Senate
14 May 1969

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1969

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

page 1181

REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have this day written to the Governor of South Australia notifying him, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution, of the vacancy in the representation of that State caused by the death of Senator Laught.

page 1181

DEATH OF THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

- Mr President, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the memory of the late Dr Zakir Husain, the President of the Republic of India, who died on 3rd May. Shortly after news of his death was known, the GovernorGeneral and the Acting Prime Minister sent messages of condolence to the Acting President of India and to the Prime Minister of India respectively. Australia was officially represented at the State funeral for Dr Husain in New Delhi by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair).

Dr Husain was a distinguished scholar who made a most significant contribution to Indian national life in the field of education. For more than 20 years he was closely concerned with the development of new forms of education rooted in Indian national culture. Dr Husain was associated also for many years with Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian struggle for independence. After independence, he continued to play a vital role in the national life and he became a member of the Indian Upper House in 1952. In 1957 he was appointed Governor of Bihar and he continued in that office for 5 years until he was elected Vice-President of India in 1962. In 1967 he was elected President and assumed office on 13th May that year. Dr Husain brought the greatest distinction to his high office. His passing is deeply mourned. It is fitting that we in the Federal Parliament should record our sorrow and convey our sympathy to the people of a fellow Commonwealth country.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr President, I desire to associate the Opposition with the tribute paid by the Leader of the Government.

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

– Mr President, the Australian Democratic Labor Party desires to be identified with the resolution of condolence to the Prime Minister and the people of India in the loss of such a distinguished son of that country.

Senator ANDERSON:

- Mr President, I ask that you convey to His Excellency the High Commissioner for India for transmission to his Government the remarks made in the Senate today.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will be pleased to do that.

page 1181

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair) is leaving Australia today for Japan. He will attend on 1 7th May .the launching ceremony of the freighter ‘Australian Enterprise’ which is being built for the Australian National Line for the Australia-Japan trade. While he is in Japan the Minister will have discussions with the Japanese Minister for Transport and officials on matters of mutual interest. Mr Sinclair is expected to return to Australia on 2 1 st May. During his absence the Minister for the Navy (Mr Kelly) will act as Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 1181

PETITIONS

Export of Merino Sheep

Senator MCCLELLAND presented from 1 17 citizens of New South Wales a petition showing that the decision of the Government to lift the 40-year ban on the export of merino rams will’ do irreparable harm to the present and future merino wool industry of Australia; that the initial quota of 300 rams will be sufficient to make any future protest worthless; and that the production of fine medium quality merino wool in cheap labour countries will put the Australian merino wool grower and all connected with this industry out of business. The petitioners pray that the Government will cause to be held a referendum of wool growers to determine this issue.

Petition received and read.

Education

Senator BYRNE presented from 73 citizens of Queensland a petition showing that there is a crisis in education in Australia; that a transformation of the classroom situation is necessary, where children will have reasonable freedom to develop as self-reliant, independent individuals and where they can learn to function as members of a democratic community; that proper preparation for school and thorough guidance there, by qualified teachers, is crucial to a proper education for Australia’s children; that present rate of teaching training is far below the requirement determined by the Martin report which shows that 75% additional teachers in government schools will be required by 1975 compared with those in service in 1963; that to obtain maximum benefit from the education system, pre-school facilities should be available to all children; that insufficient State or Federal assistance has been made available to meet these requirements; that adequate finance to meet these requirements oan only be provided by the Commonwealth Government; that there is an urgent need for a national inquiry into all aspects of Australian education. The petitioners pray that the Senate and the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will give earnest consideration, during Human Rights Year, to this most vital matter.

Petition received and read.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Has the United States Government made an offer to the Australian Government that, in the event of the Fill aircraft not being delivered to the Royal Australian Air Force, the amount paid so far by Australia can be applied to the purchase of an alternative aircraft? If so, has this offer been accepted and are alternative types of aircraft being investigated?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I know of no such arrangement.

page 1182

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA-NEW ZEALAND PEA AND BEAN PANEL

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has there been a recent meeting of the Australia-New Zealand pea and bean panel? If there has been, what was the outcome of the meeting?

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

– Yes, there has been a recent meeting. A meeting was held in Auckland on 29th April. 1 understand that this was the second meeting of the panel referred to by the honourable senator. It was felt that this meeting accomplished quite a good deal. The Australian representatives indicated that they would be seeking an increase of 20% in. the export of peas and beans in the following year. Agreement was reached . also- on the maximum amount of peas and beans to be imported from New Zealand. That too shows an increase. Australian production last year amounted to a. record pf some 92 million lb of peas and some 34 million lb of beans.

page 1182

QUESTION

WORLD POVERTY

Senator HENDRICKSON:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been directed to statements published last week in the Australian Press attributed to U Thant, Secretary:General of the United Nations, who declared that world poverty was the great challenge of the century and who called for contributions of $400m to the. United Nations world food programme in 1971-72 to help promote economic and social, development? Further, has the Minister- read that for 1 7 million people starvation is only one worry? I ask the Minister: Will he confer with his Cabinet colleagues and suggest that Australia’s contribution be made in wheat? This then would allow State and Federal governments to review the .proposals designed to discourage wheat production for the 1969-70 harvest.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– My attention has been directed to the statement. Since it was made by such an important person as the. Secretary-General of the United Nations, I believe that every sensible person should read it and try to understand it. As to the honourable senator’s proposition relating to Australia’s contribution to a solution of the problem, I think it proper to say to him - I am sure he will appreciate this when he reflects upon it - that one cannot take one item in isolation and suggest that that is an answer to a worldwide problem. In terms of its population, its national growth and its gross national product Australia is making a contribution equal to that of any other country in the world. It is made across a wide canvas. I point out particularly that we took a . unique step in introducing special tariff considerations for lesser developed countries to enable small industries in them to develop and to assist those countries to feed themselves. As a nation we have been outstanding in our multilateral and unilateral contributions.

Whilst attributing all the goodwill in the world to the question and the intention behind it, I say that this is a matter which must be looked at across the board in terms of budgetary considerations. That is done regularly. I would be quite happy to bring down a supplementary statement showing a picture of what Australia has been doing in relation to this matter during the past financial year.

page 1183

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities seen the full text of a speech by the executive director of the Australian National Travel Association to the travel industry conference in Sydney in which he is said to have claimed that the Austraiian tourist industry was not realising its potential and was outdated? Can the Minister outline some of the plans which will update the tourist industry in Australia? Can he give me any indication of the position of the Australian tourist industry in the scale of income earners for Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I have seen the full text of the director’s speech and I had the advantage of attending for 2 full days the conference which the Australian National Travel Association held in Sydney last week. It was most gratifying that it evoked the support of not less than 3S0 delegates from all over the country. I think the expression attributed to the executive director that the Australian tourist industry is outdated is a little unfortunate. It would be recognised, I think, that in a growth of international tourism that achieved an export earning last year of $87m, representing a great increase over the past decade, progress is being made.

As to providing facilities for the accommodation of tourists, I think that if I inform honourable senators that 10 years ago the capital put into building motels and hotels was some SI 3m whereas last year it was more than three times that figure - some $48m - they then will get an indication of the degree to which those engaged in the tourist industry are meeting the challenge. Furthermore, I just make a passing reference to the fact that the Government has been busily engaged for some years in having ready its international terminals at Mascot and Tullamarine so as to accommodate the jumbo jets from which we expect a great expansion in the number of visitors from overseas.

page 1183

QUESTION

SCHOOL LIBRARIES

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. What was the amount given to Queensland for school libraries? What were the amounts given to each school?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– These figures were announced in recent weeks. I will need to consult with my office to obtain those figures. I will let the honourable senator know without any delay.

page 1183

QUESTION

MONASH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– I wish to ask Senator Wright, the Minister representing the Attorney-General, the following question: 1. Is the Minister aware that on two separate occasions recently newspaper reports have claimed that students at the Monash University have collected money to assist the Vietcong who are killing South Vietnamese citizens and Australian soldiers? 2. Does the Government know that the names of some of these traitors have been published by Victorian newspapers? 3. Will the Government give an assurance that the laws designed to protect the lives of Australian servicemen from this type of sabotage will be implemented?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The specific information to which the honourable senator refers has not come to my notice; I have seen general reports to that effect in newspaper paragraphs. But I feel that there is no need for me to repeat the assurance that the law, the administration of which is entrusted to the Attorney-General, will be enforced on every appropriate occasion.

page 1184

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES ACT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation. I ask the Minister: In view of declining applications under the War Service Homes Act, will the Minister consider bringing within the scope of this legislation national servicemen who ‘ otherwise qualify for housing loans but who, under separate Acts, do not receive- the same general and technical assistance which would be provided under the War Service Homes Act?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Mr President, I think that the honourable senator meant to direct this question to me. May I reply to it, as it comes within my portfolio? I did not hear all of the question because 1 thought it was for my colleague, the Minister for Repatriation. I think 1 am correct in saying that the first point that the honourable senator raised was that at present there was a decline in applications under the War Service Homes. Act-

Senator Bishop:

– And would you consider transferring national servicemen to the legislation?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Then I shall deal with the last point first. The honourable senator asks whether we would consider transferring national servicemen so that they will receive the benefits of this legislation. I presume the honourable senator means those national servicemen who are not presently eligible because, if they are eligible people through their service, they are eligible to receive the benefits of this legislation.

Senator Bishop:

– They are eligible for a loan but not under the War Service Homes Act.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– If they are eligible through their service, as I was informing the honourable senator, they are as eligible as are exservicemen who have qualifying service under the War Service Homes Act. The honourable senator. I think, is asking whether this policy can be extended into a new field. This is of course a matter of policy and could not properly be answered at question time. The honourable senator then said that the rate of applications is decreasing. I remind him that the war service homes legislation has been in operation for 50 years. The honourable senator will appreciate that immediately after a period of war the rate of applications for war service homes finance is high. It may then be that after a period has elapsed the number of applications decreases. Present indications are that the declining trend in the rate of applications over the previous decade appears to have already been reversed. It appears that the number of applications for this year will show a slight increase over last year.

page 1184

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry: Is it a fact that France has contracted to sell mainland China 800,000 tons of standard grade wheat at prices below the minimum price provisions of the International Grains Agreement? If so. in view of the serious implications of that action involving our own prospects of making wheat sales to China, is any action, being taken to preserve the stability and effectiveness of the Agreement?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– J understand that France has recently sold about 800,000 tons of wheat to China at prices reported lo be below the international Grains Agreement minimum. Australia has been a large supplier of wheat to China. In January of this year we recorded our biggest wheat sale to China - over 2.2 million tons. China regularly purchases wheat from France, Canada and the Argentine. Major wheat exporters met recently in Washington to consider the operations of the International Grains Agreement. Canada, the United States of America, Australia, the Argentine and European Economic Community countries all attended the meeting. They reaffirmed their support for the International Grains Agreement and announced an intention to take individual and collective action to ensure that the minimum price concept is preserved. This is an important and delicate matter, as honourable senators will appreciate. For that reason I do not wish to go -any further into the matter at this time. However, 1 understand that after further consideration action will be taken by the International Wheat Council’s Prices Review Committee, which is operating in London.

page 1185

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– 1 wish to ask the Minister representing the Minister for Air, for the third time in a month: ls he or is he not going to table the rules, regulations, guidelines, or whatever he likes to call them, for VIP planes?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I am happy to advise the honourable senator that yesterday I again approached the Minister for Air on this subject. He informed me that there is no document, as such, which sets out the rules and regulations in respect of VIP aircraft.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Of course. That is the trouble.

Senator McKELLAR:

– 1 am passing on to the honourable senator the information given to me by the Minister for Air. lt is the only information I have. If he thinks he can obtain any additional information, he is welcome to try.

page 1185

QUESTION

NATIONAL ANTHEM

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In spite of the acknowledged popularity in some quarters of the song Waltzing Matilda’, will the Minister discuss with the Prime Minister the holding of a government sponsored and richly endowed competition to endeavour to obtain for this nation a truly national song? Will he endeavour to have the competition organised and closed at a time that will enable the winning song to be announced during the celebrations honouring the bicentenary of the arrival of Captain James Cook in Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I forbear to burst into song, but I do take on board the question asked by the honourable senator. 1. shall have it directed to the Prime Minister.

page 1185

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT SERVICING

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Supply aware that Bendix Corporation of Rockdale, New South Wales, a firm which specialises in servicing Royal Australian Air Force aircraft in relation to various electrical components, has given 3 months notice of termination of employment to fourteen of its skilled employees? ls he aware that this action is based on a sharp drop in man hours of aircraft servicing offered by the Department of Supply? ls he aware also that ki 1968 the expectation of 30,000 man hours as visualised by the Department of Supply was met to the extent of 50% only? What hopes has the firm of retaining its skilled staff of specialists if this trend of reduced maintenance continues?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator was courteous enough to inform me of the point that he intended to make in relation to the Bendix Corporation of Rockdale, New South Wales. I am seeking information but I am not in a position at the moment to give the honourable senator a complete answer with all the facts in relation to this matter. 1 think there is no need for the honourable senator to put his question on notice as I shall obtain an answer for him within the next several sitting days and make the information available to him and the Senate.

page 1185

QUESTION

SHIP BUILDING

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. With the policy of the Australian Government to transport oil cargoes in Australian tankers around the Australian coast and to permit the use of overseas tankers to operate in the trade only until they can be replaced by Australian built ships, will the Minister give full support to the building of these tankers in the Whyalla shipyards in South Australia?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Government announced recently as part of its. fuel policy for Australia that all oil produced in Australia where possible will be transported to Australian ports by Australian ships which I understand will be manned by Australian crews. The Government is anxious to have and encourages ship building throughout Australia, and for this purpose gives a subsidy on the construction of vessels in Australia of about 25% or 30% of the construction cost. Large ships are being built in Australia for the carriage of bulk cargoes. When I was in Whyalla recently I noticed that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd was building a vessel with a total capacity of 55.000 dead weight tons for the carriage of iron ore. As to that part of the question in which the honourable senator requests that the Australian Government give consideration to the construction in Australia qf oil tankers, I shall refer this matter to the Minister for Shipping and Transport and obtain a reply for him.

page 1186

QUESTION

UREA

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Can the Minister for Customs and Excise inform the Senate whether the bounty on urea is payable on the urea content of stock licks?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– A subsidy, amounting to $80 per ton of contained nitrogen, is payable to the end user of urea. If the urea was used in stock licks the user would get the benefit of that bounty.

page 1186

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister for Customs and Excise seen a report that Federal and State Ministers, at a meeting held recently in Melbourne, agreed that the worth of the Central Crime Intelligence Bureau which has been established by the Commonwealth Police should be extended to include offences in relation to drugs? Was the Minister also reported as saying that drug addiction in Australia is increasing at the rate of between 80% and 100% per annum and that a highly organised international drug ring is operating in Australia? If so, is this meant to be an admission by the Minister that any efforts that have been made to date by this Government and his Department in particular to stamp out drug trafficking have been completely unsuccessful? When does his Department intend to transfer its functions relating to drugs to the Central Crime Intelligence Bureau?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– A meeting of Ministers was held in Melbourne last Monday week. The whole question of drugs and their control was discussed. It was suggested at the meeting that the Central Crime Intelligence Bureau should take part in compiling information in relation to drug addiction in Australia. Several other important points were raised. For instance, I made the statement that to the best of my knowledge drug addiction in Australia was increasing at the rate of approximately 80% per annum. This, of course, is the whole reason for the meeting of Ministers. As the honourable senator well knows, a meeting was called in February this year. Commonwealth and State Ministers got together to discuss this important problem. They set up a national standing committee for the control of drug addiction. It consists of the Comptroller-General of Customs and Excise, who is the chairman of the committee, and the heads of State health departments and police departments. The committee’s function is to make recommendations to the Ministers as to the best way of controlling drugs.

In regard to that part of the question in which the honourable senator says that the Department of Customs and Excise is giving away its powers and asks whether I believe that because the Department is giving away certain of its powers it is becoming inefficient, 1 wish to advise him that the customs officers are very much on the ball in relation to the control of drugs entering Australia. Not only are we very much on the ball but we have set up a narcotics bureau within the Department. We have also increased the staff of the prevention and detection section, to control the entry of drugs into Australia, by 100% in the last 2 or 3 years. Recently we purchased fast vessels which are available at some of the major ports to help our officers control the entry of drugs. We intend, with the permission of the Government - if possible, in the forthcoming Budget session - to look into the question of the purchase of suitable aircraft in order to achieve better control and to ensure that our shores can be patrolled with the idea of endeavouring to stop drugs entering those parts of Australia where we do not have people permanently stationed.

page 1186

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Are any films made specifically for the promotion of the immigration programme? If not, will1 the Minister consider the use of films directed to the normal aspects of urban life in Australia, which a migrant may expect to enjoy, and not just the tourist attraction type of film which emphasises the beaches, flora and fauna and other natural attractions of this country?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I cannot give a firm answer on the details of the films that are made for advertising the living areas and conditions in Australia to intending migrants. However, I have a recollection that in the last estimates debate in this chamber this very point was debated. I will obtain a factual statement concerning this matter. I agree entirely with the honourable senator’s statement that these films, which show the areas, the conditions and the kind of community life in which they would be living, would be invaluable in this regard.

page 1187

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMME

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. In view of the fact that weeks ago I made a statement in regard to an undesirable programme broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and the Minister indicated that she shared my indignation and would take up the matter with the Postmaster-General, I ask when an answer can be expected from the Postmaster-General. In view of the fact also that weeks ago the Australian Broadcasting Commission informed private individuals who protested by letter of the action which had been taken by the Commission, is this defiance of the Senate the responsibility of the Postmaster-General or the responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Commission?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-I do not think there is any defiance of the Senate in this matter, but I shall place the honourable senator’s comments before the Postmaster-General.

page 1187

QUESTION

LAKE BURLEY GRIFFIN WATER JET

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Is it true that the installation of a vertical water jet in the central basin of Lake Burley Griffin, as announced by the Minister for the Interior on 2nd May,, will cost in excess of $300,000? If not, what will be the cost of the project? Why is a water jet, even if it will be, as reported, 250 ft high, considered to be an appropriate permanent memorial to mark Captain Cook’s discovery of the eastern coast of Australia?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I cannot give the honourable senator the exact cost of the water system or the device that will spout the water upwards, but the Minister for the Interior has given me various figures of the hourly cost of running a system which, will discharge a jet of water into the air. It will cost about S28 an .hour to send the jet to a height of about 450 feet and about $15 an hour to send it to a lower range of from 250 to 300 feet. We understand that the system, if constructed, would not operate for the whole of the daylight hours. A similar jet in Geneva operates for only 4 or 5 hours during daylight. In relation to the actual cost of the equipment, I will have to take this up with the Minister and obtain a reply for the honourable senator.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence what amount has been paid by Australia to date under the Fill contract. I further ask the Minister what would be the cost to Australia of cancelling the order. .

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I recall obtaining the information for the honourable senator some weeks ago, but I do not know whether any payments have been made since that date. I. will get the information for the honourable senator and direct the balance of his question to the Minister for Defence for consideration.

page 1187

QUESTION

SHIPPING OF TIMBER

Senator LILLICO:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is he aware that it is claimed in a circular by a prominent sawmiller in Tasmania that he often has to wait a month for space to ship his timber to Melbourne, and that this is having an adverse effect on his mainland timber orders? Is he aware that it is claimed that sometimes ships leave the port of Burnie with ample space for several thousand super feet of timber? Because it was promised months ago that an investigation would be made of this position by the Australian National Line with a view to improving the situation, will the Minister again take up this matter with the ANL with a view to securing a more reliable and- frequent service from the north west coast of Tasmania?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The shipment of timber from Tasmania to the mainland has been the subject of representations on several occasions recently. Although the Australian National Line has made every effort to satisfy northern Tasmanian shippers’ requirements by introducing additional vessels into the sea-road service, on occasions in the last 4 months it has been unable to satisfy requirements although all vessels have been fully loaded. The only exception was when labour engaged was unable to fully discharge or load vessels in the time allowed. Strikes by waterside workers, transport workers,clerks and harbour trust employees during 1969 have seriously affected the programme of the Line’s searoad vessels. In this regard the current strike in Melbourne has precluded ‘South Esk’, Nilpena’ and ‘Noongah’ from discharging and loading cargo. On present indications these vessels will not be able to recommence their schedules before Friday evening.

Following investigations by the ANL in October 1968 of the position regarding timber shipments from Stanley, the Line was prepared to programme ‘South Esk’ throughthat port to provide as nearly as possible a fortnightly service, provided full cargoes or at least 330,000 super feet of timber were available for shipment.I understand that the. Standing Committee on Shipping for Circular Head discussed the Line’s proposition but as the Committee could not guarantee 330,000 super feet each fortnight it was agreed that for the time being the past practice would continue whereby local shipping agents or that Committee would keep the ANL advised of the availability of timber, hoping for a visit to Stanley by the ‘South Esk’ at least once every 3 or 4 weeks. Since February 1969 South Esk’ has called at Stanley on the following dates: 8th February, for 395,000 super feet of timber; 8th March, for 338,000 super feet of timber; 3rd April, for 430,000 super feet of timber and 3rd May for 363,000 super feet of timber. The ANL is closely watching the situation and where possible will endeavour to provide adequate shipping for the cargo offering.

page 1188

QUESTION

COAT OF ARMS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question, addressed to the Leader of the Government, follows on from the question asked by Senator Marriott about the National

Anthem. In the event of the acceptance of the suggestion that ‘Waltzing Matilda’ become the national anthem, would consideration be given to a new coat of arms depicting a certain dog 9 miles from Gundagai lying on his back on a tucker box waiting for his tummy to be tickled by overseas investors?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

- Mr President, I have no comment to offer.

page 1188

QUESTION

DDT

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether the Department of Health is satisfied that the influence of DDT on mothers milk in Australia is within the World Health Organisation limit of . 01%, which is regarded as the safe maximum daily intake. I further ask whether, because of the danger to nursing mothers and babies in many European countries, DDT has been banned in them? Will the Minister make inquiries and tell me what the Department of Health is doing about this very serious matter?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I could no! give the honourable senator a detailed reply to the important matters raised in his question, but as requested by him,I shall obtain what information I can from the Department of Health.

page 1188

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator CORMACK:
VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to, or has he read, page 1727 of Hansard of another place at which a policy former of the Australian Labor Party has stated that he believes in poleaxing the Senate as a useless anachronism? Will the Leader of the Government obtain from honourable senators who sit on your left, Mr President, an indication as to whether or not they are of that opinion also?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– For my sins, I cannot promise to read everything in Hansard of another place. However, I certainly will read page 1727 with considerable interest.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. Is it not a breach of the Standing Orders to discuss a debate in another place?

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is not upheld.

Senator ANDERSON:

– -If some policy maker in the Labor Party said those derogatory things about the Senate, we now have a classic opportunity for Labor Party senators to stand up and be counted as to where they stand in relation to the Senate.

page 1189

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– May I say. by way of prelude, that 1 am indebted to the Minister for Customs and Excise for his impromptu reply to the question directed to him by Senator McClelland about the narcotic drugs trade. The Minister will be aware of the publicly expressed concern of the Democratic Labor Party about the narcotic drugs trade and all its associated problems in this country and he also will know that the Democratic Labor Party has under consideration action to secure the appointment of a Senate select committee to investigate the whole matter. However, that suggestion is not being pursued at this stage in view of the setting up by the Minister of a committee of Federal and State Ministers to deal with the question. At the earliest possible date will the Minister make a considered statement to the Senate on the area of inquiry and activity of the committee, the progress it has made and generally the result of any surveys it has conducted in the field of its responsibility? Will he consider making periodic statements along those lines to the Senate?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I am well aware of the concern of all thinking Australians about the problems associated with the handling of the narcotic drugs trade in Australia. I include in those thinking people members of the Democratic Labor Party who frequently have said that their intention is to move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the problem of drug addiction in Australia but have refrained from so doing because of the announcement that Federal and State Ministers would meet to consider this acute problem. The honourable senator has asked me whether I am prepared to make a full statement as to what is actually happening in Australia following the recent meeting. I assure him that I will make a full statement on the subject as soon as possible.

page 1189

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

(Senator Young having addressed a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate)

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order is upheld.

page 1189

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator COHEN:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Has the Government yet received the report of the inquiry presided over by Mr Justice Sweeney into the level of salaries in colleges of advanced education? If not, when is it expected that the report will be completed? If the Government has received the report, when will it be made available to Parliament and the public?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have taken notice of the honourable senator’s concern in this matter. I have no knowledge whether the report has been received but he can ‘ rest assured that as soon as it has been received and duly considered the Parliament will be advised.

page 1189

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator MARRIOTT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. In view of the fairly consistent implications by some Labor Party senators that customs officers in Australia are not acting with efficiency in respect of the prevention of the illegal importation of drugs into Australia, will the Minister prepare a statement - for the Senate setting out the dates, places and the kinds of drugs which have been seized by Australian customs officers in each of the past 4 years?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Some members of the Opposition have criticised severely officers of the Department of Customs and Excise in relation to the control of drugs in Australia. This attack on the Department has been going on for quite a few weeks. In view of the fact that the honourable senator has asked me whether I would be prepared to make available to the Senate information relating to the quantity of drugs that have been seized in each State over the past 4 years or so, I will endeavour to obtain the information for the honourable senator and also make it available to the Senate.

page 1190

QUESTION

WEST IRIAN

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Leader of the Government inform the Senate how the Government is reacting to the action of the Indonesian Government in banning newsmen from West Irian? Has any protest been made to the Indonesian Government? What does the Australian Government intend to do to keep open the channels of information between Australia and West Irian, the future of which affects us vitally?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– In the first place, internal1 policy decisions of a nation arc the complete responsibility of that nation. Nevertheless I wilt treat the question as being on notice and have it directed to the Minister for External Affairs for reply. It would seem to me. however, that if a nation decided to place some restriction on an area within its own. territory that would be the responsibility of that nation. I. am well aware, as we all are aware, that a decision in relation to self-determination is to take place in West Irian under the aegis of the United Nations and in accordance with an agreement entered into by the Indonesian Government and the . Netherlands Government. In all those circumstances, I will treat the question as being on notice and I suggest that, in due course, the Minister for External Affairs will reply.

page 1190

QUESTION

LIBRARIANS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. I ask:

Is it a fact that, in the near future, the Government will notify the names of the first educational institutions to receive financial grants to assist in the construction and slocking of school libraries? Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Government has given adequate consideration to the demands which will arise for the services of trained librarians? Has the Government taken steps to encourage proper educational courses in this important field of administration.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– lt will be remembered that the Government made an allocation of, I think, $9m for the purpose of assisting State libraries. That sum is to be distributed amongst the States as usual according to the secondary school populations of the States. As to whether or not attention has been given to the supply of librarians, it is my understanding that emphasis has been placed upon this particular field of education for several years past. Undoubtedly, with the new policy, some lack of librarians will be experienced but, with the new colleges of technical education and other facilities for the instruction of librarians, I have no doubt that the demand will be met.

page 1190

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. My question refers to the answer given by the Minister on 30th April last to Question No. 1182 on the notice paper asked by me and referring to the prosecution of two customs officers in Fremantle for allegedly accepting bribes. The Minister replied that as these charges had not been heard, he was not able to say whether the person who had paid the . alleged bribe would be prosecuted. As one of the officers charged, Mr Frederick James Loveday, was convicted and fined in the Fremantle Police Court on 8th May. will the Minister inform the Senate now whether the man who allegedly paid the bribe is to be prosecuted?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– What the honourable senator states is perfectly correct. The charge was made. The case was heard. ‘ The person concerned - Loveday, I think - was fined. As to the latter part of the question concerning whether the person offering the bribe or not has been fined or not. I will look into the matter and advise the honourable senator.

page 1191

QUESTION

SEAT BELTS

Senator RAE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport: With a view to encouraging the use of seat belts to reduce the severity of injuries received in road accidents, will the Minister use his good offices to endeavour to persuade the State governments and the insurance companies to allow some rebate of third party insurance premiums in respect of vehicles fitted with seat belts?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The question of the use of seat belts goes back to the appointment of a Senate select committee to inquire into and report upon road safety. That committee, which was set up in the 1950s under the chairmanship of the present Leader of the Government in the Senate, took evidence in all States. One of its recommendations, I remember quite clearly, was the compulsory use of seat belts in cars in Australia, ft is now compulsory, I understand, for seat belts to be fitted in motor cars. Whether or not people use those seat belts or can be made to use them is another subject. I will take up with the Minister for Shipping and Transport the question of whether it is possible to grant a reduction in third party insurance premiums to the owners of cars that are fitted with seat belts, and I will endeavour to obtain a reply for the honourable senator.

page 1191

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, by drawing his attention to question No. 880 asked by me on 26th February, and question No. 1067 asked by me on 26th March on the subject of the performance and function of Australia’s domestic airlines. I now ask the Minister: In view of the lapse of time of 3 months in the first instance, and 2 months in the second instance since I asked what appear to me to be fairly simple questions, can he give me any idea whether I am likely to receive answers to those questions, and if so, when?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– Question No. 880 was asked by the honourable senator on 26th February, and another question was subsequently asked. I give him my assurance that I will take up these questions with the Minister for Civil Aviation with the object of getting speedy replies to them.

page 1191

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General advise the Senate whether there has been in recent weeks a new interpretation of the policy announced in November last by the PostmasterGeneral regarding the costs to subscribers of upgrading rural manual telephone exchanges to rural automatic exchanges? If so, will the Minister make the new interpretation available to honourable senators?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– If my memory serves me correctly. I replied a considerable time ago to a question asked by the honourable senator about this matter. 1 also read to the Senate, as requested by the honourable senator, a statement made by the Postmaster-General on this matter in another place. I believe that the honourable senator is now inquiring whether there is a different interpretation of this matter from that which I have given on behalf of the Postmaster-General. I do not know of any difference, but I will make some inquiries about the matter.

page 1191

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: Is it a fact that Japanese wool classers and piece workers are likely to be invited to work in Australian woolsheds under the new policy of the Australian Wool Board?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I have not read anything to that effect and I have not heard any suggestion that that practice is to be adopted. I will inquire of the Minister for Primary Industry and get an answer for the honourable senator.

page 1191

QUESTION

QUARANTINE STATION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted a statement made during the past week by the Minister for Labour and National Service, coupled with discussions between the

New South Wales Minister for Lands and some Commonwealth parliamentarians, on the future release of land adjoining Sydney Harbour at present occupied by the Commonwealth Government? Does he still contend that the Commonwealth Government is unaware of alternative sites offered for the existing North Head quarantine station?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not sure that 1 made such a contention. I think the honourable senator has put to me a particular interpretation of a general comment I made in reply to a question directed to me about whether negotiations were proceeding between the Commonwealth and New South Wales governments, either at Premier level or Minister for Lands level. I have made some inquiries of the Prime Minister’s Department. No recent correspondence has been received from either the New South Wales Premier or Minister for Lands on this matter. So far as I am able to ascertain at present, the situation has not changed since the honourable senator last directed a question to me on this matter on 30th April.

page 1192

QUESTION

TAXATION

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I preface it by referring to yesterday’s admission by the Treasurer that middle income earners in Australia are treated too harshly by the personal taxation schedule, and his statement that he could do nothing to rectify the position. I ask: If such a leading Government figure as the Treasurer can do nothing to correct economic injustice on a major scale to over 30% of this country’s workers, what measures does the Government intend to take to rectify the situation? Can the Government give consideration to alternatives open to it, such as a capital gains tax, to lighten the heavy burden on such a large section of the community?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator has touched on Government policy in relation to the incidence of taxation. He referred to a reported statement by the Treasurer about the middle income group. I read the statement. My interpretation of the Treasurer’s statement is that he was not in a position to give an assurance that there could be an immediate re-examination of the taxation schedules at a time approaching the bringing down of the Budget. The whole question of an analysis of the income tax schedule is something which I am sure we would all recognise as being a big longterm problem. Since governments seek revenue and require revenue to a certain level, if the schedule for the assessment of income tax is varied, obviously other sources of revenue must also be considered. I think the honourable senator’s interpretation of the Treasurer’s comment is far more restrictive than the meaning conveyed by the Treasurer’s statement.

page 1192

QUESTION

PRISON SENTENCES

Senator LACEY:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. To what extent does the Commonwealth Government provide for the upkeep of prisoners who serve sentences in State controlled prisons following committal for offences under Commonwealth law? Further, does the Commonwealth Government make any contribution towards the rehabilitation of such prisoners?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have not on hand the information requested by the honourable senator but I shall get it for him and advise him of the position.

page 1192

QUESTION

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

Senator GEORGES:

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate been informed that Mr T. Dalyell, a member of the House of Commons, will be in Australia for several days commencing on 23rd May? ls the Minister aware that Mr Dalyell is the member who stated that experiments in chemical and biological warfare were being carried out at the Tropical Research Establishment at Innisfail? Will the Government grant permission and provide facilities for Mr Dalyell to carry out an inspection at Innisfail to bring to an end the belief which still persists in Britain that such experiments are being carried out?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Dealing first with the last part of the question, frankly I am surprised and amazed that this nonsense should be persisted with. I remind the Senate that not only did I make it possible for the Press to visit this establishment but also I arranged for the establishment to be visited by the public and Federal parliamentarians. lt was visited by the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Fulton), in whose district it is situated, and also by the private secretary to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) and the secretary to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Barnard). The story had great news value when the Press reported that the joint establishment was as it had been stated to be. So when the honourable senator states that it is still thought that the establishment is other than it has been shown to be, I suggest that he is trying to flog a dead horse. [ propose to put on record a letter, a photostat of which I have in my possession. I shall be perfectly happy to. table the letter if requested to do so. This letter, which is from the Minister of Defence for Equipment is signed by Mr John Morris, Ministry of Defence building, Whitehall, London, SW1, and is dated 10th March 1969. It states:

Dear Senator,

understand that there have been reports in Australia that Britain has been using the Joint Tropical Research Unit at Innisfail, Queensland, as a proving ground for germ warfare experiments’. These reports appear to have been linked with an answer given to a parliamentary question by my predecessor on 11th March last year.

As you know, there is not, and never has been, any proposal on the part of the United Kingdom to conduct any chemical or biological warfare trials at the Joint Tropical Research Unit, Innisfail, Queensland. This Unit was set up under joint Australian-British control solely for the purpose of performing storage tests of military equipment under the severe climatic conditions prevailing there. The only chemical or biological defence equipment under storage test there is a protective suit.

It is being held there for a period of 10 years for testing purposes -

No tests of any kind of riot-control devices have taken place there and none is contemplated.

I come now to the first part of the honourable senator’s question. Mr Dalyell is coming to Australia and he wants to visit Innisfail. I will be quite happy to make an officer available to meet him when he arrives there, so that he can make an inspection of the establishment. If the honourable senator will1 let my Department know, we will ensure that an officer is available at the station to receive Mr Dalyell and to extend all normal courtesies to him. In regard to the facilities for getting there, as I understand the position, this gentleman is on a private tour. I see no reason or justification for the Department or the Commonwealth being put to the expense of facilitating his getting there.

page 1193

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Senator WHEELDON:

– Is the Minister for Customs and Excise aware that Mr Lewis Frederick Polak, the second customs officer who has been charged with the acceptance of a bribe, at Fremantle, has pleaded not guilty to the charge, and that as a result of applications made by counsel for the Department of Customs and Excise the hearing in the Fremantle Police Court has been adjourned sine die? As Mr Polak - who is a partially disabled ex-serviceman, has been an officer of the Department for some 19 years and has received seventeen rewards for efficiency from the Department - has been suspended from duty without pay since J 5th April, can the Minister do anything to enable this case to be heard as soon as possible?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I understand that what the honourable senator says may be correct. The hearing of the case against Mr Polak has been deferred for reasons put forward by his legal adviser. The case will be heard, and I will use my best endeavours to have it heard as quickly as possible.

page 1193

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Senator DEVITT:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, fs it expected that any part of the $25m allocation for Australian farm reorganisation will be expended this financial1 year? If not - as seems probable - is it proposed to make that sum additional to any amount that will be provided in the estimates for next financial year? In view of the interest of many .persons concerned, I ask whether we are any closer to an agreement to enable this proposal to be put into effect.

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I have not any further information on this subject than that I furnished to the honourable senator quite recently; but I will convey this question to the Minister for Primary Industry and see whether I can obtain an answer for him.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator O’BYRNE:

– ls the Leader of the Government aware of a statement by a high United States Defence Department official in Washington that Australia could get back payments already made for the Fill if another American built plane was ordered instead? Is it a fact that the Royal Australian Air Force has recommended to the Government that this step be taken and that the FI 1 1 contract be cancelled in favour of a contract for another aircraft? If so, when will the public of Australia know whether the Government has plans for the abandonment of the FI 1 1 order?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– This question follows in some ways the one that was addressed to me earlier today. I think it was the very first question asked today. I know nothing of the alleged or reported statement from the United States of America. Nor do I know anything about statements in the subsequent questions which the honourable senator directs to me and which suggest that special consideration is being given by the RAAF in relation to the Fill.

page 1194

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Air. Was a VIP aircraft used last week by the Minister for External Territories to tour the western districts of Queensland on a State election campaign?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– I have a list of people who used VIP aircraft covering a period of some 8 or 9 months, but this does not include the trip mentioned by Senator Cavanagh. I am not in a position to say whether he has stated the facts and I am not suggesting that he has stated them incorrectly. I cannot say whether this occurred or not, but I will try to get the information for him.

page 1194

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I ask the Leader of the Government, as the representative in the Senate of the Prime Minister, in view of the facetious or even farcical reply of the Minister-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order!

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Well, the humourous reply that the Minister representing the Minister for Air gave to me in respect of VIP planes. Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate obtain from the Prime Minister the general rules or guidelines that must prevail in regard to “the use of VIP aircraft? As we have been told that there are no rules or regulations regarding them, surely this means there could be no objection to Country Party members using VIP planes.

Senator Anderson:

– Are you having a debate or asking a question?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– No; I am asking whether, on the reverse side, there would be any objection to other members using the VIP planes when they are travelling to the same destination. If there are no rules and regulations on the question, why cannot these planes be used for other members of Parliament? I ask also whether the Government is considering making this a third airline. Finally, to save time, as the Minister representing the Minister for Air did not reply adequately to the question asked previously, will the Leader of the Government ask his colleague the Minister for Air to table a list of the users of VIP aircraft in the last 12 months, including the other passengers, up to today’s date? This will save me asking another question.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I did not think that the reply given by the Minister representing the Minister for Air to the honourable senator was discourteous or flippant or Qf no consequence. I thought he gave an honest and considered answer to it, and for that reason I feel that the subsequent series of questions directed to me by the honourable senator do. not apply. As to the last part of the honourable senator’s question, I suggest that it be. ‘put on notice and directed to the Minister for Air.

page 1194

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Air, arising from my previous question. In view of the Minister’s answer that he has had a list of the users of VIP aircraft for some time, is there any record of the use of a VIP plane from Adelaide to Kingscote. Kangaroo Island, which was the subject of a question I put to the Minister on notice some weeks ago?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I do not recall the question to which the honourable senator refers; I am wondering whether it was directed to me. It may have been. If so, I will see that he gets an answer. While on the subject of VIP aircraft, I mentioned that I have had a record of flights for some time. Also. I informed Senator Turnbull, I think on the last occasion he asked a question concerning this, thatI knew the general procedure regarding the use of VIP aircraft, but he said that he did not want this. What he wanted was the tabling of a document. I inform him today that the Minister tells me that there is no such document.I offered previously to let him know the rules governing these flights, and now he is asking the Leader of the Government about this. He wants one thing one day, and another thing another.

page 1195

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Air whether he will table the rules which he now says he possesses?

Senator McKellar:

– I did not say that I possessed them. Why do you not listen?

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– The Minister when answering an earlier question said that there were no rules, no guidelines and no regulations governing VIP flights. Now he says there are certain procedures. If he knows the procedures, will he inform the Senate of them?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I offered to do this before, but Senator Turnbull said very definitely that he did not want this. What he wanted was the document governing these flights. Only today the Minister for Air informed me that there is no such document. I will have very much pleasure in letting the honourable senator know the procedure in regard to the use of VIP aircraft - until fairly recently at any rate. I say again thatI understand the whole question is being looked at. Until a decision is made on this I do not know what the practice will be. but the procedure has been that a Minister, provided he could not get ordinary commercial transport, was entitled to the use of a VIP plane. If he was going to an electorate and the sitting member wanted to accompany him, he could take along that sitting member. He could not take a senator. We had this out in the Senate some time ago. In brief, those were the rules governing the use of VIP flights.

page 1195

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister whether he will confer with the Minister representing the Minister for Air to see whether he can supply an answer to question No. 1151 directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and put on the notice paper on 17th April?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I will take up the matter as requested by the honourable senator.

page 1195

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– May I intercede, Mr Deputy President, to comment that there are some 55 questions on notice to be answered. Some of them are very long answers affecting my own portfolio. I wonder whether we could evolve a formula whereby you called the question numbers, and only when a senator rose and indicated that he wanted the answer read, that it be so given.If there was no response, the answer could go automatically into Hansard. I think that would be a fair compromise and would meet the wishes of senators.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Is it the wish of senators that this procedure be followed, and that when no senator rises when the number of the question is called, the answer be incorporated in Hansard? There being no objection, this practice will be followed.

page 1195

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

(Question No. 817)

Senator RAE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is a full-time safety officer employed by the Commonwealth Railways? If not, why is it considered unnecessary or undesirable to employ such an officer?
  2. If a safety officer is employed, what are his qualifications and what success has been achieved in the reduction of industrial accidents to employees of the Commonwealth Railways?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. It is understood the question refers to industrial safety and not to operational safety which is the responsibility of the Chief Traffic Manager. As regards industrial safety the Commonwealth Railways employ at Port Augusta an officer who devotes his full time to the duties of safety officer and ambulance and welfare officer. He also acts as Chairman of the Industrial Safety Committee which meets once a month.
  2. The officer concerned has attended appropriate courses conducted by the South Australian Department of Labour and Industry and the Commonwealth Department of Labour and National Service. Since 1963-64 there has been a generally downward trend in the incidence of industrial accidents to employees of Commonwealth Railways.

page 1196

QUESTION

COAL INDUSTRY

(Question No. 851)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National1 Service, upon notice:

  1. Will the Minister agree that, with the mechanisation of the Australian coal industry, it was generally accepted that there would be a commensurate reduction in the accident and fatality rate in that industry?
  2. Is it a fact that there has been no such reduction?
  3. Will the Minister call for reports from the Joint Coal Board as to the real position regarding accidents and fatalities in the industry?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I., 2. and 3. After consultation with my colleague, the Minister for National Development within whose jurisdiction the Joint Coal Board comes federally, I would advise the honourable senator that references to the mechanisation of the Australian coal industry must be taken as applying mainly to the industry in New South Wales, which is by far still the largest in Australia, and which was the first to be almost completely mechanised. lt was generally expected that the mechanisation of the New South Wales coal industry would reduce the accident rate, both by reducing the number of men at risk for a given output of coal, and by reducing the rate of accidents per man employed or per man shift worked. Subsequent experience has shown that these expectations were justified.

In relation to lost time accidents, over the 12-year period from 1955-56 to 1967-68, during which period the production of coal has almost doubled, the number of persons employed fell by 29% and the number of claims for workers’ compensation fell by 47%. For underground mines the total number of lost time accidents fell by 58%, while the frequency rate (number of lost time accidents per million man hours worked) fell by 45%/, and the percentage df man shifts lost due to men absent from work while on workers’ compensation fell from 2.88% to 1.45% - a reduction of almost 50%.

However, most of this, improvement occurred between 1955-56 and 1963-64, the period when the changeover to mechanised mining was most rapid. Since 1963-64 the improvement has not been so marked. Over the latter period there has in fact been a slight increase in the frequency rate of lost time accidents. But, the percentage of man shifts lost due to men on workers’ compensation has continued to fall, and this is regarded as the best available guide as to the safety record of the industry in that it gives a weighting for severity. The fact that mechanised mining is generally safer than hand mining is illustrated by the fact that over the 12-year period, to which I have referred, the percentage of man shifts lost due to men on compensation has been substantially lower in fully mechanised mines than in hand worked mines. The percentages for 1967-68 are 1.34% and 6.67% respectively. lt is considered that the percentage of man shifts lost due to men on compensation is the best available guide as to the safety record of the industry, being more reliable than numbers or rates of compensation claims, lost time accidents or fatal accidents, although, understandably, fatalities receive the most’ attention in any discussion on this matter.

The Joint Coal Board in investigating the frequency rates of fatalities has taken 6-yearly or even longer periods ‘in order to obtain valid statistical comparisons. For the 6-ycarly period 1949-54 the average number of mineworkers killed as a result of accidents at work in New South Wales coal mines was 15.7 per annum. For the 6 years 1955-1960 it was 14.5 per annum and, for the 7i years from January 1961, to June 1968, 10.8 per annum. There has thus been a reduction in the average number of fatal accidents per annum over this period. However, the frequency rate of fatal accidents per hundred thousand man shifts worked has remained virtually unaltered. Studies made by the Board have disclosed that while there has been a reduction in the numbers and frequency of certain types of fatal accidents, particularly haulage accidents, the number or frequency of deaths due to falls of face, roof and sides has increased. On the other hand, if a comparison is made between the tonnage of coal won and the number of fatal accidents to mineworkers the rate for the New South Wales coal industry has fallen, the rate per million tons of coal won for each of the periods already referred to being 1.16, 0.92 and 0.48 respectively.

These matters have been reported to the Parliament in considerable detail by the Joint Coal Board in its annual reports, particularly in its 20th annual report covering the year 1966-67 and in its 2 1st annual report covering the year 1967-68. The Board’s investigations and reports on this matter are confined to New South Wales. Comparable information in respect of the other States is not available in a consistent form.

I should mention that, while the Joint Coal Board has certain statutory responsibilities with respect to safety under the joint arrangement, safely in New South Wales coal mines has remained primarily the responsibility of the State. The New South Wales Minister for Mines has recently set up an expert committee, known as the Coal Mines Safety Advisory Committee, to advise him on all aspects of mine safety, with particular reference to falls of face, roof and sides. This Committee consists of representatives of the New South Wales Department of Mines, the Joint Coal Board, the colliery proprietors and the mining unions.

page 1197

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL WELFARE

(Question No. 861)

Senator ORMONDE:

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

  1. Is the death rate among Aboriginal children under 12 months old twice as high as the death rate of non-Aboriginals of the same age?
  2. Has Dr Kalokerinos of Collarenebri, who is closely associated with Aboriginal welfare, discovered that, apart from bad housing conditions and low living standards generally, Aboriginal children suffer the additional disability of having a very much lower immunity to hereditary diseases than white children who have the background of immunity built up through their parents?
  3. Will the Minister consider consulting with Dr Kalokerinos on his solution to this problem?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

-The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1, 2 and 3. It is true that the death rate among Aboriginal children is in general higher than the death rate of non-Aboriginals of the same age and in the Walgett area, to which Dr Kalokerinos refers in his article in the Medical Journal of Australia of 25 January 1969 the ratio, according to Dr Kalokerinos’ figures, would appear to be a little above two to one. The ratio varies however in other parts of Australia and in some cases is higher, the problem being affected by many factors such as the degree of integration of the Aboriginals into what might be regarded as the normal Australian way of life or on the other hand the nomadic habits and primitive existence of many of them. In his article Dr Kalokerinos reports that he is convinced that Aboriginal infants do not possess the same inherited degree of immunity to ‘foreign’ type infections as do white infants.

Dr Kalokerinos has carried out his clinical observations in the north west of New South Wales where in fact the State Government is responsible for the care and medical attention of the Aboriginals. The Commonwealth Department of Health is responsible only in the Northern Territory for administering similar services and in that area has a comprehensive medical service, of which a large part, including medical officers, sisters and health inspectors is directed towards solving and treating the same problems which have confronted Dr Kalokerinos. In addition to its own full time staff, the Department has the advantage of the expert advice of the Professor of Child Health of Adelaide University and specialists from the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine in Sydney.

Medical officers of my Department who are closely associated with the problems to which Dr Kalokerinos is attempting to find a solution are aware of his observations which are of considerable interest.

page 1197

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 877)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the United States-Japanese $ 1,000m consortium, which will mine and sell 85 million tons of Queensland coal, makes no provision for an Australian capital equity in the organisation?
  2. If so, is it not in conflict with the Prime Minister’s statement that Australian investment must be provided for in foreign takeovers?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime

Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: 1 and 2; The Premier of Queensland made a statement on 1 February on this matter in the following terms:

Today, the Premier, the Honourable J. BjelkePetersen announced that he had received advice that Australian equity would be offered in the Goonyella operations of the Utah Development Company.

In making this announcement, Mr BjelkePetersen released the text of a letter he had received from Mr E. W. Littlefield, the Chairman of the Utah Development Company: “Last eveningI said to you and to the others present at the dinner at Lennons that our Company intends to make ownership participation in our Utah’s coal operations in Central Queensland available to the Australian public. It is not a question of if we will do so but when we will do so.

Earlier our Australian underwriters had advised us that there would be little Australian investor interest until we had concluded a franchise agreement with the State, until we had demonstrated that there existed a commercial market for the coal of sufficient magnitude to amortize the large investment required, and until we could demonstrate that the coal could be produced and marketed profitably.

The first two of these conditions have just recently been met. The last condition will only be determined after we are in operation but obviously we would not have risked the large investment we are making were we not confident that our estimates were sound and a profitable operation was in prospect.

We are continuing our discussions with the Australian underwriters who are counselling us with the hope that they will soon conclude that our company will be in a position to float a successful offering that will be taken up enthusiastically by those Australian investors who wish equity participation in our coal venture.

This policy declaration on our part is consistent with the pledge we made to Minister Camm at the time of our franchise agreement.” “Surely this letter confirms what I have already emphasised - that the Utah Development Company has always been prepared to allow Australian share capital participation in its Central Queensland enterprise,” said Mr Bjelke-Petersen.

The Premier also added that this was a factor in discussions overseas by both the Deputy Premier, Mr Chalk, and the Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity, Mr Camm.

The Treasurer (Mr Chalk) stated that Mr Littlefield’s letter entirely confirmed what had already been indicated to the Government in the course of negotiations. There was obviously a right time to launch any Boat on the public market and, in this regard, the Company would have to be guided by its Australian underwriters. Mr Chalk stated that he was aware that the Company had had further talks with its Southern underwriters earlier this week and there would be an announcement of the extent and terms and conditions of a public float in Australia as soon as the underwriters had concluded that a successful approach could be made to the local market.

The Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity (Mr Camm) commented: “During the negotiations with the Utah Development Company, I stressed the Government’s view of the importance of allowing some Australian equity in this project. The company agreed to consider this suggestion and, some time before the final franchise agreement was drawn up, indicated that they would be prepared to do so when the profitability of the project had been proven. I made mention of this aspect in my speech in the House during the Second Reading of the Central Queensland Coal Associates Agreement Bill, when I said that the company would welcome Australian participation in the project.

Naturally, until the coal had been proved, the commercial market for the coal had been established, and financial arrangements had been finalised, the proposition bad a certain element of risk.

If the Government had insisted upon the company’s providing for an Australian share equity in the company from the outset of its operations and the undertaking had not been a financial success, I am certain that our political opponents would then have charged the Government with not having protected the Australian investor.

With the knowledge of the benefits which will flow to the State of Queensland from this agreement, I am sure that thinking people will only regard the recent criticisms as political opportunism.” ‘

page 1198

QUESTION

OIL

(Question No. 940)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minuter representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. With reference to the sum of $22,906. by way of Commonwealth ‘subsidy, paid to the Queensland company, Artesian Basin Oil Pty Ltd is it a fact that this money was used to upgrade the value of the lease held by this company to enable it to sell its interest to Exoil N.L. at a great profit?
  2. Was Mr Bjelke-Petersen the prime mover in these share transactions?
  3. What steps will the Minister take to prevent the misuse of oil subsidies?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The “ Minister for National Development ,has . provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The sum of $22,906 was paid by the Commonwealth to Artesian Basin Oil Company Pty Ltd as subsidy for a seismic survey which was carried out in Queensland. The Petroleum Search Subsidy Act, under which such subsidies are paid, is designed to encourage the search for petroleum in Australia. A company which wishes to receive subsidy for an operation must lodge an application before the operation is commenced. ‘ Officers of the Bureau of Mineral Resources assess the objectives of the operation and the’ contribution which it is likely to make to the knowledge of the area. On the basis of this assessment, approval of the operation for subsidy is granted or refused. Progress payments of subsidy are made during the course of the operation and a final payment after it has been completed and a .final report has been submitted. The payments are conditional on the operation being carried out efficiently and on the objective being achieved.
  2. My Department is not in a position to offer comment, such as this question calls for, on the part played by particular.’ individuals in share transactions.
  3. The administrative procedures outlined in 1. above are adequate to ensure that subsidy funds are used effectively.

page 1198

QUESTION

POSTAL RATES

(Question No. 963)

Senator WEBSTER:

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

  1. Is there a uniform postal rate throughout Australia?
  2. What factors react against an acceptance of this policy for other methods of communication?
  3. Does research into modern methods of communication indicate that there is some possibility of reduction in the cost of establishment and supervision of such facilities?
  4. What is Government policy in relation to uniform postal rates throughout Australia?
  5. Will the Postmaster-General give an assurance that the same policy as applies to postal rates will be pursued in an attempt to have charges for the use of telephone and telegraph equipment made uniform throughout the Commonwealth?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Uniform postage rates apply throughout Australia for letters, other articles, and registered publications. Parcel rates vary with distance, bulk pre-sorted mail rates vary with volume, and the householder delivery service rates depend upon whether the articles are posted in a city for delivery therein or elsewhere. Most fees for special services, charged in addition to postage, are uniform throughout Australia, the chief exceptions being private boxes, bags and receptacles.
  2. Telegrams are already being charged at a uniform rate throughout Australia. If the principle of flat rate charging were extended to other forms of communication, for example,telephone trunk calls, it would be necessary, in order to secure total revenue equivalent to that now being obtained, to fix the rate substantially higher than the existing rates for calls over the shorter distances. Such a system would operate very much to the disadvantage of a large section of telephone users who would, in effect, be subsidising calls over the longer distances.
  3. The Post Office has for years taken advantage of technological advancements and innovationsin establishing and operating communications facilities as economically as possible, and it will continue to do so.
  4. Uniform postal rates are set except where there are special economic reasons.
  5. As indicated in the answer to part 2. I do not think it would be in the best interests of a very large section of subscribers to move towards a flat rate system of charging for telephone trunk calls. The same principle applies in respect of the counterpart telegraph service, namely, telex.

page 1199

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 990)

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What method is used by Trans-Australia Airlines to allocate seats on its aircraft?
  2. Are seats allocated on a first come first served basis or in alphabetical order?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

TAA uses two systems to allocate seats to passengers booked on its flights, one at Sydney airport, where new departure lounge facilities were recently introduced, and the other at all remaining ports. In neither system are seats allocated in alphabetical order of passengers’ names.

At Sydney seats are assigned by class as passengers book in for travel on a first come, first served basis. For other ports the airline allocates seat numbers approximately 48 hours before departure ready for assignment to the passengers at check-in time. Seats are allocated according to class of travel, date of booking and aircraft type.

At all airports the airline sets aside seat numbers to cater for particular seating preferences indicated at the time of booking and for through passengers continuing their journey on the same flight and aircraft. Arrangements are made for families and groups booked on a flight to be seated together where possible.

page 1199

QUESTION

OIL

(Question No. 1016)

Senator KEEFFE:
through Senator Dittmer

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

  1. As a matter of urgency, can the Minister Inform the Parliament if the decision to withhold the announcement of successful tenderers for offshore petroleum exploration permits was taken at State Government level in Queensland or made by the Federal Minister with Cabinet approval because of public protests over likely damage to the Great Barrier Reef?
  2. Are negotiations now proceeding between the Federal Minister and the Queensland Minister for Mines for an announcement of details of successful tenderers for oil exploration permits in Barrier Reef waters immediately after 17th May, provided the present Queensland Government is still in office?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The decision on the timing of the announcement of successful tenders for offshore petroleum exploration permits is a matter for the Queensland Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity who is the Designated Authority responsible for the administration of Part III - Mining for Petroleum - of the offshore petroleum legislation.
  2. No. Consultations between the Commonwealth and Queensland concerning the proposed grant of offshore petroleum permits in Queensland are carried out according to clause 11 of the Commonwealth-State Agreement relating to the offshore petroleum legislation. Matters which the

Commonwealth takes into account when a State consults with it on the proposed grant of offshore petroleum permits are its responsibilities under the Constitution which are listed in clause11 (2) of the Agreement. The responsibilities do not include the announcement of details of successful tenderers for exploration permits, which as stated in1. is the responsibility of the Queensland Minister for Mines, Main Roads and Electricity.

page 1200

QUESTION

TRANSPORT

(Question No. 1032)

Senator DAVIDSON:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen a report by Mr J. A. Hoadley, described as a lecturer at the School of Surveying, Melbourne, in which he stated that cities like Melbourne and Sydney have reached the point where sizes of their central areas should be restricted and that rapid mass transport systems as used in Europe and Tokyo are unlikely to be economically adaptable in Australian cities?
  2. Will the Minister discuss this matter with his colleague the Minister for Shipping and Transport and ask him to place the matter before the Australian Transport Advisory Council for study so that development of Australian cities and provincial centres and related transport matters may assist in decentralisation and proceed economically and efficiently?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The matter has been discussed with the Minister for Shipping and Transport who has advised that the whole question of urban transport systems was discussed very fully at the last meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council in February 1969 All members of the Council have a keen interest in the subject and their attention will be drawn to the article by Mr Hoadley.

page 1200

QUESTION

PHARMACISTS

(Question No. 1036)

Senator DITTMER:

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

  1. How many pharmacists are registered under the National Health Act?
  2. What was the average payment made to pharmacists for each of the financial years since 1958-59?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

  1. As at 28th February 1969 there were 5,777 pharmacists approved under the National Health Act to supply pharmaceutical benefits. This figure includes 145 friendly society dispensaries approved for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits.
  2. Details of payments to approved pharmacists excluding friendly society dispensaries, medical practitioners and private hospitals approved for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits, are not available prior to 1964-65. For the financial years 1964-65 to 1967-68 inclusive, average payments by the Commonwealth to approved pharmacists excluding friendly society dispensaries were:

page 1200

QUESTION

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

(Question No. 1049)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Supply, upon notice:

What Defence allocations have been set aside for chemical and biological warfare research since 1960, and are any universities or colleges in Australia receiving Government grants - as are similar institutions in the United States of America - for this orother advanced weapon research?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

The only Defence activity in ‘chemical and biological warfare research’ is that of a defensive nature undertaken as part of the programme of work of the Defence Standards Laboratories of the Department of Supply at Maribyrnong. The work of a group of scientists, which has varied in number from 12 in 1960 to 19 at present supported by technical staff, is directed mainly towards maintaining a scientific competence and awareness of current developments in the properties and effects of chemical and biological warfare agents, means for their detection and preventive measures against them. The work of these scientists is not wholly concerned with ‘chemical and biological warfare research’. No universities or colleges in Australia are receiving Government grants for such research or for advanced weapon research. (Question No. 1053)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Will the Australian Government undertake to (a) urge all nations to adhere to, and where necessary ratify, the 1925 Geneva Protocol on poisonous gases; (b) support the convening of a world meeting through the United Nations to update the said 1925 Protocol to include chemical and biological warfare; and (c) initiate proposals for international treaties on production, use and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons?

Senator ANDERSON:

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

Australia supported United Nations resolution 2162b of 5th December 1966, by which the

General Assembly called for strict observance by all states of the principles and objectives of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and invited all states to accede to the Protocol.

Australia also supported, and indeed cosponsored, United Nations resolution 2454a of 20th December 1968, by which the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to prepare a concise report on the question of chemical and bacteriological (biological) warfare, and reiterated its call for strict observance by all states of the principles and objectives of the Geneva Protocol and invited all states to accede to the Protocol.

The Secretary-General has appointed 14 international specialists to help him with the preparation of his report. The group began its first working session in Geneva on 16th April and is due to hold its second session in New York in June. The report is to be transmitted to the governments of member states of the United Nations in time to permit its consideration at the 24th session of the General Assembly, which is due to start in September 1969.

The Australian government hopes that the report will stimulate consideration of effective action in regard to chemical and bacteriological (biological) warfare.

page 1201

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 1063)

Senator MCCLELLAND:

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

  1. How many employment vacancies are known to exist in the area covered by the Robertson electorate in New South Wales?
  2. Has any survey been made by the Department to ascertain the number of people who live in this electorate, and travel to Newcastle or Sydney for employment purposes?
  3. Have any of those people living within, but working outside the electorate, requested the Commonwealth Employment Service to obtain employment for them closer to their homes?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. At the end of March 1969 there were 70 unfilled vacancies registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service in the Gosford Employment District which broadly covers the area of the Robertson electorate.
  2. No. However, it is known that several hundred people travel each day by train to work in the metropolitan area of Sydney and, in much smaller numbers, to Newcastle.
  3. Yes. At the end of March there were 171 persons, who, although already employed, were seeking the assistance of the Gosford Employment Office to obtain improved positions. Most of them were seeking jobs closer to their homes.

page 1201

QUESTION

LIBRARIES

(Question No. 1077)

Senator WHEELDON:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Are many local authorities and persons concerned with the provision of adequate libraries anxious that the Government should accede to the suggestions of the Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical. Services, contained in ils Statement of Needs of Libraries for the Public’ which was presented to the Prime Minister last year?
  2. What action does the Government intend to take on the Council’s proposals?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

While 1 am unable to speak on behalf of local authorities and persons concerned with the provision of public libraries, I can assure you that the Government has given careful consideration to the views expressed by the Australian Advisory Council on Bibliographical Services in its ‘Statement of Needs of Libraries for the Public’. In this paper the Council has sought to indicate in broad terms the nature and scale of what it sees as deficiencies in public library services. lt has been explained to the Council that the Commonwealth supports, as a result of its policies in the education field, the provision of library services in universities, colleges of advanced education and technical colleges. In addition, as announced in the Budget, the Commonwealth is undertaking a further specific commitment in relation to secondary school libraries. The Commonwealth is therefore giving considerable support to libraries in various educational fields and this support helps to relieve State budgets of expenditure they might otherwise be called upon to meet from their own resources.

The Commonwealth is, of course, fully conscious of the desirability of ensuring that State Governments have sufficient financial resources to expand and improve the community facilities for which they are responsible. The Commonwealth does, in fact, make available to the State Governments large and increasing sums by way of annual revenue grants which the States themselves are free to allocate for any purpose. These grants are paid on the basis of a formula which virtually ensures that they will increase each year ill a faster rate than the growth of the economy as a whole. lt is also Commonwealth policy to attempt to ensure that, economic and budgetary conditions permitting, the grant of funds for capital expenditure by State governments is increased year by year. Thus when, as has happened in most years, borrowings for State public works have fallen short of the programme approved by the Loan Council, the Commonwealth has supplemented from its own revenues the moneys raised by way of loans rather than seek any reduction in the approved programmes. The States are, of course, free to allocate any portion of these funds for expenditure on library facilities.

The establishment and maintenance of public libraries has of course been essentially a State function and in the face of the Government’s increasing financial commitments and other priorities, I am unable to hold out hope that it will be found possible to assist directly in this area.

page 1202

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

(Question No. 1078)

Senator WHEELDON:

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

  1. Are serious difficulties being experienced by telephone users in Perth owing to the overloading of switches in the old Perth telephone exchange, which is apparently still being used?
  2. Is it a fact that there will be no improvement in the position until the new exchange in Pier Street, Perth, is completed?
  3. Is the exchange yet completed; if not, as It was anticipated that the new exchange would be completed by approximately August 1968, will the Postmaster-General indicate what stage the erection of the exchange has reached so that the people of Perth may know when they can expect to have a satisfactory telephone service?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Some difficulties are being experienced due to the unprecedented growth in the demand for telephone service and increased telephone traffic in Perth.
  2. Improvement in the quality of telephone service in Perth is not dependent on the completion of the Pier Exchange building. Local resources have been augmented and equipment transferred from other States to provide an early improvement in the telephone service in Western Australia and particularly in Perth. Some relief will be given to subscribers to the old Perth Central Exchange as a result of the installation of 2,000 lines of new switching equipment at the Bulwer Exchange. One thousand of these lines will be placed in service during May and the remainder during July. Other relief projects are in hand which will bring about a substantial improvement in the service and all of these will be completed before the peak traffic load is experienced in December.
  3. No. Work is in progress and it is expected that the building will be completed in accordance with the contract completion date of 29th November 1969.

page 1202

QUESTION

RAAF PARADE

(Question No. 1079)

Senator WHEELDON:

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

Which persons, other than members of the Royal Australian Air Force and their families, were invited to attend the passing out parade held at Pearce RAAF station on Thursday, 20th February 1969?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The following list of persons, other than members of the Air Force and their families, were invited to attend the passing out parade held at Pearce RAAF station on Thursday, 20th February 1969:

Mr and Mrs Norman Anderson

Mr and Mrs P. Adams

The Most Rev. G. Appleton and Mrs Appleton

Professor and Mrs M. N. Austin

Mr and Mrs F. T. P. Burt

Mr and Mrs R. S. Crawford

Mr and Mrs J. S. Dewar

Mr and Mrs H. T. Forbes

Mr and Mrs E. E. Freeth

Mr and Mrs J. W. Hall

Mr and Mrs R. D. McKellanHall

Mr and Mrs N. B. Hassell

Mr and Mrs G. E. C. Hodgson

Mr and Mrs R. Holmes

Mr and Mrs N. G. Humphries

Sir Lawrence and Lady Jackson

Mr and Mrs W. B. Jeanes

Sir Frank and Lady Ledger

Mr and Mrs O. N. McAllister

Mr and Mrs R. M. Noble

Mr and Mrs M. H. Parry

Sir Stanley Prescott, O.B.E., and Lady Prescott

Sir Eric and Lady Sandover

Wing Commander and Mrs D. O. Sands

Mr and Mrs J. C. Shovelton

Mr and Mrs W. E. Boud

Mr and Mrs T. L. Williams

Mr and Mrs D. W. Maisey

Mr and Mrs J. J. Ahern

Mr and Mrs P. D. Durack

Mr and Mrs Peter Atkins

Mr and Mrs N. T. Fewster

Mr and Mrs A. Lee

Mr and Mrs R. Cleaver

The Hon. and Mrs F. C. Chaney

Dr and Mrs P. W. Atkins

The Very Rev. and Mrs J. Hazlewood

Lt-General Sir Ragnar Garrett, K.B.E., C.B.

Air Marshal Sir Valston Hancock and Lady Hancock

Mr and Mrs Krieg

Mr and Mrs P. Pearson

Professor and Mrs F. Alexander

Mr and Mrs David Foulkes

Mr and Mrs K. Okazaki

Mr and Mrs S. J. Merrick

Mr and Mrs M. D. Robertson

Mr and Mrs S. H. Good

Lt-Colonel and Mrs F. W. Statham

Dr and Mrs A. D. Richards

Mr and Mrs J. H. Utting

Matron G. A. Dodd

Dr and Mrs K. Tregonning

His Grace The Most Rev. L. G. Goody, D.D., Th.D.

Brigadier N. A. M.Nicholls, O.B.E., and Mrs Nicholls

Mr and Mrs R. T. Napier

Commodore J. M. Ramsay, C.B.E., D.S.C., and Mrs Ramsay

Mr M. E. Hamer, O.B.E., and Mrs Hamer

Mr and Mrs A. D. Hynam

Mr and Mrs J. E. Macartney

Mr and Mrs Murray James

Mr and Mrs G. Chisholm

Mr and Mrs G. Cohen

Mr and Mrs H. V. Halbert

Mr and Mrs Ian Bonifant

The Hon. T. E. Wardle and Mrs Wardle

Mr and Mrs K. J. Townsing

Mr and Mrs J. E. Lloyd

Mr and Mrs G. H. Chessell

Mr D. G. Sullivan

Mr and Mrs J. W. Cruthers

Air Commodore and Mrs R. J. Brownell

Mr and Mrs H. F. Cooke

Mr and Mrs Papworth

Mr J. B. Brittain

Mr J. White

Mr and Mrs Peter Stuart Smith

Captain D. G. Parker, D.S.O., D.S.C., A.F.C.. A.D.C., R.N., and six senior R.N. officers of HMS Hermes

Mr and Mrs D. J. Perry

Mr and Mrs T. Simmonds

Mr and Mrs G. Mewett

Mr and Mrs G. D. Nicoll

page 1203

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

(Question No. 1080)

Senator WHEELDON:

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

  1. Has the Minister seen a statement made recently by Tunku Abdul Rahman that, as Britain has lost the leadership of the Commonwealth of Nations, the chairmanship of the Commonwealth should rotate among the twenty-eight member governments?
  2. Has the Malaysian Government communicated these views to the Australian Government?
  3. What is the Government’s view of the

Tunku’s suggestion?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply: 1 and 2. I have seen a press account of a statement by the Tunku Abdul Rahman and he did communicate his views to the Prime Ministers’ Meeting in January 1969.

  1. The question of rotating the site and chair manship of Commonwealth meetings is not a new one, and for many years there has been rotation in respect of meetings of Commonwealth Finance Ministers, and also meetings of other Ministers have been held outside London. The question of rotating meetings of the Prime Ministers has also been raised. There are to be consultations about location for the next meeting.

page 1203

QUESTION

HOUSING

(Question No. 1087)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

What are the forecasts of housing demands in Australia, for each State or Territory, over the next 10 years?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

As the vast majority of decisions to buy or build homes in Australia are taken by private individuals and organisations, and as there are so many unknown factors that will influence these decisions over the next decade, forecasts would be little better than guesses and could be misleading. As far as I have been able to ascertain, no State or Territory prepares and publishes forecasts of housing demand for the next 10 years. My Department is assisting private people in making their own decisionsby publishing a wide range of information on recent trends in demand in various regions. A new publication ‘Housing 1968’, shortly to be released will break new ground in the breadth and depth of the information made available. (Question No. 1088)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister , for Housing, upon notice:

What is the capacity of the building industry to meet demands for housing in each’ State and Territory over the next 10 years?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

My own view, which is confirmed by most State housing authorities, is that the home building industry will be able to meet all reasonable demands made on it during the next decade. Both the supply of building materials and equipment, and the availability of skilled building labour, have increased to meet the remarkable growth in dwelling construction that has taken place during the past decade. There has also been some development in the prefabrication of homes and of components for the home, and this development is expected to continue. (Question No. 1089)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

What is the extent to which private capital can be expected to finance demands for housing in Australia over the next 10 years?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

The anticipated growth in deposits with savings and trading banks and with building societies, who with the major life offices represent the significant institutional lenders for housing in Australia, is expected to permit an increasing flow of finance for the acquisition of dwellings sufficient to meet a reasonable increase in the demand for funds for this purpose. (Question No. 1090)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

What is the role of Commonwealth finance in housing?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

The Commonwealth provides housing finance for a number of different purposes. These include advances to the States for the provision of homes for families and persons with relatively low incomes and for the families of serving defence personnel, the provision of war service homes loans to ex-servicemen who wish to buy or build a home of their own, grants to young couples and widows and widowers with dependent children who have saved to buy or build their own homes, grants to non profit making institutions for the erection of homes for aged persons, the offer of advances to persons wishing to buy or build homes in the Commonwealth’s Territories and the provision of funds for the construction of homes by the Commonwealth or its authorities in these Territories. (Question No. 1091)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for

Housing, upon notice:

In recent years, what has been the allocation of Commonwealth finance as between building for private owners, rental housing, housing renovation and urban renewal projects?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

A relatively small proportion of total Commonwealth expenditure on housing, which has averaged more than $230m over the past 3 years, is spent on housing renovation, although some State housing authorities do allocate part of Commonwealth advances under the Housing Agreements for the erection of homes under urban renewal projects. Precise figures are unavailable. Of the more than $90m per annum being advanced to the States for the erection of dwellings by State housing authorities, slightly less than half is being used to build dwellings for sale to private owners and slightly more than half to construct dwellings for rental. All the $40m or so being advanced in recent years to the States for allocation by them to their Home Builders’ Accounts is used to assist home-seekers. All of the $50m provided in 1968-69 for advances under the War Service Homes Scheme and the$13m provided for home savings grants benefit private home-owners. Of the close to $25m being provided for housing in Commonwealth Territories, about 60% has been used to assist private home ownership and the remainder to provide homes to rent. The remainder of Commonwealth expenditure on housing is for such purposes as the aged persons homes scheme, sheltered workshops, defence housing, migrant accommodation and acquisitions. A large part of this expenditure would be for the provision of rental dwellings. (Question No. 1092)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice:

Has any allocation of Commonwealth finance to the States for housing been conditional upon compliance with standards of town planning and/ or the provision of urban services?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is no.

page 1204

QUESTION

AVIATION

(Question No. 1096)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. Have any mishaps to, or faulty landings by Department of Civil Aviation aircraft taken place within the last 2 years? If so what have been the circumstances of each incident?
  2. What has been the damage caused and what injuries have been sustained by any person or persons?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and 2. Department of Civil Aviation aircraft have been involved in three accidents or mishaps inthe 2 years ending 31st March 1969. No person was injured in any of these occurrences. On 7th June 1968 an Aero Commander aircraft was involved in collision with a bird during take-off at Cairns. Minor damage was caused to the tailplane and radio aerials. On 6th December 1968 a Swearingen aircraft was involved in a heavy landing at Wagga in the course of flight tests related to aircraft landing performance. Damage was caused to propellers and engine support structure and in the vicinity of the rear spar to fuselage attachment. On 12th December 1968 a Cessna 310 aircraft was landed at Port Macquarie, with the undercarriage retracted. Both propellers were damaged and abrasion damage was caused to the underside of the fuselage. The aircraft was engaged on pilot flying practice.

page 1204

QUESTION

CHINA

(Question No. 1103)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen the report published recently in the newspapers that a senior member of Japan’s Government Party returned from

Peking last week after 2 months of trade negotiations after having conceded through a joint communique issued with his Chinese counterparts that: (a)’ The Government of the People’s Republic of China represents the people of China and that Taiwan “is an inescapable part of China” ‘; (b)’The Japanese Government was responsible for bad relations existing between China and Japan and should mend its ways’; and (c)’The existence of the Japan-United States security treaty involved Japan as an accomplice in the American policy of containment of China and the treaty was a threat not only to China but various Asian countries.’?

  1. Is the. Government prepared to declare that it will never make unwarranted political concessions to the Communist Chinese, such as those which occurred in the Japanese case, in return for wheat or trade orders?
  2. Will the Government also declare that it repudiates the recommendation made by Mr Cyril Wyndham, Federal Secretary of the Australian Labour Party,in February of this year, that Australia recognise Communist China as a way to boost wheat sales with that country?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Acting Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. Yes. The communique related to negotiations conducted on a non-governmental basis and affected a relatively small part of trade between Communist China and Japan. In reply to a question in the Diet on 10th April, the Japanese Foreign Minister said that he did not want to comment on the communique since it was signed on behalf of private trade circles and the Japanese Government therefore had no connection with it.
  2. The Government does not propose to make unwarranted political concessions to the Communist Chinese in return for trade.
  3. Mr Wyndham does not speak for the Austtralian Government. The policy of the Australian Government is to recognise the Republic of China. No change in this policy is under consideration.

page 1205

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No.1107)

Senator MILLINER:

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

  1. How many Australian troops are now serving in Vietnam?
  2. How many American troops are now serving in Vietnam?
  3. How many Australian troops have been killed in Vietnam?
  4. How many American troops have been killed in Vietnam?
  5. What is the estimated number of South Vietnamese troops killed in the Vietnam conflict?
  6. What is the estimated number of North Vietnamese troops killed in the Vietnam conflict?
  7. How many Australian troops killed in Vietnam (a) volunteered for service in Vietnam and (b) were conscripted for service in Vietnam?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. As at 31st March 1969 Australian servicemen serving in Vietnam numbered 8,000 approximately.
  2. As at 29th March 1969 American servicemen serving in Vietnam numbered 539,500 approximately
  3. Australian servicemen killed in Vietnam as at 18th April 1969:
  1. American servicemen killed in Vietnam as at 5th April 1969:
  1. Australian servicemen on full time duty are required to serve anywhere in Australia or overseas. Of those killed in Vietnam to 18th April 1969 178 were regular servicemen and 130 were national servicemen.

page 1205

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 1110)

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Is section 79a of the Income Tax Assessment Act so rigid that a taxpayer may live in either Zone A or Zone B from early January to late December and not qualify for the zone allowance for either taxation year because he had not completed a full 6 months residence in the area; if so, will the Treasurer give favourable consideration to amending section 79a of the Income Tax Assessment Act to enable a taxpayer, who is so penalised by the existing provisions of the Act, to qualify for portions of the concession enumerated in the Act?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In order to qualify for a zone allowance, it is necessary for a person to have resided, or to have actually been, in a prescribed area, whether continuously or not, for more than half of the relevant income year. Accordingly, a person who resided or was in a prescribed area from early

January to late December of a calendar year would not qualify for the zone allowance in respect of either of the income years concerned if he spent no other time in the area in those years.

Possible changes in the existing provisions of the law concerning the periods of residence giving entitlement to a zone allowance have been the subject of a great deal of study but, so far, the Government has been unable to see its way clear to propose the adoption of any of them. The matter will, however, be considered further during the preparation of the next budget.

page 1206

QUESTION

WORKS PROJECTS

(Question No. 1113)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister for Works, upon notice:

  1. Have requirements of the Department of Works in relation to security deposits, required to be lodged by successful tenderers for large building projects for the Commonwealth, been varied to a marked degree from those which existed a year or so past?
  2. Does the Minister and the Government approve the provisions which are contained in the application for registration as a tenderer for multi-million dollar Government works?
  3. Is there general agreement amongst major Australian contractors that the provisions have the effect of excluding from quotation quite capable and demonstrably competent Australian building contractors while being no barrier to interested overseas contractors?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The Department of Works Standard General Conditions of Contract stipulate that for works valued in excess of $40,000 the security deposit shall be equal to 6% of the contract amount with a maximum deposit of $100,000. Approximately 18 months ago the limit of $100,000 was removed for specific major contracts. Progress payments on such contracts are for 100% of work done and no retention moneys are withheld. During this period only five contracts have been involved.
  2. The amount of the security deposit and any special Conditions of Contract, apart from the Department of Works Standard Conditions of Contract, are determined by the Director-General of Works. Advice is sought on special conditions from the Crown Law authorities and as appropriate from the Minister for Works.
  3. This is not evident from the number of tenders being received from Australian contractors for major projects. The Department of Works has received no representations from the Master Builders Federation of Australia or other bodies, that the occasional need to submit security deposits in excess of $100,000 has resulted in Australian contractors being excluded from tendering for major works.

page 1206

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 1114)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Does an inconsistency exist in regard to tax concessions whereby donations to the Australian Conservation Foundation are deemed a legitimate tax deduction whereas similar donations to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service are not?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The income tax law specifically provided for the allowance of deductions for gifts made to the Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated. It does not, however provide for the allowance of donations to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service except insofar as the activities of the Service relate to scientific research. It is the practice of the Government to consider the many requests it receives each year for new and increased taxation concessions during the preparation of the annual Budget when the scope for concessions can be properly assessed. Accordingly, arrangements have been made for the question of extension of the concession to allow deductions for gifts to those activities of the New South Wales Parks and Wildlife Service which do not at present qualify under the law to be listed for consideration during the preparation of the 1969-70 Budget.

page 1206

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1115)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Was a licence to operate an airline between Australia and Nauru recently granted in Victoria to a company in which Mr H. G. Pearce holds an interest? If so will the licence be now suspended in view of the presentation of the report to the Prime Minister on the activities of Mr H. G. Pearce?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No licence to operate an airline between Australia and Nauru has recently been granted to any company.

page 1206

QUESTION

VIETNAM CASUALTIES

(Question No. 1125)

Senator McCLELLAND:

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

  1. How many Australian soldiers have been (a) killed in action, and (b) wounded in Vietnam since 1st November 1968?
  2. Of those killed in action, how many have been (a) national servicemen, and (b) regular soldiers?
  3. Of those wounded, how many have been (a) national servicemen, and (b) regular soldiers?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The battle casualty figures of Australian soldiers in Vietnam from 1st November 1968 to 26th April 1969, are as follows:

page 1207

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 1129)

Senator MARRIOTT:

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

Will the Minister make representations, even at this late stage in the life of the Tasmanian Labor Government, to induce it to stop imposing a tax on moneys granted by the Commonwealth Government to church and charitable organisations for the construction of homes for the aged, and, if possible, seek a remission of any such tax collected since this new imposition on aged people was commenced on 1st April 1969?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In the period immediately following the proclamation by the State of Tasmania of its Stamp Duty on Receipts Act there appears to have been some uncertainty about the application of this measure to certain aged persons homes organisations. This uncertainty has been resolved and it is now understood that a charitable organisation conducting homes for the aged will be exempted from payment of duty provided its constitution is submitted to and approved by the State Commissioner of Stamp Duties.

page 1207

QUESTION

EXPORT LICENCES

(Question No. 1130)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. Has the Department of Customs and Excise received an application for an export licence for crayfish by fish processors on Thursday Island?
  2. Would the granting of such a licence be of considerable economic benefit to the Torres Strait Islanders?
  3. What are the reasons for the delay in the granting of this licence?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

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

The Department of Customs and Excise issues export licences under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations. The export of crayfish would be conditional upon the issue of such a licence. No application has been received by either the Collector of Customs in Queensland or the Sub-Collector, Thursday Island, for the issue of an export licence for crayfish.

Perhaps the honourable senator’s question refers to the registration of an export establishment under the Exports (Fish) Regulations administered by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry. If this is so,I suggest the matter be raised with the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 1207

QUESTION

MEAT ABATTOIRS

(Question No. 1134)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Are American veterinary surgeons at present carrying out inspections of meat abattoirs in Queensland?
  2. Is the Department of Primary Industry transferring Commonwealth meat inspec tors from other abattoirs to the plant under inspection to meet the requirements of the inspection?
  3. For how long does the Minister think that this will mislead the American authorities?
  4. Why does not the Department appoint some of the many qualified men available to the positions of meat inspectors to staff fully this important industry?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for PrimaryIndustry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. One American veterinarian is reviewing registered meat export establishments in Queensland at present.
  2. It is not necessary for some classes of registered establishments to be staffed on a full time basis and it is normal practice for the Department of Primary Industry to ensure that officers responsible for the supervision of such premises are available during inspections by United States veterinarians. Any questions raised by United States officials can then be dealt with while the inspection is in progress. There have been movements of inspectors for this purpose:
  3. The United States authorities are fully informed of the basis on which export abattoirs and other registered premises are staffed. There is no question of misleading them.
  4. Many factors such as seasonal demands for inspection and variations in the activities of registered establishments can lead to temporary shortages of inspectors and new appointments are made when necessary. Additional inspectors are being engaged for employment at the pre ent time to ensure that all staff needs can be met.

page 1208

QUESTION

ATOMIC ENERGY

(Question No. 1142)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. On what date did the Minister first announce the possibility of creating a harbour by nuclear blasting at Cape Keraudren?
  2. On what date did the Minister announce that the proposal was not possible?
  3. On what date during the interval of time did his Department learn of the existence of a United States Government report embracing several years research on the creation of a harbour by nuclear means at Mount Thompson, Alaska?
  4. Did the findings of this inquiry virtually veto the Cape Keraudren project?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 23 rd January 1969.
  2. 29th March 1969.
  3. A copy of the Mount Thompson (Project Chariot) report was received by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in September 1966.
  4. The Cape Keraudren feasibility study was abandoned for reasons which had no connection with the Project Chariot report.

page 1208

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 1146)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

Have the Australian and United States governments entered into any new arrangements to promote scientific and technological development among South East Asian and Pacific countries as a result of discussions between Dr Donald Hornig, President Johnson’s science adviser, and Australian Government science advisers; if so, in what manner do they differ from existing arrangements for economic aid to the area and what progress has been made to date?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

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

In October 1968, a scientific mission from the United States of America headed by Dr D. F. Hornig, Special Assistant for Science and Technology to President Johnson, visited Australia to discuss the question of increasing scientific cooperation between the two countries. These discussions resulted in an agreement relating to scientific and technical co-operation between Australia and the United States of America.

The agreement does not specifically introduce any new arrangements for the provision of economic aid to the South East Asian and Pacific countries which differ from existing arrangements. The principal object of the co-operation is to provide additional opportunities for Australia and the United States to exchange ideas, information, skills and techniques, to collaborate on problems of mutual interest, to work together in unique environments and to utilise special facilities. The agreement provides that, in appropriate cases, representatives of third countries may be encouragedto participate in particular cooperative projects or programmes in Australia or the United States.

At the request of the United States of America, the Australian Government has approved the attachment of an Australian scientist for a period of 12 months to the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Oklahoma, USA. The scientist will work on a joint Australian-United States research project concerned with thunderstorm hazard prediction.

page 1208

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1148)

Senator MILLINER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

As the closure of the Chillagoe ‘Queensland’ airstrip would impose difficulties for numerous services in that area, including that of the Flying Doctor Service, will the Minister at the request of Mr Wallis Smith, MLA, defer any decision to close the airstrip until such time as he has received appropriate representations from the local authority concerned?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

This matter has been investigated and Councillor Borzi, Chairman of the Mareeba Shire Council, has already been informed that arrangements have been made to keep the Chillagoe airstrip open for use to Bush Pilots Airways, and the Aerial Ambulance and Flying Doctor Services until such time as a new airstrip is constructed in the area and subject to certain operating conditions.

page 1208

QUESTION

EDUCATION

(Question No. 1149)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Were Commonwealth technical scholarship allowances not available to Victorian recipients of scholarships until 15 days after the commencement of the school year?
  2. As students were required to have their books no later than the first day of the second week of the school year, and as this delay in payment of the allowances embarrassed many parents in the lower income group, will the Minister endeavour to ensure that, in future, such allowances are paid before the commencement of the school year?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following answer: 1.It is correct that the first payment of living allowances to certain Victorian winners of Commonwealth technical scholarships was not made until 20th February,15 days after the commencement of the school year on 5th February.

  1. The scholarship holders concerned were those entering the Leaving Technical year who had won technical scholarships on the basis of their results in the Intermediate Technical examination. Every effort is made to pay these students before the commencement of the school year but there are factors present which make it difficult to meet this objective. Among these factors are the date on which the Intermediate Technical results are available to my Department and the time needed to select scholarship winners and make offers of awards. A further 10 days must be allowed for students to return their formal acceptance of the award. Finally, by arrangement with the Department of the Treasury, payments of living allowance are made on alternate Thursdays.

My Department is considering whether any further reduction can be made in thetime taken to select the best candidates and offer them scholarships butI am not hopeful that substantial improvement can be made. Where it would be a hardship for a parent to meet the costs of text books which must be purchased before the scholarship benefits are received, the parent could approach my Department and a special arrangement would be made for an early payment.

page 1209

QUESTION

HEALTH

(Question No. 1154)

Senator ORMONDE:

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

Is it a fact that towns with populations ranging between 1,500 and 2,000 residents throughout Australia are often if not generally without resident doctors; if so, will the Minister confer with the Minister for Immigration for the purpose of engaging in publicity campaigns in selected and suitable foreign countries to enlist medical aid for Australia?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

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

It is true that there are a number of towns in Australia which have a population around the 1,500 mark and which do not have the services of a medical practitioner.

The problem is one mainly for the State authorities concerned since registration of medical practitioners in each State is controlled by a medical registration board set up under State legislation.

The Commonwealth sees merit in attaining a situation where there is a reasonable degree of uniformity in the requirements of each State registration board and where graduates from overseas medical schools should be considered for registration if their standards of training are equivalent to those of Australian medical schools.

There is a steady flow of overseas graduates to Australia and a number of these have gone to the type of location which concerns the honourable senator.In the main these overseas graduates have been attracted by the publicity given by advertisements in the Press and in professional journals in Australia and overseas. In these circumstances and taking into account the shortage of medical practitioners in many overseas countries it is felt that it is not appropriate for the Commonwealth to undertake a mass recruiting campaign.

page 1209

QUESTION

KINGSFORD-SMITH AIRPORT

(Question No. 1 1 55)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

When the new multi-storey car park is completed at Kingsford-Smith Airport will its capacity of 1,600 vehicles be in addition to the existing car park facilities? If not, for what purpose will the old car parking area be used?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The new multi-storey car park will be built on the site of the present car parking area. The building and adjoining area will permit parking for 1,600 vehicles in the first instance butthe building will be designed for expansion as demand increases.

page 1209

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

(Question No. 1 1 56)

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

On 25th January 1969, was Mr R. D. Nicholls. a senior motor mechanic employed at Yuendumu Settlement, served with a letter dated 16th January notifying him of his dismissal from the Department of the Interior?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

See answer to Question No. 997 - Hansard 17th April 1969.

page 1209

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

(Question No. 1165)

Senator WHEELDON:

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

  1. Has the Minister seen reports of statements, made recently by Ministers of the South African

Government, calling for a military alliance between South Africa, Australia and certain South American countries?

  1. Have any approaches been made to the Australian Government by the South African Government for the purpose of creating such an alliance?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply: 1.I have seen Press reports on this subject. I have no information to indicate whether these reports correctly represent the intention of the South African Government.

  1. No.

page 1210

QUESTION

VIETNAM

(Question No.1166)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Is it a fact that Australian forces in Vietnam, including conscripts, are working with United States troops in the admitted use of crop destroying sprays and anti-personnel gases and that the Australian Government denies that their use contravenes the 1925 Protocol?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Australian Army units have not participated with United States units in crop-destroying operations using chemicals and have not carried on these operations on their own in Vietnam or anywhere else. The Australian Task Force has used chemicals, commercially available in Australia, to keep down undergrowth amongst perimeter wire and to open up fields of fire in front of positions. This has been found to be more effective, less time consuming and safer than manual methods. Australia’s Vietnam force has used riot-control agents occasionally on tactical operations and particularly when conventional weapons might cause civilian casualties. Where tunnel systems have been abandoned by the Vietcong these agents are effective in denying their further use for limited periods. Such uses would not contravene the 1925 Protocol.

page 1210

QUESTION

CANBERRA AND THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

(Question No. 1185)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister for Works, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that in Barton House, in the Australian Capital Territory, the power points are not earthed, thus creating a major safety hazard?
  2. Is the wiring in Barton House contrary to the accepted standards of wiring set down by the Standards Association of Australia?
  3. Is this true also of the wiring of Brassey House, Gorman House, Beauchamp House, Lennox

House, Reid House, Narellan House, Havelock House, Ainslie Hostel, Lawley House, the Hotel Wellington and the Hotel Kingston?

  1. If this is so, for how many years have such hazards been allowed to exist?
  2. In Barton House, have numerous complaints been made to the Department of Works about housemaids receiving electrical shocks while handling appliances because of the absence of earthing?
  3. If so, what action has been taken to correct the hazards?
  4. If such hazards exist, how did they occur, and why has not remedial action been taken previously?
  5. Who is responsible for the maintenance of these buildings?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. The power points at Barton House are being replaced under a contract for the complete rewiring of the building which was let on 19th March 1969, with a completion date of 29th May 1969. This is in accord with the policy of bringing electrical installations to the existing Standards Association of Australia Wiring Codes and Rules when a re-wiring of a Commonwealth building is undertaken.
  2. The electrical wiring in Barton House, prior to the abovementioned re-wiring, was in accord with the SAA Wiring Codes and Rules which applied at the date of installation of the wiring - 1947. The Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority is responsible for the implementation of the Codes and Rules in the ACT.
  3. The Hotel Wellington and Hotel Kingston are privately owned and operated. Lennox House is owned and operated by the Australian National University. Brassey House, Gorman House, Reid House, Narellan House, Havelock House, Ainslie Hostel and Lawley House are owned by the Commonwealth but electrical maintenance is the responsibility of Commonwealth Hostels Ltd. Barton House and Beauchamp House are owned by the Commonwealth and major electrical re-wiring of these buildings is arranged by the Department of Works at the request of the Department of the Interior. 4.In relation to the last two mentioned Commonwealth buildings, answer 2. above applies. 5, 6 and 7. There is no record in the ACT Branch of the Department of Works of any such complaints from the management of Barton House.
  4. See answer to 3. above.

page 1210

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 1189)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General upon notice:

  1. Does the Postmaster-General consider that the format of the Australian airletter is comparable with those produced by many European postal authorities?
  2. Will the Postmaster-General examine the various types to see whether a change in the design of the Australian product is desirable?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes. The latest aerogrammes issued by Britain, the United States of America, the Netherlands and a number of other countries are almost identical with the current Australian form.
  2. Before the new three-flap form was introduced in Australia, a number of possible shapes and layouts were examined and tested. Our requirement was for a form which could be completely sealed, like enveloped mail, so that it could by handled by high speed mail equipment here and overseas; for simple folding and opening arrangements; and of the maximum folded size permitted by international postal agreements. The present three-flap form meets all these requirements. The Australian Post Office is nevertheless concerned about the reduced writing area on the new form and intends to re-locate the return address so that the back panel will provide additional writing space, if desired. A customer survey has indicated that this arrangement would meet most people’s needs. Modifications which will improve the sealing and opening arrangements are also being incorporated in further printings of the form. Australia is also pressing for an increase in the maximum folded dimension allowed by the Universal Postal Union, to permit the introduction of a larger aerogramme form.

page 1211

QUESTION

WHEAT

(Question No. 1194)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Did the Minister inform the South Australian Minister of Agriculture that Cabinet had agreed to a commitment of $1.10 a bushel first payment on the proposed quota of 367 million bushels for the 1969-70 wheat crop?
  2. Mas Cabinet so agreed?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and 2. The Ministers for Agriculture in all States were informed of the Government’s decision to guarantee finance to the Australian Wheat Board to enable it to pay a first advance on 1969- 70 season’s wheat delivered to the Board within the quota proposed by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation of 357 million bushels. Full details are contained in my statement released in the Senate ana the House of Representatives on 30th April 1969.

page 1211

QUESTION

WEST IRIAN

(Question No. 1196)

Senator GEORGES:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. Will the Government accept, as political refugees, those West Irians who have crossed the border into New Guinea?
  2. Will the Government extend to them the same favourable treatment which it gave to the eight other West Irians in recent weeks?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and 2. The West Irianese who crossed the border into the Territory of Papua and New Guinea on 26th April 1969 are being given the same opportunity to apply for permissive residence in Papua and New Guinea as were other West Irianese who have crossed the border. Such applications, including those of the eight West Irianese referred to, arc considered on their merits.

page 1211

QUESTION

BETTING POOLS

(Question No. 1198)

Senator WHEELDON:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General seen reports of the activities of Lloyd George Evans who has apparently disappeared from Western Australia following bis prosecution in Perth for an alleged offence under the Companies Act arising from his activities as proprietor of a share buying enterprise known as Perpetual Pools Promotions?
  2. ls it a fact that not only has Mr Evans vanished but so also has a sum of several hundred thousand dollars belonging to people whom he had induced to subscribe money to Perpetual Pools Promotions?
  3. As there has been some speculation that Mr Evans is now overseas and as the possibilities of his being in either the United Kingdom or Hong Kong have been mentioned, will the Government consider approaching the Western Australian Government with a view to making use of Australian Government representatives in overseas countries in order to find out where this man is, and where is the large sum of money belonging to those who entrusted their savings to him?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I have no knowledge of the matter to which the honourable senator’s question refers. If, as is suggested, the prosecution was for an offence against the Companies Act of Western Australia,

I have no doubt that the authorities of that State will take all appropriate steps including, if they see fit, seeking the Commonwealth’s assistance in finding Mr Evans and in enforcing process against him.

page 1212

QUESTION

ARMY

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 16th April in response to a question concerning the delays in awarding pay increases to members of the armed Services, asked by Senator Bishop, I undertook to obtain further information from the Minister for the Army. The Minister has provided the following information: lt is true that there has been some delay in authorising payment of the increases to some soldiers. It is not true, however, to say that they were promised 12 months ago. The increases were agreed to in August 1968 and at that time it was decided that the new rates should be effective from 1st March 1968. The Minister for the Army is deeply concerned that all of the soldiers affected have not yet received their increases but in an organisation as large as the Army with a total full-time strength of 43,800 a review involving most personnel records and pay accounts is a very large task. Every effort has been made to complete the adjustments as soon as possible. The staffs involved have been working overtime both in the evenings and at weekends, and have been supplemented by personnel transferred temporarily from other sections throughout Australia.

The particular review referred to was not one involving a general pay rise to each soldier. In this ca-.e the new rates were based upon the introduction of an entirely revised employment structure. Before they could be paid it was necessary for the Army to review the personnel establishment table of each unit and to convert individual positions in each table to the revised employment categories in the new pay group structure. Once this had been done the new employment category and pay group of each soldier had to be determined and promulgated, lt was then possible to calculate each soldier’s revised pay entitlement including increases from March 1968 together with the consequential changes in tax deductions and retirement benefit contributions extending back over this period.

These tasks were commenced as soon as the revised structure was approved in August 1968 although actual payment of increased pay could not be made until the necessary Statutory Rule amending the rales of pay in Military Financial Regulations had been gazetted. The amending Statutory Rule was gazetted in December 1968. Contrary to what was stated in the question, the Treasury was not associated with the implementation of the new system and has not contributed in any way to the delay.

About 31,000 soldiers are affected by the change in employment categories although not all of them will have their pay rates changed. To date approximately 26,500 cases have been examined and, where necessary, pay adjustments have been authorised. Payment of the majority of those remaining will be made before the end of May and all will be completed before the end of June. The pay records of members of the Australian Regular Army are maintained on a small computer system at present. Plans provide for these to be transferred to a much larger system during the next financial year, lt is hoped that this will enable more speedy handling of such adjustments in the future.

page 1212

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

If no reply has been received, is the following statement, which I am informed was sent in a letter by the Director of Current Affairs for the Australian Broadcasting Commission to a lady who had protested, correct: ‘I agree with your view, and in my opinion the sequence to which you have referred in the segment dealing with Italian superstitions should not have been included in This Day Tonight’. Appropriate action has been taken wilh the officers concerned to ensure that this soil of thing is not repeated (signed) Peter Hollinshead’? If it is correct, and if the decision of the ABC is being conveyed lo private individuals, when can we hope that the Minister and the Senate will be informed?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

In a letter dated 17th April I directed the attention of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Sir Robert Madgwick, to the comments made in the Senate on 15th April about the segment of the programme in ‘This Day Tonight’ which dealt with Italian superstitions, and subsequently discussed the matter with Sir Robert. The honourable senator will be aware that under the Broadcasting and Television Aci the Australian Broadcasting Commission has autonomy in the presentation of its programmes and this aspect of the Commission’s activities does not come within my jurisdiction as Minister. Sir Robert has informed me that the programme to which the honourable senator referred was televised in four States - New South Wales, Victoria. South Australia and West Australia - and the ABC received in all sixteen letters complaining about the programme. Sir Robert said that senior ABC officers appreciated that the item as presented could have offended some viewers because it was shown in the early evening period, and therefore considered it should have been omitted from ‘This Day Tonight’. This view has been conveyed in replies sent by the ABC to those people who wrote about the programme.

page 1213

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the current United States investigations on the effects that television crime, brutality and violence might have on children, and to the undertakings given by three of the largest United States networks to reduce violence in their 1969-70 schedules of programmes? Will the Minister have this matter studied with a view to negotiating similar improvements in Australian television standards?

On 22nd April 1969, Senator Bishop asked me the following question:

Has the Minister seen some recent proposals by the United States Department of Health which intends to set up a specialist committee to study violence on television and its effect on children? Has she any information about such steps within the Austraiian television system?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

Press reports of investigations in the United States of America into the effects of violence in television have been brought to my attention. I should say that the programme standards of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board already contain provisions designed to prevent undue emphasis on violence in programmes and especially to protect young viewers. The standards are reviewed from time to time. All imported film for television passes through the Film Censorship Board and is appropriately classified. Some film is rejected as unsuitable for television and films which place undue emphasis on crime or violence are nol classified for general viewing. I can assure the honourable senator that the ‘ Australian Broadcasting Control Board whose responsibility it is to determine standards for television programmes is keeping in close touch with the developments to which he has referred.

page 1213

QUESTION

POSTAL SERVICES

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

Wilh the introduction of the once daily mail delivery arrangements it was necessary to rearrange postmen’s rounds, which affected the order and time of delivery to many addresses. In some cases, mail is now delivered earlier than before, while in other cases delivery is being effected later than previously. This situation applies on Saturdays as well as on week days.

page 1213

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Recently I asked the Minister to use her influence with the Postmaster-General to try and reinstate a ‘Meet the Candidates’ television programme for the coming federal election. Has the Minister had any specific response from the Postmaster-General or from the Australian Broadcasting Commission?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

As the Australian Broadcasting Commission, under the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act, may determine to what extent and in what manner political matter is broadcast in ABC programmes, the question asked by the honourable senator was referred by me to the Chairman of the ABC. Sir Robert Madgwick. Sir Robert has informed me that the Commission has given full consideration to the honourable senator’s suggestion but has decided not to present a series of Meet the Candidates’ programmes for the next federal elections. The Commission will, however, in accordance with past practice, allocate radio and television time lo the main political parties during the next federal election campaign.

page 1213

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RATES

In view of the fact that the 1964 amendment to the telephone regulations, made under the Post and Telegraph Act, allows for the provision of a telephone service for age, invalid and widow pensioners and blind people at an annual rental equal to two-thirds of the amount otherwise payable, will the Government give urgent consideration to providing a similar allowance on installation costs so that pensioners may take advantage of this telephone service concession?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

The concession in telephone rates available to certain pensioners and blind persons, which comprises a one-third reduction in telephone rental, is aimed at alleviating the fixed recurring yearly commitment these subscribers are required to meet in leasing a telephone service. The existing concession represents an appreciable saving to the persons concerned, amounting overall to some $2.47m annually. Since the introduction of the concession in 1964, consideration has been given on several occasions to the possibility of extending it to telephone installation fees. However, it was felt that the existing arrangements represented a very considerable benefit to the recipients and reflected a reasonable and sympathetic recognition of the special circumstances of pensioners and blind people.

page 1214

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 17th April Senator Milliner asked me the following quest ion without notice:

As the latest statistics reveal that on a comparative basis wilh oilier States the employment position in Queensland is a continuing problem, will the Minister favourably consider a proposal that his departmental officers convene and preside at a meeting of representatives of industry in Queensland to examine ways and means of improving the employment position in that Stale?

In reply I said I found the honourable senators question one of real interest and 1 undertook to transmit it to my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service, for his decision. He has now informed me that in Queensland, more than in any other State, seasonal factors have an important bearing on the level of unemployment at different times of the year. Unemployment usually declines steadily after March and reaches its lowest level in the winter months when the sugar and meat killing industries are in full swing. This needs to be borne in mind in any comparisons of the current employment position in Queensland with the position in the other States. The overall employment situation in Queensland this year is the best it has been since 1965. At the end of March the number of persons registered for employment represented 1.92% of the estimated work force compared with 2.1.8% at end of March 1968, 2.49% at end of March 1967 and 2.14% at end of March 1966.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why are you reading this answer?

Senator WRIGHT:

– The question was asked publicly and should be answered publicly. lt indicates that the overall employment situation in Queensland this year is the best since 1965. The Minister has also stated that there would be little purpose in convening a special meeting of representatives of industry since the employment situation in Queensland, as well as in all other States, is kept under constant review by the Department of Labour and National Service which maintains close contact with all sections of industry.

page 1214

AUGMENTATION OF SEWERAGE SERVICES, DARWIN, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

I present the report of the Parliamentary

Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work:

Augmentation of sewerage services, Darwin, Northern Territory.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator PROWSE:

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

LAH the facts point to the Darwin population continuing to grow at a steady rate of more than 7% annually for some time.

This assumption can be used as a basis for planning future development proposals including essential services.

There is a need to replan Darwin’s sewerage services.

There is a need to provide improved treatment and disposal facilities, as a matter of urgency, particularly serving the Casuarina district.

The estimated cost of the work when referred to the Committee was S4.5Sm.

Subject to the other recommendations and conclusions in this report, the Committee recommends the construction of the works in this reference.

Better judgment might have been used in locating and constructing the vent at the head of the rising main near Doctor’s Gully.

The efficiency of the Seabreeze outfall should be kept under close review during the period after the current works are completed with a view to accelerating the phasing out of the operation of the outfall if this action is warranted.

There would have been considerable merit in referring the work in all three sewerage zones to the Committee for investigation and report.

page 1214

SCHOLARSHIPS BILL 1969

Assent reported.

page 1214

APOLLO 10 MISSION

Ministerial Statement

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - Mr Deputy President, three Australian tracking stations - Carnarvon, Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla - again will play an important role in the Apollo programme in connection with the launch of Apollo 10, scheduled for 2.50 a.m., Australian Eastern Standard Time, on 19th May 1969. The 8-day Apollo 10 mission - a combination of the Apollo 8 and Apollo 9 missions - is designed to take Thomas P. Stafford (Commander), John W. Young (Command Module Pilot) and Eugene A. Cernan (Lunar Module Pilot) into lunar orbit. During the lunar phase of some 62 hours, Stafford and Cernan will board the lunar module, separate, and will descend to within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface before returning, after about 8 hours separation, to dock with the orbiting command and service module and return to earth.

Carnarvon will be a prime station for the earth-orbit phase of the mission. During this period, which lasts for 2 or 3 orbits, a complete check-out of the spacecraft is performed. Carnarvon’s Unified S-Band (USB), VHF and FPQ-6 radar will be tracking the combined Apollo spacecraft and third stage (Saturn IV) up to loss of signal on the second earth orbit. After this, the Carnarvon USB will track until the re-entry period when the radar will again pick up the spacecraft. After trans-lunar injection, the station will track the spacecraft to lunar distance and through lunar orbits 4 to 9 and 16 to 21. The longest period that the station will be manned without a major break is from launch minus 1 1 hours to the end of the first trans-lunar coast pass - about 31 hours. During the whole of the mission the Carnarvon SPAN (Solar Particle Alert Network) group will observe and report on solar flare activity to ensure that adequate warning of excessive radiation from solar events can be given to the network and spacecraft crew.

As in the Apollo 8 mission, the Canberra complex of Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla stations will be prime for the lunar phases of Apollo 10 several hours each day, as are Goldstone, United States, and Madrid, Spain. The complex will track the spacecraft for a short while about one hour after launch in the first of two planned earth orbits before the re-ignition of the third stage engine over Australia in the second orbit places the spacecraft on a flight path to the moon. For the 3-day trans-lunar coast, the complex will track for about 8 hours a day. After lunar orbit is achieved, 14 of the planned 32 lunar revolutions will be tracked by the com plex. On the twelfth orbit, the lunar module - with Stafford and Cernan aboard - will separate and twice descend to within 50,000 ft of the lunar surface, the first time with both descent and ascent stages joined, the second after jettisoning the descent stage. These activities were exercised for the first time in a manned configuration during the earth-orbit Apollo 9 mission.

As in the Apollo 8 mission, the critical firing of the service propulsion engine for the return to earth will occur behind the moon, and again the Canberra complex will be tracking as the spacecraft comes around the edge of the moon, and will be the first to relay voice and data on the success of the firing. About 224 hours of tracking will be involved at Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla during the 55-hour return journey. The complex will be the last ground station to track the spacecraft minutes before it re-enters the earth’s atmosphere over the New Hebrides on the way to splashdown some 400 miles south east of the Samoan Islands at about 2.54 a.m. (AEST) on May 27th. Both the Carnarvon and the Canberra stations are vital communications links between the spacecraft and the astronauts on the one hand, and the Mission Control Center at Houston, Texas, on the other hand. The Canberra complex communicates with Houston via the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Communications Centre at Deakin, Canberra, and the Goddard Space Flight Centre at Greenbelt, Maryland, United States. Carnarvon is in touch with Houston via the Overseas Telecommunications Commission earth-satellite station at Carnarvon, although stand-by circuits are available through PMG/OTC-leased lines via Deakin.

page 1215

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1969

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

[5.2] - I move:

Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act in areas which have given some concern to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. These are only some of the matters of immediate concern. There are others currently being considered and it is hoped that at least the majority of them will be introduced in subsequent Bills later in this Session. A statement which I made on 24th September 1969 foreshadowed amendments to extend to broadcasting stations some of the ownership and control provisions which apply at present to television stations. The preparation of amending legislation in this area is quite complex but a Bill will be presented shortly.

This first Bill, Mr President, deals almost exclusively with matters pertaining to the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Act provides that the Chairman and two other members, of whom not more than one shall be a part-time member shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of the Board. This being so, if the Chairman is absent for any reason, it is not possible for the Board to meet and this applies equally to ordinary meetings and those constituted to conduct public inquiries. In order to avoid this situation, the amendment proposes that a Vice-Chairman be appointed from the full-time members, to exercise all the powers of the Chairman insofar as the calling and conducting of meetings is concerned. In addition, in order that the day to day opera- tions of the Control Board will not be hampered by the absence of the Chairman, it is proposed that section 15 of the Act be amended to provide that the Chairman may delegate his powers to the ViceChairman.

The Bill also deals with another matter of direct concern to the Control Board. For the granting of licences for commercial broadcasting and television stations, procedures are set out in the Act which, upon examination, are not consistent. Section 82 provides that applications for original licences shall be in a form supplied by the Minister but nothing is specified in the case of applications for renewals of licences. For the sake of consistency it is proposed that all applications, both original and for renewals, shall be in a form supplied by the Minister. The position concerning the authority of the Board to obtain information from a licensee is also to be clarified. Here again the position is uncertain in respect of applications for renewals of licences. In order to satisfy itself that a renewal should be granted the Board must have access to such information as is necessary. In the case of original licences this problem does not arise since a full inquiry is held.

There is one other matter of some concern to the Board. Should any person use, or attempt to use, the facilities of a station without authority, or interfere with its transmissions, the licensee can only take action for trespass, which carries a relatively small penalty. However, broadcasting and television, the latter particularly, are important and powerful media for mass communication and it is felt that the operators of both national and commercial stations should have available to them some other form of redress. The Bill therefore makes it an offence for any person to knowingly obstruct or otherwise interfere with the broadcasting or televising of programmes or to in any way interfere with the operation of a station.

Finally, Mr President, the Bill makes an amendment requested by the AttorneyGeneral. Sub-section (a) of section 102 of the Act provides that no copyright work may be broadcast or televised without the approval of the copyright holder. However, the Copyright Act will contain provisions which will, in some circumstances, run counter to this and this Bill therefore repeals section 102(a).I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 1216

DECIMAL CURRENCY BOARD (ABOLITION) BILL 1969

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 Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill provides for the winding up and abolition of the Decimal Currency Board, and for the continuance of its functions, as necessary and where appropriate, within the framework of the Commonwealth Public Service. The Decimal Currency Board was established in October 1963 under the Currency Act 1963, although the Board commenced its meetings in June 1963 in order to make a start on its preliminary investigations. That Act also provided for the introduction of decimal currency and for the new decimal coins. The Currency Act 1963 provided the Treasurer with certain powers in relation to the proposed changeover to a decimal system of currency, and provided for the Decimal Currency Board to advise the Treasurer on matters relating to the changeover, with special reference to assistance to owners of monetary machines. The Act also authorised the Treasurer to delegate certain powers under the Act to the Decimal Currency Board.

In 1965. when the lines of planning for government compensation payments, and for decimal notes and coin had been more clearly defined, the Currency Act 1963 was amended, and the amended Act became the Decimal Currency Board Act 1963-1965. At the same time, a new Currency Act 1965 was enacted, which incorporated those parts of the Currency Act 1963 relating to currency, coinage and legal tender. The Reserve Bank Act was concurrently amended to cover the introduction of new decimal notes to replace notes of the former currency.

Apart from its functions in relation to monetary machine conversion and compensation, under delegation from the Treasurer, the Decimal Currency Board’s main task was to inform the public of the arrangements for the changeover to a decimal system of currency. The changeover date had been fixed in the Currency Act 1965 at 14th February 1966, and it is scarcely necessary for me now to remind honourable senators of the debt we owe to Sir Walter Scott and to other members of the Board for the competent manner in which these tasks were carried through to completion. The new system of currency became an accomplished fact for most members of the public within a few weeks of the changeover date. However, that date signified for the Board, and for the machine conversion companies and for business generally, the commencement of a period of dual currency during which both the old pounds, shillings and pence and the new dollars and cents circulated side by side. This dual currency period was necessary to enable some hundreds of thousands of monetary machines to be converted to decimal operation or to be replaced by new decimal machines. These machines ranged from taxi-meters and price-computing scales to complex accounting machines and computers.

The Board had originally estimated, on the basis of advice from the converting companies, that the conversion of machines would take approximately 2 years to complete. In the event, it was largely accomplished within 18 months of the changeover date. On the publicity and public education side, the Board’s activities ranged from liaison and discussions with business and commercial associations to the provision of pamphlets and lectures to the general public and culminated in an intensive advertising campaign and the delivery to all households in Australia of up to date information just before the changeover date. I think honourable senators will agree with me when I say that the work carried through by the Board was largely responsible for the comparatively painless changeover from the viewpoint of the Australian community as a whole. Great credit must go, however, to the business world for the detailed preparation and planning which lay behind the changeover in this area. The executives and staff of hanks, retail establishments and other commercial houses were involved in many months of work in preparing for the changeover.

The original estimate of the cost of the machine conversion and compensation aspects of a decimal currency changeover was $75m. In fact, expenditure by the Board to this time on the machine side has been just under S45m, and the total when completed wil’l not be much more than this amount. The Board also spent approximately Sim on publicity and advertising for the changeover. Details of these expenditures and other activities of the Board will be set out in a final report by the Board which the Treasurer will be submitting to the Parliament in due course. The Chairman of the Board advised the Treasurer recently that Board members felt their task had been effectively competed. and that the remaining administrative functions could, in their view, be carried out by a small staff operating within the Public Service.

The Treasurer has accepted this proposal and the purpose of this Bill is to put it into effect. The Bill provides for the Board to continue, after the enactment of the Bill, only for the purpose of winding up its affairs. This will consist principally of completing a final report on its operations. The further provisions of the Bill, which will come into effect on proclamation following the submission of the Board’s final report, then provide for the transfer to the Commonwealth of the rights and responsibilities of the Board. The powers vested in the Treasurer under the existing Act will continue, mainly for the purpose of completing the few remaining administrative duties which will be carried out by officers working in the Department of the Treasury. The staff of the Board has always formed a division of the Treasury, so that there are no problems on that side. The Bill also appropriates Consolidated Revenue Fund to the extent necessary to make any further payments which may be required. These would be of a minor nature only. In conclusion, I would wish only to compliment the Board and its staff on the highly successful conclusion to a complex and unique operation, and to thank them for the competence and dedication which they brought to their task. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1218

UNITED STATES-AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE SPACE COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 29 April (vide page 1024). on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Senate take note of the Statement.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– I have moved that the Senate take note of the statement made in the Senate by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) about the United StatesAustralian defence space communications facility, as the project is called, which, we understand, is under construction at Woomera. The Prime Minister’s statement was remarkably short. He said:

I have to inform the House that the Government has accepted proposals which were made by the United States Government for the establishment in Australia of a joint United StatesAustralian defence space communications facility.

He said that the facility would be established at Woomera. He continued:

A site survey party from the United States is expected to visit Woomera soon. Construction should commence in September or October and the installation should be ready to operate by late 1970. The joint staff of Australian and United States personnel required to operate the station will be between 250 and 300.

He added that the construction of the station would be an important contribution of the defence of all free nations. He concluded:

It is a further and most important tangible expression of that close co-operation between the United States and Australia in defence matters which is embodied in the ANZUS Treaty.

It is important to observe that the Prime Minister did not state that the establishment of this facility was in fulfilment of an obligation under or carrying out of the ANZUS Treaty. No doubt his words in that very short statement were very carefully selected. He said:

It is a further and most important tangible expression of that close co-operation between the United States and Australia in defence matters which is embodied in the ANZUS Treaty.

This project is one which involves our relations with the United States of America. Let me say at the beginning that so far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned and so far asI personally am concerned, we are pledged as a Party to adherence to the alliance with the United States and New Zealand which is embodied in the ANZUS Treaty. We consider that our relationships with the United States are of the greatest importance. I have expressed in this chamber admiration for the achievements of the United States and my own personal view that the frame of government which has been adopted and continued in the United States of America is the best democratic system of government yet devised by man. I say that notwithstanding the troubles which from time to time beset even the best of constitutions. In our approach to this matter we are in no way objecting to an alliance with the United States. Tn no way can anyone say fairly that there is any antiAmerican attitude on the part of the Opposition. I say that so that any suggestion of that kind can be repudiated in advance.

We are an independent nation and it is important that we enter into our arrangements with other nations on a basis of independence and equality. The Opposition is not satisfied with the conduct of our Government in relation to these matters, and particularly in relation to this project at Woomera. We make no criticism of what the United States is doing as that is its affair. But the approach of our Government in relation to this Parliament and the people of Australia is our affair. Here we find again that the same old story is being trotted out for the Australian people. This is a matter of the utmost importance to Australia and yet the Parliament and the people of Australia are not to be told the elementary information about this project. It has been said by the Prime Minister that the construction of the station will be an important contribution to the defence of all free nations. Mr Fairhall, the Minister for Defence, in Press statements and elsewhere, has gone on with this nonsense that everything about this is secret, that the whole essence of the matter is secrecy and that the only useful thing about the station is that it will be secret. He said that no member of Parliament other than Ministers directly concerned with the matter would be allowed to visit the station. These may not be his precise words, but this is what I have understood him to maintain inside and outside Parliament. All this is because of this atmosphere of secrecy which must cloak this station.

In this Parliament for a number of years we have seen a growing tendency on the part of the Government to hide from the Parliament and, therefore, from the people of Australia - because we in Parliament are here only as their representatives - matters which are disclosed to parliaments and the people in other countries. There has been a tendency to say, not only in respect of military matters but also on other matters, that these are confidential, that Parliament is not entitled to be told and will not be told. We saw this happen in relation to the contract for the purchase of the Fill aircraft, we saw it in 1967 in relation to who should ride in a VIP aircraft, we experienced it again over the sale of wheat to China, and we saw the same attitude in relation to contracts for Avis Rent-a-Car at various airport terminals throughout Australia. All these matters and a host of others are confidential and not even the Parliament is entitled to be told about them.

How does this compare with what happens in the United States of America? We have a very good example which I shall refer to shortly dealing with precisely tha same installation. Honourable senators know the attitude of our Government. We know what the situation is in the United States because of what was said by the distinguished Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. He is one of the most outstanding senators and representatives of that great nation and one whose fame has extended around the world. He has been quoted very often in this chamber as an authority on matters of government, especially in relation to foreign affairs. On 12th May, Mr Nilon, a reporter with the Australian Broadcasting Commission, narrated on television what had been discussed between him and Senator Fulbright on the morning of that day. He said-

Senator Webster:

– ls this the reporter’s version?

Senator MURPHY:

– He said that he had had a telephone conversation with Senator Fulbright. This is an accurate record of what took place between Senator Fulbright and Mr Nilon.

Senator Cormack:

– What is it alleged that he said?

Senator MURPHY:

– I suggest that those honourable senators who are interrupting would be very foolish to suggest that this did not happen because it did happen. Let them not be put on false ground by believing that somehow this is not an accurate statement of the conversation. Senator Fulbright was asked whether he and his colleagues had planned to visit either Pine Gap or Woomera. He said that he knew of no proposal but that if he wanted to visit them he felt sure that he could do so. He said that it was a long-established practice that members of the Congress and of the Senate could visit American bases and facilities at home and abroad. He said that he knew of no base or facility that would be off limits. Then he was asked where he drew the line on secrecy so far as congressmen and senators were concerned. He said: ‘I think they should know all about it. This business of secrecy is grossly overdone.’ 1 hope that those words have operated as a shock-wave to the Government of this country. They certainly should operate as a shock-wave to honourable senators. Apparently we need a distinguished colleague from another chamber to tell us that we should be standing up for our rights.

In the final question he was asked whether it was possible to tell the people in general terms what purpose a particular base served. He said: 1 think it is and should be possible to tell the people all. The enemy knows al) about it, and you. are only confusing your own people by not telling them.’ ls not that the right principle? Here is a matter of fundamental importance to the country. If we have an installation which is so important that it is ‘an important contribution to the defence of all free nations’, surely the Australian Parliament and people should be told what is involved in it. No-one wants to know the details of the machinery that Ls there. Everybody understands that. No-one in the Parliament has ever suggested that. Let it be understood that in the whole of this debate no-one is concerned about the secrets of the machinery and so forth. We are not interested in those things. What we are concerned about is the political implications of this establishment. We want to know what the control of it is; whether there is any impairment of Australia’s authority and independence; and whether we can bc involved in war without our consent. Surely these are things that the Parliament and people of Australia are entitled to know.

Senator Cormack:

– Are the people of Australia entitled to know the operations of the International Monetary Fund?

Senator Ormonde:

– Why not?

Senator MURPHY:

– As my colleague says, why not? The suggestion was made by the Minister for Defence that the agreement would not even be tabled in the Parliament. This is strange, because over a number of years agreements have been tabled, lt would probably be helpful to honourable senators if they looked up some of the parliamentary papers of the early years of this Parliament, which show the documents which were tabled in the Parliament dealing with the defence arrangements between the United Kingdom and Australia. Certainly the procedure here has been to table the agreement, as was done in the case of Pine Gap.

Yet the Minister for Defence says: ‘No, this agreement will not be tabled’. In relation to this matter he even had to be corrected by the Secretary of his Department. He was asked: ‘Will the agreement itself be tabled?’ He said: ‘No’. Asked the question: lt will not require legislation?’, he replied No’. When he was asked: ‘Will it be published?’ Sir Henry Bland intervened and the Minister said: ‘Sir Henry reminds me that we will register this with the United Nations. It doesn’t require any other parliamentary action’. What an extraordinary state of affairs this is.

We have heard suggestions that have been made around the place to the effect that the Minister can be excused because although the agreement is registered with the United Nations it will1 not be published. My understanding of the matter is that agreements that are registered with the United Nations are published. I have some support for the view that this agreement should be published because not only is that the practice but there are some references to this matter in the Charter of the United Nations. Article 102 of the Charter - which, incidentally, we adopted by Act of this Parliament - says:

Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.

So. let us have no more talk about the agreement not being published. The important matter is that the Minister is so concerned and this Government has become so wrapped up wilh the notion that the last people to be told anything are the members of the Australian Parliament and the Australian people that they have got into their minds like a disease the notion that these matters must be kept away from the people. The Minister says: ‘Of course, we will not table this agreement’, and then the Secretary of his Department has to say: “No. we will register it with the United Nations’. I have quoted a provision which seems to me, on the face of it, to require that it be published in accordance with the practice that is observed.

Senator Greenwood:

– Does the honourable senator know what the practice is in relation to international agreements? Does the United Nations publish the whole of the agreement?

Senator MURPHY:

– The practice, as I understand it, is that the United Nations publishes the text of the agreement. Certainly that is what is required by the Charter of the United Nations, lt seems to me to be plain. Yet here is the Minister saying - this is an important matter that I want honourable senators to observe - that the agreement will not even be tabled and that he will not even do wilh it what the Secretary of his own Department has to remind him will be done at the United Nations. We see that the Government’s attitude to this Parliament and the people is, in the forefront, one of secrecy - secrecy even about matters about which it should not be secret. This is an attitude which has percolated this Government, lt seems to be a disease that the Government has. The Government is sick with the notion of secrecy.

If this Parliament is to make up its mind on the question of the political implications of this treaty, it is entitled to the proper information. If people are not given the proper information, their decisions will be made on a basis of ignorance. The Parliament and the people can be trusted to arrive at sensible decisions only if they are given the utmost information that can be given. Surely we are entitled to know whether what the Government is doing will involve us in the possibility of nuclear retaliation. We are entitled to know the same kinds of things as members of the United States Senate would be entitled, and no doubt will demand, to know. 1 recall that on the Thursday afternoon on which we left Canberra, after some discussion had occurred outside the chamber on this same matter, the view was expressed that we would be learning from the United States Senate before we would learn here. We went to the airport and there we saw in the newspapers that a United States Senate committee was to inquire into these matters.

Senator Wright:

– Does the honourable senator suggest that all security matters are disclosed to the United States Senate committees?

Senator MURPHY:

– If the Minister is using the word ‘security’ in the sense of secrets about machinery and so forth, I do not think they would be, unless the proceedings were being conducted in a secret session. The United States Senate would not tolerate the making of decisions which affected the destiny of the United States, the lives of its citizens or the life or death of the whole population, without knowing what was going on and what it was being involved in. It would nol be interested in the details of the machinery, but it would be interested in what was taking place.

How cun the members of any parliament, the representatives of the people, abdicate their responsibility to know what is happening in relation to these great questions? Are we going to do what was done in the Great War, when, although the generals were sending hundreds of thousands of men in and losing them day after day, the people were told: They know exactly what they are doing; do not inquire into any of these matters’, or what was done in the case of Singapore, when the people were told: ‘The generals know what they are doing; so do not inquire whether everything is all right there. If you do. you will be assured that the experts there know all about it. So, do not inquire; in fact, you should not be interfering in these matters because they are great secrets’.

We are entitled to know the general nature and purpose of these installations and what we are involving ourselves in. If Senator Fulbright can rightly observe that the enemy knows these things anyway, why should not the people of this country-

Senator Anderson:

– He did not say that, and you know he did not say it.

Senator Cormack:

– The Leader of the Opposition is talking rubbish.

Senator MURPHY:

– I will quote again what was said by him - what the enemy knows. He was asked whether it was possible to tell the people in general terms what purpose a particular base served, and his answer was: ‘I think it is, and should be possible to tell the people all. The enemy knows all about it and you are only confusing your own people by not telling them.’

Senator Wright:

– On what basis did he say that?

Senator MURPHY:

– Is that not common sense?

Senator Wright:

– Common sense? Rubbish!

Senator MURPHY:

– The people of this country are being treated like rubbish by the Australian Government. Fancy making a statement of this nature, of seven sentences. What are we told about it? This is all we are told: We are told that the construction of the station will be an important contribution to the defence of all free nations. We have to get bits and pieces outside from the Minister for Defence, who cannot really make up his mind whether the base will be offensive or not. We have the statement that there will be no legislation. For a start, moneys belonging to the Australian people will be expended on this base. As yet, we do not know how much. Why are we not entitled to know what this is all about, in its political implications? I repeat that we are not interested in the details of the machinery there. That is not our problem at all. Can any senator - even the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), who keeps on interjecting - tell us with any certainty? If he can, we would like to know the basis of his information. We want to know whether this will involve us in the possibility of nuclear retaliation. Can the Minister for Works tell us that? He has been interjecting. He has been free in interjecting on me, but when I put a simple question to him, the answer to which everybody in this country ought to know, he does not answer. Can he tell me whether the construction of this base will mean that Australia can be involved in hostilities without its consent? Can someone outside this country push a button which would involve Australia in a nuclear war without this country having the opportunity of saying yea or nay? Can the Minister or any other senator on the Government side answer that question? Why should we be in this situation, where even the Ministers are ignorant? Even they are not able to tell us the political implications, for the simple reason that they do not know. If there are any dangers of Australia being involved in a nuclear war, if the life and death of the Australian people are at stake in this matter, why cannot we be simply told?

Senator Wright:

– In such a way that the world will know. That is the way you want to be told.

Senator MURPHY:

– We are not asking about the machinery; we are not even being told the purposes. One of the parties here has been advocating that we have a nuclear deterrent. I do not know. Maybe-

Senator Little:

– I bet the Abyssinians once wished they had a mustard gas attack deterrent.

Senator MURPHY:

– Maybe. I do not know the answer. Maybe it is that we should have one. If some of the speculation about this is correct, maybe we need it. Are we being involved in the situation of being exposed to nuclear attack without the protection that exists in other countries. What are we?

Senator Young:

– We have a chance of being blasted in any case.

Senator MURPHY:

– One senator intervenes and says in effect: ‘Put your hands over your eyes, you might be blasted in any case.’ Apparently he is prepared to abdicate the responsibility for his own people by saying, in effect, that the Americans should be allowed to put anything there that they like. The Australian Government does not seem to know anything about what is really going on. Ministers of the Crown obviously do not know the general implications of the base, but the honourable senator implies that this is good enough. He is willing to let somebody else make the decisions. We do not know what is needed to protect our people as a result of this decision. We do not know the implications. Why should we be put in this situation when it is so clear that the representatives of the people of the United States of America, and the States of the United States of America, would not tolerate being put in a similar position?

Senator Wright:

– How would you know?

Senator MURPHY:

– Can the Minister imagine that any other free and independent nation would tolerate this? Does he think the Canadian people, the Canadian House of Commons or the Canadian Senate would tolerate this happening in their country without their being told about it? The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) had the impudence to say that members of Parliament would not even be allowed to visit the base. I will say this. The Leader of the Government in this place at least had the courtesy, sense and discretion to say that the matter was hypothetical and no arrangements had been really entered into. The garbled versions given out by the Minister for Defence imply that really the proposition is that apparently only some kind of preliminary arrangements are being made and the matter has not been finalised at all, yet he had the effrontery to say that members of Parliament would not be allowed to visit the base when it was constructed. At the Press conference on 23rd April 1969, in answer to the question, ‘Is the tenure for a definite period? When we enter into this type of agreement, do we have an agreement which goes on for some period? Or is there an indefinite period?’, he replied:

Well, i’m not sure at the moment. The agreement hasn’t been drawn. The agreement, at the moment, is one in principle. The contract will be expected to follow closely along the lines of previous contracts of this kind and they were for definite terms but with a right of renewal.

What really is going on? The thing is being put out without the people of Australia being told. Is it some kind of election gimmick? Was it put out as bait to draw some fish and have some fights about the thing, or is it genuine? If it is genuine, why all the announcements that members of Parliament would not. have the right to visit the base, the statement that the Government cannot tell Parliament what the agreement is all about before it is even drawn up, and all this hocus-pocus that it will not be tabled in Parliament notwithstanding that the Pine Gap agreement was, and all those things.I doubt whether, when the agreement is drawn, that it will differ from the Pine Gap agreement? It is nonsense to say that such an agreement would not be tabled in the Parliament.

I think we need much better treatment from the Government than we have been getting, and on this occasionI think we will get it. We are fortunate here that with better communications in the modern world, one of the benefits is that we are beginning to find out what is going on in the United States of America. Not only are the Americans observing what is happening in Australia; also, we are observing what is happening in the United States, and we propose to observe - and observe with great interest, and I think to the benefit of this country - that their procedures are aimed at and will ensure that the information we are seeking here will be made available. They are entitled to it, and we are entitled to it. The people of Australia are entitled to it.

The Government ought to stop this nonsense about secrecy. It should abandon its pathological approach and start to tell the people of Australia in simple terms what this is all about and what they are in for, in order that the people of Australia may be able to determine their attitude to it. If the people of Australia are to be with the Government, if defence is to be put on a solid foundation, we need to know where we are going. The Government will not get the confidence of the people and satisfaction about any of these matters if it maintains this atmosphere of secrecy. As I have said, the Australian Labor Party is entitled to know the matters I have asked about. Our policy is clear on these matters. I will read what it isas set out in the platform of the party.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator MURPHY:

- Mr Deputy President,I think that for the purposes of the recordI should state specifically the policy of the Australian Labor Party in relation to facilities such as those at the North West Cape, and presumably at Pine Gap - so far as we can figure them out - and those to be established at Woomera. That policy is as follows:

Regional treaties.

Australia should take the initiative to obtain regional arrangements within the United Nations Charter and to make pacts of friendship, trade and non-aggression with all her Asian and Pacific neighbours.

ANZUS.

The alliance with the United States and New Zealand is essential and must continue.

Bases.

Labor is opposed to the existence of foreignowned, -controlled or -operated bases in Australian territory, especially if such bases involve a derogation from Australian sovereignty.

Labor is not opposed to the use of Australian bases by Allies in war time, or in periods of international tension involving a threat to Australia, provided that Australian authority and sovereignly ari unimpaired, and provided that Australia is not involved in hostilities without Australia’s consent.

The Australian Labor Party, along with the people of Australia, is emitted to the information which would enable it to make a determination on these matters. If what is being done al Woomera fits in with I hose criteria, very well. If it does not fit in with those criteria then we are against it. Surely we ure entitled to the information which will enable us and the people of Australia to know where we stand. Members of the Government parlies are entitled to know, members of the Democratic Labor Parly are entitled to know and we are entitled to know.

Why should we not have this elementary information? Why should we not know whether we can be involved in hostilities without our consent? Why should we not know whether Australian sovereignty and authority are unimpaired? How can we be a free and independent country and how can we have a proper relationship with the United Slates unless we are provided with the information on theSe matters? We in the Parliament do not know these things and obviously back bench members of the Government Parties in the Senate and in the House of Representatives arc also anxious about them One has only to be in this Parliament to realise that there is a great deal of concern about this matter, even amongst Government supporters. There is a feeling that iii this instance the Government has gone far too far in the direction of secrecy. Even Government supporters are anxious and concerned and think that this secrecy is being overdone. Apparently people in outside spheres who are interested enough in these matters can find out, if they study, a great deal of information about these bases. Information which is denied to the Parliament is available,) apparently, in various technical journals. There is a gentleman named Mr Cooksey who has been making a study of these matters. He has made various speeches and has issued a number of publications on them. He said:

Although there is little on the record in Australia relevant lo the functions of the facility-

He was referring to the Pine Gap installation - there is a great deal in ne / American aero-space magazines.

Mr Cooksey has written these learned articles and he referred to such magazines as ‘Aerospace Technology’, ‘Technology Week’, ‘Aviation Week and Space Technology’ and ‘Air Force and Space Digest’. Why should members of the Parliament and the people of Australia have to turn to such technical journals to learn about matters concerning bases in Australia? The Opposition is not interested in the various technical details. As I said, we are not interested in what machinery is housed at these bases. What we ap: concerned with is the political implication and the attitude of the Government in saying to us: ‘This is all loo secret for you to be entrusted with even the elementary information’. This is not good enough. The attitude of the Government that members of the Parliament will not be allowed to visit the station is simply not good enough. We have read the statement made by the distinguished Senator Fulbright. I say to the Government and to the Ministers who will speak in this debate: I defy them to stand up in the Senate and say that Senator Fulbright cannot visit’ Pine Gap or Woomera. I can tell honourable senators what the answer to my challenge will be. No’ one Minister will dare stand in this place and say this. We have had the spectacle of Ministers of the Crown saying that members of this Parliament - Government supporters and Opposition members in both Houses: the backbenchers and apparently even those Ministers not directly concerned - will not be trusted to visit these installations.

Senator Greenwood:

– You cannot affirm that Senator Fulbright would be able to visit them.

Senator MURPHY:

– That is a very good point senator and my answer is this: I intend to ask Senator Fulbright to come to Australia and visit Pine Gap and the establishment at Woomera, when it is constructed, and thereby expose this charade being carried on by the Government. I thank the honourable senator.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Senator Fulbright said he would be able io do this.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. I defy Government members to stand up in the Senate and say that Senator Fulbright will not be allowed to visit these installations. Relationships between Australia and the United

States are injured by this kind of secrecy and this kind of nonsense. Of course, the Government has put its foot in it. lt was all very well to go on with this nonsense in Australia as an election gimmick but it went too far. The Government was not aware of what it was doing when dealing with a joint base, lt is all very well to say: You cannot be trusted. The Australian public cannot be allowed to know what is happening and how their fate is being determined’. The attempts to carry on with this nonsense about members of the Parliament not being allowed to visit the installations are being broken down. The Government knows as well as we do that it cannot get away with this nonsense. It knows that never again will this attitude be tolerated.

I think that relations between the United States and Australia will be improved by more communication between ourselves and United States senators. United States senators have shown us a great example by standing up forthrightly and insisting upon civilian control of the military; insisting on control by the legislature of the operations of the government in respect of these great matters which concern the destiny of their country. The action of the United States senators is an example to us in Australia. In this respect we should emulate the United States as much as we can. The Prime Minister’s statement is discourteous. 1 think it is contemptuous not only of the Parliament but also of the Australian people. Not only the Parliament but also the people of Australia should demand that they be informed of the political implications of the construction of this base at Woomera. I hope the Government will have the wisdom to ensure that they are so informed.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– On 29th April I put down in the Senate a statement which had been made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) late in the afternoon of 23rd April, lt related to a defence space communications facility about which Australia proposed to enter into an agreement with the United States of America. In the statement to the Parliament the Prime Minister announced that the Australian Government had accepted proposals made by the United States Government for the establishment in Australia of a joint United

States-Australian defence space communications facility. He announced that the facility was to be located at Woomera - in the Woomera area complex - and that at some time in the near future a survey party from the United States would visit Woomera in relation to the project. He also made it clear that the commencement of the project was expected in September or October of this year and that the installation would be ready for operation by late 1970.

The Prime Minister also indicated - I mention these things because 1 want tonight’s debate to be on an orderly basis and because the debate has been interrupted - that it was expected that a joint staff of Australian and United States personnel of between 250 and 300 people would be required to operate the station. That is an important factor. The final part of the statement reads:

The construction of the station will be an important contribution to the defence of all free nations. lt is a further and most important tangible expression of that close co-operation between the United States and Australia in defence mailers which is embodied in the ANZUS Treaty.

That is the basis of this debate. I suggest that that portion of the Prime Minister’s statement which 1 quoted is and must always remain the fundamental issue involved in any consideration of the proposed defence space communications facility. 1 propose to return to that fundamental issue. Both in another place and here all kinds of diversions have taken place, red herrings have been drawn across the trail and attempts have been made to move away from the substance of the fundamental issue involved in this matter. I think I need to canvass briefly the procedures that have been adopted in this place. When 1 put down the Prime Minister’s statement the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) moved:

That the Senate lake note of the statement.

He indicated that he would like a debate upon the subject and I, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, made it abundantly clear that the Government would facilitate a debate on the Prime Minister’s statement at the earliest possible opportunity. Thus we are debating it here today. It is interesting to recall that this subject was debated in the other place on 29th April. The debate was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) who proposed that the. House discuss, as a matter of public importance, the Government’s refusal to inform the Parliament and the public of the general purpose and possible consequences of joint defence installations and facilities in Australia. That proposal, and indeed the whole approach of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate tonight, completely begs the fundamental issue of a joint Australian-United States defence communications programme in Australia. 1 do not think we should allow this debate to get away from that fundamental issue. I have mentioned the debate in the other place and the way in which the mailer has been raised in this place.

In the other place, having commenced at that level and whilst reluctantly giving support to the concept, the whole pattern of the Opposition approach was to attempt, in a variety of ways, to attack and discredit the substance of the proposal to establish a facility. This afternoon and tonight Senator Murphy has followed the same attack by protestations of support for the ANZUS Treaty, by reading the Labor Party’s bible or set of rules and by referring this afternoon to the wonderful and best system of government known to man - that of the United States of America. He then moved away to an onslaught upon the arrangement to be entered into by the United States of America and Australia in relation to this defence communications establishment, lt will be interesting to watch how the debate progresses in this place tonight. History will reveal whether this difference of approach and difference of view within the Opposition will emerge. I. make the point that this defence space communications facility is not an offensive installation; it is a defensive installation.

Senator Bishop:

– Who stated that?

Senator ANDERSON:

– If the honourable senator waits a moment I will be delighted to accommodate him and supply that information. The Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) in another place quoted from a statement from the United States State Department. He deliberately sought that statement for the purpose of the debate.

Senator Bishop:

– What is the quotation?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I will give the honourable senator the quotation. I know he will not like it, but I will give it to him. The quotation is: lt cannot be used to initiate aggression and it threatens no-one. To the contrary, its function is to support collective self defence. Thus it is purely defensive.

The fact of the matter is that it is a defensive establishment. When pressure is applied honourable senators on the opposite side of the chamber squirm. The burden of the Opposition case - and I quote the Leader of the Opposition - was: lt is right to co-operate with the United Stales in using the advantages of our size and she for communications and research in the space age. lt is right to allow Australians to acquire and expand their skills which are basic in the new age that we are entering, lt is right to seek a new lease of life for Woomera, lt is right that this should have been made a joint project. But-

This is where the crunch always comes. According to the Opposition there should be no security and no secrecy - these are my words - and this proposed defence establishment should be open to all and available to everybody; it should be a matter of public knowledge to Australians and to our potential enemies. This is the proposition put by the Opposition. Security and secrecy mean nothing. When will members of the Opposition grow up? We are not in the kindergarten class now. We are living in a world of realism. I invite honourable senators opposite to name one country in the world which will spew out all its security matters and all its secrets for the benefit of its potential enemies. That is the proposition put by the Opposition on this occasion.

Secrecy is inherent in the defence establishments of any country. 1 am certain that the Australian electorate understands this very fact, even if the Australian Labor Party does not. It is futile for the Opposition to base its attack on the proposition that our secrets should be made available to the world - and that we must have no secrecy. Of course we have secrecy. We always will have secrecy. Unless a country wants to be completely isolationist and completely nebulous it must have some secrecy, that is, if it wants to be a country of some significance and if it wants to.defend its heritage. The Opposition is suggesting that we throw open the doors and make everything public. Why not send a publication to our potential enemies and tell them all about our security?

The Pine Gap establishment has been mentioned in the debate. The new Woomera establishment will be a defence space communications facility and the Pine Gap establishment will be a defence space research facility. Mr Fairhall, the Minister for Defence, said that it is the nature and purpose of these establishments which constitute the essential military secrets, not only for the United States but in collaboration with the Australian defence complex. The Australian defence complex will have complete access to data from the proposed station at Woomera, will share in the use of the services of the station and will have access to modern technology backing the station. We will share also in its operation. These are not arrangements to be made lightly or to be undervalued.

I want to come now to the substance of what Senator Murphy built his case on today. There was great play on Senator Fulbright, who is Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, lt is interesting to note that Senator Murphy based his whole case on a report of an interview that an officer of the Australian Broadcasting Commission had with Senator Fulbright. I am not a lawyer but I wonder what sort of evidence that would be on which to base anything. I wonder how Senator Fulbright will feel if this debate is ever revealed to him and the things that have been said in bis name about a conversation, first removed presumably, with an officer of the ABC are made public to him. I am not suggesting that the officer of the ABC did any more than report faithfully what he believed was said in the telephone conversation, but what sort of evidence is that on which to base a consideration of a defence communications establishment in relation to which an agreement will be entered into between the greatest power in the world and the country with the greatest future in the world? Of course great play is made on the inference contained in Senator Fulbright’s reported statement to the effect: ‘What does it matter? The Russians have it anyway.’ It is interesting to note that Senator Fulbright qualified everything he said.

The fascinating thing is that this is an agreement which has been entered into by the United States and Australia and which provides for secrecy. That secrecy is just as applicable to the United States as it is to Australia. That is one of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Senator Murphy and Senator Cohen, both legal men, will tell us that to have an agreement there must be more than one person. In fact there can be any number. In this case, however, the agreement is between two nations of the world and part of the agreement is that there shall be secrecy about the arrangements. If what Senator Fulbright is reported to have said in a telephone conversation is correct, I wonder how he, as Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, reacts now to the fact that he knew nothing about the arrangement between his nation and ours to enter into an agreement the terms of which would be secret. I point out again that it is just as secret for the United States as it is for us.

That brings me to the next point. Senator Murphy requires an arrangement to be made so that at some stage parliamentarians will be able to comment about it, visit the location and interview officers. The United States is just as involved in this as we are, and I say again that an argument based on a telephone conversation with an American senator is an argument that has a very poor foundation. Do not point your finger at me. Senator Georges. I do not like it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Anderson has the floor.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I thought I gave you, Senator Georges, some pretty good medicine this afternoon and I did not think you would want any more. I come back to the fact thar here is a proposed arrangement between the United States and Australia.

Senator Georges:

– Proposed?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes. One of the prerequisites of the arrangement is security and secrecy. When the time comes, as no doubt it eventually will come, for a declassification of the area, that declassification will be just as applicable to the United States as it will be to us. There will not be any variation between us.

Senator Bishop:

– What will the bases do? Can you tell us something about that?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I really think Senator Bishop believes in Father

Christmas. He asked what the bases will do. That is the very background of the classification - security and secrecy. Senator Murphy, Mr Whitlam and the Labor Party are asking us to tell the world and our potential enemies what the bases will do. Of course it is not. in the nature of things that they will be told.

The next point 1 want to make - this really was the only other point that Senator Murphy made - relates to the tabling of the agreement. He built an argument on the fact that in an interview it was stated that the Pine Gap agreement had been tabled in the Parliament. In fact, it was tabled on 9th March 1967. I have a copy of it here. lt is a public document but it does not disclose anything in relation to secrecy or security. The whole argument in this place and in another place is about the fact that there is secrecy and security in relation to Pine Gap and Woomera. The basic agreement which has been tabled does not contain any reference to the ancillary procedures and the facts about which Senator Bishop just asked because they involve security and secrecy. The agreement is merely a formal agreement entered into between two nations. I am quite convinced that the Minister for Defence, at a Press conference at which Pressmen were seeking to find out what would happen at the establishments, answered in that context and said that the agreement would not be tabled.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What is the agreement? There is no agreement.

Senator ANDERSON:

– At this stage there is no agreement but if you had listened-

Senator Hendrickson:

– You are being told what to do and you will do it.

Senator ANDERSON:

– If you had been here and had heard me lay the foundation for the statement made in the Parliament by the Prime Minister you would not have asked that question. Last week was Coral Sea week, the week in which we, as Australians, celebrate with our United States allies the great Coral Sea battle which took place, I think, on 7th May 1942.

I recall that I had the great honour to represent the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Gorton, at a function commemorating Coral Sea week. This was last week. The official guest who came to Australia Ibr this commemoration was the American astronaut Mr Cunningham. I recall, as 1 hope everyone else recalls, what the Coral Sea battle means to Australia. I hope everybody remembers the famous message that Mr Curtin sent to the United States of America before the battle: ‘Come over and help us’. I hope all honourable senators appreciate what that means. 1 want to remind the Senate also-

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! 1 ask honourable senators on the Opposition side who are interjecting to let the Leader of the Government be heard.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I want to say to the Senate that when the Coral Sea battle was fought-

Senator Hendrickson:

– That was our policy in 1942, Senator Little.

Senator Little:

– lt was not your policy then; it was ours.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Oh, get out! You were not known in the game in 1942. You were a babe in arms.

Senator Little:

– You did not get that from your Federal Executive; you got it from us.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! I ask the Senate to keep to the debate.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I think that we have a spare room downstairs. We could put them in there and let them sort themselves out. This behavour is not surprising in view of the nature of this debate. But 1 persist with my point. The fact of the matter is that the result of the Coral Sea battle in which Australians fought with Americans was that any threat to Australia was put paid to. We remember the wonderful help that Australia received during the last war from the United States. Ever since then, we have had a tremendous relationship with the United States. That applies not only in terms of defence treaties such as ANZUS. In every possible way, we have had this relationship with the United States. The facts of the matter are that, whether we like it or not - and apparently there are some people who do not like it - our security and the security of the free world are linked with the United States.

Senator Hendrickson:

– You ought to be ashamed to say it.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Senator Hendrickson says that I ought to be ashamed to say it.

Senator Hendrickson:

– So you should.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I wonder whether you are speaking for the Labor Party when you say that?

Senator Hendrickson:

– No, I am not. I am speaking-

Senator ANDERSON:

– I wonder whether you are speaking for the Australian Labor Parly because I recall that only 5 or 10 minutes ago - perhaps a quarter of an hour ago - Senator Murphy read out the platform of the Australian Labor Party. In spite of all his protestations, he said: ‘We are joined with America in the ANZUS Pact. We are marching shoulder to shoulder with the United States’. What does that mean when Senator Hendrickson by interjection - and I gave him the chance to contradict what he said - comes in and says what he said? I invite any other honourable senator to get up and to make the same statement. We cannot have it both ways. If we are to have an alliance with the United States for the free world and for Australia, we must put something in as well as taking a hell of a lot out. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. Now, I want to draw all the loose ends together. The fact is that this is a defence establishment. This is what we are proposing to enter into with the United States. It is another factor in the defence of Australia and of the free world.

Senator Hendrickson:

– You would not know what defence means.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Well-

Senator Hendrickson:

– Where were you in 1940?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Gently docs it. The fact is that if the Opposition wants to expose our security and our secrecy in respect of our defence establishments, it is doing a grave injustice to itself and to its country. Honourable senators opposite are doing a grave injustice to their children who will follow them. They are seeking to throw open to the world the defence security not only of Australia but also of the United States, and all that goes with that action. I really do not think that they mean that. I think that they are caught up in it. Already, Senator Murphy has said that the Opposition accepts the North West Cape establishment. Until this debate commenced, the Opposition has not been too persistent about Pine Gap. These are establishments associated with security. Look, I am the Minister for Supply. We have security matters in my Department.

Senator Georges:

– Are you allowed into these bases?

Senator ANDERSON:

– I am sworn to observe security. I take an oath in relation to it.

Senator Hendrickson:

– So do we.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes, so do honourable senators. But the Opposition comes along and says now: ‘Well, because Senator Fulbright said something about the Russians probably knowing about it, let us chuck it all up and let them have the lot’. We heard this sort of argument put forward in another place where the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) said: The other countries of the world know all about this technology and all this stuff anyway, so why bother?’ This argument predicates thai there is never any advancement, that we are in the horse and buggy days and we stay in the horse and buggy days. The thinking of Dr Cairns does not go to the point that he appreciates that despite the advances in science, technology, computers and modern developments in the world today, new progress and new development are taking place. If we listen to Dr Cairns, we find that he says: ‘Oh, well, they probably know. They have these sorts of stations, whatever they are. They have them anyway. Why should we have secrets?’ The fact is that 1 am not interested to the extent of bothering about other things. I am concerned about the defence of Australia, of the United States of America and of the free world. So long as I have a breath in this place, I will never divulge intentionally anything which I think will be of assistance to the enemies of this country.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Do you suggest that we would?

Senator Georges:

– Do you say that the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would do that?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Well, Mr Acting Deputy President, as for debating this matter on the basis of a telephone conversation held with Senator Fulbright who is in America, if that is not an illustration of the silly season, I do not know what is. Look here, we are a young country. We have a tremendous future. It is unlimited. Australia is unlimited. We cannot defend ourselves in isolation. We are not going to have a defence pol’icy based on isolationism. Inherent in our future defence protection and our progress is the alliance that we have in the ANZUS treaty. This defence establishment fits into (he pattern of ANZUS. Are honourable senators to deny this because they say that they should know all the secrets of the technology concerned? Is that their measuring stick? People listening to this debate could get this impression. I say to honourable senators opposite that they should look to themselves in relation to this matter -

Senator Hendrickson:

– There is no difference between your party today and the party in 1940.

Senator ANDERSON:

– As far as 1940 is concerned - and I presume that Senator Hendrickson is making a general statement and he is not directing his words at me - the same as a lot of other people on this side and on the other side of the Senate, I had a job to do in 1940 and I was doing it as a volunteer.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– Mr Acting Deputy President, I trust that I can bring to this debate the opportunity to discard some of the larrikinism and some of the offhanded attitudes that have been displayed by members of the Liberal Party on what T think is possibly a matter of the utmost seriousness.

Senator Marriott:

– Don’t you try to be little Lord Fauntleroy.

Senator WILLESEE:

– My erudite and robust friend over there is trying to advise me. All I am saying is that I hope that the larrikinsim will drop out of this debate-

Senator Marriott:

– Well, sit down.

Senator WILLESEE:

– … and that some sense of the seriousness of the matter will come back into the debate. As far as Senator Marriott is concerned, if he went back to Afghanistan, probably we would all be better off. I do not want to be rough in this debate but I believe that the Liberals very obviously are trying lo dodge around an impossible situation into which the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) has put them. I have never thought that 1 would sit in this chamber and hear a member of the United Australia Party - or the Liberal Party of Australia, as its members call it today - refer in the same breath to the American alliance and John Curtin. Senator Hendrickson interjected when the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) was speaking. An attempt was made to twist his words, but he was completely right. My colleague said that he did not think anybody should seek to twist the words of John Curtin at that time. You, Mr Acting Deputy President, had an interest in politics in those days. You understand that these were the people who castigated Curtin from one end of the country to the other because he appealed to the Americans for aid. Towards the end of his life John Curtin said: ‘Only one thing really hurt me in my whole political career, and that was to think that people could say when I turned to America for help that I was trying to cut the painter with Great Britain. Surely these people should have been able to see that the very reason why 1 turned to the United States was not to break old ties wilh the Commonwealth of Nations, but so that we could preserve them.’

Tonight an attempt has been made by supporters of the Government to misquote the words of that great man in one of the greatest periods of Australia’s history. It was a great period, irrespective of the political colour of the Government of that time. The people who would like tonight to quote John Curtin for their own ends are the very people who tried to tear him down. Tonight many honourable senators opposite have been laughing about this matter and introducing into the debate a degree of larrikinism. They have adopted an offhanded attitude as indeed the Minister for Defence has done. Regard this matter as you will, the fact is that the agreement in respect of these installations in Australia has placed Australia in the forefront of the fighting lines of the world. In the event of another world war we are inviting attack. We may be the first nation to be bombed. Is the risk worth it?

Senator Greenwood:

– Do you say that the agreement has nothing to do with the ANZUS pact?

Senator WILLESEE:

– I want to be completely fair, regardless of the provocation of the interjections. I am dealing with a very serious matter. I ask honourable senators opposite to drop politics and to forget for a while their hate and venom and to deal with the situation as it stands tonight. What have been the attitudes all along of Government supporters? Until I heard tonight the tone of the remark of the Leader of the Government in the Senate in this debate I had not intended to quote from the transcript of a Press conference given by Mr Fairhall. He made a complaint about this matter. I have a note of the words he used. He said that after all, the Press conference was lighthearted, good natured, and was called in a hurry. This is the attitude of the Minister for Defence. In effect, he said: ‘Do not take any notice of my Press conference’. I would not have quoted from the Press conference but for the nature of the debate that has taken place here tonight. Let us have a look at the Press conference in some detail. The Minister for Defence was asked about the defence significance of the project. He said:

The function of the station will make a contribution to free world defence, but I wish you would not ask me how.

He was then asked:

Does the station have a defensive or offensive capability, or both?

The Minister replied:

No offensive capability.

The next question was:

When you said that this had no offensive capability, did you mean in the same way as North West Cape?

He replied:

No,I just meant no comment.

Then he was asked:

I thought you said ‘no’ to the question whether this had an offensive capability?

The Minister said:

Withdraw whatI said before. Make it no comment.

Then the Minister was asked this question:

Was this discussed by the Prime Minister when he was in Washington?

The Minister answered yes. He was asked whether it was discussed with the President and he replied:

Yes. I think he mentioned that, didn’t he, in his statement?

That question was addressed to Sir Henry Bland, the Secretary of his Department, who answered no. The next question was:

Is the tenure for 5 or 10 years?

The Minister turned to Sir Henry Bland and asked:

Do you remember what we had in mind?

Sir Henry answered no. The Minister then said:

I do not thinkI would like to comment on that but there will be a definite term specified.

When the Minister’s words at the Press conference were quoted in the other place he said that it was all lighthearted and in good fun. He said: ‘Please do not take me seriously. The Press conference was called in a hurry’. This is what appals me about this matter. I do not mind Government supporters’ saying that this agreement is good for Australia or that the risk of atomic bombing is worth it. This is a responsibility of the Government. But when honourable senators opposite say that these installations are related to the ANZUS treaty I am forced to wonder whether members of the Liberal Party have ever read it. I wonder whether they have ever studied its history. I do not think members of the Liberal Party have studied the ANZUS treaty at all. The Minister for Defence, and I believe the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), quoted article II of the ANZUS agreement, which reads:

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self help and mutual aid. will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

After the Minister for Defence had quoted that article in the other place he went on to say:

There, Sir, is the statement of our obligations -

I emphasise the word ‘obligations’ - under ANZUS and we can deny that obligation at our future peril.

The fact is that the ANZUS treaty does not impose obligations on the Australian Government. We do not seem to be able to get that fact over to Government supporters who talk so glibly about the ANZUS agreement. It is not a mutual defence pact. If Government supporters can first grasp that, they may then approach the United States of America and New Zealand more intelligently. The Government ought to be far more often approaching the New Zealand Government than it is. The ANZUS pact imposes on the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand - its three signatories - moral and psychological pressure to do what they think best under their constitutions in certain circumstances. I want to be perfectly fair about this. Contrary to the attitude adopted by honourable senators opposite I have never believed that foreign affairs and defence matters should be made a political football. 1 believe that they ought to be examined with all the seriousness thai one can muster. Such matters decide whether Australia remains a free nation and whether the little starving children about whom Senator Anderson waxed so eloquent survive in future. Political manoeuvres should be reserved for other topics.

The ANZUS agreement has value in that it keeps the United States interested in this part of the world. But it must be remembered that although the United States is a signatory to the ANZUS agreement, the fact is the area in which she thus maintains an interest is not defined. Honourable senators opposite should not believe that a map has been drawn, setting out a clearly marked area about which the United States has said: ‘If a foreign foe puts its foot over that line we shall be there in that area to fight.’ That is not at all the real position. The area is not defined. A moral and psychological pressure is placed on the signatories to decide on the area covered by the agreement and whether certain circumstances invoke the agreement. The very fact, that the ANZUS agreement is weak, does not hold a great deal of strength, is the very reason for the existence of the South East Asia Collective Defence Treaty. The weakness of the ANZUS agreement spawned SEATO. Just as weak parents do not beget a strong child, the weakness of the ANZUS agreement spawned the weak SEATO child. SEATO has become a laughing stock and is regarded as moribund in South East Asia. Even if the ANZUS pact were as strong as Government supporters would like it to be and pretend it to be, they should remember that the United States has treaties with forty other countries. lt does not follow, just because we are Australians or just because this Government has been in office for so long, that in any given set of circumstances the United States of America will give priority to helping us. lt. could happen that at a time of our need pressures were coming from the signatories of the other forty treaties, whose need was equal to ours. There is no basis for adopting an arrogant attitude or believing that we are the heaven-sent boys and therefore the United States of America will come to help us on every level.

Tonight I must eat some of my words 1 have previously uttered. In past debates on foreign affairs I have said that one value of the ANZUS pact is thai the United States could use it as a peg on which to hang its hat if it wanted to come to this area. If one examines the situation realistically, it is clear that in any circumstances the United States would come to this area, irrespective of the existence of the ANZUS agreement. 1 have always been an admirer of the way that democracy works in the United States. I give great credit for the way in which information is made available in the United States and the way criticism is offered through newspapers and various groups. Tonight I must concede that the ANZUS agreement does not provide such a peg. There is no logical argument to support the claim that the Australian Government through the ANZUS agreement creates a peg on which the United States could hang its hat in coming to this area in time of need. That is not at all the case. We must be realistic about this. Honourable senators talk about America as though it is in a staid and set situation that can never change, but under a change of Administration or as the result of pressure in the United States of America there could be a change in attitude towards this subject. We could get a situation in which the defence establishments which are being built today would be completely moribund. This happened in Turkey.

When America had its missile bases in Turkey and a situation arose in Cuba with a missile crisis, some of the pressure that the Russians were trying to put on America was to say: ‘If you want us to get out of Cuba, why don’t you get out of Turkey?’ The fact of the matter was that President Kennedy had been trying to get out of Turkey for IS months. The bases there were of no use anyway. But because of the peculiar circumstances and political situation there were still missile bases in Turkey. The bases were of no use to anybody, but they were still there. We must take this as a warning. This is the situation that we could have under a new Administration or with different technological developments throughout the world. With these bases on Australian soil we could be preening ourselves because we were part of the great set up, but this would not matter a damn to the Americans. All we would be doing would be pinpointing ourselves as a target for an atomic bomb in the event of trouble.

We hear talk about ANZUS. The one thing that we are not doing under ANZUS is the very thing that ANZUS demands, that we work under the constitutional processes of our Government. This is the one thing that we are not doing, ls it within the constitutional processes of a government led by the Liberals to say that we are nol going to talk about these things openly in Parliament, that the Australian people are not going to be told what is happening? These are constitutional processes and this is what is demanded by ANZUS, but this is the one thing in ANZUS that is being ignored. I am sick and tired of Australian Prime Ministers going to America and demeaning themselves at the feet of the Americans when there is absolutely no need for it. What the Australian public wants from some Australian Prime Minister is that he should go to America, tell them we need them, that they are our friends, that we want them in the ANZUS Treaty and the other treaties, but that we stand on our own two feet sis an equal partner, even though it might be as a junior partner. To talk about going to go all the way with LB.!, or going waltzing Matilda is just so much stupid rot. which makes the Australians appear to grovel. All that Australians want is that America should be a friend. They want to keep up the American alliance, but they do nol want us to be demeaning ourselves and grovelling in a political way at the feet of any American president.

Instead of hanging a hat on the imaginary peg of ANZUS, we should stand up and say that we are taking a certain decision that we believe that is best for Australia and that we believe we ought to be part of the nuclear chain around the world headed by the Americans. Let it not be forgotten that we are now a nation which carries more American bases or links in the nuclear chain than any other nation on earth. That makes us the No. I target in the event of war. If a war breaks out. can we blame any nation if it comes and bombs those targets? I think it was the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who referred a little time ago to the missile bases in China. At that time the war in Vietnam hud not reached the pinnacle that it h:is today and we were very conscious of the fact that China was developing nuclear missiles. He said there was a thought throughout the world that we ought to take out these missile bases immediately, either by sabotage or by bombing, but preferably by bombing because this would be easier to do, before they became too great. There was even a theory that the Americans were going to probe into Vietnam until China finally came through as it did in the Korean war, and that would be a perfectly good excuse to take out the missile bases in China. I apologise if I am wrong, but I think Mr Wentworth suggested that this would be a mighty idea.

Does any honourable senator opposite think that that is the sort of thing that, ought to be done today? The fact is that we have now established ourselves as a hostage. This is what happens when we put in a nuclear base. Every nation in the world can now say to America: ‘If you move into this area’, whether it be South America, Europe, South Africa or any other place, ‘wc will hold Australia as a hostage. If you hit me [ shall hit your small brother’, lt is as simple as that. There is no question now of ever taking out the Chinese missile bases because if we did so they would immediately take out ours. All 1 am trying to do is persuade the Government to face up to the reality of the situation - not try to pass it off with larrikinisms of the kind that we have seen here tonight. It should not try to pass it off with the offhandedness that we saw from the Minister in a Press conference, alter which he said: ‘lt was a light hearted sort of thing. Why bother about that? We were all having a jolly bit of fun’. If he wants a jolly bit of fun I wish he would choose something other than nuclear and missile bases.

The Government talks about joint defence under ANZUS; but is it defence? Is it real defence or is it inviting attack? If it is defence, what sort of defence potential is put about it? In Western Australia we have a very important line of communications in the base at North West Cape, but from that base one could kick a football into the ocean. Not only is that establishment easy to bomb but it would also be easy for any atomic submarine to stand off and bomb it. There is not one warship or gun in the area to protect it. Perhaps this is based on military advice which may be right - I do not claim to be a military man - but the fact is that we are putting these things in Australia and are not using them for defence.

  1. come again to the question of how important Australia is. Anybody who takes this arrogant attitude that Australians have some great pull over the forty other treaties with America, that the Americans are just tumbling over themselves to come and protect us should imagine that he is sitting in the Pentagon and realise what would happen in the event of a very important war with tremendous pressure in Asia. In that situation, which country would one defend? If there were a threat to bomb Australian bases, would you then say: There are about thirteen million or fourteen million people in Australia who are rather vulnerable anyway because they have bases there, but we can defend only one country’? Why should it be thought that Australia would have a priority over the other countries? Why should it take priority over a country like Taiwan which is only 70 miles off the Chinese coast, which has fifteen million people and a tremendously efficient air force and army? If one was in the Pentagon, what decision would one make? Would the Australians, Taiwanese or the people of any other country in Asia be the most important? The thing that appals me. is that we sit here in our arrogant manner thinking that because we are Australians we have some priority and some claims on the United States of America, England and every other nation on earth.

Senator Anderson tried to make a great play by throwing in the name of Dr Cairns when suggesting that these secrets were not known throughout the world. It does not take Dr Cairns or anybody else to say it. Technological and scientific developments know no geographical boundaries. Scientific and technical knowledge goes throughout the world. There has only to be a breakthrough in any technical matter today and scientists in other countries realise that it must have been achieved by experiment A, B or C. This is why the atomic bomb could not be confined to America. Scientists throughout the world had been working on the splitting of the atom for so long that the moment it was split they knew in other parts of the world that it had been achieved by method A, B or C. Anybody who has done any technical work or read a technical magazine would be aware of this. It has been said that the great spies of the world today sit in libraries of the world because somebody has written about all these things at some time, and all that is needed is research to find out what can be achieved.

What Dr Cairns said is completely right. The people who know all about technology are the Russians and the Chinese - the people whom we think are our enemies because they have bases of the same kind as ours. They had to build these things and they have had to repair them. They know what the problems are and they know what technological developments are needed. It is as plain as the nose on one’s face that the scientists of the world know these things. The Government is trying to shroud the whole project with secrecy. Nobody wants to know the technical details. They would not make sense to a layman, anyway if he was given the technical drawings. But this Parliament is entitled to some form of general explanation - not to have someone giggle and laugh as the Minister for Defence does and not to be told that this is something secret.

These are the sorts of things that we want to know: Have we sovereignty over the land? Who is paying for this base? What arc the agreements? Where is the equipment being made? If it is being made overseas, who is paying for it? What is the length of tenure? What is the technological opinion on how long this base will last, realising that technology is moving so fast in the world today that the very modern equipment of today could be out of date in 2, 3, 4 or 5 years? This may be temporary, but I do not know because the Government will noi tell me. lt could be useful for only a certain period - say, 3, 4 or 5 years. We should bear in mind the ballistic missiles and those sorts of things. As fast as one thing comes almost to perfection, another nation gets a defence to it and it becomes out of dale. The moment one nation gets multi-ballistic missiles, they become out of date and something else takes their place.

These are the things that nobody wants to know, just as we do not want to know the deployment of troops. We do not want to know exactly where the special units of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force are or what they are doing. But we do know approximately the amount of money thai those units are costing and we know some of the obligations that we have to stand up to. Senator Anderson said tonight that we want to know ali these things: but nobody has ever asked for them. If honourable senators opposite examine Hansard they will see that we have never asked for those details. What do they expect the Opposition to do? What do they expect the Australian people to do?

The Government talks about defence matters and says to the Australian people: These matters are very important, but we cannot tell you a thing about them. You have to trust us.! I say to honourable senators opposite for their own good that if they want the confidence of the Australian people they should not do that. The Americans do not do it. They are among the most open people in the world. They have all sorts of discussions in all sorts of ways. If members of the Government parties want to talk about these matters, why do the) not do so in the same way as the Americans do? Nobody has made or will make at any stage the exaggerated sort of statement that Senator Anderson mentioned tonight. The Australian people and the Australian Parliament should be consulted. There should be debates on these matters.

Honourable senators opposite talk about obligations under the ANZUS pact. But there are a lot of angles to that matter, which cannot be covered in a speech of a mere 30 minutes. The event we are discussing is happening simultaneously with the United States withdrawal from all sorts of areas. President Nixon is to make a statement very shortly. I have no doubt that he will make a statement about withdrawing troops from Vietnam. The number will probably be less than the 50,000 that has been mentioned, because Press figures are always a little inflated. There is no doubt that the Americans will move away from this area. Now the United States is saying - I think quite rightly - ‘We are sick of underwriting things all1 over the world. We want to see what Australia and its people will do to help themselves. Then we will make a judgment’. Is it not the situation that Australia has done things to help itself? It has taken the very risky and not very clearly defined decision to (©ave troops in Singapore. Once again we are moving into this area and taking action in this field of defence, in the tracking of sputniks, or whatever it might be. Surely we have gone far enough in doing things to help ourselves.

Because of the American investments in this country, which are not getting smaller each year, and the fact that we now have more American bases on our soil than has any other nation on earth, is it not nearly time we said to the Americans: “We have done what you have asked’? It is nearly time we started to define areas under the ANZUS pact that honourable senators opposite are talking about. We might define the area of Singapore and Malaysia, where Australian troops are. We have not any guarantee from America that if those troops were under attack tomorrow morning the Americans would consider it part of their obligation under the ANZUS pact to come to our aid. They do not have to do so under the agreement. The matter rests completely with them. Here is a golden opportunity for us to stop kowtowing to the Americans. I am one who has always emphasised the importance of the American alliance. Of course I have. Any sane man would do that. But it is nearly time we stopped giving and started getting some commitments from the United States. Because of the state of flux and the tremendous changes in South East Asia, we are entitled to know what the situation will be in a short space of time.

Now, when the Australian Government, at very great risk, has committed troops to Singapore after the utterances of the Prime Minister might have indicated that he intended to bring the troops out of that area, with stealth and without putting any confidence in the Australian people or the Australian Parliament the Prime Minister announces that this base is to be built on Australian soil. I believe that it is nearly time he said to the Americans: ‘It is time you put up the same as we have put up’. lt is useless to say that this base will not be attractive as a bombing target. All communications facilities are. Why was the Darwin Post Office attacked during the last war? Was it because it was a big post office? Of course it was not. It was because it was the centre of communications. The object is always to knock out the centre of communications, whether it be an old-fashioned morse telegraph line, a telephone line strung up on cockies’ fences or the highly sophisticated facilities that we have in the very low frequency field today. They are all lines of communication.

If there is to be a war and if submarines are to be deployed around the world, the orders have to be given by one man - the President of the United States - and those orders have to go through a line of communication. In the case of submarines, the orders go through the highly sophisticated VLF facilities at North West Cape or Exmouth Gulf. If those facilities can be knocked out, then so much the better for the enemy. And who could complain? Would not that be normal warfare? A complaint could not be made that the enemy had bombed civilians or Red Cross facilities. This would be a normal part of the war.

If the Government is prepared to take this risk and if it is prepared to say that this is what the Australian nation should do because of the worth of the American alliance, that is a different matter. But honourable senators opposite come here in this light-hearted way and refer to the ANZUS treaty. Yet they know perfectly well, if they have ever read the treaty, that it does not apply at all. This is only moral or psychological pressure. There is no written document that is legal internationally. It just does not exist. it is nearly time we stopped being the lackeys. It is nearly time we stood up and told the United States that, as Britain has announced its withdrawal from this part of the world, we have a very vital role to play in this area and we can play it as no other nation in the world can. In this area is our destiny for all time to come. When the Vietnam war is over there will not be one American serviceman in the whole of South East Asia. Very shortly there will not be one British serviceman in the whole of South East Asia. But as long as we live and as long as our children live there will be Australians in the geographic area of South East Asia.

So let us face up to the situation realistically. Let us face up to whatever benefits this might bring although it brings us into the realm of nuclear bombing. There is no denying that. I am appalled that this matter should be treated lightheartedly, as senior Ministers have treated it tonight. This is a serious business, for good or ill. For goodness sake, let us treat it as such, lt is nearly time the Australian Government said to the American Government: ‘We are giving you something in this area’ - we can say that in respect of the last two things I have mentioned - ‘Our very presence in South East Asia is giving you something. Just as you have helped us in other parts of the world, we can be the leaders and we can carry the banner for the Western powers in this part of the world’. When we stand up and talk to the Americans like that, as partners - whether equal partners or junior partners - and not as lackeys, then and only then will the Government have the confidence of the Australian people when it undertakes major projects for the defence of Australia as it is doing in the case of this defence base.

Senator CORMACK:
Victoria

– I rise to my feet on this occasion with my mind partially confused. It is partially confused at this juncture for reasons which I believe I should make plain to the Senate. The first reason is that the leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) made a speech which dealt with the matter under discussion - the defence space communications facility. The reasoning that he used as the basis for his speech was that the Parliament is entitled to know everything. He rested his speech on that. I will come to that in a moment. I have just listened to Senator Willesee, who has completely changed the whole tenor of the debate. He made his speech not on the basis of the extent to which the Parliament should be privy to the security secrets of this nation but on the basis that the present Australian Government has made itself subservient to another power.

His concluding phraseology was that under the present Government Australia is being made the lackey of the United States of America. I must say in all conscience that I reject the noun ‘lackeys’. Australians have never been lackeys to anyone, and they are not lackeys to the United States of America. The reason, I think, that impelled Senator Willesee to enter into the line of argument that he pursued for the last half hour is this peculiar problem that exists inside the Australian Labor Party, evidence of which is to be found in both the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the speech of Senator Willesee, namely, that the Australian Labor Party cannot make up its mind on how and why the security of Australia should be sustained and maintained. This is the dichotomy in the Labor Party, if I may use this word. It is the inevitable split inside the Labor Party. I give full marks to Senator Willesee for being obedient to the emotional content and the rather curious cold-blooded assessment which he found in the remarks made by the honourable member for Yarra in another place (Dr J. F. Cairns), and 1 suggest, the form of lawyer’s argument used by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate - not such a form of lawyer’s argument as would be used by my colleagues on this side of the Senate, but a form of argument which I have learned to expect from the other side.

Let us return to this question: I must deal with some of the matters that Senator Willesee left unexplained, it is perfectly true that our kinsmen in the United States of America - and they are our kinsmen to a substantial degree - are the people who have practised the operation of an open society. They have practised the operation of an open society within the context of a modern technological world from 1939 onwards. For example, they gave to the USSR all the secrets of their developments. The Communist society - the focal point of the Socialist concept - refused to accept this; its adherents always believed that something was withheld. They have rationalised this. They now believe it is easier to get technological secrets from the USA. or such technological secrets as exist in Australia, by the operation of a system of basic spying. In the USA their spying was so consistent, and is still so consistent, that the Communist society, both Chinese and Russian, forced the open society of the USA to set up a security system to protect America’s essential scientific secrets, which America is entitled to possess if they relate to defence.

Ever since the end of World War II - a brutal war in which some of us were engaged - the USA has made constant overtures to the Communist powers. The Americans have offered the Russians the secrets of atomic technology. However, the Eisenhower atomic developments for peace were rejected by the USSR - rejected by the Communist powers. So it is unfortunate that the Communist society, the Communist nations, have remorselessly driven open societies into closing some areas of their society. One of the areas affected was the USA in its own context of defence and the defence of the free world. I do not run away from this: there is a people and society based on the ability and will of the people to express themselves from time to time. The USA is the great defender of what we call, and I honestly believe to bc, the free world. The Americans have been forced into the situation of putting a cloak of security over large areas of their own defence capacity. The UK has also been forced into this situation.

Twenty years ago it was found that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the old CSIR as it was then known, had been penetrated by the domestic Communist Party of Australia. As a result it had to be broken into two components, one covering pure science and the other covering defence knowledge. The Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) explained this tonight. Our scientific endeavour in Australia is broken into two parts. We were forced into this situation not because we wanted to hide anything but because, as in the UK, the USA and the Dominion of Canada, there were so many traitors in the community that scientific knowledge on defence matters in this country had to be separated from the other field. Of the two areas, one has to do with open scientific examination and the custody of pure scientific knowledge and the other with scientific research that is carried out for defence purposes.

Why is it, 1 ask honourable senators, that the Communist society spends so much money on trying to penetrate the defence research establishments of the free world? Why are its members spending this money? Why are they involving the efforts of hundreds and thousands of people - domestic traitors and penetrators from Communist society - in trying to penetrate and discover something in the free world? It is all very well for the honourable member for Yarra in another place and for Senator Willesee and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to say that all this is known to these people and there is no need whatever for security. They say that they know all this, but do they know all this?

The answer is, of course, that they do not know al’l this. Communist agents want to penetrate the scientific establishments of the United Kingdom, Australia, United States of America, Canada and other areas of the western world or free world that compose this concentration of governments. So it is that we get this curious situation where the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is demanding an open society in Australia in relation to its defence structure. That was the essence of Senator Murphy’s argument earlier this evening. It was coloured by Senator Willesee’s speech. Senator Willesee recognised - I concede this to Senator Willesee - the fallacies that were involved in his leader’s speech. Understanding them, he sought in the Opposition’s attack on this measure to divert the Senate’s attention from the argument advanced by his Leader, namely that there should be a free and open society in relation to the defence structure of Australia. I suggest that he attempted to turn the debate into another area altogether in order to get away from the awkward and difficult problems and arguments that the Leader of the Opposition had advanced.

I will come back to the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition in a moment. I think I am entitled to deal immediately with some of the arguments advanced by Senator Willesee. He attacked the ANZUS treaty. I and all other honourable senators sitting on this side of the chamber know that it is quite a simple treaty. It does not contain many clauses - there are very few treaties which do - but it has annexures. I do not know what those annexures are but 1 know that they exist. Any intelligent senator would acknowledge that they exist. Those annexures relate to exchanges between governments involved in treaty organisations and deal with the interpretation of the clauses of the treaty. No treaty entered into by nations does not contain these annexures. lt must be said on behalf of the United States that 40 or 50 years ago a theoretical and academic former president of Princeton University who subsequently became President of that country advocated that international affairs should be conducted on the basis of ‘open covenants openly arrived at’. I. remember that phrase very well although I was very young at the time. The United States, in the pursuit of this ideal1, found that it was impossible to have open covenants openly arrived at because human nature is not perfect. So it is that whether we like it or not nations of the world have treaty forms on two levels - the public level and the understanding between nations. In the context of the ANZUS treaty, not knowing what the annexures are, 1 say categorically that there must be annexures and that they have to be renegotiated from lime to time.

Senator Cohen:

– Do you know what those annexures are?

Senator CORMACK:

– 1 am saying that I am perfectly convinced that it is normal international practice for there to be annexures to a treaty and that those annexures are renegotiated from time to time. I wiM illustrate this by referring to public evidence which is available to Senator Cohen. There was a time when the thinking of the Indonesians was slightly screwball, if I may use the vernacular. Noone knew what the Indonesian Republic, under President Sukarno, was going to do because he never knew, from night to night when walking from one bungalow to another, what he was going to do the next morning, although he may have had a suspicion what he was going to do the next night. All this was hardly the way to conduct international affairs and at least we had to be worried to this extent. By importunities, if you like, or by negotiation if you like to put it on another level, it was extracted from the then President of the United States, through the mouth of his Assistant Secretary of State, Mr Averell

Harriman, that in the context of the ANZUS treaty, if Australia or one of its Territories was attacked the United States would come to Australia’s aid. However, this was not spelt out in the ANZUS treaty; it was spell out as an annexure to the treaty. I have no doubt that Senator Cohen was extraordinarily grateful, at that juncture in 1965, that Mr Averell Harriman, on behalf of the United States, spelt out that interpretation of the ANZUS treaty. lt is all very well to sneer, as Senator Willesee sneered, I suggest, and to say that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) went to the United States as an underling would go and beg from his master in Washington for some sort of succour for Australia. This is not true. No person would suggest such a thing if he understood any Australian Prime Minister, beginning with Mr Curtin, if honourable senators opposite like, or Mr Chifley, and carrying on through Mr Menzies and Mr Holt to the present Prime Minister. No Australian worth his salt goes to Washington in the role of a lackey or a footman. The Prime Minister of Australia goes to the United States as a proud and independent Australian to negotiate about situations which arise from time to time as the world changes. Senator Willesee made a comment - by inadvertence I suggest - to the effect that matters have changed dramatically in the last 2 years. In fact they have changed dramatically. They have changed dramatically in the United States and therefore it is the proper and important duty of the Australian Prime Minister to go to that country and renegotiate the position in the light of changed circumstances.

I would be interested to pursue Senator Willesee further up this path but I must come back to the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Earlier this evening the Leader of the Opposition sought to establish that a Government must always divulge to the Parliament that which the Government might consider not expedient for the Parliament or the people to know. This is the brutal thing that is exposed for examination by honourable senators. What is the extent to which the Government is responsible for the security of the realm - if I might use an old fashioned expression? I am referring to the Australian realm. What is the responsibility of Government in the context of national security? What is meant by national security? It means more than encompassing the physical protection of the community. It also encompasses in government, I suggest, the moral integrity of the community. Finally, the Government is responsible for the security of the intelligence of the community and the denial of access to it by known or suspected enemies. 1 am using ‘intelligence’ in a military sense.

Mr President, if this is the responsibility of Government - as I suggest it is - where does the function of Parliament exist in this context? If Government is here to govern, is Parliament also here to govern? If Parliament is not here to govern then we are not here to govern but are here to rule. That is true. If Parliament does not agree that the Government is responsible for governing, then the Parliament must dismiss the Government. This is the meaning of Parliament. If the Parliament believes that the Government is wilfully withholding from the Parliament information which the Parliament should possess, then it is the function of the Parliament to discharge the Government. This is the test.

Senator Wright:

– And vice versa, the Parliament should support the Government.

Senator CORMACK:

– And as my honourable friend reminds mc, vice versa it is the function of Parliament to support the Government. What is it alleged is being hidden from the Parliament? Many honourable senators sitting in this chamber have been involved in problems of intelligence security. In wartime I have been so involved. I was always embarrassed during war time as to the limit of intelligence security information that I should impose upon myself. The lesson 1 learned in war was that the less I knew of high grade intelligence the more efficiently I could discharge my duty. I suggest that the less that the Parliament knows about some of these matters in one context and on one level, the more efficiently it can discharge its duty. Arising out of that, and following my train of thought, I must make this observation and ask this question: Why is there this consistent bitter attack, through all the channels of mass communication, demanding that the Government should disclose areas of information? If we look at this pattern we find that there is a constant demand from suspect academic areas and suspect areas of mass communication such as newspapers and television for this information. There is a constant unremitting demand or pursuit to obtain what is known in intelligence circles as negative information. In this game if enough minuses are obtained pluses are created and by that means you can purport to reveal what it is alleged that the government is attempting to hide.

Senator Ormonde:

– ls the honourable senator saying that the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ is suspect?

Senator CORMACK:

– I am saying that there is a constant and unremitting demand on four levels of mass communication for information. Through negative processes purported information is being obtained which, in the sum is said to amount lo positive information. This is happening in Australia. In the pursuit of national defence we are involved in the problems of global defence. Global defence in the context that I see it, being indivisible, means that we are involved in global responsibilities with senior partners. A company has directors, who are major shareholder, and minor shareholders. At the board meeting they are all level in terms of discussion. In international discussions we are equal with the United States of America. We are involved in the same problems as the United States because global integrity against communism is indivisible. If the United States wishes, for example, to provide information to its ally under the ANZUS treaty, Australia, then a fundamental responsibility accrues to the Government of Australia under the treaty. An obligation exists to protect the source of intelligence, information and security that the United States or the United Kingdom provides to Australia. In the global context - because it is a global defence problem - if the United States of America, with its vast technological resources in terms of probing outer space, wishes to provide monitoring systems in Australia by which it can monitor the enemies of Australia and the enemies of the free world, unequivocally the duty is upon the Australian people and upon the government of the day to sustain, support and protect the facilities that our ally provides for Australia so that it may monitor and at the same time preserve and protect Australia.

Senator Willesee alleged that Australia therefore makes itself a nuclear target. In the last speech I made in this place, on the Prime Minister’s defence statement, I said that whether or not there was a nuclear target in Australia, Australia could still be a hostage for a nuclear power. Even if there were not one target in Australia that could be designated a nuclear target Australia could be a hostage.

Senator Little:

– Senator Willesee’s view means we should refuse to develop our ore deposits.

Senator CORMACK:

– That is so. If we carried this argument further we would not have any development in Australia. Honourable senators opposite live in a lotus land where it is always afternoon and where there are only 36 hours of work a week and $50 or S60 a week always coming in. We cannot live unless we are determined lo protect that from which we derive our resources in terms of living.

Senator Ormonde:

– That is what America is doing.

Senator CORMACK:

– As Senator Anderson said in another context earlier, I. believe thai Senator Ormonde is one of those men who in the secrecy of his room, when the Battle of Midway was taking place, sank on his knees and said: ‘God bless America’. I hope he will never be put in that position again. I hope that Australia will be true to the obligations which it undertakes. I hope Australia will support and sustain a government which has accepted obligations and 1 hope that these obligations will be accepted and sustained by the Parliament. Therefore 1 consider that this debate, which was initiated by the Loader of the Opposition in an attempt - whether he believed in it or not - to deprive Australia of the sinews with which it can defend itself, is a disastrous debate. I thought 1 would never sit in my place and listen to such a debate. I consider that, if this matter is pushed to a vote, the Senate at least will signify to Australia’s allies and to the people who in concert and in caucus with us help to defend the free world that we are with the right and not with the left.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– This debate has arisen because some weeks ago an announcement was made on behalf of (he Government that it would join with the United States of America in setting up a defence space communications facility at Woomera in South Australia. The announcement was not very detailed, and, to a degree, the Opposition was entitled to comment adversely on that fact. But we were told at least two very important things by the Government. Firstly, we were told that it would be a communications facility and it has been suggested that it will establish communications with a satellite. Secondly, we were told that it would be used only for defensive purposes and not for the purpose of attacking any other country. 1 should have expected a truly radical party in opposition to have attacked the proposal upon three main grounds. Firstly, I should have expected it to demand a debate, but on this occasion the Opposition almost hail to be forced into a debate in both Houses. Members of the Opposition shrank from the debate. Secondly, I should have expected the Opposition to move an amendment forcibly indicating the opinion of the Australian Labor Party and giving both Houses the opportunity to vote on the various policies. But the Labor Party has shrunk from moving an amendment. We merely have an innocuous motion that the Senate take note of the paper. What does it mean if we take a vote on that? Members of the Opposition ran away from the thought of a vote. Thirdly, I should have expected that the Opposition would attack this proposition upon three main grounds. It would have said: ‘Firstly, there is too much secrecy about the agreement; secondly, it is tying us to the policies of American defence in a subservient capacity; and, thirdly, it is inviting retaliation and exposes Australia to the prospect of a nuclear war.’

Unfortunately the Opposition, in its attack upon the proposal to establish the facility, has taken too much notice of the fact that this year there will be an election. When the Government introduced this statement in another place, the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) was one of confusion and of fear. He thought that the agreement had a trap in it. He remembered the last election when one of the big issues was Australia’s consent to the establishment of an American base at North West Cape and also when the

Australian Labor Party under that famous loser of elections. Joe Chamberlain, forcibly and strongly declared that the base should not be established. He remembered all that and he remembered the effect of such a policy when the Opposition suffered a disastrous defeat and he said to himself: ‘This is a trap. Let us get out of it’. The method of getting out of it is to say to the Government: ‘We are prepared to let you have a lot of secrecy. All we want is a little bit of non-secrecy and then everything will be all right’. Shades of radicalism.

What would have been the attack of the Labor Party if there were not to be an election this year? In that event it would have said firmly and courageously: ‘We must prevent this facility being established. We must not allow the United States to drag us into nuclear war. Let us fight it to the last inch.’ Unfortunately the election will take place this year. Tactics were considered. The leaders, with bated breath, said: ‘There is a trap. Therefore we will say a few not very nasty things about not having been given enough information and then we will let the proposal go through and it will not be an issue in Bendigo or at the end of the year’.

So we find the leader in another place playing it cool. He is not opposed to looking after the defence of Australia. He thinks the American alliance is a good idea. There were tears in my eyes when I listened to the tributes to the American alliance from the Labor benches this afternoon and this evening. 1 never dreamed they loved the Americans so much as they do. But there is an election about, and all I can say is that while the leader in another place has been playing it cool (he prospective deputy leader, Dr Cairns, has been remarkably reasonable. He says: ‘I do not want to know the secrets of this establishment. All I want is a little bit of information.’ He has been most reasonable. The only person who ha3 shown any symptoms of the true radical line has been the old possum stirrer. I pay him that tribute. He at least has delivered a few thumps in the old radical tradition.

Now let us look at the facts. There are five or six of these arrangements between the United States and Australia. Canada has become famous in recent years for its determination to stand up for its own national interest and not to allow itself to be dominated by the United States. But let us be frank. Canada has made hundreds of these arrangements wilh the United States - you ask the Canadian authorities - but she is not giving information about them to the people. Canada has regarded them as top secret, top security matters. Yet when Canada does it in hundreds and we do it in four or five we are told that we are selling the country down the American river. No country today reveals the secrets of its defences. Why do we have intelligence? Why do we say that documents and certain arrangements are confidential?

Some people today try to suggest that there is no virtue in secrecy in any circumstances. Who would know better than a trade union leader that at times there is virtue in secrecy? How often does it happen that representatives of employers and employees are locked together, with the employers representatives saying that because they have to deal with some tough capitalists they will not give an inch and the workers representatives, knowing that they have a number of inflammatory people in their rank and file, and knowing that if they say publicly that they are prepared to give in to the boss they may be repudiated by their own men saying: ‘Nol a step backward will we take’? However, a couple of sensible trade union officials go to see a couple of sensible employer representatives and say: ‘There must be a bit of give and take. You give us a bit of ice to slide on and we will give you a bit’, and the strike is settled with probably noone knowing anything about what has gone on behind the scenes.

The same thing applies in diplomacy. How would many of the big questions today ever be settled if representatives of different countries did not meet together behind the scenes and reach agreements which they could not attempt to reach if they had to discuss matters with howling mobs in both countries demanding that they refuse to give in? I say that there is no special virtue in the open revelation of everything you are doing. On the contrary, as a distinguished former leader of the Australian Labor Party, the late Dr Evatt, said in his book ‘Hands Off the Nation’s Defences’ when he was establishing the Woomera Rocket Range and ensuring that its security was maintained, a government must have the right to secrecy in defence projects on security grounds.

Senator Ormonde:

– We agree with that.

Senator McMANUS:

– You agree with it? Do you remember that when certain trade union officials, not all, wanted to go to the Woomera Rocket Range Dr Evatt refused permission on security grounds? I suppose that if our Government attempted to do that there would be uproar. Any one with common sense knows that when you have a top secret defence installation secrecy is inevitable. If you remember, the Labor Government in those days took strong steps- - steps which could’ be a model for this Government to follow- to ensure the safeguarding of the security of the Woomera Rocket Range. It introduced very powerful legislation to prevent an attack on the Range or its security by boycotts or in any other way. In his election speech on that issue Dr Evatt said that he would draw a clear distinction between legitimate rights to criticise and to change the Government’s defence policy by democratic process and, on the other hand, the illicit claim to perform acts designed to destroy defence measures undertaken by an elected government responsible to a democratically elected parliament.

Senator Ormonde:

– You. are on our side now.

Senator McMANUS:

– No, I am on the side I was on then. You are on a different side today. The situation bluntly is this: This Government is doing only what the Labor Government did. Any responsible government must do that. When you are not in government you can be irresponsible and say: ‘Let us do all sorts, of crazy things’, but when you are in government you must act responsibly. The Labor Government under Chifley and Evatt had to take action, in the same way as this Government has to take action, to preserve the necessary security for Australia’s defences. You can base it upon the old Latin text, ‘sal us republicae suprema lex’ - the safety of the State is the supreme consideration’. The action of our Government is based on that principle and I see no alternative but to support it.

Let us look at what will happen when the election is over, or perhaps before then, in some of the more left wing circles of the

ALP, perhaps the Victorian Executive. I can only say that some of my colleagues from Victoria are appreciating now what Jack Little andI had to put up with years ago. When the Labor Government established the Woomera Rocket Range the extreme left produced the following statement in the Communist Press of the day:

The rocket plan is a part of the Attlee-Bevin and Chifley-Evatt policy of turning Australia into an imperialist base. This threatens the early involvement of Australia in any future war fought with guided rockets and atomic bombs.

I suppose that is what some members of the left wing are saying today. They are merely repealing it. They could have taken the quotation from the ‘Tribune’ and used it again. Let us look at this truly radical proposal which has been made by some people - not by the Labor Party here because it has been talking only about a little less secrecy - that this will involve us in a nuclear war. They say that it invites retaliation. Are we not inviting retaliation already? We have the North West Cape base and everyone has been told that the North West Cape base has been constructed for the purpose of communication with American nuclear submarines based south of Asia. Would not that justify retaliation just as much as the proposed installation if its purpose is only for communication with satellites? After all, do we not invite retaliation when we mine uranium which will be used by our allies for the production of atomic weapons? Should not our enemies attack us for that reason?

Senator Ormonde:

– I thought of that too.

Senator McMANUS:

– I notice that Senator Ormonde has thought of that too. Members of the Australian Labor Party think of these things in the recesses of the room that they occupy and it is rarely that they have the candour that Senator Ormonde has and that they say these things publicly.

We are associated with ANZUS. That means that we are the active ally of the United States. There have been all kinds of attacks on ANZUS by the Australian Labor Party. These have been snide attacks. While an election is on, the Australian Labor Party will say that it is for the ANZUS Pact. When an election is not on, the Australian Labor Party is against it. At the present time, the attitude of President Nixon has been expressed. He stands by the

ANZUS Pact and will defend Australia if Australia is attacked. It must have been a very bitter pill for some people when Senator Fulbright. the darling of the Left, came out the other day and suddenly announced that he was for ANZUS and that he believed that America would defend Australia in the event of attack. If this is the case, does it not invite retaliation? In the statements of Nixon and Fulbright, we are an ally actively associated with the United States. We have stated definitely that we will defend the security of our area in collaboration with the United States. Does that not make us a target? Does that not invite retaliation? Should we be any more of a target or invite retaliation any more by setting up the base at Woomera?

The issue that we are discussing tonight in my view was decided by the people the last time that they considered the matter of the North West Cape base at an election. Some people have said that this was not an issue at that election. It was a big issue. It was made a big issue. The people indicated where they stood. I think the Australian Labor Party probably is a little bit wise in running away from any more fights on that issue as it has run away from the issue tonight. We all know that the view of the average Australian is the same as that of John Curtin: Our future security is lined up with the United States-

Senator Ormonde:

– - Without any invitation?

Senator McMANUS:

– No. Do not put words into my mouth. I want to say this-

Senator Hendrickson:

– You were opposed to him.

Senator McMANUS:

– Let me say-

Senator Hendrickson:

– You were opposed to him.

Senator McMANUS:

– No.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Your Executive was opposed to him.

Senator McMANUS:

– My Executive?

Senator Hendrickson:

– The Victorian Executive.

Senator Little:

– Rubbish!

Senator McMANUS:

– I was not on the Executive when Mr Curtin made that decision but some very good friends of yours were, and they are still with you.

Senator Hendrickson:

– You were there.

Senator MCMANUS:

– I was not on the Executive then. I only want to say this: When we look to people who regard these issues in a dispassionate way, we find them saying straight out that Australia has more to gain than to lose by reliance on the American alliance. Recently, there was an interesting talk by Professor Bull who is the Professor of International Relations at the Australian National University. Professor Bull said that the United States commitment to Australia’s defence would be strengthened if the United States developed a greater materia] stake in Australia including military bases. This kind of United Stales involvement might be pursued, he said, even at some cost to our diplomatic independence. In other words, he said what a lot of people with common sense say: lt is to our advantage to involve the United States in our defence. We are twelve million people and anybody who suggests that we Can be responsible alone for our own defence is refusing to face the facts. In these circumstances, I think that there is every reason why we should develop mutual defence projects with an ally which today is indispensable to us.

Senator Hendrickson:

– -No-one opposes it. We want to be joint partners in it.

Senator McMANUS:

– Senator Hendrickson interjects: “No-one opposes it. We want to be joint partners in it’.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Yes.

Senator McMANUS:

– If I was a partner with anybody, I would not like him to talk about me in the way I have heard people on this side of the Senate talk about the United States over the tost 10 years. If that is the way honourable senators on this side talk about a partner, all I can say is that if they did that in private life they would not be partners very long: there would be a divorce.

I know that there are some people who say that, this kind of thing is unnecessary, that all America is doing is preparing a warmongering campaign and that nobody threatens us. I do not accept that point of view. I was reading a statement recently on the situation in China. There are people who say: ‘Well1, what can China do? China has not enough boats to come out here. It is all ridiculous’. If one talks to diplomatic representatives of South East Asian countries, they leave one under no illusion as to what one has to fear in the next 10 years. Even if there is no invasion - and some people say that it is ‘ not likely - what we must fear is subversion.” Subversion can prepare the way for invasion if it is successful over the next 10 years.

At the present moment, China, although it has a very low standard of living and has had some internal political disorder, has performed a remarkable . task, lt has developed nuclear weapons.. After exploding a successful fission bomb . in 26 months - less time than any . other . power took to achieve that end - China has tested a thermo-nuclear or a hydrogen bomb. China has the nuclear missile carrying submarine. This has so impressed .the Japanese Government that recently it deliberately published pictures of Communist missile carrying submarines which could fire nuclear weapons from below the surface ‘of the sea. Those pictures of Communist1 owned submarines were taken off the coast of Japan. And let nobody be in any doubt at all that the Japanese have learnt’ the lesson Although the Japanese today say blandly that they have only a few nuclear plants which are of a very immature character, let nobody be under any illusion that already the Japanese, with an eye to the future, have under way the preparation of their own nuclear weapons.

Senator O’Byrne:

-Another Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Senator McMANUS:

– Our friend says: Another Nagasaki and Hiroshima’. Let us look at the lesson. There would never have been a Nagasaki or a Hiroshima if both sides had had the atomic bomb.

Senator Georges:

– Rubbish!

Senator McMANUS:

– -No, because the atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese only because the Japanese could not drop similar bombs on any allied cities. The lesson therefore is that the only means of defence against atomic weapons is the ability to retaliate. All of these people who suggest that we are placing Australia in risk of an atomic attack if we have these installations such as we are to have at Woomera are ignoring the plain fact that a country is an atomic target if it has not got the bomb. But if the other side knows that a country can deliver the bomb over its territory, the country that can retaliate will be immune from attack. We saw this in the last world war. The Germans had immense quantities of a deadly nerve gas which was almost as powerful as an atomic weapon in causing death. But the Germans were never game to use that gas because our side also had immense quantities of it. The Germans were deterred by the fact that we had the weapon. To all those people who say that by instituting defensive arrangements with the United States the Government is involving us in atomic attack, my answer is: ‘When you do that, you take the first step towards insuring us against atomic attack’. No atomic bombs ever will be dropped by any power which fears that it may suffer just as much as or more than those whom it is going to attack.

I want to say this also. There are times when I disagree with the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) on many things. I think that he could go a lot further on defence. But I agree with him when he said recently:

We are, for our own security, dependent more than ever on the United Slates government providing the protection understood to be provided under the ANZUS Pact.

I think that that is only common sense. Anybody with the welfare of Australia at heart has to accept it. We therefore say: We will join with our allies in arrangements beneficial to our mutual defences’. Let us not say that we will be stopped from doing that by threats of nuclear blackmail. Let us remember that other countries are just as proud of their independence as we are but have made such arrangements. Does any honourable senator opposite say that Britain has not made such an arrangement wilh the US? Will any honourable senator opposite say that Turkey, Sweden or Italy have not done the same, or that Canada has not? Canada has made several hundred such arrangements and has not given publicity to them. I think it is time that members of the Australian Labor Party demonstrated that they have sufficient responsibility to qualify them for office, rather than the irresponsibility that some people would ascribe to the belief of those members that they may never form a government. If they were to show responsibility on these issues they would increase their prospects of becoming the Government.

Once again a great deal of nonsense has been talked about people who suggest that Australia ought to be prepared to strengthen her defences by entering into arrangements with her powerful allies; that she ought to be in a position to protect herself against nuclear blackmail by having atomic weapons herself, if possible, placed at her disposal by her allies. Many people attack these things but it is fundamental that the bomb will never be dropped by any country which fears that it could be attacked with equal or greater force in retaliation.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– if I understood Senator Murphy correctly he based his criticism in this debate on two grounds. The first ground of his criticism was secrecy and the second was that he wanted an assurance from the Government that Australia would not be a target for nuclear attack. These two grounds intrigue me. In Senator Murphy’s attack .on secrecy he quoted Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The honourable senator referred to a conversation between Senator Fulbright and an officer of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and offered it as positive proof that no restrictions were placed on visits by United States congressmen to American security bases.

Senator Georges:

– Or in Australia.

Senator SIM:

– Or in Australia. I thank Senator Georges for that interjection, but I ask him to cease interjecting. He will have a chance to speak later in this debate. What are the facts? The facts are that United States congressmen have no right to visit American security bases.

Senator Georges:

– What is your authority for that?

Senator SIM:

– I am making an assertion. If Senator Georges can find any evidence to disprove it, 1 invite him to do so.

Senator Georges:

– Give your authority.

Senator SIM:

– I am adopting your tactics. You have made assertions and have said to us: ‘Deny them’. Now I am making assertions and challenging you to deny them. The fact is that members of relevant specialised committees of the United States Congress who can demonstrate a need to know for their committee deliberations may be granted admission to American bases if they satisfy the Administration that their need to know is valid. This privilege is given only to members of specialised committees _ whose deliberations are conducted in camera. Al all times this decision remains ai the discretion of the Administration. This applies even to senior military officers who must also demonstrate a need to know in. the performance of their military duties. 1 noted with interest that Senator Murphy announced in most dramatic fashion that he was issuing an invitation to Senator Fulbright to visit the installations at Pine Gap and Woomera. I was greatly impressed, but the fact with regard to Senator Fulbright is that it is most likely that as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he could establish a need to know and that the Administration, because of his position, would grant him a right to visit the installations. So the great dramatic gesture by Senator Murphy in fact is a flop.

Senator Wright:

– Would not Senator Fulbright need also to get the consent of the Australian Administration?

Senator SIM:

– Yes. 1 . thank Senator Wright for his assistance, but 1 was dealing solely with the situation that exists in the United States. That is the position in the United States. Free access is not granted to American security bases, as suggested by Senator Murphy. What are the real issues in this debate? Australia today is part of the free world. As some people do not approve that expression, I. should use instead the expression ‘non-Communist world defence system’. We have to decide whether we are to retain this position or are to adopt an isolationist or neutral policy, because there are no grey areas in between. A nation is either an active participant in a defence system or it is right out of it. There is no other alternative. Either we play our full part as a member of the global1 defence system or we opt right out of it in favour of neutralism or isolationism. I will return later in this speech to discuss neutralism.

Regardless of what Senator Willesee said, if we were to opt out it would mean inevitably renunciation of the ANZUS treaty. He referred to legal obligations, but moral obligations can be just as strong. Senator Cormack explained the annexures to the treaties. They are more binding and important than the loose- wording of the treaties themselves. There is no doubt that if we refuse to play a part in the global defence system that the United States has established as the dominant partner, sooner or later we must opt out of the ANZUS agreement. This was correctly noted by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), together with our obligations under the ANZUS pact. Treaties are not one-sided. They impose obligations and responsibilities.

Senator Murphy made the generalised statement that many ‘Government supporters are expressing -concern at the arrangement for defence installations in Australia. I do not know where he got his information. 1 do not believe it. My position is clear. I believe, as the Government does, that our security is irrevocably bound to our treaty arrangements, particularly with the United . States of America. That is the position of the Government. To try to discover the position of the Labor Party it is necessary to enter an area of mysticism. I challenge anybody to discover what are the Labor Party’s foreign affairs and defence policies. If 1 have sufficient’ time 1 will give examples of the divergences ;of opinion within’ the Labor Party on this one issue. Despite the warm-hearted approval of the American alliance expressed by Senator Murphy and by other honourable senators opposite, I suggest that they give it only lip service. In fact, many of their- actions would destroy it. Although I ;do not include all members of the Austral ian Labor Party, there is within a powerful- section of that Party a strong anti-American bias.

Senator Ormonde:

– Even’ among those Who have been decorated?

Senator SIM:

– I am .not. referring to all members of the Labor Party.

Senator Georges:

– The. honourable senator should look among his own ranks.

Senator SIM:

– I do, but also I look at you and I am not pleased with’ what I see. The confusion in the Labor Party’s foreign policy and defence policy and the antiAmericanism which it displays go back to the establishment of the base at North West Cape. I do not intend to go through the whole of the sorry spectacle’ of the Labor Party split asunder on that’ occasion, but the final issue which resolved the Labor Party’s agreement to the ‘establishment of the base at North West Cape was joint control. In 1963 the executive of the Labor Party, after opposing the establishment of the base at North West Cape, decided by a narrow majority that the establishment of the base would not be inconsistent with Labor Party policy, if, as Mr Calwell said in March 1963 as reported on page 1485 of Hansard:

  1. . the radio communications centre is under the joint control and operation of the Australian and United States of America Governments, and the facilities were available to Australian forces.

What is the position with regard to Woomera? These conditions have been fulfilled at Woomera because this is a joint operation there. The Minister for Defence, Mr Fairhall, gave this assurance to Parliament:

We will have complete access to data coming from the station. Also, we will share the use of the service of the station and we will have access to the modern technology which backs the station. Further, we will share in its operation.

The condition that the Labor Party lays down for its support for the establishment of the base at Exmouth has been met in this instance. But we suddenly find that there is a new objection. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, gave fulsome praise, as Senator McManus pointed out, for the establishment of this base. And then came the crunch, the ‘but’. He attacked the secrecy surrounding the base. The first time the objection was that we must have joint control, but when that condition was fulfilled secrecy became the objection. If the Australian Labor Party’s objection on the grounds of secrecy were satisfied, I wonder what specious argument would be found next time to oppose the establishment of some United States defence facility in Australia.

I do not intend to traverse all the ground with regard to secrecy. Senator Cormack has already done this, as also has Senator McManus. They have made out powerful arguments to show that a defence installation must bc surrounded by secrecy. As Senator McManus pointed out, this is not only the policy of this Government; it was also the policy of a former Labor government. In making this point he quoted from a record of Dr Evatt’s statement on the subject. No defence establishment and no defence system can operate unless it is surrounded by secrecy. All this twaddle from

Dr Cairns and from Senator Murphy, who quoted some remarks by Senator Fulbright, cuts no ice with me. They have suggested that there is no need for secrecy because the Russians and Chinese know all about it. What proof has Senator Murphy or anybody else that the Russians and Chinese do know all about it? I suggest that they do not know all about it. Technology is advancing so quickly that the probability is that they do not know all about it and we should not make it easier for them to find out about it. Therefore, I believe in the interests of this country and in the interests of the defence of the free world - as much as some people may hate the expression I shall use it - it ls essential that secrecy at all times be preserved in the establishment of bases and defence installations.

I was rather amused to hear Senator Murphy’s powerful attack upon the Australian Government. He said that no other democratic government or free government would tolerate this secrecy. In his words: No other free country would tolerate such secrecy.’ Senator McManus referred to Canada. But in the Sydney ‘Sun’ of 13th May, in an article headed ‘Britain’s Pine Gap?’ written by Chapman Pincher, the Dairly Express’ defence writer, we read:

Two secret radio stations packed with the latest American electronic equipment, and to be mainly operated by Americans, are being built in Britain. . . .

The Government., which is sharing the cost of the projects, is so cagey about them that they are being officially described as ‘radio research stations.’

The Australian Prime Minister has made a statement concerning the establishment of this base, but if this newspaper report is true, and (here is no reason to believe that it is not - the writer quotes his authority and does not rely on unnamed people as the Labor Party has done - then the Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain made no announcement about bases being established. Mr Pincher went on to describe the bases and the description would fit, so far as we know, the bases being established in Australia. He went on to say that there might be some risks of nuclear attack on the United Kingdom involved in the establishment of these bases, but the United Kingdom Government regards the defence advantage of these bases to be so great that it is prepared to take whatever risk may be involved, despite the increased danger of nuclear attack from Russia. So we have an example from Canada, and we have another instance from the United Kingdom. What nonsense this statement from Senator Murphy is. The Labour Party in the United Kingdom did not even announce the establishment of the bases as was done in this country.

There is a wide divergence of opinion on this subject among members of the Labor Party. We were told by Mr Whitlam that he was not opposed to the base, that bis objection was on the ground of its secrecy. 1 notice that Dr Cairns has taken a stand on different grounds. He said:

If means that Australia will be made a target as a result of the Government’s inclusion of Australia in this nuclear missile system. That is the gist of this debate.

Senator Ormonde:

– That was to save repeating himself.

Senator SIM:

– 1 quite appreciate your generosity to your colleague. Mr Bryant then took a different view altogether. He would not have this base in Australia. Finally we come to that old campaigner, Mr Calwell, who announced that the Labor Party was irrevocably opposed to the establishment of foreign bases on Australian soil.

Senator McManus:

– I think he was telling the truth

Senator SIM:

– I agree with Senator McManus; I concede that Mr Calwell is honest. Mr Hughes said:

  1. . the honourable member for Yarra (Dr J. F. Cairns) has gone on record as saying that he believes that the proposal would offend against established Labor Party policy.

At that point Mr Calwell interjected and said:

Hear, hear! He is right, too.

No wonder honourable senators speak here with muted voices. In the other place members of their Party speak with a number of voices, none of which is muted. This is why I can well appreciate the difficulty that the Labor Party has in determining what are its defence and foreign policies.

In the little time I have left I want to come to the argument advanced by Senator Murphy, Dr Cairns, Mr Beazley, Senator Willesee and others, namely, that this base brings us under the threat of nuclear attack or that it increases the danger of nuclear attack on Australia. Senator Murphy said that the Labor Party wanted to know from the Australian Government whether the base did so. My simple reply to him is that that is not within the knowledge of the Australian Government; it is within the knowledge of someone else. If we are attacked with nuclear weapons we will be attacked by somebody else who will not tell us about it - certainly not now. So the argument put forward by Senator Murphy was a futile and stupid one.

But does this base increase the danger of nuclear attack? I suppose that people can argue that it does. However, we are developing great oilfields in Australia. Would not they be prime targets for nuclear attack? We have the great iron and steel industrial complex at Port Kembla? Would not that be a prime target for nuclear attack?

Senator McManus:

– Uranium mines.

Senator SIM:

– Yes, uranium mines. We can refer also to our own defence installations. Would not they be prime targets for nuclear attack? Finally I come to the advocacy for a naval base in- Western Australia. I believe that the Labor Parly has been advocating the establishment of such a base for years. If the base were established at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia, one presumes that members of the Labor Party would not deny its use to the naval forces of the United States of America.

Senator Prowse:

– Or would they?

Senator SIM:

– I thank the honourable senator for that interjection. I give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they would not do that; nor would they deny its use to the naval forces of the United Kingdom. Even if the base were only for use by the naval forces of Australia it would be a prime target for nuclear attack, lt would be for the defence and protection of Australia and the Indian Ocean. Who can deny that such a bass or any defence installation would be a prime target for nuclear attack? Any great industrial complex is a target. The great iron ore and oil development projects in Australia are all targets for nuclear attack. So, what nonsense it is to say that because we establish bases here we increasethe danger of nuclear attack.

In the few minutes that 1 have available to me I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the Australian Press only a few day ago and which was a summary of an address given by Professor Arthur Burns, a Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University and an international authority on nuclear strategy. He dealt with this very subject. Anybody who has read either the summary in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of last Thursday or the complete paper will have noted that it is a balanced argument and that what Professor Burns does is to come down heavily on the side of the argument that these bases are in fact a deterrent to nuclear attack. Let me make just one or two quotations from his paper. If time, permitted, 1 could go right through it and give further proof of the point 1. am making.

Professor Burns says that these bases have advantages in protecting Australia from possible nuclear attack and that the existence of ANZUS and the location of United States strategic installations in Australia help to keep the American deterrent system credible. He says:

They would help detect anil interdict submarine and unorthodox nuclear delivery vehicles deployed by enemies of the USA to make hostages of Australian cities or to blackmail us.

Senator Cormack referred to the danger of a country being made the hostage of a nuclear power. That is the view of an independent academic, who goes on to put forward the view that the greater the West’s capability to launch prompt and effective pre-emptive strikes against Soviet missile bases on land and sea, the less likely the Russians will be able to destroy targets in Australia. He goes on further to describe how these bases would assist in the preemptive strikes. In one paragraph that is worth quoting he says:

By helping supply the US with astonishingly detailed and world-ranging intelligence, they serve to stabilise the primary deterrent balance between the USA and the USSR.

So Professor Burns comes down heavily in favour of the establishment of these bases as a deterrent to nuclear attack. Therefore, rather than inviting nuclear attack, on the advice of Professor Burns and in the view of many other people, these bases deter nuclear attack. Some members of the Labor Party believe that if we declare our neutrality we will be left alone in peace and quiet: that if we have no defence installations in Australia nobody will trouble us.

That is the greatest joke of the century, because a nuclear power, knowing the wealth and potential of Australia, would then be in a position to hold us, by blackmail and threat of attack, as a nuclear hostage. This is something which is real and which could happen. Professor Burns refers to this point. He states that it would be completely unrealistic to believe that a neutral Australia would be free from involvement in global or regional nuclear warfare. He points out:

No stratagem or policy has revealed ii-.elf that would eliminate each and every kind of nuclear threat to this country.

He concludes:

Neutralism itself would not necessarily guarantee us from all other nuclear dangers.

So, on that evidence alone there is no argument to support the view put forward by Senator Murphy, Dr Cairns and other speakers from the Labor Party, but not put forward by Mr Whitlam, because he was concerned only with secrecy. Indeed, he supported the establishment of the base. Apparently he was not concerned about the danger of nuclear attack. Tt is a complete fallacy to believe that Australia would be free from the threat of nuclear attack if it withdrew from the American alliance or if it refused the United States the right to establish defence bases in this country. These defence bases are not only for the defence of the United States and for global defence; they are for the defence of Australia.

Let me sum up. I dismiss with contempt the view that Australia is subservient to United Stales policy. We are not and never have been. We follow a policy that is in the interests of Australia and of our security. This policy is one of being a part of the free world, global defence system. We cannot stand alone in this world, and we cannot guarantee our own safety or security. If there are any disadvantages - I do not agree that there are - in our being part of this system, the advantages to us and to our security far outweigh them.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– Every time the Senate proceeds to debate matters of defence and foreign affairs, the Liberal warriors close their ranks to defend the indefensible policies of this Government, and we are treated to the shallow sophistry of armchair strategists. Tonight has been no exception. We have bad some incredibly lightweight contributions - I was going to say light-headed contributions - in the course of this debate, and it is about time we came back to its essentials. The Senate is considering a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mt Gorton) on what is called a defence space communications facility at Woomera and has before it a motion that the Senate take note of the paper. We are putting the views of both the Government and the Opposition, and any others who want to take part in the debate on these important questions may do so.

It is important at the beginning to make it clear what the debate is not about. It is not a debate where the American alliance is in issue. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) made it perfectly cleaT right at the beginning that the American alliance was an essential part of Australia’s welfare, and that it was regarded in this light by the Australian Labor Party, which he leads in this chamber. There is no doubt that he has put that issue out of the realm of controversy here. Australian security, too, is not in issue. We have not made an attack on security as such. We have simply set out to make it abundantly clear that no respectable Opposition and no respectable Parliament should sit down meekly and accept what the Government is prepared to dish out to them on these broad questions without allowing some opportunity of debating the fundamental questions that arise. There are some really fundamental questions which underlie this debate.

Honourable senators opposite are all chattering. None of them wants to hear me. We listened in silence to the last speaker and, heaven only knows, it was difficult enough. Senator Sim - I nearly said Professor Sim - carted us all round the globe, citing contributions from people who had something to say on this issue and speaking as though we were hearing the last word of distilled wisdom on this issue. Indeed, his contribution was surpassed only by the miraculous intervention of the Chairman of this Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee (Senator Cormack), who spoke to us from an even greater height than usual and in the course of a rambling diatribe managed to utter a series of quite incredible propositions. I took the opportunity of noting down some of them, because it was very difficult to make head or tail of them. One of them dealt with the important question of bases and what the public was entitled to known on security matters. On this aspect he said, ‘The less I know, the more efficiently I can discharge my duties.’ I put it that what he said proved his point up to the hilt. He went on to say that the less that Parliament knows about these matters, the more efficiently it can discharge its duties.

Senator Sim:

– I would not say that.

Senator COHEN:

– I took a verbatim note of it and that is what he said. Senator Cormack then warmed to his task. He was delivering a lesson to the Australian Labor Party about tactics and strategy and loyalty, and all the rest of it. He managed to say quite categorically in the course of his address - and these are his words - that there must be annexures to the ANZUS Treaty.’ He had not seen them. He could not point to their existence. I have done a little research in the hour since he spoke, and there is not a tittle of evidence that there are any annexures to the treaty which anybody has seen. He prattled on about these things because he wanted to show how little the ALP knew about these great and weighty matters, and also that wisdom was given to very few people about them. I reject this kind of approach by the chairman of this Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee. 1 can only say that something has been said about the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, Senator Fulbright, a gentleman of great experience in these matters of international affairs. I would very much prefer Senator Fulbright’s opinions on these matters. I was pleased when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate told the House what has been public knowledge throughout the world in the last few days - namely, that Senator Fulbright - I am quoting not from the Australian Broadcasting Commission report but from the ‘Canberra Times’ of 13th May - regards it as a longstanding practice for members of both the United States House of Representatives and Senate to be allowed to visit American installations both at home and abroad, and as far as he knows, no such places had been placed off limits. Whether that applies to the Woomera defence research facility that we are discussing remains to be seen.

What we are complaining about in this debate is something that the ALP has consistently complained about ever since this matter became public - that is, the Government’s refusal to tell the public and the Parliament of the general purposes and the possible consequences of the establishment of this joint facility in Australia. This is not the first of these installations: Quite a number of them have already been established in recent years. The foremost significant ones are the North West Cape radio base, the Pine Gap defence space research facility, the geophysical research project at Alice Springs and the proposed Australian-United States installation to be built at Woomera, which is the one we are now discussing. I gather they are all classified as secret. There are, of course, a number of other United States installations in Australia - about ten in all, ranging from space tracking stations to a balloon launching station al Mildura. There has also been talk of Omega, another communications system. We are aware, 1 think, only of the activities at North West Cape. Nothing has been said officially about what is being done at the other places. There has been speculation on the role of the Alice Springs geophysical station and about the installations at Pine Gap; it has been said that they could be used to guide orbiting missiles to east Asian targets in the event of war, and also to monitor photo reconnaissance spy satellites.

This installation at Woomera, we are told, is not to be the subject of any legislation in this Parliament, as was the agreement relating to North West Cape, lt has been said that no agreement on this facility will be tabled in this Parliament, although the agreement relating to Pine Gap was published in writing and is in the treaty series. As I understand the position, there will not be any document produced to the Parliament which enshrines whatever agreement is made between the two countries about this research facility at Woomera, although the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall) has said that the agreement will be registered with the United Nations. What 1 would like to know is this: If this agreement is to be registered with the United Nations, it will obviously become a public document. Why will .we not be permitted to see it? ls the Government just playing politics about this matter?

Senator Sim:

– None of you-

Senator COHEN:

– I do- wish you would keep quiet. Senator Sim will not let me make my speech.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Cormack) - Order! The honourable senator is entitled to my protection.

Senator COHEN:

– 1 am nol seeking it, Mr Acting Deputy President. One cannot teach these people manners and I will not try. What is the purpose of the Government trailing its coat on this question? Why do the Prime Minister and the Minister say that nothing will be produced in Parliament and that the answer to requests’ for information will always be no?

Senator Greenwood:

-When. did they say that?

Senator COHEN:

– Will you please be quiet. The Minister for Defence said this in a Press interview the transcript of which has been widely published. I am prepared to’ accept what the Minister said as being the Government’s intention. 1 want to know why the Government behaves like this. Why is it necessary for the Government to be so secretive about this matter? The very important question that ‘ is: sometimes lost sight of in this debate is this: Suddenly Australia has discovered that it may be in the front line, so far as the balance of terror is concerned, in the event of a nuclear war. We have become acutely aware that we are integrally bound up in this, system. I think that this discovery has shocked many people. It ought to be the subject of the freest discussion within the community. I am not referring to the details of what is to go on at Woomera or at Pine Gap. I do not think any honourable senator has expressed any morbid curiosity or interest in any of those things. What we want to know is whether the. Australian community can now accept it as a fact that the installation of these facilities in various parts of Australia brings us nearer to nuclear war. Senator Sim was concerned to quote from what Professor Burns, . the Professor of International Relations at the Australian National University, had said. Senator Sim did not quote the passage from Professor Burns’ paper in which he said about the location of the bases: Their location on our territory together with the ANZUS treaty ensures that they and some Australian cities are Soviet nuclear targets. At least the cities would have been much less likely to be attacked in the course of a US-Russia nuclear war, even as late as 1969, if we had no ANZUS treaty and no important American installations.

Senator Sim:

– Professor Burns came down heavily in respect of the balance.

Senator COHEN:

– He may have but I am dealing with the substructure of fact which is necessary in any discussion of these important questions. I am saying, Mr Acting Deputy President, that Senator Sim completely misses the point if he thinks that the installation of these bases - if they are what we think they are, and we have to speculate - does not bring us somewhat nearer to being involved in any nuclear war that might break out. I want to make it perfectly clear that so far as speakers on the Government side are concerned this debate has proceeded on the assumption that this is a little excursion on the part of the Opposition; that the Opposition is querying secrecy as though it had nothing substantial to argue about; or that this issue has been raised merely for political purposes. The Opposition is by no means alone in this matter.

The Australian Press has reacted almost unanimously against those aspects of the Government’s proposal which mean that we cannot have a fully informed public debate on it. Every time one picks up a daily newspaper or a weekly newspaper and reads the editorials there is something to indicate that what the Australian Labor Party is expressing in regard to this very important question is the great degree of public disquiet, especially about the Government’s reluctance to come clean and tell us a little about this matter. I have a dozen newspaper cuttings in my hand at the moment and, taking them as I move them from one hand to the other, I find that the headlines read: ‘Why won’t they tell us about Woomera.’ ‘US secret bases make us certain nuclear targets.’ ‘ANZUS is no excuse for secrecy.’ ‘Woomera - Russia will know but Parliament won’t.’ ‘Bases for concern.’ Bases and cases.’ ‘What price this loyalty.’

Playing with fire.’ ‘Missiles point at our cities.’ ‘The evasive road to Pine Gap.’ Security or danger.’ These headlines were published in newspapers which broadly support this Government. They are not left wing papers. They are not newspapers produced by the Opposition or by parties or interests hostile to the Government. These headlines appeared in newspapers which normally support this Government.

Senator Sim:

– So what!

Senator COHEN:

– Stop squealing because you know I am telling the truth. The Government thought that it could get some advantage out of this debate but now Government supporters are squealing because this debate has given the Opposition an opportunity to show that we are not alone in our stand on this issue but that we speak for a very large section of the Australian community which does not see the need for all the mumbo jumbo that the Government is going on with over this question. The Opposition does not intend to be put off from doing its duty because fundamentally these are questions involving Australia’s future. Honourable senators know that they cannot make anything more of this issue than that.

The Government is doing something which is really quite preposterous, lt is trying to spread the ample blanket of ANZUS over this question and so foreclose any rational or intelligent discussion. I am talking now about the ANZUS treaty, with or without the secret annexures that Senator Cormack spoke about earlier, whether they are real or imaginary. The Government has virtually said: ‘We have an obligation under ANZUS to establish this base’. The Prime Minister said something which, if it meant anything, must have meant exactly that. The Minister for Defence has said that it is a direct obligation arising out of ANZUS. I am saying that this is just nonsense if we take it as an interpretation of the treaty. Of course, the ANZUS treaty could be interpreted to show that this installation is consistent with it. I would not be disposed to argue with that. What I am saying is that it is preposterous for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence to say that we are vitualaly compelled by ANZUS to accede to the United States’ request on this issue. I can only say that if our leaders really believe that then this country is in the hands of dangerous men.

Senator Young:

– Are you opposed to this base?

Senator COHEN:

– 1 am discussing ANZUS and the basis upon which the Government attempts to put up the shield of ANZUS. Please do not ask any questions about it being covered by ANZUS. Just keep quiet and you may have your say after me, I hope. I think honourable senators will agree that Senator Willesee made a very reasoned speech about the function of ANZUS and about the sort of problems that arise out of a treaty under which parties have mutual obligations and hold mutual attitudes. The Australian Labor Party has never argued against the ANZUS alliance. We have said that it is essential and must continue. 1 would like to remind honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber that that alliance was the creation of a Labor government, ft was not the creation of those people who today claim a monopoly of wisdom and patriotism and who are able to discuss, as arm chair strategists, all these great problems of global warfare and who understand the position perfectly well, although they have not been told what this base is for and do not see any reason to discuss it. Our point is that the facility touches Australia’s very existence. If we are to be involved willy-nilly in a weapons system that may bring us close to nuclear warfare, the public is entitled to know what is in store for it so that it can approve or disapprove when it gets the opportunity at elections.

A number of speakers on the Government side have defended the assertion of the Minister for Defence that the activities of the new facility will be not offensive but defensive. I say, and I am not alone in saying it, that it is hair splitting to argue about the difference between offensive facilities and defensive facilities if they are incorporated in a global system. There is no such black and white division in missile and satellite weaponry, only a total balance of forces. I think both the Russians and the Americans have proved that with their systems. The real point in issue in this debate is whether or not we have a right to know and understand what we are in for. We are not fundamentally interested in whether or not we can inspect a particular base or whether or not particular activities are carried on there. We are not technologists. We are not spies. We are not interested in the detail of the facility. We want to know something about the function and its purpose in the general context of our policy.

In the United States today a great debate is going on as to whether the Senate ultimately will approve , President Nixon’s decision to deploy the Sentinel anti-ballistic missile system. That has been the subject of discussion by various committees, lt has emerged as a policy decision made by the Administration. It still has to run the gamut of congressional criticism, lt still has to get the approval of Congress. The necessary funds have to be appropriated to make it work. In the next few weeks we will see a contest. I shall not predict how it will end. The point is that there is informed rational public debate about the purpose of this system and whether, in national1 terms or in terms of overall policies, it is justified. As a Parliament we will -be. asked ultimately to approve an appropriation of funds, lt is obvious that some part of the funds for this joint facility will be furnished by Australia. We will provide the land and certain basic facilities. I imagine it will be something like Pine Gap which reputedly will cost something over $200m, of which Australia will contribute about $3m.

Sooner or later, whether it is explicit, or whether it is concealed in some overall figure, we will be asked to approve funds for this facility. Why should not we have some general idea of how it will fit into Australia’s needs and Australia’s strategy? That is what this debate is about. Any attempt to turn it into a debate about other aspects is doomed to failure because it is not about other aspects. Basically it is not about the Australian. Labor Party. I am indebted to Senator Sim for finally showing - having tried to show, the opposite - that every Australian Labor Party speaker has expressed a determination that the Government shall not be allowed: to get away with murder. I read to honourable senators the words of the foreign editor of the Australian’, Mr Duffield, as contained in an article on 26th April 1969. He said:

And now we have this whatever-it-is at Woomera. Mr Fairhall, .a very able Defence Minister but one cast very much in the Menzies mould of not telling the peasants what is going on, has not the slightest intention of telling us what the new secret installation at Woomera is all about.

He has denied, with contempt which seemed to me excessive, that the new Woomera establishment has anything to do with Peshawar, the US war-communications base in Pakistan out from which it has just been kicked.

Those are Mr Duffield’s words, not mine. He continued:

He has refused, however, to tell us what the communications facilities to be established at Woomera are for.

These are the words I want to stress to honourable senators:

It seems to me incredible that the people of a nation can be so disdainfully treated on matters which make all of us pawns’ in any future world war, which of course can only be a nuclear one.

Now do I make my point clear? That is the essence of this debate. That is why we have raised this question on the motion that the Senatetake note of the statement and that is why it seemsto us that the Government has an obligation to come clean on this matter and tell us at least something more than it has told us to date.

Senator Wright:

– ‘Come clean’ is a nice expression.

Senator COHEN:

– The Minister has heard the expression before. If the Government’s intention is to register this written agreement with the United Nations, the Government ought to come clean at least to the extent of producing to the Parliament the agreement which it says it has made.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– The defence of Australia is a very serious matter. Because of our geographical position we are isolated in the southern Pacific. Our population is not very large and our natural resources, as is well known to people all over the world, are vast and as yet undeveloped. These facts, irrespective of bases that may be placed anywhere in our country. I maintain are sufficient - particularly with over-populated nations to the north which are lacking raw materials -for Australia to become involved in any nuclear war of the future. The argument put by the Labor Party in objecting to these bases is that they could involve us in nuclear war. As has been pointed out by other speakers tonight, the establishment of any base - whether it is an Air Force base or a Navy base - or even the development of our natural resources would be sufficient to constitute a threat of nuclear war. The natural result of a policy not to do any of these things in case we come under nuclear attack is to do nothing by way of defence. Maybe that is why we heard so much from the Opposition against the F111 aircraft.

Senator Georges:

– Do not bring that subject into the debate at this stage.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I will bring into it anything that is connected with the future defence of this country. That is why honourable senators opposite do not wany any troops in Vietnam to support our American allies. We are dependent on friends and particularly strong friends like the United States. The communications base will be of considerable advantage to us because it will enable us to share in the information that the immense United States space programme and its satellites are able to provide. This is something that we as a nation are not big enough and have not the resources to provide. Therefore we should share in this project. There is a Labour Government in Great Britain. I do not. know whether it is of the same political colour as the Australian Labor Party.

Debate interrupted.

page 1254

ADJOURNMENT

National Parks in the Australian Capital Territory - West Irian

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-I want to raise tonight a matter that I raised during the debate on the Estimates on 7th November 1968 when I sought information from the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) on his Department’s future policy in regard to the creation of an additional national park in the southern portion of the Australian Capital Territory. On that occasionI had incorporated in Hansard the details of the proposed park. The organisations spearheading this proposal comprise the Australian Capital Territory National Parks Association, the Canberra Bushwalkers League and other bodies with similar interests. Let me say at the outset that by courtesy of Mr Nixon, Minister for the Interior, I had the good fortune to traverse this area in the Naas-Gudgenby section of the ACT. It is an ideal setting for the purpose that I have mentioned.

When I raised the matter previously Senator McKellar, representing the Minister for the Interior, said amongst other things when summing up in the debate:

The views of community organisations interested in the area are being canvassed now by the Department.

That was in November 1968. This is May 1969. In the meantime I have had discussions with quite a number of people in the ACT who are interested in this project. 1 know that the Department was considering a future catchment area in the ACT. I think it is an accepted fact that if an additional catchment area were established bushwalking and other pastimes of that nature could be catered for. However, the point is that after 7 months I think it is time the Department declared itself.

There has been another development which I think makes it all the more important that the Department should issue a clear-cut statement. The 17th May 1969 issue of the Sydney ‘Bulletin’ carries an article in which the New South Wales Minister for Lands, Mr Lewis, suggests that the existing Tidbinbilla Fauna Reserve should be put under the management control of the New South Wales National Parks and Wild Life Service. I think Ministers are aware - the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson) would concur in this if he were here - that I am on the same wave length as is Mr Lewis, particularly in relation to matters affecting the Sydney Harbour foreshores. That is why I have been peppering Senator Anderson for a statement on that matter.

I believe that we should subscribe to a parallel national parks service. 1 think there is a case for expanding the Tidbinbilla Fauna Reserve by using the technical knowhow of the Wild Life Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industral Research Organisation and that of any other Commonwealth department whose resources can be channelled in that direction. The tempo must be increased in the areas within the control of the Commonwealth Government, whether it be Jervis Bay or the Northern

Territory. I pay a tribute to Dr McMichael and other senior officers and staff of the New South Wales National1 Parks and Wild Life Service. I stop there because 1 know that the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities (Senator Wright) who has been on one or two treks in northern New South Wales knows that the Service has been looking at a number of areas on the north coast which he agrees have a tourist potential.

I want to see the best of two worlds. I believe that the Commonwealth has a responsibility, which I hope will be exhibited at the impending conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Lands, to see that activities in the States are increased. 1 am sure that the undoubted talents and dedication of men like Mr Lewis, Dr Carmichael and their staffs can be used to provide an increased area of national’ parks and wild life reserves in New South Wales. That is one side of the coin.

The other side .of the coin is that the Department of the Interior has a responsibility to step up the, development of Tidbinbilla. I give it full credit for what has been done already. If it will make an early statement about the provision of an additional national1 park in the southern portion of the ACT we will have a prospect of seeing the development of parallel national parks which is a feature of both Canada and the United States, Ottawa and Washington assisting the States, in this field. 1 am prompted to make this request for clarification of the Commonwealth’s intentions in relation to the ACT because this has become quite an issue. I know that people in Canberra, and particularly the organisations I have mentioned, are becoming restive. It would be a lost opportunity if for some reason or merely through- shilly-shallying parklands or fauna reserves in the ACT were limited to Tidbinbilla.

As I have said, I raised this matter in November 1968 and this is May 1969. I have been very patient and I now look with confidence to Senator Scott, as representative of the Minister f6r the Interior, to make a clear-cut announcement tonight.

Senator SCOTT (Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise) (11.71 - On behalf of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) I thank Senator Mulvihill for his very keen interest in the matter of providing a national park in the Australian

Capital Territory. When Senator Mulvihill raised this matter on 7th November the Department of the Interior had initiated a series of discussions on the proposal with learned societies and community organisations in Canberra having an interest in conservation. The Department had convened a meeting of those organisations during which the Mount Kelly area was described in some detail and the organisations were invited to discuss independently with the Department the proposals for a national park. Most of the organisations now have submitted their views and the Department is completing the collation and analysis of the wealth of useful information and advice obtained from them. A further combined meeting is being arranged by the Department which is inviting the organisations to view the area and to participate in joint discussions on the proposal. The Department then will prepare recommendations on the matter.

With reference to the offer by the New South Wales Minister for Lands, Mr Lewis, to take over the administration of park areas in the ACT, which was mentioned by the honourable senator, the Minister for the Interior feels that the administration of the ACT is fully equipped to handle this matter. This is not to say that the administration is not grateful for Mr Lewis’s offer or for the action of the New South Wales Board of Fire Control which provides protection in the ACT.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– There has been some discussion in the Senate on the matter of the act of self-determination or free choice by the West Irianese, and for the convenience of the Senate I ask for leave to incorporate in the record the agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West Irian which was signed at the headquarters of the United Nations, New York, on 15th August 1962.

Senator Wright:

– How long is it?

Senator MURPHY:

– It is not really very long. I think that it would be useful for the purpose of discussions which no doubt will take place over the next few weeks. But, if the honourable senator objects to it being incorporated in Hansard, no doubt other means canbe found to have it either incorporated or printed.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -Is leave granted? There being no objection; leave is granted.

No. 6311

INDONESIA

and

NETHERLANDS

Agreement (with annex) concerning West New Guinea (West Irian). Signed at the Headquarters of theUnited Nations, New York, on 15 August 1962

Official text: English.

Registered on 21 September 1962 by the Secretariat acting on behalf of the Contracting Parties pursuant to paragraph 2 of article XXVIII of the Agreement.

INDONeSIE et

PAYS-BAS

Accord (avec annexe) concernant la NouvelleGuinee occidentale (Irian occidental). Signe au Siège de I’Organisation des Nations Unies,à New York,le 15 aont 1962

Texte officiel anglais.

Enregistré le 21 septembre 1962 par le Secrétariat agissant au nom des Parties contractantes conformément au paragraphe 2 de l’article XXVIII de l’Accord.

No. 6311. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA AND THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS CONCERNING WEST NEW GUINEA (WEST IRIAN). SIGNED AT THE HEADQUARTERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, ON 15 AUGUST 1962

The Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Having in mind the interests and welfare of the people of the territory of West New Guinea (West Irian) hereinafter referred to as ‘the territory’,

Desirous of settling their dispute regarding the territory,

Now, therefore, agree as follows:

Ratification of agreement and resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations

Article I

After the present Agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands has been signed and ratified by both Contracting Parties, Indonesia and the Netherlands will jointly sponsor a draft resolution in the United Nations under the terms of which the General Assembly of the United Nationstakes note of the present Agreement, acknowledges the

In accordance with article XXVIII, the Agree ment came into force on 21 September 1962, the date of the adoption by the General Assembly of the resolution envisaged in article 1 of the Agreement (A/RES/1752 (XVII)). The instruments of ratification were exchanged on 20 September 1962 at the Headquarters of the United Nations, in accordance with article XXVII. role conferred upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations therein, and authorises him to carry out the tasks entrusted to him therein.

Transfer of Administration

Article II

After the adoption of the resolution referred to in article 1, the Netherlands will transfer administration of the territory to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA) estab- lished by and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary-General upon the arrival of the United Nations Administrator appointed in accordance with article IV. The UNTEA will in turn transfer the administration to Indonesia in accordance with article XII.

United Nations Administration

Article III

In order to facilitate the transfer of administration to the UNTEA after the adoption of the resolution by the General Assembly, the Netherlands will invite the Secretary-General to send a representative to consult briefly with the Netherlands Governor of the territory prior to thelatter’s departure. The Netherlands Governor will depart prior to the arrival of the United Nations Administrator.

Article IV

A United Nations Administrator acceptable to Indonesia and the Netherlands, will be appointed by the Secretary-General.

Article V

The United Nations Administrator, as chief executive officer of the UNTEA, will have full authority under the direction of the SecretaryGeneral to administer the territory for the period of the UNTEA administration in accordance with the terms of the present Agreement.

Article VI

  1. The United Nations flag will be flown during the period of United Nations administration.
  2. With regard to the flying of the Indonesian and Netherlands flags, it is agreed that this matter will be determined by agreement between the Secretary-General and the respective Governments.

Article VII

The Secretary-General will provide the UNTEA with such security forces as the United Nations Administrator deems necessary such forces will primarily supplement existing Papuan (WestIrianese) police in the task of maintaining law and order. The Papuan Volunteer Corps, which on the arrival of the United Nations Administrator will cease being part of the Netherlands armed forces, and the Indonesian armed forces in the territory will be under the authority of, and at the disposal of, the Secretary-General for the same purpose. The United Nations Administrator will, to the extent feasible, use the Papuan (WestIrianese) police as a United Nations security force to maintain law and order and, at his discretion, use Indonesian armed forces. The Netherlands armed forces will be repatriated as rapidly as possible and while still in the territory will be under the authority of the UNTEA.

Article VIII

The United Nations Administrator will send periodic reports to the Secretary-General on the principal aspects of the implementation of the present Agreement. The Secretary-General will submit full reports to Indonesia and the Netherlands and may submit, at his discretion, reports to the General Assembly or to all United Nations Members.

First Phase of the UNTEA Administration

Article IX

The United Nations Administrator will replace as rapidly as possible top Netherlands officials as defined in annex A1 with non-Netherlands, nonIndonesian officials during the first phase of the UNTEA administration which will be completed on 1 May 1963. The. United Nations Administrator will be authorised to employ on a temporary basis all Netherlands officials other than top Netherlands officials defined in annex A, who wish to serve the UNTEA, in accordance with such terms and conditions as the SecretaryGeneral may specify. As many Papuans (West Irianese) as possible will be brought into administrative and technical positions. To fill the remaining required posts, the UNTEA will have authority to employ personnel provided by Indonesia. Salary rates prevailing in the territory will be maintained.

Article X

Immediately after the transfer of administration to the UNTEA, the UNTEA will widely publicise and explain the terms of the present Agreement, and will inform the population concerning the transfer of administration to Indonesia and the provisions for the act of self-determination as set out in the present Agreement.

Article XI

To the extent that they are consistent with the letter and spirit of the present Agreement, existing laws and regulations will remain in effect. The UNTEA will have power to promulgate new laws and regulations or amend them within the spirit and framework of the present Agreement. The representative councils will be consulted prior to the issuance of new laws and regulations or the amendment of existing laws.

Second Phase

ArticleXlI

The United Nations Administrator will have discretion to transfer all or part of the administration to Indonesia at any time after the first phase of the UNTEA administration. The UNTEA’s authority will cease at the moment of transfer of full administrative control to Indonesia.

Article XIII

United Nations security forces will be replaced by Indonesian security forces after the first phase of the UNTEA administration; All United Nations security forces will be withdrawn upon the transfer of administration to Indonesia. 1 See p. 288 of this volume.

Indonesian Administration and Self-determination

Article XIV

After the transfer of full administrative responsibility to Indonesia, Indonesian national laws and regulations will in principle be applicable in the territory, it being understood that they be consistent with the rights and freedoms guaranteed to the inhabitants under the terms of the present Agreement. New laws and regulations or amendments to the existing ones can be enacted within the spirit of the present Agreement. The representative councils will be consulted as appropriate.

Article XV

After the transfer of full administrative responsibility to Indonesia, the primary task of Indonesia will be further intensification of the education of the people, of the combating of illiteracy, and of the advancement of their social, cultural and economic development. Efforts also will be made in accordance with present Indonesian practice to accelerate the participation of the people in local government through periodic elections. Any aspects relating to the act of free choice will be governed by the terms of this Agreement.

Article XVI

At thetime of the transfer of full administrative responsibility to Indonesia a number of United Nations experts, as deemed adequate by the Secretary-General after consultation with Indonesia, will be designated to remain wherever their duties require their presence. Their duties will, prior to the arrival of the United Nations Representative, who will participate at the appropriate time in the arrangements for self-determination, be limited to advising on and assisting in preparations for carrying out the provisions for selfdetermination except in so far as Indonesia and the Secretary-General may agree upon their performing other expert functions. They will be responsible to the Secretary-General for the carrying out of their duties.

Article XVII

Indonesia will invite the Secretary-General to appoint a Representative who, together with a staff made up, inter alia, of experts referred to in article XVI, will carry out the SecretaryGeneral’s responsibilities to advise, assist and participate in arrangements which are the responsibility of Indonesia for the act of free choice. The Secretary-General will, at the proper time, appoint the United Nations Representative in order that he and his staff may assume their duties in the territory one year prior to the date of selfdetermination. Such additional staff as the United Nations Representative might feel necessary will be determined by the Secretary-General after consultations with Indonesia. The United Nations Representative and his staff will have the same freedom of movement as provided for the personnel referred to in article XVI.

Article XVIII

Indonesia will make arrangements, with the assistance and participation of the United Nations Representative and his staff, to give the people of the territory the opportunity to exercise freedom of choice. Such arrangements will include:

  1. Consultations (Musjawarah) with the representative councils on procedures and appropriate methods to be followed for ascertaining the freely expressed will of the population.
  2. The determination of the actual date of the exercise of free choice within the period established by the present Agreement.
  3. Formulation of the questions in such a way as to. permit the inhabitants to decide (a) whether they wish to remain with Indonesia; or (b) whether they wish to sever their ties with Indonesia.
  4. The eligibility of all adults, male and female, not foreign nationals to participate in the act of self-determination to be carried out in accordance with international practice, who are resident at the time of the signing of the present Agreement and at the time of the act of self-determination, including those residents who departed after1945 and who return to the territory to resume residence after the termination of Netherlands administration.

Article XIX

The United Nations Representative will report to the Secretary-General on the arrangements arrived at for freedom of choice.

Article XX

The act of self-determination will be completed before the end of 1969.

Article XXI

  1. After the exercise of the right of selfdetermination, Indonesia and the United Nations Representative will submit final reports to the Secretary-General who will report to the General Assembly on the conduct of the act of selfdetermination and the results thereof.
  2. The Parlies to the present Agreement will recognize and abide by the results of the act of self-determination.

Rights of the Inhabitants

Article XXII.

  1. The UNTEA and Indonesia will guarantee fully the rights, including the rights of free speech, freedom of movement and. of assembly, of the inhabitants of the area. These rights will include the existing rights of the inhabitants of the territory at the time of the transfer of administration to the UNTEA.
  2. The UNTEA will take over existing Netherlands commitments in respect of concessions and property rights.
  3. After Indonesia has taken over the administration it will honour those commitments which are not inconsistent with the interests and economic development of the people of the territory. A joint Indonesian-Netherlands commission will be set up after the transfer of administration to Indonesia to study the nature of the abovementioned concessions and property rights.
  4. During the period of the UNTEA administration there will be freedom of movements for civilians of Indonesian and Netherlands nationalities to and from the territory.

Article XXIII

Vacancies in the representative councils caused by the departure of Netherlands nationals, or for other reasons, will be filled as appropriate consistent with existing legislation by elections, or by appointment by the UNTEA. The representative councils will be consulted prior to the appointment of new representatives.

Financial Matters

Article XXIV

  1. Deficits in the budget of the territory during the UNTEA administration will be shared equally by Indonesia and the Netherlands.
  2. Indonesia and the Netherlands will be consulted by the Secretary-General in the preparation of the UNTEA budget and other financial matters relating to United Nations responsibilities under the present Agreement; however, the Secretary-General will have the final decision.
  3. The Parties to the present Agreement will reimburse the Secretary-General for all costs incurred by the United Nations under the present Agreement and will make available suitable funds in advance for the discharge of the SecretaryGeneral’s responsibilities. The Parties to the present Agreement will share on an equal basis the costs of such reimbursements and advances.

Previous Treaties and Agreement

Article XXV

The present Agreement willtake precedence over any previous agreement on the territory. Previous treaties and agreements regarding the territory may therefore be terminated or adjusted as necessary to conform to the terms of the present Agreement.

Privileges andImmunities

Article XXVI

For the purposes of the present Agreement, Indonesia and the Netherlands will apply to United Nations property, funds, assets and officials the provisions of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.1 In partiular, the United Nations Administrator, appointed pursuant to article IV, and the United Nations Representative, appointed pursuant to article XVII. will enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in section 19 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

Ratification

Article XXVII

  1. The present Agreement will be ratified in accordance with the constitutional procedures of the Contracting Parties.
  2. The instruments of ratification will be exchanged as soon as possible at the Headquarters of the United Nations by the accredited representatives of the Contracting Parties.
  3. The Secretary-General will draw up a procès-verbal of the exchange of the instruments of ratification and will furnish a certified copy thereof to each Contracting Party.

Entry into Force

Article XXVIII

  1. The present Agreement will enter into force upon the date of the adoption by the General Assembly of the resolution referred to in article 1 of the present Agreement.
  2. Upon the entry into force of the present Agreement, the Secretary-General of the United Nations will register it in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter.

Authentic Text

Article XXIX

The authentic text of the present Agreement is drawn up in the English language. Translations in the Indonesian and Netherlands languages will be exchanged between the Contracting Parties.

In witness whereof the undersigned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized for that purpose by their respective Governments, have signed the present Agreement.

Done at the Headquarters of the United Nations, New York, on this fifteenth day of August 1962, in three identical copies, of which one shall be deposited with the Secretary-General and one shall be furnished to the Government of each of the Contracting Parties.

For the Republic of Indonesia : (Signed) Subandrio

For the Kingdom of the Netherlands: (Signed) J. H. van Roijen (Signed) C. Schurmann

ANNEX A TO THE AGREEMENT

Top Netherlands officials to be replaced as rapidly as possible with non-Netherlands, nonIndonesian officials.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1260

TABLING OF TREATIES

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– For the information of honourable senators 1 lay on the table the texts of the undermentioned treaties to which Australia has become a party by signature:

  1. Agreement concerning the administrative arrangements between Australia and the Royal Government of Cambodia and certain other countries concerning the Prek Thnot (Cambodia) Power and Irrigation Project which was signed at New York on 13th November 1968.
  2. Protocol dated 24th September 1968 on the authentic trilingual text of the Convention on International Civil Aviation which was signed on 24th September 1968.
  3. Exchange of Notes between Australia and the United States of America constituting an

Agreement concerning the establishment of facilities on the Territory of Norfolk Island for the purpose of studying ionospheric propagation in relation to long range radio paths, signed at Canberra on 30th January 1969.

  1. Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Singapore concerning the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion wilh respect to taxes on income, signed at Canberra on 11th February 1969. 1 also lay on the table for the information of honourable senators texts of the following treaty to which Australia is considering becoming a party by ratification:

European Convention on Customs Treatment of Pallets used in International Transport, done at Geneva on 9th December I960.

Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 May 1969, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1969/19690514_senate_26_s41/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant