have seen, the growth, even the mushrooming, of countless industries and services which, if they existed in the 1.930’s, were supplied almost entirely from imports. At present they are being supplied from within Australia. Looking at this expansion in comparison with population trends is rather like comparing the chicken and the egg; neither would have been possible without the other. However, it is quite certain that progress would have been very slow indeed if it had not been for the intensely active immigration policy which this Government has pursued. I think it reflects great credit on this Government that this vast growth has been accomplished with a huge migration intake and that we have been able to maintain full employment. I believe some of the credit in this regard must be reflected in the policies and administration of my own Department.

In fulfilling its policy role in the area of revenue collection, the Department is fully aware of its responsibility to keep its administrative costs, and the cost to the commercial world, to a minimum. Customs control, of course, does not stop at the pons. The Department has large areas of inland responsibility through its controls over the manufacture of excisable goods and the storage of both imported and excisable goods in under bond warehouses. The growth of activity in these areas in the post war period and the complexity of modern day operations have been such that there is an urgent demand for new methods of control. This is one of the reasons why I am referring to this aspect of this debate.

In 1959 the Department successfully introduced a new system of control over the petroleum industry. This industry is expected to contribute $257 million in customs and excise revenue during this financial year. These arrangements, commonly known as the commodity control concept, have enabled the Department to give better service at a reduced cost to industry and, at the same time, achieve improved efficiency in revenue protection and collection. The Department was able to reduce its staff by 68 positions with resultant salary savings of approximately $100,000 a year.

The Department now proposes to extend this new form of control to all other excise areas and to under bond warehouses where both imported and excisable goods are stored. It is proposed that the new procedures will be introduced first in the tobacco and brewing industries. Total customs and excise revenue for these two commodities is expected to amount to $564 million for the financial year 1966-67. Further extension of the new system to distilleries and other licensed places will proceed under a planned programme. There is, of course, as all honorable senators will -recognise, a need for caution when dealing with such large sums of money and when introducing a programme of this kind.

This system will make greater use of the manufacturers’ own records and will considerably reduce departmental paper work and physical supervision. I understand that there will be a saving of some 300 positions within the Department as a result of this proposal, and I must point out that any persons displaced will not lose their employment in the Department of Customs and Excise. Instead they will be absorbed in other directions where a shortage of staff exists. I understand also that there will be a consequent salary saving of some $700,000 a year. I point out at this stage that reference is made in the auditor’s annual report to this commodity control method and I have mentioned it here so that when honorable senators read the report they will understand the reference.

The post war years have seen tremendous development in Australia’s secondary industries which are now producing goods which otherwise would be imported. The importance of this development need not be repeated now. However, honorable senators will quickly recognise that the objectives of full employment and a satisfactory balance of payments position could not have been achieved without vigorous and continuous development of our secondary industries. I think we are on common ground on that aspect. However, industrial development of this kind has been achieved in the face of competition from overseas. Australia’s ability to compete with overseas suppliers depends very largely on her ability to achieve production costs comparable with those of overseas manufacturers. In the main, Australia’s limited domestic market does not permit her to achieve the same economies of scale as her more populous and more fully developed overseas trading partners have achieved.

The virtual removal of import licensing in I960 rendered Australian industries vulnerable to the full force of import competition. Here Jet me refer to dumping because I think it is important to the economy and to the industrial and commercial sector to know something about it. Over the years the Government has progressively introduced tariffs to protect economic and efficient Australian industries. The level of any protection granted to economic and efficient Australian industries is determined after inquiry and report by the Tariff Board and is based on the assumption that goods imported into Australia are sold by the exporter at fair and reasonable prices, that is, not below normal values. In broad and general terms, this means that export prices should be not less than the prices at which the goods are available in the domestic market of the country of export. In short, the tariff is not designed to counter sales at dumping prices.

The Government recognised that with the removal of import licensing the effective administration of the tariff could be undermined by dumping from overseas. This Government has always taken the firm view that dumping in all its forms must be countered whenever it damages or threatens to damage an Australian industry and thereby Australian employment. In May 1961 the Government introduced the Customs Tariff (Dumping and Subsidies) Bill. This was designed to counter ali known forms of dumping. The Department of Customs and Excise administers the anti-dumping law. Since 1961 it has received a growing number of complaints from Australian manufacturers against dumping from overseas. Needless to say, the increasing demands on the Department to counter dumping have required increased expenditure by the Government in setting up an organisation to cope with the burden. The organisation includes an administrative section in Canberra, officers overseas and, of course, officers at the ports of entry.

I make the point that the Department is charged with the responsibility of confirming whether sales are made at dumping prices. This involves inquiry in the countries of export. The mere receipt of a dumping complaint docs not necessarily result in antidumping action. Indeed, some complaints are received which claim that because large quantities of goods are being imported at low prices anti-dumping action should be taken. However, in some cases the Department’s officers overseas established that these sales were not being made at dumped prices. Naturally no anti-dumping action is taken in such cases. I want to make perfectly clear that the action taken by the Government in this particular field of commerce has been effective, lt will continue to be effective. There are no doubt sophisticated trading practices that have caused Australian industry a lot of difficulty and concern, but the methods being employed by my Department to meet the situation have been proving effective and I am quite satisfied that in future there will be less dumping of goods at prices below their value in the country of origin. 1 have more extensive notes on this subject but as my time is running out I cannot pursue this aspect further. 1 want to make it perfectly clear that the Department also has a responsibility on the other side of the ledger in relation to by-law entry to ensure that goods which are not available in Australia are allowed by-law entry, lt that way opportunities to develop are given to industries in Australia. It may be of some interest to know that in the year 1965-66 there were 50,000 applications for free entry of goods into Australia.

I sum up what I have said in relation to the Budget by saying that it preserves and stimulates our economic growth. It expands our vital defence requirements and supports our allies in the preservation of our national security. It avoids more tax increases, which could stultify our progress at this stage. It preserves our magnificent record of full employment, ft continues our high migration intake, which is essential to our future security. It gives special assistance lo the States to meet the problems of drought, ft provides additional benefits to some service pensioners and special rale or T.P.I. pensioners. It gives special assistance to primary industry with the re-introduction of the superphosphate bounty and in addition it introduces a new nitrogenous fertiliser bounty of $80 per ton. I do not believe, as Senator Willesee would have it, that the punch has been pulled in relation to the Budget because this is an election year. The overwhelming consideration of the

Government is to produce a Budget which will continue the well being and prosperity of the people of Australia and at the same time pay complete regard to our security and defence needs and our obligations as an ally of the other great powers of the world.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party · Queensland

– At the outset I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating Senator Willesee on his election to the very important position of Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. This will bring, in addition to the pleasure and honour that accompanies the appointment, much responsibility and will entail a great deal of personal effort. From my knowledge of Senator Willesee, I believe that he possesses capacity for work and I feel confident that he will discharge his duties with a great measure of success. But as one who has had the responsibility of leading a big political party, I would strongly advise him from the start of office to recognise that he has been appointed Leader and his function is to lead and not to be led. If he does that and makes it clear to his Party, he will find that he will run into less difficulty than if he endeavours to please everybody, which is utterly and humanly impossible. So I will content myself with those few observations on the appointment of Senator Willesee to the position of Leader of Opposition in the Senate.

I should like to take the opportunity, too, of congratulating the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) on the presentation of his first Budget, but I am indeed sincerely sorry that I have to limit my congratulations lo the presentation of the Budget and not its contents. I regard the Budget, after close examination, as a very disappointing and deceptive Budget. It is disappointing because it fails to meet legitimate and urgent needs, particularly in the areas of education, social services and foreign aid. It cannot hope to be remembered as a generous Budget and I feel that Mr. McMahon’s first Budget is branded as a slay put Budget, an unenterprising Budget, and one that has failed to recognise the just claims of the indigent people of our community and those who are really in need of some additional assistance. It is deceptive because, whilst the money allocation for defence expenditure appears to be quite high, on closer analysis it proves to be still inadequate. Defence expenditure in Australia must be examined in the light of potential threats to Australia’s security, our commitments, and the role of the United States and the United Kingdom in this area. All of those factors must be taken into consideration when we are examining the matter of the defence of Australia.

There is no doubt that Communist China poses a long term threat to Australia’s security, and the Vietnam conflict is the most immediate manifestation of Communist disruptive tactics in this part of the world. We have involved ourselves in the Vietnam conflict and the outcome of this war will have a tremendous effect on the future of those countries which might be described as buffer countries between Australia and China. Our involvement is limited, at this stage anyway. On a weighted population basis we have only one-quarter of the troop contribution that is being made by the United States and, mark you, Madam Acting Deputy President, the Vietnam war should be of greater concern to Australia than it is to America. America has nothing to gain from being in Vietnam, and has not as much to lose as Australia in the event of the Communists winning the Vietnam war. But in the event of the American troops and the Australian troops being forced out of Vietnam by some circumstance, what would happen is very patent to any thinking person who examines the position and who also examines statements made by the top brass of Red China. He will appreciate that with the fall of South Vietnam to the Vietcong and to the Communists generally, the march would proceed to Cambodia, Laos and Thailand, and then to Malaya and Singapore, which is only 1,500 miles from Darwin.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What top brass said that?

Senator GAIR:

– There have been numerous statements of Red China’s imperialistic designs and Australia is not exempted; it is included in the designs of Red China.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Where can we look these quotations up and verify them?

Senator GAIR:

– There are plenty of authorities and I will give them later if time permits. But whatever I had to say against Red China I could always depend on the honorable senator on my right to defend that country and the Communists generally. I can understand his sensitivity on the question of Communism, just as I can understand the sensitivity of so many of his colleagues, but only a fool or a knave would believe for a moment that what I have said has no basts.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We are only asking you for your authority. We only want to check what you have said.

Senator GAIR:

– It is evident beyond doubt and is supported by authorities on defence, both in this country and outside it, that the aim of Red China is to take over South East Asia. In any case, we have no evidence from the Red Chinese or from any of their confreres that China does not propose to conquer South East Asia. We have no such assurance and so we are entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Any government worthy of the support of the Australian people has .an obligation to build up the defences. of this country and to make it secure, not only for this generation but also for generations to come. Since the introduction of last year’s Budget the future of the United Kingdom in South East Asia has been made very clear. This is one of the areas in which it desires to reduce its involvement. At the samp time, wc cannot be certain that the- United States of America will remain in South East Asia at its present strength, particularly if America suffers a reverse in Vietnam or its attention, is diverted to new trouble spots in other parts of the world.

When all these points are taken into consideration it is evident that we must make some preparation now for (the possible events in the future. But what are we doing today? Much of the defence expenditure provided for in the last three Budgets has been devoted to making up ground lost in earlier years. In the years from 1958-59 to 1961-62 the percentages of government expenditure devoted to defence were 10.4, 10.6, 10.6 and 10.2 respectively. The allocations in those . years were obviously inadequate and in those years the Australian Democratic Labour Party was the only political party advocating increased defence expenditure. During the 1955 election the Australian Labour Party promised to reduce the defence vole by $80 million. This would have meant a 20 per cent, reduction in defence spending. That is why I cannot accept with any measure of seriousness the criticism by the Australian Labour Party.

Senator Cant:

– You were a member of the Australian Labour Party then.

Senator GAIR:

– I admit that I was. I have not the facility for telling lies. But I cannot accept wilh any measure of seriousness the complaints of the Leaders of the Opposition, here and in another place, about the Government’s failure in the matter of defence, because there is ample evidence to show that the Australian Labour Party at that time did not favour expenditure on defence. As late as 1961 - I was not a member of the Australian Labour Party then - the Labour Party said it would spend on defence only as much as the then Government was spending.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But we have improved since you left us in 1954.

Senator GAIR:

– I could not say the Party was improved by your admission nor would I have very much support if I claimed that.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We were well down when you were in the Parly but we improved when you left it.

Kie ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wedgwood). - Order! Senator Cavanagh can make his speech later.

Senator GAIR:

– I do not mind the honorable senator’s interjections, Madam Acting Deputy President, but when he says that the Labour Party has improved, 1 think that is questionable. It has been out of office for a long time in the Federal sphere. In Queensland the Australian Labour Party won handsome victories in 1953 and 1956, when I was its leader. On each occasion we came back from the people with approximately 54 or 55 per cent, of the total votes and in 1953 we won seven additional seats although we had been in office for 21 years. That was not a bad record and it scarcely supports Senator Cavanagh’s interjection. I say that the criticism by members of the Labour Party on matters of defence is hypocritical when one remembers the statements they have made. The Government is not without blame either on this matter because it was quite complacent and was quite satisfied :o go on each year appropriating the same amount of money, regardless of the fact that the purchasing power of the pound was diminishing and what it could buy for £200 million was becoming less. I can remember the protestations when we advocated the reintroduction of national service training. The then Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for the Army stated that on the advice of their military chiefs, national service could not be reintroduced. Then, almost overnight, these difficulties seemed to disappear and national service was promised and reintroduced.

Senator Wright:

– In what year was it discarded or discontinued?

Senator GAIR:

– I could not give the year of its discontinuance. I am talking about our advocacy of its reintroduction. On each occasion we were told that the military chiefs said it could not be incorporated in the military strategy of Australia.

Let us have a look at the proposed defence expenditure for 1966-67. The Treasurer, in my opinion, used a deceptive phrase when he described this expenditure as representing 34 per cent, more than the actual expenditure in 1965-66 and as being 90 per cent, increase on the actual expenditure in 1963-64. The amount of $1,000 million gives the impression of astronomical expenditure. First, we must subtract from this proposed allocation the amount of $1 14 million which is part of the $450 million package deal with the United States Government. lt is unlikely that we will be required to pay the $114 million in the current financial year.

When we subtract that amount, we have a new figure of S886 million. As a percentage of the total Government expenditure, it represents slightly less than the amount spent in 1952-53 at the time of the Korean War. Then of this amount of $886 million, a sizable amount will be taken up by expenditure on wages and salaries, increases in the number of personnel and increased rates of pay. Most important of all, the expenditure on defence appears to be geared to the provision of approximately 10,000 combat troops, which we contend is an insufficient number. We need not 10,000 combat troops but at least 30,000.

Senator Ormonde:

– Of all ages - not just 20 year olds.

Senator GAIR:

– No, not confined to 20 year olds. Is it true, as has been claimed by one commentator, that our helicopters have been thoroughly neglected, so far as their numbers are concerned? I am not suggesting that they have been neglected in regard to repairs. It has been stated that if all our Royal Australian Air Force helicopters were in the air at the one time they would be able to transport only about 100 troops.

Senator Hannaford:

– Only 100?

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. I repeat that the proposed defence expenditure requires very careful consideration before anyone can claim that it is sufficient or adequate in the light of our commitments, the Vietnam involvement and the strategic position in which Australia finds itself-

In addition to supplying military aid and assistance to countries such as Vietnam which are the victims of arrogant and aggressive Communism, we have a responsibility, as a relatively wealthy country in this part of the world, to do something under the heading of foreign aid. We are a prosperous country by comparison with other countries in this area. Being a relatively prosperous country, we have a special responsibility in the granting of foreign aid to our less fortunate neighbours and the undeveloped countries. The proposed allocation of $103 million for external economic aid is another of these deceptive figures. The amount of $103 million includes $70 million for Papua and New Guinea. I know that the Government contends that expenditure on Papua and New Guinea should be included in foreign aid figures, but this matter is open to debate and has been so for some time.

Senator Wright:

– On what basis can it be disputed that that aid is not genuine foreign aid?

Senator GAIR:

– It cannot be classified as some new contribution under the heading of foreign aid. It is a responsibility that Australia has been bearing for many years.

Senator Wright:

– But it is a special responsibility that none of the other contributors of foreign aid carry.

Senator GAIR:

– That could be so, but the fact remains that as we have been contributing to Papua and New Guinea for so long, it has become part of our responsibility, whereas foreign , aid to other countries in South East Asia, such as Vietnam and Thailand, is a new responsibility, which we should accept in order to help those countries.

Senator Wright:

– But that only means that we have been maintaining such foreign aid longer than we have other aid.

Senator Kennelly:

– It has always been understood that foreign aid from this country is apart from the aid that we give to Papua and New Guinea, and Senator Wright knows it. He is only trying to bolster a weak case.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood).- Order!

Senator GAIR:

– I am not slow in giving the Government credit for the aid it has provided to Papua and New Guinea, but when it is represented that Australia has given external aid of $103 million, we are entitled to ask what countries have received this aid. We find that $70 million, has gone to Papua and New Guinea. We are entitled to know the other countries which have benefited from this handout. I know that the Government contends that expenditure on Papua and New Guinea should be included in foreign aid figures. That is all right. But 1 still say that the matter is open to debate. However, if we allow for the expenditure on Papua and New Guinea in the provision of $103 million for foreign aid, we are only spending .7 of I per cent, of our gross national product on foreign aid. The Democratic Labour Party believes that Australia should be spending at least I per cent, of its gross national product on foreign aid.

We could learn much from an examination of the foreign aid and assistance provided by France. .That country spends about 2 per cent, of its gross national income on overseas aid, and has more than 44,000 teachers, experts and volunteers serving abroad. It is of little use to compare our aid efforts with those of countries like Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Germany, as was done in a recent Government publication, and then claim that by comparison with those countries we are spending sufficient on foreign aid. The simple fact is that those countries are not geographically a part of Latin America, Asia or Africa where most of the poorer countries are to be found.

Before I conclude my remarks on defence and security, let me say that without adequate defence, all internal programmes, whether they be in relation to education, social services, housing or anything else, will matter for very little. Our defences must be strong and the Government must be in a position to guarantee to the Australian people that the best has been done for their security. It is no use evolving grand and just social security programmes unless the country is protected and the policies can be implemented without external invasion.

In the course of the debate tonight the matter of education has come up. I agree with Senator Willesee that there is cause for some disappointment that there was not more in the Budget to assist education of all kinds in Australia, lt is true that the Commonwealth Government has assumed in recent years greater financial responsibility for education than it did formerly. That is because the Government is forced into the position of having to provide adequate payments to our educational institutions directly or through the State Governments to enable a reasonable and a modern standard of education to be maintained. 1 do not think the Government has any cause for great complacency in this connection although it claims, as the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Anderson) said, that it has every reason to be satisfied with its contribution to education and that no one dare ask for more money or dare criticise the failure of the Government to make more provision in this Budget for education than it has done. I can assure Senator Anderson that the job of the Commonwealth in the field of education is not complete by far, because unless adequate funds are made available through the Commonwealth for the State Governments - and the Commonwealth is the tax collector - we will have an educational crisis on our hands.

Just prior to the last Premiers Conference 1 presumed to write to the Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) and to the Premiers of the respective States, urging the Premiers to seek financial allocations from the Commonwealth to enable them to do more to maintain the dual system of education in Australia. I pointed out to them that by so doing the State Governments and the Commonwealth Government, which would be providing the funds, would be getting out of their difficulties at a much lower price than if they continued in the way they were proceeding. I pointed out to them - and this is something I learnt as a State Premier - that it was much more costly for a State Government to maintain and operate a social service or education system than it was for a lot of organisations which were not limited to award hours and standards. I always found that it cost a Stale Government less to make a generous contribution to a religious denomination that conducted an orphanage, an eventide home or a hospital than for the Government to conduct such an institution, and that the public got service equally as good. A great measure of satisfaction was also achieved. The same applies to education.

Because of the great burden that has been placed on independent schools - because of the insufficiency of teachers and the increased population - many thousands of children who would normally be accommodated in such schools cannot gain admission and have lo be accommodated in State schools, lt costs a State Government in the vicinity of $230 to educate a child in a State school. If the Government would only recognise the contribution which has been made - and which will continue to be made - by independent schools and would contribute $50 per head per annum for each child educated at an independent secondary school, and would contribute $30 per head per annum for children in independent primary schools, then we would avoid this education crisis which is looming and which has to be tackled.

Senator Wright:

– Has the honorable sena or totalled the cost of what that would be?

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. 1 have that information somewhere. The sum of $40 million would meet the position and would provide the assistance necessary to maintain the dual system of education.

Senator Ormonde:

– Is that for all schools Commonwealth or otherwise?

Senator GAIR:

– That is for all schools. We cannot have discrimination. We have had that for too long. Every child is entitled to equal education rights. I say that that is an important matter and I think that the

Government will be compelled to recognise the claims of independent schools to a greater extent than it has until now. Unless it does, a greater number of children will be required to transfer to State schools and a greater expenditure will have to be faced by the Government concerned, whether it is State or Federal. 1 think all honorable senators will agree that there has been a complete revolution on the subject of State aid, as most people call it but which 1 elect to call justice for independent schools.

Senator Wright:

– Was that the revolution at Surfers Paradise?

Senator GAIR:

– 1 shall deal with that later. There has been a complete revolution in the last 10 years, lt has probably been without precedent in Australia’s political history. Between 1963 and 1965 we witnessed a major transformation in the attitude of political parties to independent schools. The giving to independent schools of a share of public funds has been acknowledged in principle and to a nominal degree in practice. Credit for this great change must be given to the Australian Democratic Labour Party, which has exerted considerable influence. In August I960, the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, said in the House of Representatives that financial aid to denominational schools was outside the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Government. But from 1963 onwards he acted as though those words had never been uttered. Why did such aid become politically feasible? After the Government’s near defeat in 196.1, Sir Robert Menzies saw that State aid was politically necessary. The backing given to the Democratic Labour Party by a large group of voters who believed in justice for the independent schools and the necessity to consolidate D.L.P. preferences for the Liberals were a big influence in encouraging steps to overcome that constitutional difficulty. Those were the major factors in the 1963 breakthrough, when direct aid was first given to independent schools in this country.

It is to the credit of the Australian Country Party that, following the consistent attitude of the Democratic Labour Party on this subject, .it included State aid in its programme. Although at the subsequent election the votes cast for the Country Party appeared to decline, that Party reaffirmed that plank in its platform. For that I give it credit.

It will be interesting to learn what will be the final attitude of the Australian Labour Party to State aid. The Party may have passed some pro-Stale aid resolutions at the Surfers Paradise conference, which somebody has described as the bikini conference, but what will they mean in terms of concrete policy? Without exception the present leaders of the A.L.P. had made some fairly remarkable statements on this issue in previous years. I recall Mr. Calwell’s statement in London in 1963 when he said that he did not believe that his Party would reconsider the position of Catholic schools. This was when he spoke about the Constitution making no provision for financial aid to private schools. This same gentleman, who said much in his recent Budget speech about aid to independent schools, said that the standard of education in the private religious schools was lower than that in the State schools. You do not need me to tell you, Mr. President, that that statement is not supported by examination results. More recently, and just prior to the conference at Surfers Paradise in , July last, he described moves for direct State aid as being evil and weak, lt would not be uncharitable to question the sincerity of this gentleman if he came out in public now and supported different kinds of State aid.

To set the record straight, let me mention that the A.L.P. was in favour of State aid until the 1957 Brisbane Federal conference. At that conference the plank in Labour’s platform which provided for financial aid for all forms of education was thrown overboard and a motion submitted by Mr. Brebner of Victoria was carried unanimously. From 1957 to 1966 the A.L.P. bitterly opposed State aid, despite the justness of the claims of the independent schools. During this period the Democratic Labour Party has stood firmly on the matter. Just as we were progressive in our attitude to defence expenditure, so also were we progressive and correct in our attitude to State aid. Now that all parties, in theory at least, support the just claims of independent schools for financial assistance, 1 hope that this attitude will contribute greatly to the total educational effort in both State and independent schools.

Some people would have us believe that the A.L.P. is united on this issue, but I suspect that it is not. When one reads the record of the A.L.P. conference held in Brisbane in 1957, one could not imagine that the Party was united. At that conference Mr. Brebner of Victoria moved -

Omit from the Platform “ Financial aid for all forms of education,” including the interpretation of the 1953 Conference, and insert in lieu thereof the promotion of secondary and higher education by way of bursaries, scholarships, exhibitions and benefits of a like nature, payable direct lo students.

The report states -

In moving the motion, Mr. Brebner said that the Committee had used the words “ Secondary and higher education “ deliberately to make it quite clear that the Parties were opposed to providing bursaries, scholarships, exhibitions and benefits of a like nature to students of primary schools. Seconded Mr. Quigley.

This motion was carried by 36 votes to nil.

Senator Ormonde:

– What book is the honorable senator quoting from?

Senator GAIR:

– The little red book - the official record of the proceedings of the 22nd Commonwealth Conference. Further on the report states -

Mr. Brebner moved: ; That the Committee recommends that this Conference deplores the failure of the Federal Government lo provide adequate funds to State Governments to enable them to expand their educational facilities.

In moving the motion, Mr. Brebner said the Committee had, as in the case of the previous Item (136), deliberately chosen the words “ their “ educational facilities in order to nv-‘ :’ ‘? such funds were not to be used for other than Slate owned and controlled education ia.iiiu.?.

These resolutions were carried by 36 votes to nil. The vote was unanimous.

Senator Cant:

– You voted for it.

Senator GAIR:

– No. The resolutions carried unanimously at the Brisbane conference repealed a plank of Labour’s platform which provided for State aid.

Senator Ormonde:

– Why?

Senator GAIR:

– For the reason Mr. Brebner stated. He did not want any government money going into a school other than a State school, in reply to Senator Cant who said I voted for the resolution, I want to say that I was not a delegate to that conference although I addressed the conference on the very controversial subject of uniform taxation. But I shall tell honorable senators who did vote for it. and it will be very revealing and surprising to hear the names of some of them. One can understand the Brebners and the Chamberlains but from Victoria, we had voting for the resolution Divers, Lovegrove, Crean - of the House of Representatives, 1 take it - Brebner, Stout and Davis.

Senator Ormonde:

– None of them is Irish.

Senator GAIR:

– I would not know. I have not their pedigree. The South Australians were Toohey. Cameron, Quigley, Dunstan, Sexton and Ridley. The Tasmanians were Murray, Duthie, O’Byrne, Taylor, McKenna and Miley. From New South Wales, there was the great Mr. Colbourne who is regarded as a strong supporter of State aid. He voted as one of the 36 who destroyed the plank of State aid in the Labour platform. Others were Campbell, Blackburn, Oliver, Mulvihill and Piatt. The Western Austrians were Jeffrey, Webb. Jameson, Moir, Lavery and May. The Queenslanders were Bukowski, Goding, Egerton, Whiteside, Dittmer and Merrill.

They were the delegates at the Brisbane conference who voted 36 to nil for the destruction of a plank in Labour’s platform which provided for State aid. Since then there has been violent resistance to giving financial justice and equal educational rights to the children of this democracy. How can one accept the decision of the Surfers Paradise conference with any confidence? It WaS represented by some of the Press as “ accidental “ but I do not accept it as accidental. As I have said, the former Prime Minister found it was not constitutionally wrong to aid schools when he found it was politically expedient to do so.

Senator Cant:

– He thought there were some votes in it.

Senator GAIR:

– That is so. The conference at Surfers Paradise realised that the Labour Party had reached a low ebb politically and the delegates felt they had to do something about it. They had to relieve the position if they could.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The bikini girls might have had an effect.

Senator GAIR:

– That is true. Senator Cavanagh’s remark may be nearer the truth than he thinks. The bikini girls may have had more effect than they realised. They may have disturbed the delegates and caused them to think along the right lines after a long interval of ignorance and prejudice on this important question.

I come now to pensions. There are hundreds of thousands of Australian pensioners who have been bitterly disappointed by the inadequate and puny dollar a week increase in the weekly pension rate. This is the first increase since 1964. No-one can deny that since then there have been great increases in prices of essential commodities. The dollar a week will not increase the real value of the pension at all when we have regard to the rises in prices that have taken place in the two years since the pension rates were previously increased. I believe I said last year in discussing this matter that we have here a very strong argument in favour of the Democratic Labour Party’s policy to remove social services from the political field and place them in the hands of a competent tribunal. The point in favour of this argument is this: Every election year, the pensioners get some puny increase. In the year when there is no election, their claims and their wants are simply ignored.

Senator Scott:

– That is not correct.

Sena:or GAIR__ It is correct. I challenge

Senator Scott to tell me when that has not been the case. It is peculiar that when an election is looming, the pensioners are given some consideration. I will say that so far as this Budget is concerned, it has been moderate in that connection. It cannot be classified altogether as a vote catching Budget because beyond the dollar a week increase in pensions, I can see nothing else that will benefit the family man and the working man. I claim, and I believe any reasonable person will support me, that the maximum pension rate is totally inadequate and will continue to be inadequate until it is increased to at least half the basic wage.

I come now to the contentious question of the means test. We all know that because of the means test, many thousands of good, worthy Australian men and women do not receive even a partial pension. The Democratic Labour Party believes that the means test should be liberalised immediately and eventually abolished. This immediate liberalisation could take the form of a phasing out process under which the means test would be applied only to a certain group of those above the pensionable age. For example, in the first year of the phasing out process, the means test need not apply to all men over, say, 75 years. In the next year, the line could be drawn at 70 years and so on. This process could resolve the difficulties presented by the immediate and total abolition of the means test.

To argue that this process could not be operated by the Government is to fly in the face of the experience of the Governments of New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada. In Canada, there is a means test applied to those between 65 and 69 years. After 69 years, no means test is applied. In New Zealand, a means test applies only between the ages of 60 and 65 years. In the United Kingdom the means test for aged persons operates for a man between 65 and 69 and a woman between 60 and 64. After those years, no means test is applied. Honorable senators will remember the publicity given to the fact that Field Marshal Montgomery in London claimed the age pension. There is no means test there. If a way can be found in the United Kingdom around this iniquitous, penalising system, I am sure it could also be found here. As it is operated by the Australian Government today the means test is undoubtedly and undeniably a penalty on thrift. It also encourages people to disperse their savings in an extravagant form because they represent an impediment to their being recognised as qualified to receive a pension.

In having regard to those people who are unable to obtain a pension because they have saved or have contributed to superannuation schemes, we must remember that they are provident and responsible people who aimed at covering themselves in their old age. In addition to paying taxation during their active life, they also made sacrifices to contribute to a superannuation fund or an insurance fund. Having made that effort, they are to be penalised. They do not even enjoy the fringe benefits to which pensioners are entitled. I refer to rebates on rates, telephone rental and television licence concessions, concessional fares on trams and trains and, above all, medical benefits. Medical benefits represent one of the great concessions enjoyed by age pensioners, and for that credit has to be given to the Government. No affluent country such as Australia can go on penalising its people. The problem can be overcome very easily by making the minimum taxable amount equivalent to the maximum pension rate and by taxing incomes in excess of that amount.

Senator Wright:

– Has the honorable senator computed what savings are equivalent to the present pension, which he has criticised? I suggest that the present pension for a married couple is equivalent to $27,000 of savings.

Senator GAIR:

– The honorable senator will recognise that the people to whom I have referred have to invest quite a sum of money to earn that amount.

Senator Wright:

– That is what I say.

Senator GAIR:

– And I say that is all the more reason why some consideration should be given to people on limited minimum incomes. The cruel disappointment of the Budget is its failure to relieve the position of the family man and his wife. I refer specifically to the absence of an increase in child endowment payments, maternity allowances and allowable taxation deductions for children. These are three areas where action by the Treasurer could have proved that the Government is interested in the welfare of the family man and his wife. By its inaction, the Government has proved it is not interested.

In 1949 the total amount of child endowment paid to a three child family represented 19.4 per cent, of the then basic wage. Since 1949 it has been allowed to fall by 50 per cent, in value and now represents only 9.7 per cent, of the current basic wage. I say that the time is overdue for value to be put back into child endowment. If it was considered good enough in 1949 for child endownment to represent 19.4 per cent, of the then basic wage, it should be considered good enough to represent 19.4 per cent, of the basic wage today. I trust that the Government will give sincere and sympathetic consideration to improvements in social services.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

.- The Senate is debating the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) for the financial year 1966-67. The Budget proposals can be taken generally to convey the financial and economic plans and policies of a government. On this occasion, the Treasurer has put forward proposals which are of great credit to the Government.

I listened with interest to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Willesee). At the outset, I congratulate him on gaining leadership of the Opposition in the Senate. I believe that his comments tonight do not reflect any great credit on the way in which the Opposition is thinking today. He echoed the views that have been put in relation to earlier Budgets and said that the present Budget contained many flaws. I do not believe that his comments contained any constructive criticism. It is true that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but surely we can expect the Opposition to come up with something better than the traditional criticism of every proposed item of expenditure in the Budget without finding one particular item worthy of credit.

It is noteworthy that Senator Willesee, in putting his Party’s views, suggested that not one proposed allocation of finance was sufficient. Anyone with a business background must realise that the volume of money available is not unlimited, and that it must be distributed to provide for equal growth in the various sectors of the community. I noted very carefully Senator Willesee’s criticism of the Government for not increasing taxation. He said that we should see some tall poppies fall. He indicated very clearly what a Labour Government could do should it get into power.

I think it is rather wonderful that in the Budget a way has been found to meet the commitments we face in the two most important areas of defence and economic growth. It is quite amazing that the Treasurer has been able to sort out his finances so that our commitments can be met without increased taxation. I believe that very little credit is due to the Labour Party in this instance. The criticisms that have been made so far are not based on constructive thinking. We are aware of the political somersaults made by the Labour Party in various areas during recent months. There is little doubt that there is no basis for solid thought within the Labour Party at present to provide constructive suggestions as to what should be done in the most important areas of defence and economic growth.

I am particularly proud of the areas in which it is proposed that expenditure should be directed at this time. The Budget provides for a total expenditure of about $5,930 million. It is a record Budget produced by the Treasurer in his first year in that position. Expenditure of about £1,000 million is to be devoted to defence $926 million for general purpose grants and drought assistance to the States $1,677 million for works and developmental services, $103 million, or 2 per cent, of our total expenditure, for external economic aid; $1,269 million, or 21 per cent., for the maintenance of social services and repatriation benefits, $686 million or 12 per cent, for the administrative and educational services of the Government. There we find an indication of the Government’s thinking in relation to the areas of importance. The two largest amounts of expenditure relate to defence and developmental services.

If a man runs a business one does not rely on the view of outsiders of the success of the business or the prospects for success in the future. Instead one looks to the record. Although the Opposition attacked the Government’s proposals, as it has been doing regularly for 17 years without gaining any ground, the fact remains that the people have become immune to attacks which have no foundation. Indeed, one sympathises to an extent with the Opposition in the very difficult task that confronts it because the fact is that in the 17 years this Government has been in office Australia’s national story has been one of tremendous growth and, I point out, not merely growth that can be measured in money values or in relation to one particular sector of the community. There have been real growth and real achievement right across the board of all services within this country. Let me mention to Senator Cant who is interjecting some of this Government’s achievements so that he will know what a difficult task he has in arguing that our growth has not been sufficiently great. In those 17 years farm production has increased by 67 per cent., wool production by 60 per cent, and wheat production by 35 per cent. In addition, the number of factories has grown by about 50 per cent.

Senator Wright:

– Can the honorable senator give us some figures in relation to farm incomes?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I will cite some figures which I hope will delight the honor able senator’s heart. Production of ingot steel and allied commodities has quadrupled in that period. Our population has risen by over 45 per cent, and civilian employment has increased by over 50 per cent. Australia received 2 million migrants and our net immigration intake is about li million people. Those are magnificent figures. They illustrate a record which I imagine few nations in the world can match. But they are very familiar to us and for some years now we have grown accustomed to this story of success. The people have decided that the counsels of this wise private enterprise Government should prevail against those of a Socialist faction.

I am greatly thrilled when my friends on both sides of the Senate who have had the opportunity to travel overseas, particularly with parliamentary delegations, return with the firm belief that this is the most wonderful country in the world with its freedoms and its standards.

Senator Cant:

– Could be.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Does not the honorable senator think it is?

Senator Cant:

– Could bc.

Senator O’Byrne:

– But it is under crook management.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If the honorable senator suggests that this country has been under crook management he is akin to a shareholder bucking the board without just cause. If we consider the growth that has taken place in the last few years we must be satisfied wilh the way this country has been managed. In spite of the rather disastrous drought which has been experienced within the past year or so, the effect of which is only just commencing to filter through the community, the gross national product over the past four years has increased by some 37 per cent. There has been a tremendous surge of investment, private investment having risen by some 58 per cent. It is worth remembering that by far the greatest percentage of investment has been from funds generated within Australia.

The value of exports in this difficult period has risen by more than 30 per cent. There was a small rise in exports during last year in spite of the very severe drought, in spite of the export price for sugar being disastrous in relation to the world parity price and in spite of a fall in rural exports in 1965-66, but there were compensating rises which increased the value of our exports. These occurred in minerals and manufactured goods of which 1 shall say something later.

It is remarkable that the economy has a resilience which can withstand the present disastrous drought. There was a period when the effect of such a drought on the Australian economy would have been catastrophic. Certainly the drought has caused some hurt. There cannot be a fall of 25 per cent, in farm incomes, as occurred in the 1964-65 to 1965-66 period, and there cannot be farmers out of pocket to the extent of some $330 million as well as being faced with heavy capital losses by way of stock losses and so on, without a lot of people being hurt. But not only the farmers and their families have suffered hardship. This has spread and is spreading into industries serving them - the agricultural implement suppliers, the storekeepers, the professional people in rural areas and in the cities.

I think there is a greater awareness today by all sectors of the community of what is meant by a strong primary industry within Australia. For many the drought will mean lower profits, less overtime in the factories, less money in the pay packets of the workers. Senator Willesee criticised the Treasurer for the use of the following words in his Budget Speech -

Given good fortune with the weather over the next few months it is expected that total farm output will rise - though by how much is, of course, uncertain at this stage.

The Leader of the Opposition commented that this was a weak statement. The honorable senator, and indeed all honorable senators, should know that while there is no assurance that total farm output will rise it is wise to hope.

Senator Cant:

– Waiting to be pulled out of the net.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not think the honorable senator can say that the Government is waiting to be pulled out of the net having regard to its record. 1 hope the honorable senator will be able to demonstrate in what avenues better could have been done. I have heard only criticism of the various areas into which funds have been directed. The areas of expenditure which have been suggested by the Opposition are, as far as I can see, those which will not lead to any growth within the community. 1 believe that the Government has recognised the national problem which exists, lt has recognised that because of the drought there is a need for relief and rehabilitation, and it has taken steps to minimise the effects of drought in the future. Indeed, the Commonwealth Government has been very quick to assure the drought affected States of New South Wales and Queensland that it is ready to provide assistance of a special nature. Besides providing $24,250,000 to those States as it has already done, it now proposes that Queensland should receive $2,73u,000 by way of grant, and that New South Wales should receive $8 million. A total of $10,750,000 is being contributed in this way to those two States.

Senator Cant:

– What is Mr. Askin saying?

Senator WEBSTER:

– 1 do not believe it is so much what Mr. Askin, who has received part of this grant, is saying as what Sir Henry Bolte is saying that has some weight. A few months ago a revolutionary new approach to rural . credit was sponsored. This is something for which members on this side of the chamber have fought for many years. My own political party has had this as one of its objectives for quite a number of years. We are particularly proud that this new area of rural credit has been made available, lt is available to the farming community as an important measure for drought recovery, lt is important in that it provides a new permanent facility for farm development, for new farm investment and for new farm productivity. I refer to the release of $50 million from statutory reserve deposits to the new Farm Development Loan Fund, which is now available to the farmer at his own bank. To the end of July an amount of over $5 million had already been approved for this purpose.

This is just one example, but the Government is alive to the needs. It has made new approaches to new problems that have arisen and it has made new approaches to old problems besetting this community. I emphasise that there is a resilience in the community which is put to the test by the staggering cost of modern defence equipment, for which in this Budget a provision of 51,000 million is being made, which is $250 million more than was provided last year. This money cannot be found without some hurt. There will need to be savings in the community and undoubtedly some public projects will need to be foregone. I believe that with a strong economy built over the years by Australian private enterprise under the policies of this Government the needs for defence are at this time being met without great disruption, with no increases in taxes in this Budget - which the Labour Party decrees is quite bacl - and without provision for increased Commonwealth expenditure on other priority needs.

In other areas the Budget adds $74 million towards social services, lt adds §30 million to last year’s allocation for education. It adds $145 million for State works and $37 million for capital works and services. It is of particular satisfaction to me as a Government senator to be able to say that in spite of heavy commitments the long term export objective is being kept in view by the Government. The exigencies of the moment are not creating a fallback in what will be in the future the most important area of development within Australia. The Budget expresses the long term objectives for the rural community in addition to providing for rehabilitation of drought affected industries. Provision is made for a new nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy. I believe that this will benefit the sugar industry, the fruit industry and the production of fodder, wheat and other grains and pastures. It will cost $5.6 million this year. One of the aims of the Government is to see that the rate of usage of nitrogenous fertiliser in Australia increases. It is now only 25 per cent, of the rate in the northern hemisphere. I believe that the introduction of the bounty will considerably reduce this lag. The superphosphate bounty is being continued. Introduced in 1963-64 for a three years period, it is being extended for a. further three years. The cost this year will be $28 million. This is a most successful bounty, which was designed to reduce costs, increase productivity, and increase production for export.

Senator Wright:

– The increase in the price of the products has outmatched the bounty in the period of its life, has it not?

Senator WEBSTER:

– That would be a very short view to take. An additional area of 6.4 million acres in the first and second years of operation, sown to grasses and clover, can be considered as quite an investment for the future. The value of the bounty to production continues. The policy that has been created in this respect is amazing, lt has led to a 50 per cent, increase in the total sales of superphosphate since 1962-63.

Senator Wright:

– What is the answer to my question?

Senator WEBSTER:

– If I had sufficient time to answer it, I would do so. In relation to manufacturing industries, the Budget provides for the removal of some anomalies that have existed in regard to export incentives. Taxation incentives for export will be continued. This is another type of bounty for manufacturing industries of which the Government is making great use in an attempt to get our products sold overseas. A full review of incentive measures for export by manufacturing industries is under way at present. The Government has introduced a subsidy scheme that will cost §250,000 this year and S6 million in a full year for research and development by industry. This will act as an incentive to production for export. Provision is made for encouragement of tourism, an area that provides an invisible export income. The grant for tourism to the Australian National Travel Association is being increased by $100,000 to $862,000.

In the remainder of the time that I have available to me I should like to mention, first, that I support the Budget in its general propositions, but it would be quite uncommon if there were no areas in which one would not suggest that some greater impact could be . made. There ate some areas in which I hope the Government will give some thought to the provision of relief. In one or two instances it must be done more or less immediately. I agree with Senator Gair that those people who are on fixed incomes are in a difficult position. I refer to people who receive superannuation returns for which they have paid and who are probably receiving amounts which are insufficient to maintain them. They were, perhaps, bank officers, who contributed their own money over the years to provide them with an amount which precludes them from getting a pension. These people are taxed to quite a considerable amount. People in the low fixed income group need further relief. This is one area at which the Government could well look.

I believe that repatriation benefits for men who we have asked to go to fight for us in other lands should be made much greater than they are today. We must compensate those who receive injury at the hands of the enemy with greater benefits than apply today. We heard the reply given by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) to a question this afternoon. No matter how it affects our economy it is not sufficient that a returned soldier should receive only the benefits provided by the existing legislation and I ask the Minister to do all he can to see that they are increased. 1 suggest that the Government should, at the earliest opportunity, encourage our primary producing industries to take advantage of the automatic data processing which is now available. This encouragement could be provided in the private sector of the community, by relief from either sales tax or some other burden.

In my own State, Victoria - and I confine my next two remarks to Victoria - old people’s homes are undoubtedly being assisted in the present Budget. The Government has made a rather wonderful contribution to homes for aged’ persons and I hope that the Senate is aware that the Aged Persons Homes Act is being altered to provide for eligible organisations to receive grants for the accommodation of residents requiring continuous nursing care. The absence of such assistance has been one of the faults of the Act up to the present time. But this provision will be now made where the number of beds for such persons does not exceed one-third of the total number in a home. The Commonwealth’s contribution will amount to some $40 million in a full year and I think we can be particularly proud of the filling of this need which has existed for some time. A problem exists at present in accommodating our aged people and pensioners in private hospitals. Although relief is provided by the Government to some public hospitals, something needs to be done to provide assistance to private hospitals.

In the last few moments available to me may I turn my comments to the present financial plight of the Government of Victoria. I agree with the Premier of Victoria when he says that the problem facing that State at the moment has to be relieved by the Federal Government. There are a number of things about which one could express concern in regard to this matter. For instance, the Victorian Government charges for hospital care whereas some other States do not receive income from this source and yet receive outright grants from the Commonwealth for some other purpose. In “ Commonwealth Payments to or for the States, 1966-67”, one of the papers presented with the Budget, the figures at pages 47 and 48 show that in the last five years the Government of Victoria has provided the Commonwealth, in taxation payments, with $600 million over and above what it has received from the Commonwealth and this sum has been used for the advancement of the other States. In the last 10 years Victoria has provided about $1,000 million over and above what has been returned to- it. In the last 1 6 years it has provided an excess of $1,300 million, which the Commonwealth has used for the development and advancement of other States.

Senator Scott:

– ‘Hear, hear!

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am sure that the” honorable senator will support the Premier of Victoria when he says: “ If we could get back 5 per cent, of the £600 million that would see us out of our problems “. We cannot have one State being such a large provider for the Commonwealth. I think the Budget should be looked at again with a view to finding some way of overcoming Victoria’s financial position. I have great pleasure in supporting the Budget proposals.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– We are debating the Budget brought down last Tuesday week by the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon), and I support the amendment moved by my Leader, Senator Willesee. Senator Webster said that there had been no constructive comment from the Leader of the Opposition about the Budget.

Senator Webster:

– That is true.

Senator CANT:

– 1 do not know what Senator Webster requires from the Opposition. It is the duty of the Opposition to be critical of the Government. The Government occupies the Treasury bench and has been there for 17 years, but in fact has won only two elections in its own right -in 1949 and in 1951. On all other occasions it has stolen the proposals of the Australian Labour Party in order to put itself into office and keep itself in office. Now it has presented a completely inept Budget and it wants the Australian Labour Party to write its policy for the 1966 election. But we do not intend to do that.

As one travels around the community one hears this Budget given many names, but to me it is a cowardly Budget. I am, perhaps, not as unkind as my Leader in another place (Mr. Calwell), who said that the Treasurer, in bringing down his Budget, was either deceitful or more foolish than we had thought. The Treasurer is no fool and I do not think that he is deceitful. But I do say that this is a cowardly Budget. It shifts the onus of levying taxes away from the Commonwealth and onto the Governments of the various States. It is a complete case of “ buck-passing “, as one of my colleagues suggests. This is borne out by the Liberal Premier of New South Wales who says that State taxes will have to be increased. It is also borne out by statements by Sir Henry Bolte, the Liberal Premier of Victoria, and by Mr. David Brand, thi Liberal Premier of Western Australia, both of whom say that State taxes will have to be increased. This is a complete shifting of the burden of raising taxes from the place where it should reside - the place that should jealously guard its right to raise taxation - onto the shoulders of the States. And, worse than that, the only field of taxation available to the States is indirect taxation. Indirect taxes fall equally on those who have and those who have not, and that is why this is a cowardly Budget. It is a cowardly Budget because the Treasurer did not have the intestinal fortitude to take the steps that should have been taken, but shifted the onus on to the States so that the Government can go out and say to the electors: “ We did not increase taxation.” But on the hustings the Labour Party will have no reservation in telling the people the truth of the situation. Only in this morning’s Press the Premier of Victoria is reported to have said that hospital fees in Victoria will have to be increased by 30 per cent. He is also reported to have said that he will impose payroll tax, which will bring s20 million, to the Victorian Government. I do not know whether this is for a full year or for the remainder of the present fiscal year.

Senator Webster:

– Are you sure it was payroll tax?

Senator CANT:

– That is what the Press reported, and it has not been denied. The Premier of Victoria is reported to have said that he will impose 1 per cent, payroll tax in the State of Victoria. This is an indirect tax which everyone has been trying to get rid of for a considerable time because it results in increased costs. If the payroll tax is imposed, costs will increase in Victoria. The Treasurer in his Budget speech did not mention this. He blithely sailed along, and at the end of his speech he said - . . we regret that we cannot propose general reductions in taxation. The weight of our expenditure commitments, especially on the side of defence, precludes such a possibility even though the Government is very conscious that the burden of taxation has increased in recent years, particularly for the individual taxpayer, lt is the price we pay for growth and for security;

Where is there any growth in this Budget? He continued - but it is also a warning that, as a nation of fewer than 12 million people with a continent to develop-

And there is no development in the Budget - we face strict limits on the commitments we can and should accept.

Senator Webster spoke about the economy being resilient and able to absorb the impact of a disastrous drought. What is the position as we find it?

Senator Webster:

– Do not tell me it is otherwise.

Senator CANT:

– Let us have a look at the position. The Treasurer in his Budget speech said -

Thus, with total expenditure estimated at 35,930,394,008 and total revenue and other receipts of $5,397,249,000, there remains an amount of $533,145,000 to be covered by borrowing in various forms. The comparable amount in 1965-66 was $251,082,000.

This is supposed to be a viable economy, but it has to rely on borrowings and deficits in order to absorb the impact of a disastrous drought. That is how viable it is. The Government is relying on credit and hire purchase finance. It is buying things overseas and it will pay for them at some time in the future. The debts will go on and on. Yet we are told that it is an economy that can. absorb the impact of a disastrous drought. What foolishness will we hear next?

Senator Mattner:

– We are listening to a lot now.

Senator CANT:

– Perhaps the honorable senator is listening to foolishness now, but generally fools need to listen. There is nothing in the Budget that can commend itself to anyone. It is all right for Government supporters to get up and praise it. That is their duty. I do not blame them for trying to make something out of nothing. Nevertheless, when I examine the document, I find that it is the worst Budget that has been brought down since I have been in this chamber. It is completely nonexplanatory. If anyone can make anything out of it, he is pretty good.

What else is the Government relying on? If we look at the “ Treasury Information Bulletin” - and Senator Webster spoke about the trade position and the improvement in farm incomes and the manufacturing industries - we find that on current account we were down the drain by $818 million last financial year. How did we recover this deficiency? We recovered it by relying on overseas investment. The day when overseas investment dries up - and it is likely to dry up considerably this year, as even the Treasurer admits - we will find that the economy begins to collapse. An amount of $877 million in overseas investment came into Australia in the last financial year. How long can the economy continue to exist when it has to rely on overseas investment to this extent? Between 1961-62 and 1965- 66, the amount of foreign investment that came into Australia totalled $2,652,000,000. This is the way in which our economy has had to rely on overseas investment. If it had not been for the development of mineral resources in Western Australia, our position would have been very bad this year.

That development, as far as we can see at this point of time, is just about complete. The foreign investment that will come into

Australia in connection with those projects in the next two or three years will be considerably less than it was previously. There will be very little foreign investment coming into Australia in that respect, and there will be very little money coming into Australia from the sale of ore from the north of Western Australia because the ore is owned substantially by overseas investors, and the amounts earned from the sale of the ore will go out to overseas companies. Australia will get very little from the sale of the ore. Yet we are told that this is the sort of economy that is able to absorb the impact of a drought. I would not like to think that the time has arrived when we are trying to absorb the effect of droughts from our own resources.

One other matter on which I want to speak shortly before we adjourn is the way in which this Government, through its inept handling of the economy of Australia, is eroding the wages and fixed incomes of the people of Australia. We know that the basic wage was increased by $2 a week earlier this year, but what does that $2 mean? It has gone already. What do the $1 a week increase for single pensioners and the 75 cents a week increase for married pensioners mean? The increases have been absorbed already. On occasions over the years the Government has increased pensions by 5s. per week. It did not give the pensioners any increase last year, so it gave them $1 this year. That will just about cover increased costs.

Senator Cormack:

– What was the percentage rise in the consumer price index last year?

Senator CANT:

– I do not know. I have not gone into that. But I do know that the gross national product has risen by only 9 per cent, over the past 5 years.

Senator Cormack:

– Each year.

Senator CANT:

– No. There was practically no rise in the first three years, and it rose by 5 per cent, in 1964-65 and by 4 per cent, in 1965-66.

Senator Cormack:

– I think that the honorable senator’s facts and figures are wrong.

Senator CANT:

– The figures are here if the honorable senator wants to have a look at them. They are not my figures but the

Statistician’s. The way in which the Government has allowed this so called free enterprise economy to slip is a disgrace. Yet it has control over one section of the economy. Wages is the one section of the economy that is controlled.

Debate interrupted.

page 102

ADJOURNMENT

Conservation of Fauna

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That (lie Senate do no adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Mr. President, earlier tonight my leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee), in his opening remarks on the Budget, dwelt on the increasing ambit of the Commonwealth Government’s responsibilities in quite a number of new fields, lt is probably appropriate that on 1st September 1965 I made my initial submissions in this chamber on the responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government in the field of fauna conservation. My decision to again raise this issue tonight is prompted by two recent developments.

In the first instance, this weekend in New South Wales there is to be a conference convened by the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales at Gosford in the electorate of Robertson at which 44 organisations will be represented. Secondly, in the New South Wales Parliament last night, a colleague of mine. Mr. N. Kearns, M.L.A., raised a question concerning a recent happening in (hat State when a very rare variety of wallaby, a yellow pawed wallaby, was discovered on 1 3th June beyond Broken Hill. It had been considered that this particular species was virtually extinct. The New South Wales Minister for Lands indicated that the New South Wales Fauna Protection Panel was having a look at the situation to see what could be done. A number of Western Lands Leases in New South Wales could soon expire, and there could be problems in relation to land ownership.

This is the broad issue that I will briefly outline in my submission: That the Com monwealth Government should intervene and provide some form of aid. Before I do so, Mr. President, in order to justify the need to this matter to be raised at a Federal level, I want to retrace my steps over the last 12 months in regard to What has happened in this particular field and to take up the point made by Senator Willesee earlier tonight about increasing Commonwealth responsibilities. Over a period of 12 months, we have found that leading authorities such as Dr. Frith, the chief of the Wild Life Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Professor Jock Marshall of the Monash University, in his book “The Great Extermination “. and Alan Strom, the Chief Fauna Guardian of New South Wales, have been travelling the Commonwealth, advocating a greater awareness in this field. Coupled with- that we had on “ Project 66 “ last Sunday - and it is to be continued this Sunday - a very fine presentation, with a commentary by Alan Moorehead, dealing with fauna conservation. That presentation featured broadly the top echelon of public opinion.

I want to go further - and this is very important - and refer to the 44 organisations that are attending the conference this coming weekend at Gosford. I know that any government, State of Federal, in a case such as this, may say that it constantly will be giving handouts and it may ask what the various organisations themselves are doing. The most potent argument I can advance against this is that when there are 44 organisations in New South Wales comprising people giving their time to this cause - and in many cases donations - then it is obvious that they are endeavouring to do something of a positive nature. 1 am not speaking purely on a State level because I have had correspondence on this subject and I know from Senator Dittmer, of activities in the Wide Bay area of Queensland, and also of various groups in Victoria. Therefore, this move is gathering momentum and it has reached such dimensions now that obviously the Federal Government can no longer remain on the sidelines.

In that regard I must say that I did receive in March last a lengthy letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) in which he defined the Government’s policy, briefly, as being one in which all its energies were being directed to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory in the field of fauna protection. I do not cavil at the policy that has been maintained in those areas. I think that on the whole it has been a pretty successful policy and that very long range targets are to be applauded. But I want to look at the matter a little closer. A body was formed called the “ Australian Conservation Foundation “. The Prime Minister, in his letter to me, pointed out that outside the activities in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth Government did give an initial grant to this body. I understand that in the current Budget the Commonwealth will regard donations to this organisation as legitimate taxation deductions. That is very good. It is a further encouragement.

On the political level. I must say in fairness that the Minister for Works (Senator Gorton), as Ministerial head of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, has endeavoured to provide certain assistance to the States, and 1 know this move has gone a lot further. I know that Senator Ian Wood, and my colleague. Senator 0’Byrne, have also been very active in their respective spheres to try to create a public awareness on this matter. My main objection - and I crystallise my reason for rising to my feet tonight - is that the emphasis in this matter has been laid on surveys. This booklet which I have here refers to the programme of the Foundation. I know the officers of that Foundation. They are men with excellent records. But at the present time all they are engaged in is a survey of Australian national parks and reserves, the publication of a booklet on the A.B.C. of conservation, and Field Study Centres. 1 will sum the matter up in this way, Mr. President: If you were coaching a football team - and being conscious of the fact that I am now speaking in the Commonwealth Parliament I am not interested in whether that team consists of 18, 15, 13 or 1 1 players - and the team trained for three months and then did not play, its enthusiasm would wane. I apply that analogy to this question of fauna conservation. I am concerned about all this talk of surveys and the fact that nothing positive is being done by the

Commonwealth Government at the present time to stimulate the activities of these 44 organisations in New South Wales that I have referred to and their counterparts in the other States.

In North America, both in Canada and the United States of America, the Federal Governments are moving in and are virtually parallelling the development in the various States. I know that honorable senators probably will say that tonight we have heard of the financial problems confronting the States in relation to drought expenditure. I concede that point unreservedly. But I have used the word “ conservation “, and without trying to divide anyone on the question of priorities, the fact of the matter is that in a number of instances some Australian marsupials are on the verge of extinction whereas as far as stock generally are concerned the reproductive processes have not been affected to the same extent.

I am talking about the region beyond Broken Hill. I think it will be agreed that grazing capacity in that area is certainly in a different position fr om that in the Riverina area. If my theories are taken to their logical conclusion, there will be no effect on our wool production whatsoever. The point I am making is that a little aid from the Commonwealth Government for the State of New South Wales for this project or a little aid for another State at another stage, will mean the difference between preserving the habitat of an animal and its extinction. In this case, I am referring to the yellow pawed wallaby.

To substantiate that argument I want to quote from a statement from one of my advisers. I will be quite happy to give this statement to the Minister concerned with this matter. There has been talk about a quarter of a million acres being bought in this western division of New South Wales and it was expected that it would cost £30,000 to £50,000. This thesis was made out for me in the terms of my earlier submissions dealing with kangaroos. But at the moment I am dealing with the yellow pawed wallaby. Obviously its mobility would be of a considerably smaller radius and therefore I am not speaking in terms of £30,000. I think that would be an excessive amount. Obviously, on 13th June the New South Wales Government found itself confronted with the situation to which I have referred. I am not playing party politics in regard to this matter. 1 realise the financial problems that the States have had. But I say very clearly that I think this is an instance in which the Commonwealth Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) could emulate President Johnson and adopt the theme “All the way with L.B.J . “. We on this side of the House certainly would not cavil if the Treasurer were to visit this particular area of New South Wales and confer with the New South Wales Minister for Lands who might indicate that the procrastination which was exhibited in the New South Wales Parliament last night would end if big brother, in the person of the Commonwealth Government at Canberra, were over the final jump.

Some people might say that this is a Utopian concept. But let me point out that Dr. Harry Frith of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has stated that the Organisation is receiving an average of from 300 to 400 requests per year from school children in relation to fauna. Time is still on the side of those who advocate fauna conservation. But it will be a poor situation if, in five years time, people say: “This is what we wanted, but in the far western division of New South Wales it has not been achieved “. 1 had some diffidence about speaking at this time of the night. However, 1 took as a model Senator Wright, who has frequently said that the Senate is a forum for anyone who wants to make a plea for some just cause. On Saturday it will be my honour to preside at a conference at Gosford. Doubtless honorable senators opposite will agree that it would be very nice if I were able to do a little cheer chasing at Gosford at the weekend. But I prefer to give the responsible Minister a sporting chance by expressing my views before I go to the conference.

It would be gratifying if I and one or two supporters of the Government who will be at the conference were able to adopt a bipartisan attitude and say that the Commonwealth Government was prepared to help the New South Wales Government in the field of fauna conservation. 1 shall certainly be expounding, to a limited degree at least, my theory to the conference. Somebody has said that a chairman is more of an oracle than an orator. So my opportunity to speak on this subject may be a little limited. During the debate in the Estimates I. shall be more specific about one or two issues.

I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) to convey to the Treasurer a sympathetic assessment of the proposal I have advanced. I hope that a three pronged approach by the 44 organisations that will be represented at Saturday’s conference, the New South Wales Government and the Federal Government will result in something worthwhile being done within the next three months in western New South Wales. I conclude by saying that if honorable senators watch the programme “ Project 66 “ on Sunday next, they will feel that they have participated in an effort to translate into reality some of the ideals advanced by Mr. Alan Moorehead.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– To the best of my knowledge, the Minister for Supply (Senator Henty) who represents the Treasurer (Mr. McMahon) in this place, would not have known that this subject would be raised during the debate on the motion for the adjournment. He has been detained at a meeting of the Cabinet. However, I am quite sure that he will read with interest the remarks of the honorable senator.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.14 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 24 August 1966, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1966/19660824_senate_25_s32/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant