Senate
7 April 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

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

page 527

DEATH OF MR JAMES REAY FRASER, M.P

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

– Mr President, it is with deep regret that I formally advise the Senate of the death of Mr James Reay Fraser in Canberra last Wednesday at the age of 62 years. Mr Fraser left a widow and a son, Andrew, to whom we all extend our sincere and heartfelt sympathy. Mr Fraser represented the electorate of the Australian Capital Territory in the House of Representatives for 19 years up to the time of his death. He was elected in the general elections of 1951, 1954, 1955, 1958, 1961, 1963, 1966 and again in 1969. In 1954 Mr Fraser was a member of the Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the Hansard of the House of Representatives. He was ViceChairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory from 10th April 1957 and a member of the Privileges Committee from 5th March 1964 until his death.

A former school teacher and journalist, Mr Fraser attained a unique distinction in public life as the member for the Australian Capital Territory. In Canberra he was known to be a man who was all things to all men. He has been described by some people as the Mayor of Canberra, the senator for the Australian Capital Territory and the civic ombudsman, adviser and confidant of people in all walks of life in the Territory. Mr Fraser worked tirelessly for each and every one of his constituents. Perhaps this caused him to ignore the assault on his own strength and physique. He was a man who, putting politics aside, would be the image of the perfect private member. He was dedicated to his electorate and to the task of being the voice of the electorate. Always smiling and affable, he could be seen in attendance at almost every civic or school function or church fete - in fact, at all functions in his electorate. He was a familiar figure to most of the citizens of the large area of the Australian Capital Territory. I think this was adequately shown last Friday by the thousands of mourners who attended his state funeral at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, lined the route of the funeral to the cemetery and were present at the graveside.

It has been said that perhaps the Australian Capital Territory electorate was not so much a political seat as one known as a Fraser seat, lt is true, I believe, that no man understood the needs of his constituents better than he did. Anybody who is called upon to follow him as the member for the Australian Capital Territory faces a huge task in equalling his dedication to his constituents. Another unique factor in regard to Mr Fraser’s public life is that he and his brother, Mr Allan Fraser, who represents the electorate of Eden-Monaro, were the first brothers ever to serve in the same House of the Commonwealth Parliament at the same time. The late Mr Fraser served his country in war and in peace. During World War II - in December 1941 - he enlisted in the 2nd Australian Imperial Force. He served as a gunner with the 2/1 Field Regiment in 1942-43 and with the Public Relations Field Unit in 1944-45. He was discharged on 25th March 1946 with the rank of sergeant. I move:

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– On behalf of all Opposition senators I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government (Senator Anderson). Mr Fraser was a member of the Australian Labor Party and a very good member. He served the electorate of the Australian Capital Territory faithfully and well. It is always difficult in any country to represent an electorate which incorporates the seat of Government. This applies not only in this country but also in the United States of America and in other places. Special problems arise in electorates in which the seat of Government is situated. In Australia extra burdens have been placed upon the representative for the Australian Capital Territory because of the absence of any real local government in the Territory, and because of the absence of the physical facilities necessary to enable the representative to do his job adequately. Despite the burdens imposed on him Jim Fraser did his job to the best of his ability and, in addition, gave of himself enthusiastically. He was well loved by the people of this area. No greater tribute could have been paid to him than that which was paid on the clay of his funeral when great numbers of the people of Canberra turned out - the men, the women and the schoolchildren. The places of entertainment, the hotels, and the clubs were closed. People not only surrounded the church in great masses but also lined the route from the church to the place of his final resting.

Mr Fraser continued to carry out his duties in recent times although suffering very greatly from illness. This illness had continued for some time. J refer now not to the final fatal illness, but to the earlier periods of considerable discomfort which he endured over a very long period. Despite this handicap he went on, unhesitating, and I think he stands as a model of a man who did not want to set the world on fire but merely wanted to carry out as well as any man could the task which he had chosen, the task which had been entrusted to him by the people of the A.C.T. That task was to represent them as well as he could in the councils of this nation and in every other sphere in which they lacked the representation which he felt they should have. He showed his feeling for Parliament by acting as a member of the Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the Hansard of the House of Representatives, by acting as a member of the House Committee and by carrying out the task of Vice-Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. In these ways he tried to serve not only this area but also the Parliament as resident in the area.

Mr President, we are proud to have known this man. He was not only a fine Parliamentarian; he was also a man of great tolerance and very much humour. He was extremely approachable and was in all ways a very civilised and a fine human being. We would like to join the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) in extending the heartfelt sympathy of everyone here to his family and in putting on public record our feelings regarding the outstanding service which he performed under very difficult circumstances in this Parliament on behalf of the people of the Territory.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– My Country Party colleagues and I would like to join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) in paying a personal tribute to the late Mr Jim Fraser. It was with great sadness and regret that I learned in Western Australia last week of the passing of Mr Fraser. During the 12 years ] have had the honour to be a member of the Parliament I came to have an everincreasing respect for Mr Frasers ability and integrity.

There would hardly be a person in any political walk of life in Australia who had not heard of Jim Fraser. His untiring efforts for his Party and for his constituents in the Australian Capital Territory stamped him as a most able and dedicated parliamentarian, particularly in the Canberra political sphere. Throughout the whole of Australia he was respected as a politician and as a person. In saying that, I know that I speak for all present and past politicians from my State. The people of the Australian Capital Territory were fortunate in having such a capable man as their representative for so many years. I believe that the Parliament of Australia was enriched by his dedication and political talents. On behalf of my Country Party colleagues, and on my own behalf, T extend deepest sympathy to Mrs Fraser and to her son in their sad bereavement.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party associates itself with the remarks that have already been made and expresses regret at the passing of the late Jim Fraser. Mr Fraser was a man of great ability and of high principles, yet he was a kindly man whom it was a pleasure to have known. He carried out a very difficult and responsible political task in Canberra where he was not only a member of Parliament but, in a sense, almost a mayor as well. The confidence which his constituents had in him was shown by the increasing majorities with which he won his seat. T understand that they paid a remarkable tribute to him on the day of his funeral. That was an indication of the very high regard in which he was held. My Party joins in expressing to his family its very deep regret at his passing.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I want to add my very sincere remarks to the eulogy of the late Jim Fraser and to agree with everything that has been said. As has been stated, he entered Parliament in 1951 but I knew him before then. 1 had a fairly close association with him when he was private secretary to Senator McKenna, the then Leader of the Opposition in this place. Naturally at that time he had a lot to do with members of the Australian Labor Party.

I came here as a very young man and was struck by the excitement and turmoil of this place, but standing out like a beacon in all of that was Jim Fraser. Somehow those days seem to remain in my memory just as clearly as do the years that we spent together in the Parliament. He was a man of high principles and quiet efficiency. He brought logic and clear thinking to every problem, no matter what it might be. All of these attributes of this big man were laced with humour. Always 1 thought of him as a dour Scot but that never seemed to come into his humour which would sparkle in all sorts of ways. If ever it was at your expense it was never with anything else but the greatest of fun.

Very few people realised that Jim Fraser had a deep knowledge of New Guinea. He was always my sheet anchor whenever problems relating to New Guinea arose. He had fought there as a soldier. The humour of Army life always showed through in his analysis of the fighting in New Guinea. He had an amazing way of analysing people, and it made no difference that the people of New Guinea with whom he associated at that time were not the same as we are. He had a tremendous understanding of the New Guineans. He had made a real study of their tribal life and their problems. As I said, to me he was a sheet anchor because whenever problems concerning New Guinea were being discussed I found that to discuss them with Jim Fraser was to discuss them with a man who had had the advantage of being there, had made a very close and serious study of the area and liked the people there just as much as he liked his own Australian people.

He was known as Big Jim. Physically, of course, he was a big man; but it always struck me that his mind was just as big as his body. I never found Jim Fraser thinking along petty lines. He was never loquacious. What had to be said he said clearly and succinctly. He had the ability to place the problem very clearly before people in a few short words, whatever they happened to be discussing. There is an old saying that he who treads softly goes far. In that gentle way which we associate with big men - big in mind and big in body - he certainly went a long way. This was exemplified not only in his funeral, which I understand was the biggest the national capital has ever seen, but also in the tremendous record majority that he obtained at the last election. No matter what electorate in Australia one considers, it was a record or near record majority in view of the fact that all sorts of things have to be taken into consideration in respect of various electorates.

He did not ever tread softly when he thought there was a wrong to be righted. That is when I found that he could be angry when anger was necessary or when it was warranted. It was on those occasions that his almost natural flair for research was exhibited. I do not mean research in the academic sense; but whenever he produced facts they were salient and unarguable because of his natural flair for research. One found that no matter how far one tried to dig behind his arguments he always had the answers.

In this Parliament there are certain men - I do not exclude members of other parties but I have in mind several people in my own Party because I have been associated with them more than with members of other parties - whose bigmindedness, bigheartedness, ability and humour inevitably rub off on to others. I believe that Jim Fraser was one of those men. To my mind, he is one of the greats of the Australian Labor Party. These men inevitably leave something with others. I feel the loss to Australia; I feel the loss to this Parliament; I feel the tremendous loss to the Australian Labor Party; and I feel a personal loss in having lost a very good friend and a good mate in every sense of the word.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.

Motion (by Senator Anderson) agreed to:

That as a mark of respect to the memory of the late Mr J. R. Fraser the sitting of the Senate be suspended until 8 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 3.19 to 8 p.m.

page 530

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation whether he has seen a pamphlet from the Returned Services League requesting a better deal for ex-servicemen. The League requests that an independent nonparliamentary committee be set up to make a complete review of repatriation matters, that there should be a general review of war and service pension rates, that repatriation hospital, medical and pharmaceutical benefits should be extended to all returned ex-servicemen of the First World War and the Boer War and that the funeral grant be increased from $50 to $150. Can the Minister say whether these just requests from the League will be granted by this Government?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I have seen the submission from the Returned Services League. These are matters which will be considered by Cabinet during Budget discussions.

page 530

QUESTION

ROYAL VISIT MEDALLIONS

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-I would like to ask the Minister representing the Treasurer what arrangements have been made between a company called Commemorative International Ltd of 275 George Street, Sydney, and the Royal Australian Mint to have the Mini issue 1,000 gold medallions to commemorate the Royal visit. Were tenders called for this privilege? What is the actual value of the gold content of these medallions which are to be sold to the public for $296 per set?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– My attention has been drawn to this matter. 1 sought some information from the Treasurer.I would like to make it clear to the Senate that this medallion is not being issued by the Government or by the Royal Australian Mint. The issue is a purely private venture and the company involved is solely responsible for the price, design and alloy of the medallions as well as for the details of their distribution. The Mint is concerned only with the manufacture of working dies from the master die supplied by the company and with the striking with these working dies of blanks which have been supplied by the company. The Mint is charging the company a commercial rate for these services.

page 530

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the

Leader of the Government in the Senate concerns what appears to be a conflict between a statement made by the Prime Minister and a statement made by the Minister for Defence in relation to withdrawals from Vietnam. As the Leader of the Government will remember, the Prime Minister said as far back as December last that Australian withdrawals would accompany the next withdrawals by United Stales troops, and that more recently the Minister for Defence was reported from Vietnam as having placed some restrictions on that proposition. Can the Leader of the Government tell the Senate the Government’s policy in relation to withdrawing Australian troops from Vietnam?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Apparently the honourable senator in his judgment sees some variation or contradiction in the statements made by the Prime Minister, on the one hand, and by the Minister for Defence, on the other hand, in relation to Australia’s participation in future possible withdrawals from Vietnam. In view of the judgment that the honourable senator has madeI think I should take the opportunity to read the statements in question. At the time when the statements were made I did not see any variation in the generality of the issue. For that reason I ask the honourable senator to put the question on notice and I will get a considered reply for him. From any comment thatI have heard or from my own knowledge there is not, to my mind, any inconsistency in the views expressed by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Defence.

page 530

QUESTION

VISIT OF RUSSIAN PROFESSOR

Senator McMANUS:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. What are the circumstances behind the visit to Australia of. Mr B. Gafurov of the Soviet Union? Is it correct that Mr Gafurov is not, as is alleged in some circles, a professor and that his only known publication is one book on colonialism? What action does the Government take to ensure that exchanges of academics with the Soviet Union are bona fide?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have some information concerning

Professor Gafurov which may answer some of the points raised. If it does not cover all that the honourable senator requires I shall be pleased to obtain further information for him. Professor Gafurov is an historian and is Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies at the Academy of Sciences of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He was invited by the Australian National University in May 1969 to consider making a short visit to discuss an exchange of scholars to the mutual benefit of both institutions. Exchange visits of this nature may be approved under long standing government policy subject to satisfactory sponsorship where necessary. Other Western countries also favour exchanges of this nature.

The Professor applied to the Australian Embassy in Moscow last month for a 14-day visit visa in response to the invitation from the Australian National University. The application was the subject of normal careful examination, including consultation with other interested departments, and with particular regard to security considerations. A visa for a 14-day visit was granted to enable the discussions at the Australian National University on which the University’s invitation was based. I will be pleased to get further information concerning the honourable senators question.

Senator McManus:

– The Government says that he is -a professor?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I gather so from the note that I have here.

page 531

QUESTION

DROUGHT

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the serious drought position which once again exists in many parts of Queensland, particularly western Queensland, due to the non-arrival of the normal wet season, and in view of the serious financial position faced by most people both in the towns and on the land as a result of years of drought, will the Prime Minister consider as a matter of extreme urgency the latest request from the Premier of Queensland for Commonwealth assistance?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Commonwealth Government is well aware v( »he effects of the prolonged drought in Queensland and is already providing substantial assistance to that State. Requests for assistance in such circumstances are always dealt with as quickly as possible, and I can assure the honourable senator that the recent proposals submitted by the Premier of Queensland - as the honourable senator will appreciate, these will require detailed examination and careful consideration - are being treated as most urgent in the circumstances.

page 531

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Housing, relates to the War Service Homes Division. Does the Minister recall that in the 1967-68 Budget Papers the then Federal Treasurer, when commenting upon the amount allocated in that financial year for war service homes loans said, amongst other things: ‘We shall seek additional funds if the amount now being provided proves insufficient’? Is that still the present Government’s policy? If so, has the Minister made application to the Treasury for additional funds to meet in this financial year applications for loans which have been frozen or at least put into cold storage until the next financial year? What has been the outcome of any such application?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– Yes, I recall the words quoted by the honourable senator from the 1967-68 Budget Papers, concerning the allocation for war service homes. I remind him that, if my memory serves me correctly - I am sure that it does - no similar statement was made in the last Budget Papers.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Has the policy changed?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– May I just continue answering the honourable senator’s question? I remind him that we increased the allocation by $5m in the last Budget. I also inform him and the Senate that even with the increase the allocation has not been sufficient to meet the applications, which have been greater than estimated.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked whether the matter has received further consideration. I answer him by saying that it has received further consideration,I also inform him, as I did at question time during our last sitting, that there is only one area of loans in which there is a waiting time - that is, loans for the purchase of existing homes - and the deferment is 2 months added on to the normal processing time of 4 months. I want to inform him again, as I did then, that this means a short delay, but we should remember that these are very generous loans, especially when one realises that they are made at3¾% interest and over a period of 45 years.

page 532

QUESTION

MEAT EXPORTS

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry a question. Is any of the Australian meat exported to Canada and later re-exported to the United States of America taken into account as part of the Australian quota of meat allowed to be exported direct to the United States of America?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Under United States meat import laws total arrivals of fresh, chilled and frozen meat in 1970 are limited to about 1,061 million lb from all countries. Within that figure the allowance for meat from Australia is something like 527 million lb. All of the Australian allocation will be taken up by meat that is shipped direct from Australia to America.

page 532

QUESTION

OIL DRILLING ON GREAT BARRIER REEF

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer him to the proposed royal commission to inquire into oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef which was announced in the Governor-General’s Speech. Can he explain the delay in the appointment of the commission? Will he tell the Senate who is responsible for the delay and whether it stems from a disagreement with the Queensland Government over the composition of the commission?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not aware of the circumstances of the delay.I will seek some information on the matter and make it available to the honourable senator and the Senate as and when I obtain it.

page 532

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My questionis directed to the Minister for Air. Is it a fact that the Minister for Labour and National Service took part in a debate in Hobart recently? Did the Minister fly to Hobart in a VIP aircraft? If so, does the Minister regard such an occasion as warranting the use of a VIP aircraft and is it Government policy that VIP aircraft can continue to be used for such purposes?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

-I do not know whether or not the Minister for Labour and National Service took part in a debate in Hobart. I would have to check whether the Minister made application for the use of a VIP aircraft. I suggest that the honourable senator put his question on notice.I will supply an answer later on.

page 532

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister for Civil Aviation know of any New South Wales country aerodrome previously under joint Department of Civil Aviation and council control that now has reverted to complete local authority control?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I should be grateful to the honourable senator if he would put that question on the notice paper. I do not know of any such aerodrome. I will try to obtain an answer for the honourable senator. The question, in its present form, seems to me to be rather hard to answer. I think that the honourable senator meant the 50% maintenance basis provided for in the present proposals.

page 532

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has President Nixon issued an order to American forces in Vietnam that the United States command is to offer no infantry support in the Vietnam conflict but is to supply only air and artillery support? Therefore, do the Australians and the South Vietnamese supply the only infantry support in this war? If the American command has received such orders, will the Australian Government order the Australian troops to be employed similarly?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have no idea and I am sure that nobody would have any idea of what would be a tactical decision In the field regarding the deployment of troops. The question, in the form in which it is presented, seems to me to be completely unreal. I suggest that the question be put on notice.

page 533

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is direc ted to the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation. Does the Government intend to implement the decision of the Senate in respect of an investigation into repatriation matters, including a recommendation that free hospitalisation should apply to veterans of the Boer War and of the First World War and resolutions which closely follow the current Returned Services League campaign?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– That is a matter of policy. I suggest that the honourable senator place his question on notice. I will obtain an answer from the Minister for Repatriation.

page 533

QUESTION

RADIO STATIONS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is the Minister aware that, because of amendments made to the Federal Copyright Act last year, as from 1st May next recording companies will have the right to demandfrom radio stations cash payments of royalties for the right to spin records on air and that as from 1st May an agreement providing record companies with compensation in the form of publicity for discs played on radio will terminate? Is it a fact that commercial radio stations say that they will not make cash payments and that the President of the Federation of Australian Commercial Broadcasters has said that no agreement now seems possible between the stations and the record companies? Is it a fact that commercial broadcasting stations plan to drop all Australian and English discs from their programmes as from 1st May and to play only American records? Will such a ban have a crippling effect on Australian composers and musicians? Will the Government immediately intervene between the two warring parties to protect the Australian performers and the public in this matter which is of far reaching importance?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I could not give the honourable senator an answer to his question, but I appreciate the points that he raised. I will take them up with the Postmaster-General and obtain an answer as quickly as I can.

page 533

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator McMANUS:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science seen statements, firstly from Dr J. F. Cairns and, secondly, from a person who claims to be organising a moratorium in the Australian Capital Territory in May, calling on schools to participate in a strike to be held at that time? Will the Minister inform me who has authority over the children - their parents and teachers or Dr Cairns and the organisers of the moratorium?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I regret to inform the honourable senator that I have not seen the statements to which he has referred. I may claim the excuse that I returned to Canberra only this morning after a short visit overseas. As to the question regarding the incitement of school children to strike, when they are attendant at school they are under the jurisdiction of the schools, and when they are at home they should be under the authority of their parents.

page 533

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Reserve Bank of Australia has now advised private trading banks that the announced rise in bank interest rates is not now to be applied to the accounts of rural primary producers? Is it correct that the end of a calendar month occurred between the date of the approval of the rise in interest rates and the date of the direction not to apply the rise to primary producers? Is it not likely that the increased rates were applied to all categories of account as at the end of that calendar month? Will the Treasurer obtain an assurance from the major trading banks that the action of increasing interest rates, which may have applied to primary producers, has now been reversed?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The answer to the first part of the question asked by the honourable senator is yes, an instruction has been issued through the Reserve Bank concerning differential rates for primary industry. I think that the part of the question concerning the application of the rates and the various refinements of the application to which the honourable senator referred should be placed on the notice paper and I will get a considered reply from the Treasurer.

page 534

QUESTION

DRIED VINE FRUITS

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that dried vine fruit growers recently rejected the Commonwealth Government’s offer of a stabilisation plan for the industry? Was the referendum proposal defeated because growers had not supported the plan as vital issues concerning the previous plan had not been resolved? Is it a fact that growers were promised a cost of production figure which was to be arrived at from the proceeds of their dried vine fruits, but that when final payments were made to growers, profits from other activities were apparently included in thefinal returns? Is it also a fact that growers have been deprived of the benefits of a stabilisation scheme and. as a result, have lost millions of dollars? Will the Government examine and police all marketing expenses and reexamine the whole situation so that stability can be established in this very vital industry?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yes, it is a fact that dried vine fruit growers recently rejected a stabilisation scheme, but I do not think they rejected it on the grounds which the honourable senator has stated. However.I shall ask the Minister for Primary industry to have a look at the honourable senator’s question and to give me an answer whichI shall supply to the honourable senator at a later date.

page 534

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator WILLESEE:

– Has the attention of the Minister for Air been drawn to the fact that the American Senate permanent sub-committee on investigations, which is now investigating the F111, is examining the question whether in 1962-63 and in the early part of 1964 there were Government reports from engineers to the effect that the performances of this plane were nowhere near what they were claimed to be, that the performances were very much exaggerated? Can the Minister tell me whether this information was known to the government of the day or whether, in the course of its inquiries, this information was concealed from it?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I have seen the report of the remarks made at the American Senate Committee meeting to which the honourable senator referred. I think it should be recognised that the situation often occurs that an aircraft does not measure up to the specifications it had when it was on the drawing board.I do not agree with the remarks that the honourable senator has made butI suggest that he put his question on notice and I will obtain some information for him.

page 534

QUESTION

BUTTERWORTH AIR FORCE BASE

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Air acquaint the Senate of the authenticity of a report that the Australian Government will be required to pay rental to the Government of Malaysia for the use by the Royal Australian Air Force of the Butterworth base and its facilities? If so, has any reciprocal arrangement been made by the Australian Government to charge the Malaysian Government for the services of the manpower and material used at Butterworth?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– This matter is under negotiation at the present time and no doubt the Minister for Defence will be making a statement on it at a later date.

page 534

QUESTION

BANK INTEREST RATES

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the Government proposes to request the banks not to increase the interest on bank loans for borne buyers, which will be in line with the action taken affecting the interest paid on loans to rural producers?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am not aware of any details in that regard.I would need to seek information on this and I would ask the honourable senator to put that question on the notice paper.

page 534

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can theMinister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport advise the Parliament of the names of. the experts who supported the use of Gamlen oil spill remover in Torres Strait, and can he also inform the Parliament of the methods used in the areas around the pearl culture beds to remove oil that had leaked from the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It will be necessary for me to direct that question to the appropriate Minister to get an answer for the honourable senator.

page 535

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. Have a number of deformed babies been born in Vietnam in areas where Americans have used chemical defoliants? Have such chemical preparations been used by the Australian forces? Has the South Vietnam Health Minister obtained a report on the number of abnormal births in areas where defoliant chemicals were used? If so. will the Minister seek to obtain a copy of such report and make it available to honourable senators?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I will seek any information possible in answer to the honourable senator’s question.

page 535

QUESTION

F111 AIRCRAFT

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In view of the distinct possibility of the F111 contract being cancelled will the Minister assure the Senate that before any decision is made to purchase an alternative aircraft a proper investigation of all suitable aircraft types available on the world market will be made?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– As is known, the Minister for Defence is currently in Washington in the United States and amongst other things is having discussions in relation to the F111. It would be completely inappropriate for me to make a comment in advance of his return to Australia when no doubt he will make a full statement in relationto any matter that he has discussed there.

page 535

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I ask the Minister has he, as the Minister responsible for the policies pronounced by the Government in relation to the reequipping of domestic airlines, ever advocated or supported the principle of offset orders for Australian industry in respect of purchases being made by those airlines?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I would like to intercede to answer this question because I understand that the honourable senator directed an almost identical question to me several weeks ago. He also directed a similar question to Senator Cotton in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Senator Cotton has written to the honourable senator advising him that the matter has been referred to me for comment, but the honourable senator may not yet have received that letter. I am in the process of having a comment prepared for me by the Department. Some time ago Senator Bishop asked me whether I would make a comprehensive statement about the aircraft industry in Australia. At present I am examining a draft of that statement and I would hope to present it to the Senate, if not tomorrow then on Thursday.

Senator Poyser:

– Is it a ministerial statement?

Senator ANDERSON:

– Yes.

page 535

QUESTION

AGED PERSONS HOMES

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services whether inquiries can be made into the standards of accommodation provided as aged persons homes in various localities and the varying amounts of government subsidy as disclosed in the publication of grants approved for February 1970? Can the Minister explain why it costs $5,000to house an aged person at Auburn, New South Wales;$5,400 at Mackay, Queensland; $6,500 at Albury, New South Wales; $7,000 at Kirrawee, New South Wales; $9,000 at Canberra; and $12,900 at Port Augusta, South Australia?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– A great deal of detail will be required to answer the honourable senator’s question. I ask him to place his question on the notice paper and I will get those details for him.

page 535

QUESTION

DRUG EVALUATION

Senator WEBSTER:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health been directed to the fact that American health authorities consider that certain drugs, commonly known in Australia as ‘The Pill’, are considered so likely to damage health that manufacturers of such products must now include with them a 700- word leaflet warning of the risks to health? Why has this action not beentaken by Australian authorities?In what way can the Minister assure the Senate that drugs available to the Australian public are properly evaluated by the Commonwealth Drug Evaluation Committee and are not evaluated by trial on the Australian public?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I have seen the Press report to which the honourable senator has referred. I will take up with the Minister for Health the honourable senator’s questions concerning the evaluation of drugs and get a reply for him.

page 536

QUESTION

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator KENNELLY:

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate give honourable senators any idea when answers will be given to questions that have been placed on the notice paper? Some questions have been on the notice paper since 1st March and even allowing for the answers to questions on notice that are to be provided tonight, advice of which has been circulated, about 103 questions on notice remain to be answered. Is it only wasting time to ask for information in this way, or does the Minister intend at least to remember that he has been away from Parliament for a fortnight, including the Easter holidays? In those circumstances one would have expected more answers to questions on notice than are to be given tonight. I ask the Minister what he intends to do.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked about the response to questions placed on the notice paper. I have in front of me advice as to answers to such questions that are to be furnished tonight. I assume that honourable senators have received this advice, which shows that answers to about 40 questions on notice will be given tonight.

Senator Poke:

– He excluded those questions. There are still 103.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Am I answering the question or are you? If you want to answer it, you may do so.

page 536

QUESTION

SOFTWOODS

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister rep resenting the Minister for National Development inform the Senate whether the Commonwealth and State Softwood

Forestry Agreement of 1967, which terminates on 30th June 1971, will be extended for a further period? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, what is the likely period of the extension of the Agreement?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It would not be proper for me to answer the question without referring it to the Minister for National Development. However, I think it would be a proper assumption on my part to say that I am sure that the time will be extended, but for what period I do not know. I am quite positive that there will be an extension of time, but I shall find out the details for the honourable senator and let him know.

page 536

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Since the farmers’ historic marches in Melbourne and Perth which drew attention to their plight and achieved the result that they are to have concessions in interest rates on their overdrafts and concessions in estate duties, will the Minister consider granting similar concessions to home builders who will be asked to pay the increased interest rates currently being prepared by the banking institutions of this country?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– In a moment when I showed perhaps a lack of restraint I did not complete my answer to Senator Kennelly. I do not want to appear to be discourteous to the honourable senator. In addition to questions on notice being answered today there are others which, although not on the notice paper, are being answered. Every effort will be made to supply many answers this week.

Senator Hendrickson:

– The Minister wanted to be discourteous to me only, is that it?

Senator ANDERSON:

– When it comes to questions in this place, if one lives by the sword one perishes by the sword. Senator O’Byrne’s question suggested that because of a march by farmers in Victoria the Government has done 2 things: Firstly, it has decided on a differential rate of interest for farmers and, secondly, it has given special concessions in relation to interest on estate duties. It is my recollection that interest on estate duties was mentioned in the policy speech, which was a. fair time ago, and that interest rates have been dealt with in this place. Senator Webster asked a whole series of questions long before the march took place and I gave an assurance that the matter was being considered by the Government.I think that disposes quite conclusively of any suggestion that the problems of the rural industries have been dealt with specially because of a very orderly march by farmers in Melbourne. This is not to suggest that the rural industries in Australia do not have particular problems - they have. No-one would be silly enough to suggest that they do not have problems.

As Senator McManus said in the debate on the Address-in-Reply, the problems of the rural industries exist not only in Australia but also in every other free country. Coming now to the ultimate part of Senator O’Byrne’s question, he has suggested that because of some spirited action by farmers in Melbourne, those who are involved with interest rates on housing loans should do the same thing and may achieve the same result. I have demonstrated that the result in relation to farmers had nothing to do with the march.

page 537

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

page 537

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– I shall certainly refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Social Services. The Minister will, of course, decide what comments he will make.

page 537

WAR SERVICE HOMES

page 538

JAM

page 538

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– I think I have really answered this question previously in a variety of ways. I just want to say again that there is a slight delay in the existing-

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The honourable senator has had his go: this is mine. There is a slight delay of from 6 to 8 weeks in the processing of applications for loans for existing homes, but those eligible for war service homes assistance are in a much better position than other members of the community to become home owners because the war service homes loan of $8,000, repayable over 45 years at 3¾% is, I believe, the very best loan that any person can get. It is, indeed, a very fitting thing that our exservice people should receive the benefit of that very favourable loan.

page 538

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– I think the honourable senator’s question is entirely offensive both to me and those people who serve their country. I have given the answer to this question on more than one occasion. As I said earlier, I believe it is very right and proper that ex-service people should receive the benefit of the war service homes loan of $8,000 repayable over 45 years at 3¾%. There is no better loan in Australia. Although we bad an added allocation in the last budget, because of the increased number of applications there will be a slight increase of 6 to 8 weeks in the processing of applications for loans for existing dwellings. I have informed the Senate of this.I again sayI believe that the benefit of this loan to ex-service people is of such value to them that it is right and proper that they should benefit from it.

page 539

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

-I have already informed the Senate that the only delay - a slight delay of 6 to 8 weeks - is in respect of applications for the purchase of existing homes.I think I surely made that clear to Senator McClelland. We believe that the present area of delay is the area in which a delay, if any, should occur because it causes least hardship to ex-service personnel requiring homes.

page 539

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– May I say first of all that Senator Cavanagh’s memory must be very short when he speaks of an unprecedented delay of 2 months. When I became Minister for Housing there was a delay in the provision of war service home loans. Since I have been Minister for Housing there has been no such delay.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– There was a delay. I suggest to newcomers to the Senate that if they look back over the records they will learn that there were lengthy delays which we all regretted and worked hard to eliminate. I certainly cross swords with Senator Cavanagh when he speaks of an unprecedented delay.

page 539

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator Dane ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · QUEENSLAND · LP

-I have already told Senator McClelland that there is only one area in which there is delay, and that is in relation to a loan for an existing home. There is no delay beyond the normal processing period in the granting of other loans.

page 539

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:
VICTORIA

-I rise to order, Mr Deputy President. I refer you to the instructions contained in standing order 99 - rules for questions - relating to the use of ironical expressions. Senator Cavanagh is introducing them constantly into his questions.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

-I was about to answer the question. I can assure Senator Cavanagh that at all timesI will do my utmost to give to every ex-serviceman returning to this country after service the best possible benefits.

page 540

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 1)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

What are the names of Australian citizens who have either had their passports refused or confiscated since1950 and what were the circumstances of each case.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

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

Applications for passports are confidential between the applicants and the Department and it is not considered appropriate that names, or circumstances of refusal, be disclosed.

page 540

COMMONWEALTH LITERARY FUND

(Question No. 14)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What has been the result of the consideration and discussion by the Commonwealth Literary Fund of a proposed expansion of the Fund’s activities and a proposal by Senator McClelland that grunts be made available to Australian writersto enable them to spend some time in Asia.

Senator ANDERSON- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Fund has expanded its activities by increasing the number of Fellowships awarded. This year 16 Fellowships were awarded and the allocation to the Fund increased from $110,000 to $147,000.

There are no special travelling fellowships. However, if a Fellowship holder decides to travel during the tenure of his Fellowship in search of material for a book, the money from the Fellowship may be used for this purpose. In fact, there have been Fellowships where the major portion of the award has been used for travel for research, i.e. Cyril Pearl, who went to Japan and China for background for ‘Morrison of Peking’; Gavin Souter, who went to Paraguay to interview descendants of the Lane colonists; and Elizabeth Salter, who not only has travelled widely in Australia but also in England and Ireland seeking information for her biography of Daisy Bates. The Fund is always prepared to consider on their merits applications for Fellowships which may involve travel. Recently the Department of External Affairs arranged for a group of Australian writers to visit Asia. Five Australian writers and scholars participated in a seminar on Australian and Indian literature held in New Delhi in January. These included Professor Leonie Kramer, Miss Judith Wright, Professor James McAuley, Professor G. H. Russell and Mr Rodney Hall. After the Seminar the Australian participants separated and visited different parts of India to deliver lectures and take part in discussion on Australian literature in universities in some of the main Indian cities.

page 540

ABORIGINAL WELFARE

(Question No. 39)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

How much of the total allocation for Aboriginal welfare for the year 1968-69, remained unspent as at 30th June 1969.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs has furnished the following reply:

$1,341,479.

page 540

SEARCH AND RESCUE

(Question No. 100)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

Why were RAAF aircraft not used during a recent search, lasting several days, for a man lost in wild country near Derby, in Western Australia.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Police Department in each State is responsible for organising searches for lost hikers and other persons in similar distress. If the occasion demands, Royal Australian Air Force assistance is sought. There was no request in this case for Royal Australian Air Force assistance.

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Air, upon notice:

  1. How many major sections of the F111 are fabricated with D6 AC steel.
  2. Will planes fabricated with this type of steel stand up to the stresses caused by Australian flying conditions.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. Many individual parts in the F111C aircraft are fabricated with D6 AC steel. Those parts are used in a variety of sections. The RAAF considers that there are thirteen sections in the aircraft which would be regarded as major.
  2. Aircraft operating in Australian flying conditions are not subjected to stresses that are any greater in an the stresses induced in the same aircraft flying in other parts of the world.

page 540

F111 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 118)

page 540

LAOS

(Question No. 123)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Does the Australian Government support United States military policy in Laos.
  2. Are any Australiantroops or military or other service advisers stationed in Laos.

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for External Affairs has provided the following answer:

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. How many persons have been refused admission to Australia from countries in Asia on the basis that they have children in their care who are minors.
  2. Do a number of these persons have other children who are not only resident in Australia, but, indeed, are naturalised Australians, and does this policy discriminate against certain people, in that those who have no children can be admitted to Australia, but those with children who are minors are refused admission.
  3. Will the Minister review this anomalous situation.

page 541

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 125)

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question: (1), (2) and (3) The Government decided in 1956 that non-European aged parents of residents of Australia should be eligible for admission to Australia for residence if the parents had no dependent children residing with them.

The intention was to allow reunion of aged parents with their sons or daughters residing in Australia in cases where the parents would otherwise be left alone overseas. It was not intended that the entry to Australia of one member of a family should necessarily entitle that person’s parents, brothers and sisters to settle here.

The stipulation that there should be no dependent children residing with the parents has however been waived when strong compassionate grounds have justified this, and applications will continue to be considered on their merits.

Statistics of refusals have not been maintained.

page 541

CYCLONE ‘ADA

(Question No. 133)

Senator GEORGES:

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

  1. Did the great damage caused by Cyclone Ada’ in the Proserpine-SouthHarbour area of Queensland leave many people homeless and exposed to the elements for several days; if so, why was Army relief suddenly withdrawn from the area, in spite of the fact that the people of Cannon Vale and Airlie Beach were still isolated and in great need.
  2. Who gave the order forthe withdrawal of Army relief.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Army assistance to civil authorities in an emergency is given at the request of the appropriate State authority. In the case of ‘Cyclone Ada’ relief assistance, in terms of teroporary shelter, food, labour, transport, medical and emergency services, was made available on request. One soldier lost his life in the crossing of a flooded river during the progress of a relief convoy to the stricken area.

The relief convoy was. dispatched without delay and on arrival set about providing rescue and relief services. This assistance was provided wherever it was requested and in the quantities and type required. It was some days before the situation was brought under control and the appropriate Stale authorities no longer required Army assistance. Airlie Beach was one area that required some special assistance and troops and equipment remained in that area for some 10 extra days.

The troops were withdrawn only after their allotted tasks had been completed and the remaining tasks were well within the capability of Slate relief organisations.

  1. When Army assistance was no longer required clearance for withdrawal of the Army relief was given by the local State emergency committee representative.

The Army has always been ready to assist civil authorities in civil emergencies and it has a proven record in such cases. However, it is the appropriate State authority, and not the Army, which has the responsibility for deciding what type of assistance is necessary in the particular circumstances.

page 541

VIETNAM

(Question No. 172)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. What is the total number of persons wounded in action in Vietnam since Australia became involved in the war.
  2. How many of such wounded have been accidentally wounded or injured, and how many were national servicemen.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

At 20th March 1970 Australian Army non-fatal battle casualties, totalled 1882 of which 808 were national servicemen. One hundred and thirty-six of these non-fatal battle casualties were wounded or injured accidentally.

page 542

FUNERAL EXPENSES

(Question No. 173)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer examine the possibility of allowing the full amount of funeral expenses as a tax deduction in the case of any deceased dependant of a taxpayer.

Senator ANDERSON- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is the practice of the Government to examine the many requests that are made for taxation concessions when it is preparing the annual Budget. The representation made by the honourable Senator has therefore been noted for consideration when the 1970-71 Budget is being prepared.

page 542

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 174)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Why has Mr A. J. Vorstman of 8 Pandora Street,Boondall, Queensland, been refused naturalisation.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

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

Mr Vorstman’s application has been carefully considered on previous occasions but it has been decided that Australian citizenship by naturalisation should not be granted to him.

It is a longstanding rule to disclose the reason for the deferment or refusal of an application for citizenship only where the applicant is unable to show that he has an adequate knowledge of the English language or of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship, or where he is unable to comply with the residential requirements of the Citizenship Act.

As Mr Vorstman’s case does not come within these categories the grounds on which his application for citizenship has been refused cannot be disclosed.

page 542

VIETNAM

(Question No. 178)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. How many Australian servicemen have been killed in Vietnam. In action and accidentally, since Australia became involved in the war.
  2. How many of those who lost their lives were national servicemen.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

At 20th March 1970 Australian Army fatal casualties in Vietnam were:

Battle casualties 356

Non-battle casualties 28.

National servicemen 165.

NOTE - These figures exclude 3 national servicemen and 7 regular members who died of illness.

page 542

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 3)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Has the Minister read the Press reports of the trial arising from a robbery at Pruniers Restaurant, Double Bay, Sydney.
  2. Has the Minister read the Judge’s comment on Miss Anne Marie Bondy, whom he described as a James Bond character.
  3. Can the Minister inform the Senate if Miss Bondy, who is now in Tel Aviv, is in possession of an Australian or an Israeli passport
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. An Australian passport was issued on 10th January 1967 to an Anne Marie Bondy who is recorded as having left Australia on 27lh June 1969.

page 542

UNION BALLOT

(Question No. 9)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. In the recent ballot to elect officers for the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Workers’ Union, conducted under the provisions of Section 170 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, did the New South Wales Electoral Officer refuse to permit a recount in the ballot for the position of New South Wales President.
  2. Was such a decision based on the margin between the two candidates concerned, or does no provision exist for a recount in ballots conducted under Section 170 of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act.
  3. Arising from this ballot, does the New South Wales Electoral Officer feel that procedures should be changed in the light of criticism voiced at the recent Australian Workers’ Union National Convention.

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

  1. Yes. (2)I am informed the decision was based on the margin between the two candidates concerned.
  2. The Electoral Officer was not precluded from ordering a recount. Decisions in matters of this nature are for the officer conducting the ballot under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I have every confidence in the manner in which these ballots are conducted.

page 543

PUBLIC SERVICE

(Question No. 15)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Prime Minister state, on 4th March 1969, that he had asked the Commonwealth Public Service Board to consider whether it should notify all officers of the Public Service that its practice is that, even when an officer is under notice of dismissal, the Board would accept the officer’s resignation, should it be tendered.
  2. Has the Public Service Board so notified Commonwealth public servants; if not, why has notification not been given.

Senator ANDERSON- The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer:

  1. Yes; see House of Representatives Hansard page 318, 4th March 1969.
  2. I am informed by the Public Service Board that it is in consultation with the AttorneyGeneral’s Department with a view to the clarification of the Board’s General Orders which deal with the resignation of officers of the Commonwealth Service. When this work has been completed revised General Orders will be promulgated.

page 543

ARMY

(Question No. 84)

Senator POYSER:

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

  1. Has the Minister seen allegations, published in the December issue of a publication called Resist, which state that:

    1. Conscripts at Canungra Training Camp are told categorically that no prisoners are to be taken during action in Vietnam, and that if the enemy arc wounded they should be shot; and
    2. Some conscripts at this camp have deliberately wounded themselves so that they can be discharged as psychologically unfit.

  2. Has the Minister investigated these allegations; if so, what were the findings of the investigations.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The allegations have been investigated but there is no evidence that students at the Jungle Training Centre have been instructed to shoot prisoners. All instruction on the handling of prisoners is based on the Geneva Conventions and programmed periods are set aside for this very purpose.

There is no record of any national serviceman deliberately wounding himself for any reason, at the Jungle Training Centre.

page 543

PINE FORESTS

(Question No. 98)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

  1. Will the Minister provide an early reply to my letter of 27th January 1970, in which I asked if the Wildlife Research Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation can confirm or deny a recent assertion in the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’ that, with the vast expansion of pine forest plantation, these areas have been deserted by Australian Capital Territory bird life.
  2. Has the CSIRO also checked the reaction of wombats to pine forests as their habitat.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has supplied the following answer:

  1. A letter dated 11th March 1970, has been forwarded to Senator Mulvihill by the Minister for Education and Science.
  2. No.

page 543

DOGS

(Question No. 108)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

How many dogs were imported from Britain and Ireland in each of the ‘3 years prior to the imposition of the import ban on such dogs?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

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

The number of dogs imported from Britain and Ireland during each of the three years prior to the ban being imposed was:

page 544

PEST STRIPS

(Question No. 113)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a recent warning by Professor Goran Lofroth of Stockholm University, supported by Dr S. V. Boyden, of the Biology Department at the John Curtin School of Medical Research, and the authoritative British Journal ‘New Scientist’, that pest strips similar to some on sale throughout Australia are a serious danger to humans, as they give off a high level of the nerve gas DDVP?
  2. Will the Minister take whatever action is necessary to protect the health of the community?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

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

  1. yes.
  2. Appropriate action has been taken by referring the matter to the National Health and Medical Research Council which is undertaking a review of all toxicological information available on the use of DDVP pest strips.
Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Are the cease-fire negotiations between South Vietnam and the United States, on the one hand, and the Viet Cong and North Vietnam, on the other, still continuing; if so, is it a fact that the talks have made no progress.
  2. Is the prolongation of the talks, despite United States willingness to withdraw if the North Vietnamese will desist from aggression, due to North Vietnamese unwillingness to do so; if so, is the current tactic of the North Vietnamese and their apologists and supporters directed towards weakening the resolution of the United States, Australia and other allies to maintainthe security of the South Vietnamese Government.
  3. Is it the Australian Government’s view that it would be deserting the South Vietnamese when they are not secured from North Vietnamese and Viet Cong aggression if Australia at the present time were to withdraw from Vietnam.

Senator ANDERSON- The Minister for External Affairs has provided the following answer:

  1. The expanded talks on Vietnam are continuing in Paris between representatives of the Republic of Vietnam and the United States of America on the one side, and representatives of the communist side in the Vietnam conflict on the other. These talks relate to all aspects of a settlement in Vietnam, and are not limited to the possibility of a cease-fire. There have now been fifty-eight plenary sessions of the expanded talks (upto the session on 12th March 1970). No progress has been made so far.
  2. The lack of progress in the talks is the result of the communists’ refusal to enter into serious negotiations. They have refused to discuss the reasonable and constructive proposals put forward by President Nixon on 14th May1969, and by President Thieu on 11th July 1969, despite the fact that the Allied side has made clear that all aspects of those proposals and any other proposals put forward are negotiable, with the single exception of thefundamental right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future. Instead, the communist side has continued to demand that the Allies accept unconditionally their own proposals, the chief elements of which are the unilateral withdrawal of all Allied forces and the replacement of the present Government of the Republic of Vietnam by a so-called provisional coalition government’. There are indications that the Communists, in maintaining their intransigence, hope for a progressive weakening in Allied resolution, which will leave the way open for them to achieve their own maximum objectives.
  3. The policy of the Australian Government on the withdrawal of Australian forces was set out bythe Prime Minister on 16th December 1969.

page 544

VIETNAM

(Question No. 114)

page 544

SALES TAX

(Question No. 120)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer give consideration to amending the appropriate legislation to provide for sales tax exemptions for blind persons in gainful employment who, because of their disability, are unable to use public transport and are driven daily to and from their places of employment by a relative or friend.

Senator ANDERSON- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is the Government’s practice to examine the many requests that have been made for taxation concessions when it is preparing the annual Budget. The request by the honourable senator has accordingly been noted for consideration when the 1970-71 Budget is being prepared.

page 544

SUPERANNUATION

(Question No. 137)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Will the Government make a statement as soon as possible as to the principles upon which it is intended the portability of superannuation rights will operate.

Senator ANDERSON - The Prime Minister has provided the following answer:

See my statement of 25th September 1969 on the preservation of superannuation rights (Hansard, pages 1462-1464).

page 545

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 145)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. What are the educational and physical entry qualifications for an electrical officer by (a) Junior entry, and (b) S.D. entry.
  2. Why is there a difference relating to the wearing of spectacles.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Educational Qualifications -

Junior Entry Royal Australian Naval College - Pass a qualifying examination in Maths and English. The standard of the examination will be such so as to give an indication ofthe capability of the candidate to qualify for Matriculation to the University of New South Wales within 2 years of entry to the Naval College.

Senior Entry RANC- Complete Matriculation.

Direct Entry - Engineering Undergraduates or Diplomates.

S.D. Entry- Services General Certificate of Education in four subjects, English and two subjects from Maths 1, Maths II and Physics compulsory (Victorian Leaving standard).

Physical Qualifications -

Junior and Senior Entry to RANC and Direct Entry - All candidates are to be capable of carrying out duties of naval officers in all climates and geographical situations and under all vicissitudes of the Service. He must have no history of illness or disability which will prevent him from undergoing hard physical exertion, eating a normal balanced diet without choosing his own food and be able to keep up with other healthy men of good physique. Standard 1 hearing is required to take into account deterioration of hearing which may come about due to exposure to noise and other factors.

S.D. Entry - As for junior entry but in the case of an SD Officer’s hearing, due allowance is made for his experience, age and exposure to noise.

  1. There is no difference between the two entries relating to the wearing of spectacles. Both are permitted to wear spectacles for distance and reading at all times.

page 545

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 147)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. What are the conditions governing week-end duty in the Royal Australian Navy.
  2. Is it a fact that in the Army and the Royal Australian Air Force time off is granted in lieu of week-end duty.
  3. Why can this privilege not be extendedto Naval personnel.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Short Leave is arranged on the principle of giving officers and sailors the maximum amount of leave which can be granted without affecting the efficiency of the ship or establishment.
  2. The Army give a day’s leave to those employed on duty on Sundays only. The RAAF grant one day’s leave to those members on duty on either Saturday or Sundays.
  3. The privilege in (2) above cannot be given to Naval personnel because they are required to be available for duty at all times.

However, in recognition of this requirement, Naval personnel are given basic leave of 4 weeks per year for shore service and 6 weeks for seagoing service. RAAF and Army personnel have a basic leave entitlement of 3 weeks per year.

page 545

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 151)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

What temporary married accommodation exists at HMAS ‘Cerberus’ for senior sailors and ratings undergoing courses.

Senator DRAKE BROCKMAN - The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There is no temporary married accommodation in HMAS ‘Cerberus’.

page 545

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 156)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. What facilities exist at Naval depots for the training of ratings in NBCD specifically relating to aircraft.
  2. Is it a fact that a detailed proposal to provide the facility at HMAS ‘Albatross’ was not even acknowledged by senior naval officers.
  3. How would the Naval Board compare the facilities existing at HMAS ‘Penguin’ for NBCD training with those at overseas depots; and what steps are being taken to up-grade these facilities.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No practical facilities exist for the training of sailors in decontamination of aircraft but facilities are providedfor practical firefighting training in aircraft at ‘Albatross’ where old aircraft are provided for the purpose. Current regulations require that the theory of decontamination of aircraft be taught to Fleet Air Arm sailors but this requirement is under review.
  2. Naval Staff Officers at Navy Office are not aware of any detailed proposal to provide facilities for the training of ratings in NBCD specifically relating to aircraft.
  3. The Naval Board continually evaluates the standards required in NBCD training and the equipments and facilities necessary to meet the training standard. Examination of overseas methods of instruction and facilities is periodically carried out and, after due regard to the assessed requirement of the RAN and its envisaged operating area, alterations to training syllabuses are made if considered necessary.

The design and erection of new facilities and buildings to meet the training requirements is often a prolonged task requiring the efforts ofa number of Commonwealth Departments and also must take account of all requirements of the establishments inwhich they are to be located.

page 546

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 158)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. “What steps are being taken to ensure that Naval courses are comparable to those ashore and thus recognised when a rating is paid off from the Service.
  2. Is the computer training course recognised as equivalent to the B.I.E.T. course.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Naval courses are designed to fit personnel for service in operational units. Where Commonwealth Departments set trade standards e.g. Department of Civil Aviation, it is practicable to compare standards and to adjust Naval syllabuses to equate with civil standards if this can be done without detriment to the Naval requirement. Where it is the prerogative of individual States to define civilian trade standards, the authorities concerned are provided with details of Naval course content and they identify the equivalent civilian acceptance, as appropriate. Sailors so recognised are entitled to appropriate documentation on leaving the Service. Artificers ex HMAS Nirimba (the Naval Apprentices Training Establishment), receive recognition by the State of New South Wales with whom training standards have been the subject of discussion.
  2. No. The digital computers used by the RAN are for specialised fighting equipment. Their relation to general purpose commercial computers is therefore extremely limited. Additionally, due to basic differences in logic of the various computers fitted in the RAN, successful detailed training can only be accomplished if personnel are limned to the one type of computer.

page 546

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 161)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

Is it a fact that Department of Agriculture officials in Western Australia, in answer to a query by sailors on HMAS Gascoyne, advised that the space allocated for twenty-seven sailors on this vessel was only suitable for accommodating two pigs and then only if the pigs were taken out for exercise.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am not aware of any advice given by Department of Agriculture officials in Western Australia to sailors. I am aware of the substandard conditions inHMAS Gascoyne which is being used as an accommodation ship at Williamstown Naval Dockyard and, as indicated ina reply to a previous question, it is planned to build a new barracksin the Williamstown area as soon as possible.

page 546

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 162)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

Will the recent decision by Mr Justice Gallagher in relation to a sea-going content for the overall salary paid to officers and rulings in the Australian Merchant Marine be carried throughto the Royal Australian Navy.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for the Navy has provided the fallowing answer to the. honourable senators question:

The question of the application of the Gallagher award to appropriate RAN categories is currently under consideration.

page 546

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 164)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

How many married ratings travel interstate from HMAS ‘Cerberus’ to see their wives and families each pay weekend because no arrangements have been made for accommodation.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There is no record kept of the destination of sailors on short leave, and I therefore regretI am unable to answer the question.

page 547

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 166)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

With a view to increasing morale in the Navy, will the Minister consider giving an incentive to serving ratings by instituting a suggestion box relating to conditions existing in the Service.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The

Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There are well established procedures in the Navy by which representations affecting welfare and conditions of service can be made through normal Service channels. There is also a suggestion scheme by which suggestions which lead to greater efficiency or monetary saving are rewarded wilh cash awards, if adopted.

page 547

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 167)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

Has the Minister given consideration to instituting a scheme similar to the Royal Navy with respect to bonuses for senior ratings who re-engage.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The

Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In January 1970 the Naval Board gave consideration to the payment of a re-engagement bonus and decided not to proceed with the proposal. The matter will be reviewed again in January 1971.

page 547

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 168)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

  1. What are the reasons for not having shortterm engagements in the Services.
  2. Over the past 3 years, how many senior ratings in the Royal Australian Navy joined the Royal Australian Air Force following completion of their initial engagement in the R.A.N.
  3. As an ex-officer of the R.A.N. can rejoin the Service from R.A.N.V.R. status, what steps are being considered for senior ratings to accept or be considered for 1 or 2 year appointment at specific depots.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The

Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Initial engagement periods in the RAN are for either 9, 10, H or 12 years. Apprentices and Junior Recruits must engage for 12 years. If the current periods of engagement were shortened, it is probable that there would be a marginal increase in the size of adult male intakes but this could be more than nullified by the shorter periods of effective service that we would get from our trained personnel and the resultant increase in costs and in the training load. Engagement periods are kept under constant review and, should it appear advantageous to shorten the engagement periods for some or all categories, the matter would be given careful consideration.

Recently approval was given for recruits to be given the option of discharge after a trial period should they find they are not happy wilh a Naval career.

  1. The number of senior sailors in the RAN who in the past 3 years have joined the Royal Australian Air Force following completion of their initial engagement is not known as no record is kept of the subsequent employment of ex-sailors after discharge. However, the RAAF state that very few ex RAN sailors are enlisted in the Air Force.
  2. Senior sailors who do not wish to re-engage in the Permanent Naval Forces may apply for full-time service for either one or two years in a PNF billet as a member of the Royal Australian Fleet Reserve. Their wishes as to where they will serve are taken into consideration and met wherever possible, but in order to preserve an equitable sea/shore service roster it is usually necessary for them to take their turn of sea-service when they reach the top of tie sea-roster.

page 547

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 169)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice: ls any choice available to ratings as to whether they wish to serve in a sea-going capacity or shore billet.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The

Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Choice of a shore billet in lieu of a sea billet is limited to a relatively few shore billets in HMAS Tarangau’ when such service in unaccompanied.

Choice of a sea billet in lieu of a shore billet is allowed in some ranks and categories where then are manning shortages.

page 548

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 170)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

Is it a fact that although two year drafts have been given to some senior ratings, they have been drafted again to sea-going duty after only 4 to 6 weeks, and often after incurring considerable expense, due to the critical state of manning in the service.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Rank structures and billets at sea and ashore are designed, as near as possible, to produce alternate turns of sea and shore service of 2 years. Current and recent manning levels together with the Fleet’s commitments have not allowed this situation to be achieved for all senior sailors.

In some categories the period of sea service has been extended to 3-3½ years with shore service being reduced to 1 year.

Postings to sea after shore service has commenced are only made after less than 12 months when sailors are volunteers to forego the balance of shore service. However, some sailors serving in certain billets ashore are required for temporary sea service from time to time e.g. members of the R.A.N. Trials and Assessing Units, Fleet Maintenance Parties, Base Staff at H.M.A.S. Waterhen’ and H.M.A.S. ‘Platypus’.

page 548

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY

(Question No. 171)

Senator WRIEDT:

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

Is it a fact that the introduction of group pay provisions has resulted in a complete alteration of the situation which existed under the provisions relating to trade tests and I.Q. tests which applied previously in the Navy.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The Minister for the Navy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The provisions relating to trade tests and I.Q. tests are designed to establish the suitability of sailors or recruits for particular types of training and have no bearing on a sailor’s emoluments. There has been no change in trade test or intellectual standards since the introduction of group pay.

page 548

F111 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 188)

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

asked the Minister for Air, upon notice:

What is the cost to date of (a) supplies, and (b) spare parts for the F111 aircraft which the Government has ordered.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The total of $A194.7m previously advised as being expended on stores and supplies for the F111 and for the purchase of the aircraft is detailed as follows:

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 5th March Senator Lillico asked me the following question without notice:

Is it not correct that there is in existence a treaty signed by North Vietnam not only guaranteeing the neutrality of Laos, but also agreeingto withdraw all North Vietnamese troops from that country? Who are the members of the commission, if there is one, that is charged with ensuring that the treaty is observed? What is the attitude of that commission regarding the unprovoked aggression of North Vietnam against Laos?

I said that, as the question related to the precise provisions of a treaty, it would be proper for me to obtain a considered reply from the Minister for External Affairs. The Minister has provided the following answer:

North Vietnam is one of thirteen signatories of the Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos, which entered into force on its signature in Geneva on 23rd July 1962. The parties declared that (paragraph 1)- they recognise and will respect and observe in every way the sovereignty, independence, neutrality, unity and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Laos.’

Under the Protocol to the Declaration, the same signatories agreed, inter alia, that (Article 2) -

All foreign regular and irregular troops, foreign paramilitary formations and foreign military personnel shall be withdrawn from Laos . . . ‘

The Protocol also provided that the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos, which had originally been established by the 1954 Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Laos, should supervise and control the cease-fire (Article 9) and the withdrawal of foreign regular and irregular troops, foreign paramilitary formations and foreign military personnel (Article 10). The Commission is composed of representatives of Canada, India, and Poland, with the representative of India as Chairman. Article 14 of the Protocol requires that decisions relating to violations of the more important Articles of the

Protocol and all recommendations by the Commission bo adopted unanimously. This requirement, and the consistent refusal of the Pathet Lao to grant the Commission access to territory under their control, have made it difficult for the Commission to discharge its mandate.

The Protocol also gives the Co-Chairman of the 1962 Conference, the Foreign . Ministers of Great Britain and the Soviet Union, the responsibility for circulating to the members of the Conference the reports and any other important information they receive from the Commission. I am not aware that the Commission has submitted any report on the situation arising from the current North Vietnamese aggression in Laos.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 5th March 1970 Senator Poyser asked me whether the Prime Minister had received any representations, from the Victorian Government or otherwise, seeking Commonwealth financial assistance for grape growers at Tresco in Victoria whose crops were damaged by a hail storm. The Prime Minister has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The hail storm to which the honourable Senator is presumably referring occurred early in January this year. No representations seeking Commonwealth financial assistance in respect of damage caused by this hail storm have been received.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 11th March, Senator Kennelly asked me the following question without notice:

I desire to ask a question of the leader of the Government in the Senate. My question follows the one asked of him by Senator Greenwood from Victoria. I ask the Minister whether he has had brought to his notice an article in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 6th March 1970 which refers to a speech purported to be made by Averell Hardman, the former chief United States delegate to the Paris peace talks, in which he said that the President of South Vietnam, President Thieu, had pulled the rug out from negotiations several times. As peace in Vietnam is very important to Australia because our troops are there, I wonder whether the Government has taken the trouble to see if the facts are as stated by this eminent United States peace negotiator.

I said that I would obtain a reply from the Department of External Affairs. The Minister for External Affairs has provided the following answer:

The Government is aware of the views reportedly expressed by Mr Hardman, in his personal capacity. The Government does not share those views.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On ll th March, Senator Murphy asked me the following question without notice:

Can the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs supply, for the information of the Senate, information as to when Australia was asked to become involved in Vietnam, from whom the request came, in what form the request was made and, if the request was in any written or printed form, whether a copy of it could be tabled in the Senate?

I said that I would attempt to obtain the information for which the honourable senator was asking. The Minister for External Affairs has provided the following answer:

The circumstances of the Government’s decisions to send to the Republic of Vietnam, at the invitation of the Government of that country, a group of Australian military instructors in 1962 and a combat force of an infantry battalion in 1963 were set out in statements made respectively on 24th May 1962, by the then Minister for Defence, Mr Athol Townley, and on 29th April, 1965, by the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies. The latter was made in the House of Representatives; the text of the statement issued by Mr Townley is as follows:

The Minister for Defence, the Hon. Athol Townley, announced today that at the invitation of the Government of the Republic of Vietnam, Australia was sending a group of military instructors lo that country.

Mr Townley said that there is today in Vietnam an urgent problem of communist infiltration and insurgency which is fomented, directed and supported from North Vietnam. Australia has already given some assistance to the Government of South Vietnam in meeting this threat by providing communications equipment, barbed wire and other materials for village defence, and has promised more aid of this nature.

The need has now emerged for military training assistance, particularly in the field of jungle warfare, in which Australian forces had particularly valuable experience. Up to some 30 Australian Army personnel will be sent to provide instruction in jungle warfare, village defence and other related activities such as engineering and signals. Colonel F. P. Serong, formerly Commandant of the Jungle Training Centre at Canungra, would shortly visit Saigon to ascertain on the spot the most effective way in which the Australian instructors could be fitted into the defensive measures against the communist activities.

Mr Townley emphasised that Australia was not providing combat forces, nor had she been asked by the Government of Vietnam to provide such forces. The role of the Australian Army Instructors would be to assist in the training of the people of Vietnam and so help them to defeat the Vietcong communists, whose aim is to take over that country by organised terrorism.

Mr Townley stated that if the Communists were to achieve their aims in Vietnam this would gravely affect the security of the whole South East Asian area and ultimately of Australia itself. The Australian Government’s response to the invitation to assist Vietnam, which is a Protocol State under the SEATO Treaty, was in accordance with Australia’s obligations under that Treaty.’

As to the tabling of the document or documents Involved, there is a well established principle in these matters that communications between Governments are confidential to the Governments concerned. The Government does not believe it is appropriate to depart from that principle in this case.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 17th March,

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

)- In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Royal Australian Air Force Base at Pearce, Western Australia.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

-(New South Wales Minister for Supply) - by leave - I wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) left Australia on 30th March to visit Vietnam and the United States. In Saigon he has had discussions with senior leaders of the South Vietnamese Government and with Vietnamese, United States and Australian officials and Service commanders. On 4th April Mr Fraser arrived in Washington to have discussions with the Secretary of Defence, Mr Laird, on aspects of the F111 projects and contract. Mr Fraser is expected to return to Australia on14th April and during his absence the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) is acting as Minister for Defence.

I also wish to inform the Senate that the Treasurer (Mr Bury) left Australia on 5th April for Korea and Japan. He will be attending the third annual meeting of the Board of Governors of the Asian Development Bank in Seoul and will also have discussions in Tokyo with the Japanese Minister of Finance. The Treasurer is expected to return to Australia on 18th April. During Mr Bury’s absence the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) will be acting as Treasurer.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) - by leave - I ask for leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard a statement on international affairs made in another place by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon). The statement has been circulated and honourable senators will be aware that the date of it is 19th March last. Then I intend to move that the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On the procedure?

SenatorWillesee - Is this the main statement?

Senator ANDERSON:

– This is the main statement on foreign affairs and in a moment 1 will move that the Senate take note of the statement. Rather than read it now, since it was delivered in the other place-

SenatorByrne - Was it not read in the Senate simultaneously with its reading in the other place?

Senator ANDERSON:

– No.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– Yes. It happened because of the problems that arose on that Thursday night, in the management of affairs with general business.

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia) - by leave - Statements on foreign affairs by the Minister for External Affairs are always regarded by this Parliament as extremely important. It has been the policy to have them read simultaneously in each House, as Senator Byrne has indicated. It was not done in this instance because of the arrangement of business and the fact that the Senate was to rise for a short recess. The Government does not make a practice of not having the statements read simultaneously in each House. If it did so, the Opposition would not agree with that practice. We are now confronted with the fact that this statement was read in the other place before Easter and has had wide publicity.I understand that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) is to make a short statement on Australia’s aid to Indonesia. I intend to move the adjournment of the debate so that both statements may be debated. On this occasion the Opposition does not object to incorporation in Hansard of the statement on foreign affairs made in the other place by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon). because we know that it is not the practice of the Government to follow this procedure.

Senator ANDERSON:

– I ask for leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) - The pro posal is that the statement be incorporated in Hansard. There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator ANDERSON:

– Honourable senators will understand that where the personal pronoun in the first person is used, it refers to the Minister for External Affairs. The statement reads: In this, my first speech to Parliament as Minister for External Affairs, I will not attempt a detailed round-up of world events. Instead I will try to describe some of the important movements in world affairs which an Australian Government must lake into account in developing its foreign policy. Profound changes are taking place in the Asian and Pacific region- it is here we live and where we can make our greatest contribution. The effect of these changes cannot all be predicted with certainty. Consequently, we must remain sensitively aware of their effects and always readyto make adjustments where necessary.

It is also the beginning of a new decade and a suitable time for us totake stock of what has been happening in the last few years of the 1960s and to assess it against the background of the broad objectives of Australian foreign policy. It cannot be repeated too often that the supreme objective of our foreign policy is to protect and enhance our security and other vital interests - political, economic and social. We must do this with the knowledge that our own welfare and security are inextricably bound up with the welfare and security of others. We must know precisely what the circumstances are, what dangers they present and what opportunities they offer, and in the context of such knowledge decide what we must do to solve our problems.

In describing the major trends I believe it is the responsibility of an Australian Foreign Minister to present them objectively and candidly to Parliament. I also believe that the people of Australia must be taken fully into the Government’s confidence about the problems which it faces in our international relations. I do not think these problems can be dealt with successfully unlessthe Australian people understand them and support the solutions which we propose. In foreign affairs candour is not always easy. Official confidences have to be respected and the feelings of our friends and allies have to be considered. The effect of our words on the public opinion of other countries also has to be weighed. Notwithstanding these limitations it is possible for the Government - indeed it is its duty - to speak frankly and to expose its policies to the fullest public debate.

In the years following the Second World War practically all of our neighbours have ceased to be dependencies and have attained full sovereignty as independent nations. Throughout these 25 years each of them has struggled to establish stable and efficient administrations, to maintain order and harmony within their territories and to raise the living standard of its peoples. By their own efforts and with economic and other help from friendly nations all of them have made significant progress. They have laid a solid basis on which, given favourable circumstances and the continuing cooperation of their economically more favoured friends, they might reasonably expect to make even more significant progress in the coming decade.

As we enter the 1970’s, however, we see a number of major trends which introduce important new factors which bear on future developments and which in some cases carry new strains and new problems for the region. The major trends in world affairs with which I propose to deal are: Communist policies; the reduction of British influence east of Suez aud in particular the withdrawal of British forces from Malaysia and Singapore; the dramatic growth of Japan with the promise this has for greatly increased influence in the world at large and in our own region in particular; and the comprehensive doctrine enunciated by President Nixon concerning the world role of the United States.

Senator Willesee:

– I. propose to move that the debate be adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator GEORGES (Queensland)- by leave - I am pleased to hear that the crown of thorns starfish is to be the subject of an investigation and that the Commonwealth and Stale governments intend to provide finance for this investigation and for action to control the starfish. However, I express some concern about the possibility of delay such as has occurred with the establishment of the royal commission to investigate the question of damage which might be caused to the Great Barrier Reef through drilling for oil. Although the royal commission was proposed quite some time ago in the Governor-General’s Speech, to this point no action has been taken to appoint this very important commission. The threat of damage to the Barrier Reef through drilling for oil has been the subject of much discussion in the Press and the need to remove the threat has received much support from the Australian public.

The crown of thorns starfish is a threat to the Reef which has been neglected for at least 4 years. The Queensland Government undertook a survey of the crown of thorns problem, but the results of the survey were kept secret and no action was taken about this threat until the starfish had reached the proportions of an epidemic. The Academy of Science undertook a survey, the report on which has been presented to the Parliament, but it was such a gloomy report that both the State and Federal governments appeared to adopt the attitude that the position was so completely out of hand that it was hopeless to try to do anything about it. Therefore it is very encouraging to see that the proposed committee is to be established. I hope and trust that the money provided for action to control the crown of thorns starfish will be substantial and that it will be of the order of the amount provided by the United States Government to combat this threat, that is, $5m.

Areas of the Reef have been devastated by the crown of thorns starfish. So far the Queensland Government has provided §22,000 only for the establishment of a research station at Mourilyan to investigate this problem. This is an area adjacent to the Reef which has already been devastated. 1 trust that the Federal Government will lake the initiative and see that the investigation is much more extensive and that the whole problem is treated with much greater urgency than in the past. If one were to look at the diagrams in the reports by the Australian Academy of Science one would see that very large areas have already been devastated by the crown of thorns. One views with suspicion the lack of interest on the part of some responsible men in Queensland, especially since some of them are involved in the development of an oil industry in the Barrier Reef area, lt has been stated with some support that the reason for the neglect in dealing with the crown of thorns is that the destruction of large areas of the Reef by the starfish will make it much easier to support exploitation of the Reef for minerals. I am not strongly in support of this explanation, but in view of the record of the Queensland Government over the past 4 years in connection with the preservation of the Reef one cannot blame people for making statements of this kind or for writing letters to the Press in this vein.

In announcing the establishment of the proposed committee the Government has not announced specifically the allocation to be made for this purpose. I trust that within a few days details of the plan will be announced. I do not think the Opposition intends to have this statement placed on the business paper for further debate but intends rather to expedite the establishment of this committee. This is the general impression that I have received. I trust that the Government will not be overimpressed by the report by the Australian Academy of Science which indicates that the only action that can be taken against the crown of thorns at this stage is a holding action. I have spoken to Dr Endean, a man who has taken a prominent part in the investigation of the crown of thorns, and he has stated that the reason for such a grim report was to stir the Government into action. He stated that even a harvesting of the crown of thorns on the Reef would be of some advantage. If this committee which is to be appointed is not suitably supported, if its work is not expedited and if the Government is not prepared to take immediate action we may reach a situation in which large areas of the Barrier Reef are so devastated that they may be beyond recovery.

Senator GEORGES:

– I merely sought leave to make a statement on it.

Senator Anderson:
LP

– I was not certain of what was required. In that event I persist with my motion that the Senate take note of the paper.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

Senator Mulvihill:

– When were they made?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The representations were made on 10th March - nearly a month ago. I suggest that it is completely unfair of the Minister to ignore a matter such as this, which is so vital to a young man who has seen service in Vietnam.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I have inquired, andI understand that the representations have been received. What has happened to them I do not know; but as yet I have not received a formal acknowledgment of them. Let me say that this is not the first occasion on which 1 have had to make inquiries of the Minister for Education and Science in respect of representational matters of a general nature.I therefore ask the Government to raise this matter with the Minister for Education and Science in view of its urgency for this young man and to see that a reply is expedited.

NowI come, asI told the Leader of the Government I would, to the question of the War Service Homes Division. Notwithstanding the replies that have been given to me and my colleagues by the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) on this matter,I say frankly that I am far from satisfied with the situation. Three years ago in the 1967-68 Budget an amount of $45. 5m was allotted for the war service homes scheme. Because the amount was being reduced by $13m or so in that financial year, the then Treasurer, Mr McMahon, said: ‘We shall seek additional funds if the amount now being provided proves insufficient’. That was the policy of the Government 3 years ago. When the Budget for this financial year was introduced in August last, under the heading ‘War Service Homes’ the then Treasurer had thisto say:

An extra$5m is to be provided for war service homes taking the total to $55m.

I point out that the Treasurer himself emphasised these words, and I also emphasise them:

This recognises the full-year effect of last year’s increase from $7,000 to $8,000 in the maximum loan.

But in addition to the increase in the maximum loan last financial year there was a substantial increase in the number of applications for assistance received. Quite obviously, in the fixation of the amount to be made available for the War Service Homes Division in this financial year very little, if any, consideration was given by the Government to the fact that much more money than the $55m would be required to meet the additional amount of loan available to an ex-serviceman and the additional number of ex-servicemen making applications. The annual report of the War Service Homes Division for 1968-69 states at page 3:

As indicated earlier in this report, the number of applications received for assistance increased from 9,754 for the year ended 30th June 1968 to 10,824 for the year ended 30th June 1969.

In other words, in that financial year there was an increase of roughly 10%. The annual report continues:

This was a substantial increase, attributable in the main to the receipt of a significantly greater number of applications based on service in South Vietnam. It is probable that the increase in the maximum loan to $8,000 which came into operation on 25th November 1968 also contributed to the higher intake of applications.

So the War Service Homes Division admits that there was a substantial increase in applications. We now have a situation in which the Budget that was introduced in the Parliament in August last made available $55m for the War Service Homes Division in this financial year and as at March - after 8 months of the financial year has gone - the Government has no funds for the War Service Homes Division at its disposal.

On 17th March I raised this matter in the Parliament. For the sake of the record I will read the question I put to the Minister for Housing. I said:

My question is directed to the Minister for Housing. Is there any truth in a report that the War Service Homes Division of the Department of Housing has frozen, or intends to freeze for a period of 6 months, housing loans advanced from the Division.

The Minister said in her reply:

This term ‘freezing’ means, I presume, that there are not going to be any loans. The War Service Homes Division of my Department is carrying on with the lending of money to eligible persons as it has done in the past and will continue to do.

That was on 17th March. Since then, as a result of further interrogation, we have found that in fact the Department is not carrying on as it has done in the past and is not continuing to do so as far as applications in respect of existing premises are concerned and that there has been an extension of the time involved in the approval of applications.

The next day the Minister, apparently having realised that she had not answered the question in the proper manner, as she should have answered it, the day before-

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister says that it was not the question that I asked. But we on this side of the chamber have been told time after time, when we have taken points of order, that Ministers are free to answer questions in whichever manner they choose. On that occasion the Minister, knowing that her Department had extended the period of waiting for satisfaction of applications, refused to tell the Parliament or the people of Australia. The next day, 18th March, Senator Sim conveniently asked a question of the Minister. He asked:

Can the Minister for Housing inform the Senate whether there is likely to be any delay in the granting of war service homes advances as a result of the increase in applications to which the Minister referred in the Senate last week?

The Minister gave a long dissertation. Among other things, she said:

I want to make it very clear that as a result it will be necessary to delay the settlement of some applications, notably applications in respect of existing properties, which ordinarily would be settled in May or June. It will be necessary to carry these applications over to 1970-71 for settlement in July.

In other words the Minister said that if the applications were not frozen - the word that I used - then certainly the applications were being placed in cold storage for at least another 2 months. On the same day, as appears at page 369 of Hansard, I asked the Minister:

Was the information which the Minister just gave to the Senate in reply to a question asked of her by Senator Sim available to the Minister yesterday when I directed a question to her about the freezing of applications for housing loans?

The Minister replied:

Yes, the information was available to me yesterday.

In fairness to her, she went on to say:

But the honourable senator did not ask me yesterday to supply it.

Therefore, I assume that, because I did not explicitly and succinctly ask this Minister what is the exact situation in her Department, she refused to tell me, interrogating her at question time, or to tell the Parliament or to tell the Australian public what the particular situation was.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. As we found with other Ministers - Senator Scott, the former Minister for Customs and Excise, in relation to the Hoffmann affair, and Senator McKellar, the former Minister for Repatriation, who represented the Minister for Air, in relation to VIP aircraft - information had to be dragged out. In typical Government fashion, it appears that this information will have to be dragged out. I remind the Senate that it was the tory government of 3 years ago which, when the amount set aside for the War Service Homes Division was $45m, said that if the amount was not sufficient it would seek additional funds. Because of the serious effect that this situation is having on the financial resources of ex-servicemen, particularly those who have returned from Vietnam, I ask the Minister to ask Cabinet to give Parliament an opportunity to make available immediately an additional amount so that these applications can be satisfied in this financial year. I suggest that the answers given by the Minister are far from satisfactory. They are unsatisfactory to members of the Opposition and, I hope, also to some members of the Government. Certainly they are unsatisfactory to a number of ex-servicemen. In the last 2 or 3 weeks several ex-servicemen have sought my advice. One returned to Australia on, I think, 8th or 10th March. He marched with the 5th Battalion through the streets of Sydney. When on leave he went to the War Service Homes Division to see whether he could lodge an application for a loan. He was told that he would have to wait until after July before the application would be satisfied.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He wanted an existing dwelling. Another man had been saving since the end of the Second World War - saving for some 25 years - to get sufficient money to purchase a dwelling. On 12th January this year he made application for a war service home loan. On 26th February, some 5 weeks after the application was made, he received a letter from the Deputy Director, of War Service Homes in New South Wales. It said that a valuation inspection of the property the subject of the application had been completed and that the value of the property had been determined at $ 18,000-odd. He was informed that he was then eligible for a loan not exceeding $8,000, subject to title proving satisfactory and subject to compliance with certain conditions. The period for repayment was to be 45 years. The monthly instalment necessary to repay the loan of $8,000 over the term was $30.69. The Deputy Director of War Service Homes went on to say:

There is no waiting period at present for finance under the War Service Homes Act and it should be possible to make a loan available to you as soon as the listed conditions have been met.

The letter continues - andI quote it in fairness to the Minister and to her Department:

However, this cannot be regarded as a commitment as circumstances may change in the meantime.

I emphasise this part of the letter:

It is particularly mentioned that should you complete the purchase of the property with finance from any other source it would be necessary to refuse your application.

Certain conditions with which the applicant had to comply were attached to the letter. That was on 26th February. That letter told him that, so far as the Department was concerned, it would approve of the loan of $8,000 to him subject to circumstances remaining as they were then. A little under a month later - namely, on 24th Marchhe received another letter from the Deputy Director of War Service Homes in New South Wales. It stated:

I refer to my letter of 26 February 1970 advising that a loan not exceeding $8,000 will be made available to you to complete the purchase of the property at the above address, subject to compliance with certain conditions.

In my letter I indicated that it should be possible to make a loan available as soon as all conditions have been met but that this could not be regarded as a commitment, as conditions may change in the meantime. I am writing to advise you that as matters stand it will be impracticable to make your loan available before July 1970.

You will be further advised when your turn for settlement of your loan is reached.

On 16th January he made application for a loan. On 26th February he was told that it would be approved subject to compliance with certain conditions and subject to the situation remaining as it was then. On 24th March he was told that conditions had changed and that the loancould not be made available before July 1970. In the first letter he was told that should he make application for private finance pending the application being approved he would not be eligible for the loan. On 26th March, 2 days after receipt of the last letter, his solicitors received a letter from the DeputyDirector of War Service Homes. In the letter to his solicitors, Mr Rennison, the Deputy Director of War Service Homes, said:

I refer to your client’s application for assistance under the War Service Homes Act and advise that pending settlement, temporary finance to complete the purchase of the property may bc arranged.

In other words, the Department did nol have the money so he could go elsewhere and get it. When he went elsewhere and made inquiries as to how much the loan would cost him, he was told that he could not get it for under 12i%. If that is not an example of an injustice to an ex-serviceman, 1 do not know what is. The letter continued:

Finance so arranged must be secured by way of a mortgage or charge over the property and, as previously advised, the loan will be $8,000 or the amount of finance raised by your client whichever is the lesser.

This is the crunching paragraph of the letter.

While it is expected that it will be possible to proceed to settlement in July 1970 this cannot be regarded as a firm commitment as conditions may change in the meantime. You will be advised when your client’s turn for settlement is reached.

The property cannot be insured under the War Service Homes Act until settlement has been effected. In the meanwhile your client should protect any interest he has in the properly by arranging insurance on the property with a private insurer.

I say frankly that the situation is not satisfactory. Many men who have served this country in the Second World War, in the Korean War, in the Malayan campaign and now in the Vietnam campaign are being deprived of their just entitlements under the War Service Homes Act because of the incompetence of this Government. I appeal to the Minister and to the members of the Government to take this matter up with the Cabinet and to bring a Bill before this Parliament as a matter of urgency so that this Parliament can make money available to the War Service Homes Division in order that the wants, needs and requirements of the ex-servicemen who are affected can be satisfied before the end of this financial year.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– (Queensland Minister for Housing) [10.36] - I rise to reply to two honourable senators who have spoken tonight concerning the War Service Homes Division. First of all, I want to contradict Senator Keeffe firmly and flatly. There is no scandal in the War Service Homes Division and I object very much to any honourable senator under the privilege of this Senate casting aspersions on any officer of the War Service Homes Division. If he says that there is a scandal then he is charging men and women-

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– Leave me out of this. I will deal with that later. First of all, I answer the honourable senator by saying that he is charging men and women dedicated in the service of this Department who work untiringly to do their best for ex-service people.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– It was said in this chamber that it was coming to an end. Surely this answers more effectively those charges than any words I have ever uttered before. Of course, the War Service Homes Division is not winding up. This is a country which has the greatest record in the world for this kind of housing. There is no other country that has given to its ex-service people over this long period, for whatever war they have served in since the inception of this legislation over 50 years ago, such service and splendid assistance in housing loans.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– The honourable senator will have another chance to speak. There is still another day. We have contradicted the statements of your leader in another place and now the honourable senator changes his tune and comes in on the other side of the picture. I will reply to Senator Keeffe first but Senator McClelland need not worry that I will not answer his questions. Senator Keeffe spoke as though there is in my Department a distinction between our Aboriginal people and other ex-service people. I contradict this flatly because, of course, Aboriginal people who have qualified-

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– Of course, Aboriginal ex-service people have received assistance under the War Service Homes Act.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– There are other places in Australia, I say with great respect, but the honourable senator and I as Queenslanders- hate to admit it.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– But there are other parts of Queensland, too, and, of course, any Aboriginal person who is eligible and who can fulfil the usual conditions on which loans are provided may obtain a loan. Of course, many of them cannot fulfil the lending conditions. Perhaps they do not have the required deposit, perhaps they are not able to meet the repayments; but I can assure the honourable senator that there are Aboriginal people who have received assistance through the War Service Homes Division. I remember feeling very delighted on one occasion when I heard of one who not only received a war service homes loan but also received a homes savings grant.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– I am not saying that there has been only one, I am speaking of one young man who was able to get both forms of assistance. But there is no distinction between Aboriginals and other eligible persons if they can fulfil the requirements of the Act.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– Has the honourable senator finished his conversation, because I thought I would go on with mine? Senator Keeffe also commented on the amount of money which is repaid on loans. I think it is an interesting point and one that it is good to discuss tonight, but we have to get it into the right perspective. This money does not come back to the War Service Homes Division to be used again, lt goes, of course, to Consolidated Revenue. But let me give honourable senators the amounts of money that have come back. The amount received in respect of capital and interest payments relates to loans granted over the whole period since the scheme has been in operation. Now, one is inclined to take repayments in a year as relating to advances for that year but this amount that comes back is in respect of loans over the whole period of the scheme’s operations and in this connection it should be noted that on 28th February 1970 capital expenditure on war service homes was $1,353,104,754.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– It covers the period from the commencement of the scheme. The amount received by way of capital repayments and interest during that period was $890,000,957. This shows, of course, that over this long period the amount of money that is coming in is related to the long term period of the loan. It is a very different story when one sees the amount that has been spent on war service homes and the amount received in capital repayments and interest during the same period. One of the other points raised by honourable senators concerned the allocation made in the Budget introduced last year and in the previous Budget. In one Budget speech the then Treasurer quite correctly said that if an increase were needed it would be made available. This was because the allocation had been reduced that year. This year the allocation was increased.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– Not at all. It was increased to the amount provided in the Budget.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– I always find it easier if I do not have a chorus to speak to. I find it very difficult to pick up the points that are being made. I cannot hear the honourable senator. This allocation is made on the estimate by the Department of what is required for war service homes. This year there has been greater increase in applications than was estimated. Although this has necessitated a slight delay we should be pleased that these young people are coming forward and will receive loans from the War Service Homes Division. Tonight Senator McClelland commented on the question he addressed to me the other day. I say to him now exactly what I said then. He referred to the freezing of funds. I still do not understand why he says I did not answer his question. Senator McClelland, I am speaking to you. I do not know whether you are interested.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– That is good. I would like you to take note of this point. IfI was not answering you correctly at that time, you had an opportunity to interject.I said then that I presumed the term ‘freezing’ meant that there would not be any loans. You did not interject to say: ‘No, that is not what I mean.’’ You did not do anything about that, so I presumed that that was what you meant and I answered you correctly on that basis.I resent the charge you make that I was not tryingto answer your question.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

-Not for 6 months at all. We go over this same thing again and again. Whether I say it at 3 o’clock in the afternoon or at 8 o’clock or 1 1 o’clock at night, the situation remains that there is a slight delay in one area of lending; that is for existing homes. The normal processing time is 4 months.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

-The normal processing time is 4 months. A slight delay of 2 months is added. It may not be quite that. It is from 6to 8 weeks. This is the point I am making. I explained this to the honourable senator and I again state that I did not incorrectly answer his question. An honourable senator said this afternoon that a delay in granting war service homes loans is a new development. Unfortunately, on many occasions over long periods of time there have been long delays in granting war service homes loans - and very long delays.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– For a variety of reasons. Now there is a slight delay in one area, for people seeking assistance for existing homes.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– Because there has been a greater number of applications than we estimated.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
LP

– We are not broke at all. There is a delay in one area.I make again the pointI made this afternoon, that even with the slight delay in respect of the purchase of existing homes, applicants for war service home loans are in a much better position to become home owners than other members of the community. The war service homes loan is for $8,000 over a period of 45 years at an interest rate of 3¾%. No other housing loan in Australia can compare with it. So that even allowing for the slight delay in one area, war service homes applicants are still in a better position than other people endeavouring to purchase homes. We are glad that this is so. We believe that ail eligible ex-service people should have this benefit if they wish to.

I wish to make it quite clear thatI have given straightforward replies to honourable senators opposite.I have answered in a straightforward manner the points raised tonight. I do not think I have left anything unsaid. If I have neglected any point,I regret it. It may have occurred because I have not made an appropriate note.I reiterate that in this year’s Budget the allocation for war service homes was increased by $5m. Despite the forebodings and warnings of the Opposition and the depressing statements by honourable senators opposite that the war services homes scheme would be winding up, the numbers of applications have increased. Because of this development there is a slight delay in granting loans for existing homes. That delay is from 6 to 8 weeks.I believe I have answered the points raised by honourable senators opposite.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– And also attempting to justify a reduction in the war service homes allocation.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Yes. The Government was trying to justify conscripting 20-year olds to send to the conflict in Vietnam. Senator McClelland has reminded me of the Government’s need to justify a reduction in the war service homes allocation.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:
LP

– May

I reply again?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Tomorrow evening. We will be waiting to hear the Minister. At the time of the 1967-68 Budget it was pointed out that it was unnecessary to appropriate an amount in excess of the demand for war service home loans. It was said that fewer applications were being received and that therefore the appropriation needed was not as high as formerly. It was made clear by the Government that if it had misjudged the position and someone had to be sacrificed through a supplementary budget, servicemen returning from overseas would not be the ones to make the sacrifice. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) said in his policy speech that if the amount allocated for war service home loans was found to be insufficient a supplementary allocation would be made. It is clear from the appropriation made last year for war service home loans that an increased number of applications was not visualised.

An appropriation was made in proportion to the number of applications expected for the year. Applications have exceeded the allocation and I am asking: Why are servicemen in 1970 not entitled to the benefits the Government was prepared to give them in the 1967-68 Budget? Why was the Government prepared to furnish supplementary assistance if necessary in 1967-68 but is not prepared to grant it now? This refusal establishes a precedent. If greater numbers of applications are received in future, we do not know what the financial position will be and what period will be taken to satisfy the number of applications.

I think it is entirely out of character for the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) tonight to try to put on a brave front. She is making an effort to evade the issue. We have become accustomed to the tears in her voice and the ready sympathy she has for aged persons seeking homes; for homeless and home hungry people; for people seeking social service benefits; and for returned servicemen. 1 am not influenced by that attitude, knowing the urgency of the situation and knowing of the promises made to men who have accepted their responsibility to this country. The position is now that we cannot immediately fulfil on the return of servicemen to this country the promises that were made to them. The Minister would let it rest there, if she had the complete say in the matter. The fact is that on this occasion the Treasurer is not prepared to make a grant. Because of his desire to stop this burning inflation he is not prepared to make additional money available for home building in Australia today. But the ones who are being sacrificed are those who are dependent on a Division which has exhausted its allocation. Unfortunately this Division caters for a section of the community to whom we owe so much.

We find that these people, ex-servicemen, are being put on a par with other sections of the community to whom we do not owe so much, people who are in a much better position than others to own their own homes. This is a repudiation of our offer of preferential treatment to men whom we asked to fight for us. We have now a clear declaration that there is a delay of 2 months in granting war service loans due to a shortage of money. This may not be important to some people, but the person referred to by Senator McClelland will have to seek a mortgage at 12i% - and for how long? It has been suggested that the delay will be 2 months, but it will take 4 months to process the application and then a delay of 2 months because of lack of finance, with the possibility then that the delay may be even longer. I do not know whether the Minister for Housing would repudiate what was said by the Deputy Director of War Service Homes in Chifley Square, Sydney, who wrote:

While it is expected that it will be possible to proceed to settlement in July 1970 this cannot be regarded as a firm commitment as conditions may change in the meantime. You will be advised when your client’s turn for settlement is reached.

Even now the Deputy Director of War Service Homes in New South Wales cannot assure this applicant that he will receive finance in July, although the applicant has been accepted by the War Service Homes Division. This is not the treatment that we promised for ex-servicemen, nor is it the way in which the Minister for Housing would treat ex-servicemen, if she had her way. But it has become a matter of the Minister covering up for another department which refuses to make money available for this purpose. This is a repudiation of every promise that we have given to those kids whom we sent to face the fortunes of Vietnam. I am not saying that a scandal is developing in the Division;I am saying that within the Division is a scandal that needs immediate rectification.

Senator Keeffe has made some serious accusations of racial discrimination against the Division, which the Minister has denied. The Minister would help greatly by refuting the allegations - not merely saying that they are not true, but by giving us, at some time in the future, figures to show how many Aboriginal people have been supplied with homes under the War Service Homes Act.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Where did the rest go?

Senator GEORGES:

– The rest returned to Townsville. They were removed within the space of 5 hours. Some wereflown back and some started to go back by road. One engineer and 9 other personnel were left to carry out work which could have involved fully 1000 men. As it is, the 100 men could have given to the area assistance that was required. At least they could have used the equipment, the generators, the camp stoves and all the other things which were brought into the area. It is my information that the Army withdrew at this stage to encourage local organisations to accept more of the burden. Perhaps the local organisations were not performing the function they should have been performing, especially in Proserpine where the position had been relieved. Nevertheless I ask: Was not this action on the part of the Army a severe one when one considers that so many people were still in need of a good deal of assistance? Did not the Army mete out harsh treatment if it was just for the purpose of teaching a lesson?

I ask specifically: Who gave the order for the withdrawal? The reply I received to the question I directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army said in part:

The troops were withdrawn only after their allotted tasks had been completed and the remaining tasks were well within the capability of State relief organisations.

That is not true. Their job was not completed in the area. The answer went on:

When Army assistance was no longer required clearance for withdrawal of the Army relief was given by the local State emergency committee representative.

I say that the withdrawal took place in spite of the protest of the local representative. I know this because I was there at the time. I immediately rang Canberra seeking to delay the Army’s withdrawal. I contacted the Army office here and was told by a lass who answered the telephone in the Department of the Army that everyone was at lunch. When I insisted that there was an emergency and that the Army ought not to leave the area she went so far as to seek out a person to whom I spoke. He said he would try to put through a stop order and would let me know in due course.I am still waiting.

Senator GEORGES:

-I rang Canberra direct andI discovered that in the office of the Department of the Army in this capital city no-one was available and everyone was away at lunch. However, we cannot escape the fact that people were left in dire need in this area, that the Army withdrew when people were still in need.

I ask again - and I have not yet received an answer to this question: Who gave the order for the withdrawal? Who agreed to the order for the withdrawal? Is the Minister for the Army prepared to tell me just what were the circumstances that caused the withdrawal at that moment of crisis? The people at Airlie Beach and Cannonvale were still cut off from Proserpine. The people at Airlie Beach and Cannonvale were still without a roof over their heads. There was complete devastation in the area, perhaps greater devastation than would have been caused by an earthquake.

I insist on receiving an answer to my question: Who gave the order for the withdrawal? What was the reason for it? Was it to encourage local organisations to accept greater responsibility? If this was the reason, was it fair to the people in the area? If there had never before in Australia been an example of the need for a national disaster fund, the circumstances of this occurrence surely constitute such an example. The armed services should be able to give assistance to the full. If the Army or the other armed services cannot give such assistance without the co-operation of the local authorities, and without action being initiated by the local authorities, then the armed services should be given the power to act until the state of emergency has passed. In this case the Army withdrew when the state of emergency still existed.

Senator Georges:

-I will seek that information and detail, but that is not the question I am asking.I am asking who gave the order and what was the reason.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Is the honourable senator having a second go now?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 548

LAOS

page 549

DRIED VINE FRUITS

page 549

VIETNAM

page 549

VIETNAM

page 550

EMPLOYMENT

Senator Milliner:
QUEENSLAND

asked me the following question without notice:

What method does the Department of Labour and National Service employto ascertain the respective State unemployment figures at the end of each quarter.

I then undertook to get a full answer for the honourable senator.

The Minister for Labour and National Service has now provided the following information:

Statistics of unemployed persons are published at monthly - not quarterly - intervals in the Minister’s Review of the Employment Situation. These figures are based on statistics compiled by the District Offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service. At the Friday nearest the end of each month, a count is made in all District Employment Offices of the number of persons who:

  1. claimed when registering that they were not employed;
  2. sought a full-time job; and
  3. were not placed at the time of the count.

These figures include any who had been referred to employers or who may have obtained employment without notifying the Employment Office. They also include all recipients of Unemployment Benefit. The figures for each District Office are added up into State totals.

page 550

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Motion (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960-1967 the Senate elects Senator the Honourable Sir Alister McMullin to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia for a period of 3 years from 4th April 1970.

page 550

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE BASE, PEARCE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Report of Public Works Committee

page 550

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

page 550

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Senator Willesee:

– May I make a short statement?

Senator Byrne:
QUEENSLAND

– Is there any reason for that?

page 552

COMMUNIST POLICIES

A factor of critical importance for the security and progress in the region is the continuing pressure on it from the Communist powers. It is therefore appropriate that I should commence with a brief review of overall developments in such policies and in the relations between the Communist powers and the free world, particularly the United States.

The Search for a Detente

Preliminary discussions are now taking place between the major Western countries and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China - so far with very little effect.

We must watch these trends and ask ourselves how real they are and whether or not they are likely to have a significant effect in the Asian and Pacific region.

Some progress in regard to partial disarmament measures has been made as a result of co-operation between the United States and the Soviet Union. This has made possible the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the banning of the use of outer space for nuclear war, and the Treaty for the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. There is prospect of further progress in regard to the demilitarisation of the seabed, and the control of chemical and bacteriological warfare. There are talks going on between the American and Soviet Governments for a limitation of the development of strategic nuclear weapons.

It cannot be said that these partial measures have yet solved the central problems of world security. Nor can one be certain that it is the intention of the Communist powers to come genuinely to grips with these problems. Whatever the Russian motives, Australia can only welcome the steps that are being taken, small though they may be, towards the effective control of nuclear armaments.

Outside of disarmament there are few real signs of detente between the major powers. The suppression of reforms in Czechoslovakia, the continued unwillingness to co-operate in finding a just solution to the Middle East problem, and the refusal to assist in bringing about genuine negotiations in Paris for a peace settlement in Vietnam or play an effective role as cochairman of the Geneva Conference on the neutrality of Laos, all suggest that the Russians have not yet reached the stage at which they are prepared to co-operate with the West in an effective effort to ensure world peace.

Russian Influence in Asia

Closer to home another change of concern to us is the evidence of increased efforts by the Soviet Union to extend its activity in our own part of the world. No doubt this activity in part flows from the conflict with China. It is also part of the Soviet Union’s overall desire to extend its influence as a world power.

We need have no illusions that the policies and actions of the Soviet Government are motivated by anything other than the interests of the USSR and of that part of the Communist network which it still effectively controls. While on some subjects there may be scope for mutually advantageous dealings with the Soviet Union it goes without saying that many of its policies and actions are likely to be in conflict with Australia’s interests and those of our allies. But the fact that the Soviet Union is also in conflict with Communist China is one factor which we should not overlook. It is a Soviet objective to try to contain the expansion of Chinese power in Asia. Although it is attempting to intrude its power into the South East Asian region in order to assert its own national influence, it is conceivable that this Sino-Russian rivalry may make it possible for the free countries, if they act purposefully in consultation, to minimise the adverse influence of both Communist powers.

Other countries beside Australia are concerned to ensure that these new Soviet activities are not detrimental to their own security, nor to their political and commercial interests. However, though this new situation may present new opportunities for the exercise of diplomatic skills, what is also necessary in the region is some form of countervailing power to underpin and complement free world diplomatic policies.

Communist China

We have long recognised that the mainland of China, with more than 700 million people, cannot remain forever on the periphery of the international community. We would therefore welcome evidence that the Communist Chinese are prepared to comply with the broad rules of international behaviour and forgo their largely self-inflicted isolation. Regrettably there are few genuine signs of this and consequently we still regard Communist China and other Communist regimes as a central obstacle to peace, stability and ordered progress throughout Asia. A satisfactory relationship cannot be established between Communist China and its neighbours unless Peking is willing to make some change in its attitudes such as an abandonment of its policy of promoting and assisting ‘revolutionary warfare’ in the territory of its neighbours.

page 553

BRITISH WITHDRAWAL

The second major development to which I want to refer is the present British policy of withdrawing its military power from the regions East of Suez. Let me speak candidly. It will be a major misfortune if, at a time when the region is faced with such new and complex problems, British influence is progressively diminished and finally completely withdrawn. We have all too much to lose for that. The British have had an enormous and benign influence in Malaysia and Singapore and, both directly and indirectly, elsewhere throughout the region. The principles of good government based on democracy and justice which they everywhere sought to establish in the territories formerly under their rule are an invaluable heritage of the people of today. And they handed over their power in circumstances which retained the respect and friendship of both the people and their leaders. Their advice and support - and their material help - would be invaluable in the doubtful times that lie ahead.

The withdrawal of their permanent military establishment from South East Asia, which has already commenced, will remove an important factor for stability and will throw an added strain on the remaining countries which are co-operating for’ the security of the region. We therefore strongly hope that such withdrawal may be delayed and will not mean the disappearance of Britain’s active interest and influence in the region.

page 553

THE ROLE OF JAPAN

One of the most remarkable developments in the. region has been the economic growth of Japan. Its gross national product now ranks third after the United States and the Soviet Union; its rate of growth is still the highest, in the world. Although the standards of living of the Japanese people are not yet as high as in the economically advanced Western countries they are rising rapidly, and it will not be many years before they reach the highest world standard. The energies of the Japanese people have so far been concentrated upon rebuilding their economy after the war and in building up the great industrial and commercial complex which is now producing such remarkable results. They have also since the end of the war followed a cautious and unassertive policy in their dealings with their neighbours. They have, by deliberate choice, not sought a leading role .on the world scene. But the present decade will undoubtedly see Japan taking a wider and more active role overseas.

How will this affect Australia? We are already benefiting from Japan’s economic growth. She is now our best customer and our exports to Japan have been of great benefit in diversifying our economy and in developing our resources. Japan’s commercial expansion has also played an important part in the economic growth of the region. Much of the development in Korea, Taiwan and countries of South East Asia is due to Japanese capital and technology. Japan’s economic aid also has been increasingly important. These developments have been of benefit to Australia, because of the increase in our own trade which has resulted from this expansion, and because of the indispensable role that economic growth has to play in strengthening the ability of the countries in the region to maintain their independence and promote further development. In time Japan’s influence must inevitably extend beyond the commercial and economic sphere.

The Australian Government has in recent years developed increasingly close contacts with Japan in the political field. Regular consultations have been held at the ministerial and official level between the Japanese Foreign Ministry and my department. These have covered such matters of mutual concern as disarmament, United Nations problems, China and regional affairs. These discussions have been valuable in promoting understanding between our two Governments and it is my intention that they should be maintained and developed. Japan returns to the world arena with a government and people devoted to peace. No one can doubt the horror of war that is felt by the present generation of the Japanese people. They are wholeheartedly behind the renunciation of war enshrined in their constitution and they are determined that the affairs of their nation should never again fall into the hands of a military class. Although they have accepted that armed services should be established for the defence of the country they are reluctant to assume any military role beyond this. Australia understands this attitude and indeed respects it.

Japan can make a decisive contribution to the security of the area by promoting industrial and commercial growth. On the basis of the economic strength thus developed the countries of the region will themselves be more able to provide for their own defence. She can also play an important role in the political co-operation in the region. As a country of global stature her advice and counsel will be increasingly weighty in regional affairs. For Australia’s part we welcome and will do our best to encourage her participation in the consultations that are becoming increasingly important in the political life of the region. Although Japan’s own military role will be concerned with the defence of her own territory this does not of course mean that it will be a negligible one. Her armed forces at present number 260,000 personnel and the military, naval and air elements are highly trained and well equipped. Her responsibilities moreover will increase with the reversion to Japan in 1972 of sovereignty over Okinawa.

The new Director-General of the Japanese Defence Agency, Mr Nakasone, has outlined plans for an increase in defence spending for the period of the next 4-year defence plan - 1972-76 - which would be about 3 times that of the previous 4-year plan. In Australian currency this would be a total of about $A1 6,000m for the period 1972-76.

In describing Japanese defence policies in a speech in Tokyo on 8th March 1970, Mr Nakasone has said that his Government would continue to co-operate with the United States in defence, and that it did not intend to acquire nuclear weapons.

page 554

THE NIXON DOCTRINE

A further factor with major implications for the region is the Nixon Doctrine, first announced by the President on his visit to Guam in July 1969. It is important because our alliance with the United States of America must continue to be one of the central aspects of our international relations. Before discussing the implications of this doctrine I want to acknowledge the enormous debt owed to the United States for the massive help given since the end of the Pacific War - help which was given when the free countries were weak and defenceless. At great cost to itself - not only in material wealth but also in the lives of its young men - it has checked the spread of Communist aggression and given time to each country to develop its own economic strength and defence capability.

The basic elements in the Nixon Doctrine are very much in line with our own thinking. As stated by Mr Nixon in his Report to Congress on 18th February 1970, they are:

the United States will keep all its treaty commitments;

it will provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with the United States, or of a nation whose survival was considered vital to the United States’ security and to the security of the region as a whole;

in cases involving other types of aggression the United States will furnish military and economic assistance when requested and as appropriate. But the United States wilt look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defence.

Of course we welcome President Nixon’s re-affirmation of the American Government’s determination to fulfil its treaty commitments. We have no doubt that if this country’s viral national interests were endangered by aggression we would have the certain support of the United States. Moreover the assurance of United States protection against nuclear aggression is itself of immense value in deterring any threat of such aggression.

The Problems of Subversion

The third point of the Nixon Doctrine emphasises the idea that subversion and armed infiltration can ultimately only be defeated by the forces and people of the country under attack. They can be helped to do the job, but ultimate success must depend on their own efforts.

This is a view shared by the Australian Government.I know that the governments of the countries involved are determined to build up their own capacity to do so. If they are to have any real prospect of succeeding in this primary and inescapable role, I believe that their capability and strength must be developed not only by their own efforts but also with the assistance of their friends.

There has in fact been a good deal of quiet progress in the area over the past few years, including real progress in economic and social as well as in political terms. These are some examples of progress: (i) the success of the present Indonesian Government since 1965 in restoring political and administrative stability and in arresting and reversing inflation and the fall in economic growth; (ii) the sustained economic growth in Singapore, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan; and the continued prosperity of Malaysia despite its internal communal stresses; and (iii) the growing impact of the ‘green revolution’ on the production of food, notably in India and Pakistan.

But effective resistance to subversion and insurgency on a region-wide basis calls for not only individual efforts by the countries concerned but also meaningful co-operation between them in the economic, social and security fields. Australia has for long stressed the need for such co-operation. We have been and will continue to be active in supporting regional associations which help to stimulate and promote mutual help and co-operation. The basic objective is to build up in the region a climate of co-operation and mutual help which can be maintained notwithstanding the inevitable differences that exist between individual countries.

The individual countries of the area have shown that they themselves appreciate the need for, and the value of, such cooperation. In addition to developing the habit of co-operation through meeting together in established forums such as ECAFE and the Colombo Plan, they have taken their own initiatives in establishing group organisations such as ASPAC and ASEAN. Australia is a full member of ASPAC. We are not a member of ASEAN, which is entirely Asian in origin and membership. While we have expressed sympathy and support for its purpose, the members of ASEAN may well prefer, at least for the time being, to retain its purely Asian character. Further welcome examples of such co-operation are the joint measures taken by Malaysia and Indonesia, and by Malaysia and Thailand, to suppress Communist terrorism on the Sarawak and Malaysian-Thai borders. From what I have said it will be seen that essential elements of the Nixon doctrine are fully consistent with the policy the Australian Government has been pursuing for a long while - that of encouraging a responsible effort by the countries of the region of Asia and the Pacific for their own defence, and regional co-operation for collective security. We think this policy will strengthen the case of the countries concerned if they are compelled to look for assistance against aggression which is beyond their capacity to handle unaided.

page 555

VIETNAM

At this stage I want to refer to Vietnam, not only because it is a matter of major concern to the Government and people of Australia but also because it provides a topical illustration of several of the trends and factors which I have discussed and of the readiness of countries of the region to bear, within their capacities, the burden of their own defence. Vietnam is in a special category. In Vietnam we are dealing not with potential insurgency but with actual and continuing North Vietnamese aggression. The Hanoi Government and their Communist friends in other countries are constantly seeking, by a relentless propaganda campaign, to distort the situation in Vietnam. Even their military operations sometimes aim to impress internation opinion rather than to achieve a military objective. We must not, however, allow the complexity of the Vietnam situation to obscure two central facts. First, our basic aim has been and is to help the South Vietnamese people to defend themselves against external aggression and to determine their own future in their own way. Second, South Vietnam’s efforts, with the help of Australia and the other allies, have successfully prevented a Communist takeover and have enabled a significant improvement in South Vietnam’s capacity to defend itself.

Compared with 2 years ago, the military situation has greatly improved. The Communists have suffered large losses which they have been unable completely to replace by local recruitment or from the North Vietnamese Army. Their main force units now operate mainly in the frontier areas where they can take refuge and refit in sanctuaries across the borders. They are still capable of mounting further attacks, and still have a widespread capacity for local acts of terrorism. But the South Vietnamese Government now provides a high degree of security and basic services to more than 90% of the population. On the economic front, with the return of refugees to their villages and the planting of improved strains of rice, South Vietnam is almost selfsufficient in food again. This is a great achievement. The democratic institutions established under the 1967 Constitution are functioning regularly. The Vietnamese armed forces have been expanded and reequipped and are being continuously re- trained.

As a result of all these developments, the United States has been able to reduce its forces in South Vietnam by 65,000 and this figure will have risen to 1 1 5,000 by mid-April. As the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) announced on 16th December 1969, some Australian units will be included in the next substantial withdrawal. The Australian Government will be consulting in detail with the South Vietnamese and our other allies on the details of the eventual Australian reduction. It is not to be expected that these policies will result in a total and formal peace, at least in the near future. Peace in any real sense depends on the enemy, not on us. At the negotiations in Paris the Communists still continue to refuse even to discuss the proposals put forward by our side for mutual verified withdrawal of all foreign troops and a free election under international supervision in which the National Liberation Front could participate. President Nixon has explicitly stated that the allies are willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forward by the other side and that, in fact, anything is negotiable except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future. Until we can persuade the Communists to negotiate seriously we must continue to help the people of South Vietnam to develop their capacity to defend themselves and to improve their economic and social conditions.

While there is no room for complacency I have no doubt that our common objectives in Vietnam are capable of being achieved. Their attainment must, however, depend on sustained efforts by both South Vietnam and its friends. The programme has already produced results. With allied assistance, South Vietnam has already gone a great deal of the way towards its objective. It has demonstrated that, provided allied assistance is maintained in key areas, South Vietnam is ready, and indeed anxious, to assume an increasing proportion of the war burden, thus enabling the allies to reduce their military support. The need will continue for concerted allied efforts, perhaps even on an increased scale, in training and economic assistance. There is every reason to believe that the United States and the other allies will continue to give the necessary support. Australia will play its part in those efforts in the hope that the co-operation in arms can be converted as soon as possible into the more directly productive field of co-operation for reconstruction and development.

page 557

LAOS

I propose also to make a relatively brief reference to the situation in Laos, both because of its intimate interconnection with the problem of Vietnam and also because of the significant developments which have occurred there in the last few weeks. As the House will be aware, North Vietnamese aggression has again brought Laos onto the front pages of the world’s newspapers. Although the current dry season offensive by Communist forces has not been confined to Central Laos, most attention has been devoted to the Communists’ recapture of the Plain of Jars, and to the threat that this has enabled them to pose to Government positions further west and south, including in the Mekong Valley. We cannot precisely assess the Communists’ objective in the present offensive. Their minimum aim, already largely achieved, is clearly to restore the position as it existed before General Vang Pao’s successful counter-offensive late last year, during which, for the first time since 1964, the Communists were cleared from the Plain of Jars. They may seek to continue their advance to include in addition ail those areas which were under Neutralist control at the time of the 1962 settlement. Their objective in so doing would be to support a claim that the dissident neutralists allied to them, rather than the neutralist Prime Minister, Prince Souvanna Phouma, are the rightful heirs to the 1962 neutralist position. We cannot be sure that their aims are not wider and deeper than either of these.

Despite an apparent renewal of Communist military activity, the political elements of the situation have had greater prominence in recent weeks. On 6th March the political wing of the Pathet Lao, the Neo Lao Hak Xat, announced in Hanoi a set of proposals for a peaceful settlement and subsequently that an envoy would be sent to Vientiane with a message for the Prime Minister. While noting the fact that the Communists are at last showing any interest in a political course, we must regret that they have not taken up the Laotian Prime Minister’s own very reasonable proposals, which first involved neutralisation of the Plain of Jars, and, since its capture, the launching of consultations amongst the signatories of the 1 962 Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos.

More seriously still, the Communist proposals are one-sided, ignoring the root cause of the break-down of the 1962 settlement, the presence of North Vietnamese troops in Laos. So far, however, we do not have enough information on which to judge the precise intentions and purposes of these proposals.

The Australian Government is not a party to the 1962 Declaration. It has, however, been our consistent hope that all the aspects of that settlement might be brought genuinely into force. Through our aid programme and in other diplomatic ways open to us, we have sought to show our sympathy for the Laotian Government and people in the virtually continuous warfare that North Vietnam’s utterly cynical disregard of the 1962 settlement has inflicted on them. We hope that the contacts now beginning amongst the Laotian parties about means of rinding a peaceful way out of the present crisis, will finally produce the framework in which the Laotian people can develop their own way of life in peace and freedom.

page 557

CAMBODIA

I had noi intended to refer to Cambodia, which does not fit readily into the themes 1 have developed in my statement. In view of the events in Phnom Penh on 18th March, I think the Senate will want me to say something about the new situation that has arisen. As honourable senators will be aware, the Cambodian National Assembly and Council of the Kingdom voted in joint session on 18th March to depose the Head of State, Prince Norodom Sihanouk. The President of the National Assembly. Mr Cheng Heng, was named as his interim successor pending new elections for the position. The Senate will also know that this action followed a week of serious demonstrations in a number of Provinces as well as in the capital, against the presence of Vietnamese Communist forces on Cambodian territory. In the course of these demonstrations, the embassies of North Vietnam and the so-called provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam were sacked.

On 19lh March I received a formal note from the Cambodian Ambassador which was in terms very similar to a note from the Cambodian Foreign Ministry delivered on that morning to the Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh. 1 believe that the Senate will wish to know the way in which the Cambodian Government themselves described the background to events on 18th March. The note spoke of - and I quote from our translation: ‘ . . . a grave political crisis in recent days putting in danger the Khmer Nation, a crisis provoked by the occupation of Khmer Territory by Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces and by the attitude of Prince Norodom Sihanouk in opposition to the will of the Khmer people expressed by popular demonstrations in the capital and in the provinces’. The note also assured the Australian Government that there will be no change in the constitution of the Kingdom of Cambodia nor in th policy of independence, sovereignty, peace, strict neutrality and territorial integrity’.

The fundamental causes of the present situation lie with the Vietnamese Communists, who for some time have been violating Cambodia’s territory and have been using areas in the east of the country to support their military operations in South Vietnam. This activity has created complex diplomatic, military and economic problems for the Cambodian Government. The Australian Government continues to have the utmost sympathy with Cambodia’s difficulties in contending with the problems that geography and the cynicism of the Vietnamese Communists have created for it. For me to comment any further on the situation would merely complicate the difficult tasks that confront the Government and people and that they alone can resolve. I am glad to be able to tell the Senate that direct communication was restored with the Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh, which reported that all members of the staff and their families were safe and well, and that conditions in the city were quiet.

page 558

THE BROAD PRINCIPLES OF OUR POLICY

Against this background, let me state the broad principles by which our policy will be guided in our efforts to contribute constructively to the progress and security of the region.

I repeat, it is axiomatic that the supreme objective of our foreign policy is the protection and promotion of our security and our other vital interests. In particular our policies are based on the following criteria: (a) they are designed and developed in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations; (b) we are concerned with the general well-being of individual Asian countries and peoples - their stability and their capacity for balanced economic and social development as self-reliant and peaceful neighbour states with a firm basis of support from their peoples; (c) we are concerned with their security - their capacity to safeguard their independence against external pressures in all its forms, ranging from subversion to open aggression or the threat of it.

Ever since 1950 when Australia took an initiative in promoting the Colombo Plan we have consistently recognised that in the long run security in the region must be firmly grounded on the inherent strength and stability of the countries themselves, which in turn depend upon adequate and effective economic growth. For this reason Australia’s economic aid to the region has been steadily increased. During the past 5 years our overall aid programme has nearly doubled. Leaving aside New Guinea, over 90% of our bilateral aid, which was increased by 9% in the 1969-70 budget estimates, goes to the countries in Asia. The amount of aid for our closest neighbour - Indonesia - has expanded considerably, and will continue to do so under plans which the Government has under consideration.

At the same time we recognise that it will be difficult if not impossible for the countries of the region to attain and maintain this solid standard of strength and stability if their territorial integrity is constantly threatened by hostile forces and if their every effort to develop internal harmony, prosperity and administrative efficiency is frustrated by subversion and insurgency inspired and directed from outside their borders. For this reason the Government, in addition to its sustained programme of economic aid and co-operation, has been ready to play a part, commensurate with its resources and the many demands upon them,- in co-operative security arrangements in the area.

On 10th March my colleague the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser) presented to Parliament a new and comprehensive programme designed to enable our defence forces to be deployed for their role in regional security as well as to meet any possible threats to Australian territory.

We have been an active member of the South East Asian Treaty Organisation since its foundation and have played a significant part in helping to bring an end to the Communist terrorist emergency in Malaya - as it then was - and more recently in helping Malaysia to withstand the pressures of Sukarnoist confrontation. Most recently, since the British decision to withdraw their forces from Malaysia and Singapore, we have co-operated in the Five Power context to assist those two countries in their efforts to develop their own defence capability and in indicating circumstances in which our own forces might be expected to assist them in withstanding pressures beyond their own capacity. In accordance with these understandings, both Malaysia and Singapore are making substantial efforts to develop and train their own forces and steady progress is being made in developing the details of co-operative arrangements within the Five Power context; the workingout of these arrangements presents novel and complex problems for all of the members and it was not to be expected that all of the details could be settled overnight; much has already been achieved, however, and steady progress is being made towards mutually satisfactory agreements on the remaining questions.

At the same time both Malaysia and Singapore have shown a lively awareness that security is not based solely or even primarily on military defence; that it must be solidly grounded on broad national progress and well-being and on efficient administration. Despite the special problems of plural societies, the governments of both countries have given full attention to these needs and, with assistance from Australia and other friends, have maintained high standards of administration and economic progress.

In the pursuit of the policies which I have described we have a sound foundation on which to operate. In the years since the Second World War we have enormously strengthened our economy. We have created a respected position in the United Nations; and in particular at the last session of the General Assembly we won the sympathy and support of the great majority of the members for our policy of advancing the territory of Papua and New Guinea towards independence.

We have preserved our connections with the Commonwealth. We have established close and fruitful links with the United

States and have begun to attract increasing interest from Europe. We have worked constantly and with a good deal of success to strengthen our relations with our Asian neighbours. And we have established, we believe, a reputation for sincerity and goodwill, supported by our economic and military aid programmes.

Conclusion

It has not been possible in this speech to cover the whole range of our foreign relations. I have not, for example, touched upon the Middle East; the problems of southern Africa; the South Pacific; or such developments in disarmament as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the proposal for a European security treaty and the proposals for better control of chemical and bacteriological warfare. I hope that there will be opportunities for me to deal with such subjects at a later stage in this Parliament. Before concluding, I want to summarise our objectives and policies.

We must recognise first that Australia’s future is inescapably bound up with the future of the Asian and Pacific region and that it is this region and the Middle East in which crises affecting the peace and stability of the whole world are most likely to arise. We must therefore work in all ways open to us to reinforce those factors making for stability, and give all possible support to movements towards co-operation and mutual help in the region. We must recognise the critical importance of adequate living standards to the independence and progress of the countries in the region, and must continue to give aid within the limits of our capacity towards the economic and social development of these countries.

We recognise that the region cannot hope to overcome its problems in the coming decade without outside support. This does not mean that we can be expected to take over the past responsibilities of the United States and Britain. Clearly, we have not the capacity and resources to do so. The Nixon Doctrine, which I have already discussed, reaffirms that the United States will honour its treaty commitments and will provide a shield against nuclear threat; in cases involving other types of aggression the United States will furnish military and economic assistance when requested and as appropriate. With these assurances and the mutual safeguards written into the ANZUS

Treaty for the signatory countries, we can think in terms of greater responsibilities and wider interests not only in Asia but elsewhere in the world.

I repeat that we have already decided to maintain forces in Malaysia and Singapore after .1971. We want to continue to provide military equipment and training and to play our part in the development of the Five Power regional defence machinery that is now coming into being. I have already spoken at length about South Vietnam. Obviously military assistance is not sufficient in itself. We want an economically and socially healthy world, where change takes place peacefully and where every person can look forward to living in peace and with decent standards of living. The prime purpose of military efforts should be to safeguard the right and opportunity of achieving these ideals.

Australia has within its capacity played a notable part in economic and technical assistance. The Chairman of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Mr Edwin Martin, has highly praised it. But as more sophisticated aid techniques are adopted, we will wish and I am sure feel it our duty as a prosperous country to increase our effort. I am sure our economic aid to Asian countries will continue to grow.

The Government is also active in many other fields of international co-operation, such as outer space, health and humanitarian efforts. The Australian speech in the general debate of the United Nations General Assembly last year gave a great deal of attention to man’s environment, and the Government will continue to take a most active part in international efforts and discussion to limit pollution and conserve resources.

As Australian Minister for External Affairs my objectives will therefore be: (i) To maintain and foster our alliance with the United States of America; (ii) to work closely with Britain and New Zealand; (iii) to develop and deepen our relationship with the countries of the Asian and Pacific region; (iv) to strengthen our co-operation with these countries through such organisations as ECAFE, the regional bodies of the United Nations Specialised Agencies, the Asian Development Bank and the Asian and

Pacific Council; (v) to ensure that Australia’s views are clearly heard on all occasions of importance to the welfare of the region and to this end to seek to maintain the Austraiian diplomatic representation at an effective level both in the region and in the major capitals of the world; (vi) finally, to ensure that the Australian people are fully informed of international events of direct concern to them so that they may understand, and I hope support, the policies pursued by the Government. I move:

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 560

ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO INDONESIA

Ministerial Statement

Senator ANDERSON (New South Wales , Minister for Supply) - I seek leave to make a statement on Australian aid to Indonesia. Honourable senators will understand that where I use the first person personal pronoun, it refers to the Minister for External Affairs (Mr McMahon). The statement reads: I am sure’ the House will be pleased to learn that the Commonwealth Government has decided to make a grant of $53. 8m (US$60m) in economic assistance to Indonesia for the 3-year period 1970-71 - 1972-73. In the current financial year 1969-70 the level of our assistance will be about $15m. The increase clearly shows the Government’s desire to assist Indonesia’s enormous developmental needs. Following the remarkable recovery of the Indonesian economy during the past 3 years it also shows the Government’s confidence that assistance is being used effectively to promote economic development. Tn 1966 the Suharto Government inherited an economy that was in great difficulties externally, with strong internal inflation and a declining productive sector. By 1969 inflation had been brought under control, exports were increasing and the productive sector was moving forward again.

Credit for this dramatic improvement in the economy must be given to the sound policies of the Indonesian Government. These efforts have been backed by a flow of international assistance from Western donors. Indonesia is now in a position to move from the stabilisation stage into the development stage, which began with the Five Vear Development Plan in 1969. The problems faced by Indonesia are still immense. The heavy legacy of economic neglect of earlier years will take time, resources and determination to overcome. Reflecting these needs and the greater opportunities for an effective attack on these problems, Western donors of the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia have endorsed the assessment by international agencies that Indonesia requires $US600m in assistance for the period up to 31st March 1971. This compares with a request for $US500m for 1969.

Australia’s commitment of $53. 8m forms a part of this international effort. Of course it relates to a longer period than the $600m Indonesia requires up to 31st March 1971. In the past our aid commitments have been made, in accordance with our budgetary practices, on a year-by-year basis. However, this year we are making a commitment for 3 years so that the Indonesian Government, with its forward knowledge, can integrate our aid commitment into its own planning.. We envisage that our aid will be disbursed on a rising scale, so that expenditure will be greater in the last year of the 3-year period than in the first. As in the past, this assistance will take the form of balance of payments support through the B.E.’ (Export Bonus) system, supply of commodities (including wheat flour), economic development projects, technical assistance and student training.

As Indonesia turns from the immediate problems of stabilisation towards the longer term goal of economic growth, we think there will be a shift in our own programme with greater emphasis on project aid. We are continuing the current railway rehabilitation and telecommunications projects, and in the coming year plan to start on projects for the renewal of town water supply systems in Bogor and Den Pasar. We are investigating in a preliminary way a project to rehabilitate the port of Tjilatjap, on the South Coast of Java, where a number of Australian firms plan investment.

I would like to mention the Australia Asia University Aid and Co-operation Scheme. Whilst it is not financed from the Indonesian aid vote which I announced it is being directed principally to Indonesia. This programme is designed to set up a framework of co-operation between Australian universities and universities in Indonesia and also in Malaysia and Singapore.

It will provide fellowships for research and training in Australia, travel awards for Australian university staff to work in the recipient universities and supply of library books and laboratory equipment. Initially the scheme will concentrate on research and training associated with food production. This bilateral aid by Australia and other donors is being supplemented by assistance from the multilateral aid institutions, to which Australia contributes, such as International Development Association and the Asian Development Bank.

I should add that none of Australia’s aid is debt relief. This is simply because all our aid has been on a grant, not loan, basis. Thus, Australia is not one of Indonesia’s creditors. But Australia shares Indonesia’s concern that a satisfactory long-term solution must be found to the huge international indebtedness inherited from the previous regime. If Indonesia is to succeed in the task of raising living standards, her creditors must reach a realistic settlement of these debts. This settlement must be within Indonesia’s capacity to pay. Australia cannot stand back from the problems which Indonesia faces. Indonesia has been, and continues to be, the largest recipient of our bilateral aid outside Papua and New Guinea. I believe that the decision to give Indonesia $53. 8m over 3 years reflects the wish of all Australians to play their part in the international effort to assist our nearest neighbour in the task of raising the living standards of its 118 million people.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 561

CROWN OF THORNS STARFISH

Ministerial Statement

Senator ANDERSON (New South Wales , Minister for Supply) - I seek leave to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) relating to the Crown of Thorns starfish. Honourable senators will understand that where I use the first person personal pronoun, it refers to the Prime Minister. The statement reads: Honourable senators will be aware that the Commonwealth and Queensland have agreed to establish a Joint Committee to investigate the problem of the Crown of Thorns starfish. The Committee will be supported on a SI for $1 basis by each Government, lt will report to each Government.

On behalf of the Premier of Queensland and myself I am pleased to be able to announce to the House that the Committee will comprise the following experts:

Professor R. J. Walsh, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of New South Wales (Chairman).

Professor W. G. H. Maxwell, Associate Professor of Geology at the University of Sydney.

Mr D. J. Tranter. M.Sc., Senior Research Scientist, Division of Fisheries and Oceanography, C.S.I. R.O.

Dr J. M. Harvey, Director-General of Primary Industries.

Professor J. M. Thompson, Professor of Zoology at the Queensland University.

Mt C. L. Harris of the Department of Primary Industries.

I have asked that the Joint Committee meet as soon as is practicable in view of the urgency of the situation.

I move:

Senator Anderson:
LP

– I take it that the Opposition does not want this put on the business paper.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Senator Georges sought leave to make a statement and Senator Willesee said that he proposed that the debate be adjourned, the resumption of the debate being made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 563

AUSTRALIAN SPACE ACTIVITIES

Ministerial Statement

Senator ANDERSON (New South Wales , Minister for Supply) - by leave - Honourable senators will no doubt have noted the publicity given in the last few months to the planning by the United States of America for its future space programme. The recent visit by Dr Thomas O. Paine, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Administrator, to Australia prompts me to include in this address some comment on Australia’s role in space research. To begin on an historical note, I might mention that Australia was earnestly engaged in space research long before the first artificial earth satellite was orbited in 1957. I refer, of course, to the fields of optical and radio astronomy. The first telescope at what is now the Mount Stromlo Observatory was established as early as 1911. Australia has also had an active programme in radio astronomy since the immediate post-war years. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s effort in this latter field has long been held in high esteem throughout the world.

Honourable senators may also recall Australia’s contribution to the International Geophysical Year, 1957-58. We then set up and operated at Woomera a Baker-Nun n optical tracking system and a minitrack radio tracking system. Through these we were able to participate in the artificial earth satellite projects from the beginning. A few years later we also established, on NASA’s behalf, a deep space station at Woomera and Project Mercury stations at Muchea and Woomera - the latter using an existing FPS 16 radar. Thus, we have supported NASA’s lunar and planetary probes from the first Rangers and Mariners, and Australians have played a vital role in ground support for all NASA’s manned space flights. New tracking stations have since been built in Australia as NASA has augmented each of its 3 tracking networks: Carnarvon and Orroral Valley stations, and the Baker-Nunn camera are involved in the earth orbital satellite projects; Woomera and Tidbinbilla stations support the deep space probes; and Carnarvon, Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla each have a part to play in manned space flight.

NASA has looked to Australia for support, partly because of our geographical location as a large land mass in the southern hemisphere diametrically opposite the United States, and partly because of the state of our technological development and our stable political cLimate. Whilst our support has been of considerable value to

NASA, we should not overlook the benefits which have, at the same time, flowed to Australia from this partnership. 1 refer to the technological ‘rub-off to Australian industry; the inflow of United States dollars; and the share in the practical benefits from applications satellites of which 1 will speak in more detail later.

The tracking support provided by Australia for NASA currently involves a total employment of about 750 Australians, about half of whom are engineers and technicians and the balance are supporting staff. A large number of these engineers and technicians have received specialised training in the United States of America. NASA investment in its Australian network amounts to about $A71m. About $A13m is actually spent here on establishment of the stations and the balance of $A58m is for equipment of United States origin.

The new 210-foot diameter antenna being established at Tidbinbilla will increase NASA’s total investment in the Australian network by some $A15m, though this will be offset to some extent by the return of the Applications Technology Satellite Station at Cooby Creek - valued at about $A7m - to the United States of America. The annual cost of operating NASA’s network in Australia is currently about $A13m. Total NASA operational expenditure here to date is about $A63m.

Honourable senators should not infer from all this that Australia has concentrated all her effort on supporting NASA. On the contrary, our own optical and radio astronomy research has also expanded. Honourable senators will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), as Minister for Education and Science, announced in 1967 the joint establishment with the United Kingdom of a new 150-inch optical telescope at Siding Springs in New South Wales.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation radio telescope at Parkes, with its 2 10- foot diameter antenna, has made a significant contribution to the development of radio astronomy, including pinpointing of the first quasar, to mention only one example. Honourable senators also will be aware of the important role that the Parkes dish has played in the

Apollo moon landings. Not all may know that this dish also influenced NASA’s design of its own network of similar . sized equipment to support its deep space projects. Other radio astronomy facilities in Australia whose work is well known to the world scientific community include the CSIRO solar observatory at Culgoora, New South Wales, and the Mills cross located close to Canberra.

I return now to the NASA activities, in particular the future plans and the possibilities of Australian participation. Here 1 am dealing with the question of cooperation additional to the operation of tracking facilities on NASA’s behalf. Prior to Dr Paine’s visit we had received copies of the report of the space task group set up by President Nixon to advise him on the future American space programme, and of NASA’s report to that group. These reports identify three broad categories in the space programme: firstly, manned space exploration; secondly, unmanned deep space exploration; and finally, application of space technology for the immediate benefit of mankind.

In preparation for Dr Paine’s visit I arranged a meeting of interested departments to consider where Australia might most profitably participate. The meeting recognised that there is naturally a broad scientific interest in the space exploration aspects and that practical benefits will ultimately flow from this exploration. However, it appeared that Australia could most profitably participate at this stage in the earth orientated applications projects. In this latter area we also stand to gain most immediate benefit. Several Commonwealth organisations arc already either gaining the benefits of man’s penetration of space or preparing to do so. The Bureau of Meteorology is using satellite data, in preparing its forecasts; the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) and broadcasting and television authorities are already using satellite communications, whilst the Australian Post Office is also interested; the Departments of Civil Aviation and Shipping and Transport, the Royal Australian Air Force and the Navy are all interested in use of satellites for navigation; and the Department of National Development and the CSIRO are interested in the earth resources programme.

During his visit to Canberra Dr Paine gave Ministers, senior departmental officials and representatives of the Australian scientific community a comprehensive briefing on NASA’s planned activities for the next 10 to 20 years. He invited our participation in any aspects in which we were interested. My Government now proposes to examine how we might best take advantage of this offer so as to ensure that Australia benefits to the fullest extent possible from the practical applications of space technology. Honourable senators will be aware of the concern that has been expressed at the high cost of the United States space programme and might fear that Australia cannot afford to become involved. I do not see the spending of sums comparable with the American investment as a necessary prerequisite to our deriving practical benefits from this challenging and rewarding activity. I am confident that we will find that we can afford to participate in space programmes. I believe the evidence is that, at least in the space applications area, the cost of participation would shortly be returned many fold.

A few days ago President Nixon announced the long-term United States space programme.

Manned Space Flight

Current NASA plans provide for Apollo manned flights to continue at the rate of 2 per year until 1974. These will include further lunar visits and extended periods in earth orbit. Beyond 1974, a fairly lengthy gap is expected while the space shuttle concept is being developed. President Nixon has established a long-range goal of a manned flight to Mars. This will not be before the 1980s. Such a flight would involve an absence from earth of many months. The very fact that it is practicable to think of such a possibility is an indication of the extent to which space technology has been advanced in the past decade. The flight itself could well prove to be one of the highlights of the 20th century.

Unmanned Planetary Exploration

In the next few years, NASA plans to continue its unmanned probes to Mars and Venus. To prepare for the manned Mars visit, most effort will be concentrated on that planet. NASA will proceed from the recent flyby missions to Mars orbiters and then to orbiters with surface landers. Eventually it is planned to add surface rovers to the landers. NASA projects will also investigate the outer planets. Opportunities will arise in 1977 for the Jupiter-Saturn-Pluto fllyby mission and in 1979 for the JupiterUranusNeptune flyby; in each case Jupiter, with its huge mass and gravity, will be used to give a boost to the spacecraft by flinging it out to the other planets. Scientists believe that the materials of the outer planets are representative of the solar system material at the time planets were formed. Such missions will thus provide a look back into the history of the solar system. The journey to Neptune will take about 9 years.

Space Applications Projects

Operational satellites are already in use in the areas of meteorology, communications and navigation. However, NASA will continue developmental work on advanced versions. An innovation in the space applications field will be the earth resources technology satellite programme. The first ERTS prototype satellites will be launched in the next few years. The objective will be to determine the performance of remote sensors in identifying earth resources. Fields of interest include crops and forests, water, geology, oceanography, cartography, population and urban planning and pollution.

The Space Shuttle

To support the planned future space operations, there is a critical need to reduce significantly the annual cost of routine round-trip space transportation operations, whilst greatly increasing the number of space flights. The lowest cost at present of putting a pound of material into orbit is $500 and this applies only to a fully loaded Saturn 5 launch - the others are much dearer. NASA hope to reduce this cost to $50 by the end of the 1970’s. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration feels that the key to this will be the development of a versatile shuttle system that can transport a varying mixture of personnel and cargo to low earth orbits and return to earth and, with minimum refurbishing, be usable many times. The basic capacity system NASA is seeking is use for a cargo of about 50,000 lb - both into orbit and on return to earth. Such a system could support a manned space station, place satellites in orbit and enable their servicing and recovery, and deliver vehicles and payloads into earth orbit for firing further into space.

The concept which NASA has in mind is a two stage vehicle. The first stage, known as a booster, will look something like the 747 jumbo-jet, but will have rocket engines clustered in the tail, instead of jet engines under the wings, and will take off vertically. Mounted pick-a-back on the booster will be the second stage or orbiter, something like a Boeing 707. The booster will take the system outside the atmosphere to a velocity of about 7,000 miles an hour. The orbiter will then disconnect and light its own engines to boost its velocity to 17,000 miles an hour which will enable it. to achieve orbit. The booster will fly back and land horizontally like an airliner, ready for refuelling. The second stage will remain in orbit for a week or two to place a satellite into orbit, or service or recover one as the case may be. It will then return to earth and also land horizontally ready for re-use. The space shuttle will, of course, require highly trained pilots, but will be carrying scientists in a shirtsleeve environment. A parallel development is the space station which would remain permanently in orbit so that the scientists will be able to work there for lengthy periods. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is also planning other vehicles to transport men and materials between earth orbit and lunar orbit, between lunar orbit and the moon’s surface, and between earth orbit and deep space.

There has been some speculation that Woomera might become a launching base for space shuttles. Such speculation is just that. There has not been any discussion with NASA on the subject, and indeed it is much too early in the development of the concept for discussions to be useful to either party. But 1 do feel that we could gain great profit from participation in applications satellites probably the most economical way of such participation would be by taking advantage of Dr Paine’s offer of co-operation. During the coming months we will be seeking to establish how best in the national interest we can gain that advantage.

I would like to end this statement on a current note by mentioning the imminent Apollo 13 mission. Australian-staffed establishments, operated by my Department for NASA, will again play an important part in the Apollo 13, 10-day moon-landing mission scheduled to start next Sunday our time. I refer to the tracking stations at Carnarvon, Western Australia, Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla and the NASA switching centre at Deakin, all three in the Australian Capital Territory. The three tracking stations will again track the Apollo spacecraft and communicate with the astronauts. Although all three stations can do so throughout the duration of the mission, Carnarvon has a major role in the near earth phases, and the ACT stations, working as one complex, play a major part during the lunar phases involving distances of more than 250 thousand miles. The switching centre at Deakin is a key link for communications between spacecraft, mission control centres in the United States, and the stations in NASA’s world-wide network. The Postmaster-General’s Department and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) are also responsible for Apollo communications in and from Australia respectively.

page 566

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Willesee) - by leave - agreed to:

That leave of absence for 2 months be granted to Senator Ormonde on the ground of ill-healih.

page 566

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Navigation Bill 1970.

Social Services Bill 1970.

Loan (Australian Wheat Board) Bill 1970.

Repatriation Bill 1970.

page 566

DELIVERED MEALS SUBSIDY BILL 1970

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:
LP

-(Queensland) - Minister for Housing) [9.51] - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With this Bill we will see the implementation of the proposal, outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) in his policy speech before the last election, to make available a subsidy of $1 for each ten meals served by organisations engaged in the Meals on Wheels activities. This measure represents a further step in the programme which has been instituted by the Government of providing assistance to the aged, but it is not confined to the aged. The subsidy will be available to organisations which are providing a meal service wholly or mainly for aged or invalid persons or for both. Nor is the subsidy to be limited to any segment of the aged and invalid group. There will be no form of means test. The Government recognises that persons in all walks of life can face problems, in both the short and the long-term, in caring for themselves. The assistance to be provided under this Bill will therefore be available to any approved eligible organisation engaged in the provision of meals wholly or mainly for aged or invalid persons, and the delivery of those meals from the place where they are prepared to their homes, or to some other convenient place.

I have said that only eligible organisations will qualify for the subsidy. Honourable senators will be familiar with the definition of eligible organisation’ contained in the Aged Persons’ Homes Act, A similar definition will apply for the purposes of this legislation, that is, an eligible organisation will be a non-profit religious, charitable or benevolent organisation or a local governing body. This measure represents an important expansion of the Government’s home care programme, which is designed to provide housekeeping, home nursing and other services to the aged with a view to maintaining them in their own homes for as long as possible. It will also provide another opportunity for the participation of voluntary organisations and other bodies in the programme of caring for people in need of community support. Community response to the home care programme has so far been encouraging in spite of some delays in the completion of arrangements by State Governments; however, there is ample scope for the development still further of the type of service which community effort can best provide. The legislation is aimed at assisting in the establishment, expansion, improvement or maintenance of the Meals on Wheels type of service. In order to qualify for the subsidy of one dollar for every ten meals delivered during the preceding calendar year, an organisation will be expected to supply satisfactory evidence of the number of meals in respect of which subsidy is claimed. Furthermore an organisation may also be required to provide full information about the meal services being provided before the next year’s grant is made available. For example, an organisation might be required to provide details of the way in which the preceding year’s subsidy was used before payment in respect of the current claim is authorised.

At this point it is pertinent for me to mention that, provided its action is consistent with the object of the legislation, an organisation receiving, or entitled to receive, a grant could donate all or part of the grant to another eligible organisation. To encourage participation from bodies which may have taken over, or may be contemplating taking over, the delivery of meals on wheels from an organisation which has ceased, or will shortly cease, to exist, the legislation also embodies provision for meals previously delivered by an organisation which has ceased to operate to be credited to another organisation or organisations for subsidy purposes.

At present the annual number of meals on wheels delivered in Australia is of the order of 2 million. The cost, therefore, at an amount of subsidy of 10c for each meal would be approximately $200,000 for the first year. Something like 5 million delivered meals per year may be necessary before the situation is reached where the needs of those requiring this service are being adequately met. On this basis it could be expected that annual costs would gradually rise to $500,000 a year, but this figure seems unlikely to be achieved for several years. As is fitting with this welfare legislation, payments made in accordance with its provisions will be debited to the National Welfare Fund. The first payments will be made in respect of meals delivered during the calendar year 1969.

I am confident that all honourable senators will recognise that the measure proposed represents an important corollary to the Government’s home care programme which is designed to render necessary assistance to people who. because of advancing years and frailty, are unable to continue to live in their own homes without some help. It is a humanitarian measure with which I am sure all honourable senators will wish to be associated, and as such I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 568

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - I have received a message from the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the appointment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. Copies of the message have been distributed to honourable senators. (See page 582.)

Motion (by Senator Anderson) - by leave - proposed:

That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 7 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs;

That the provisions of the resolution so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders; and

That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

Debate (on motion by Senator Drury) adjourned.

page 568

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

First Report - Consideration

Senator ANDERSON (New South Wales ; Minister for Supply) -I move:

I do not believe that there is a great deal to be added to what is already known and what has been circulated in relation to this matter. To refresh the memory of honourable senators, the report was presented in the Senate on 21st May. It indicated that the Committee had standing order 308 under consideration. The Standing Orders Committee, which is a joint committee of the Senate, had moved to recommend that standing order 308 be amended, the reason being that it seemed to be in conflict with the Parliamentary Papers Act. Standing order 308, as amended, will read:

The evidence taken by any Select Committee of the Senate and documents presented to such Committee, which have not been reportedto the

Senate, shall not, unless authorised by the Senate or the Committee, be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee, or by any other person.

To clarify the matter, all the amendment does is add the words, ‘unless authorised by the Senate or the Committee’ to existing standing order 308. The Standing Orders Committee presented a unanimous recommendation after dealing with this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 568

ADJOURNMENT

Re-establishment of ex-servicemen - War Service Homes - Commonwealth Land Holdings at Jervis Bay - Cyclone Ada

Motion (by Senator Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have already told the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) that I intended to speak on the motion for the adjournment tonight in connection with a matter which was raised at question time this evening and was raised at question time prior to the Senate adjourning for the Easter recess. This evening I received a pamphlet, as I assume did other honourable senators, from the National Executive of the Returned Services League of Australia which, amongst other things, states that the Australian serviceman protects Australia, that Australia must protect him and that there must be satisfactory re-establishment opportunities. It is because I consider that ex-servicemen, particularly those returning from Vietnam, are not getting a fair go in the matter of reestablishment opportunities that I am speaking on the motion for the adjournment this evening.

Before dealing with matters relating to the War Service Homes Division about which I intend to say something at a later stage, I want to refer to a case that I have taken up by way of correspondence with the Minister for Education and Science (Mr N. H. Bowen). It concerns an exserviceman from Vietnam who last year, as a result of representations that I made to the then Minister for Repatriation, Senator McKellar, was able to obtain a 1-year repatriation scholarship to attend the University of New South Wales. The young man had attended the University of Sydney in 1964 and bad not had what one might call a bright academic career. He was subsequently called up and did a period of service in Vietnam as a national serviceman. Upon discharge he applied for and obtained a rehabilitation vocational1 -year scholarship. But then he found that because of the quota system in universities he was unable to secure enrolment in the University of New South Wales.

I took up the matter on his behalf with the then Minister for Repatriation, and as a result of representations that I made the young man was able to enrol in the Faculty of Arts in the University of New South Wales and was given 1 year’s full time training under the national service vocational training scheme. I point out, however, that the Government is giving this young man only a 1-year full time training course. This is not sufficient time to enable him to complete his Arts degree. It is a mere 1 year. At the end of his first year in the Faculty of Arts he sat for an examination and received distinction in Economics 1, credits in Political Science and History and Philosophy of Science, and a pass in Psychology I. He made application for a later year Commonwealth scholarship; but upon making inquiries at the University he was told that this was unlikely to be awarded to him, despite the high marks he received in his first year of arts, because of his unsatisfactory academic record prior to going to Vietnam.

The University, of course, has now recommenced in 1970. I took this case up with the Minister for Education and Science on 10th March. I asked him, in view of the fact that the University was then about to start, to treat this matter as one of urgency and to give sympathetic and favourable consideration to awarding the young man a Commonwealth university later year scholarship. Unfortunately,I have not received even an acknowledgment of my representations to the Minister.

Senator Greenwood:

– Did the honourable senator inquire whether the Minister in fact received his letter?

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:
LP

– I answered properly the question the honourable senator asked.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The information has to be dragged out.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:
LP

– He was not building. He wanted an existing dwelling, did he not?

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I support the remarks that have been made by Senator McClelland, but there are a number of new factors that I want to introduce. First of all, the progress of the Government over the last 2 or 3 Parliaments has been marked by a series of scandals. Prior to the last Senate election we had the Fill episode. Prior to the last general election we had the scandals which were exposed in the Department of Customs and Excise. It is significant to note that following that scandal a Minister was removed from office. Not only has he been removed from office, but the Liberal Party has seen fit in the interim to remove him from the Parliament altogether.

Quite frankly, I feel sorry for the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin). In my short period in this place I think I have always been rather charitable to the Minister. I have never asked awkward questions of her. But I believe that a major scandal is developing in the War Service Homes Division of the Department of Housing. 1 think that perhaps this is happening without the knowledge of the Minister at all, but there are people in high places in this Government who have complete knowledge of it.

Honourable senators will recall that on a number of occasions, particularly during the last general election campaign, the Leader of my Party said that plans were afoot for the complete abolition of the War Service Homes Division of the Department of Housing. I believe that the evidence which has been disclosed in this Parliament, particularly over the last 3 or 4 weeks, is a clear vindication of everything which the Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party has said. Mr Whitlam warned this country a long time ago that a long term project of this Government was to abolish the War Service Homes Division. Now we have reached the stage, in a highly inflationary period, where a maximum of §8,000 is available for the building of a war service home - if one can get a loan. Long ago the Labor Party said that a minimum loan of $12,000 was required.

We can look at this matter from a number of different angles. If the War Service Homes Division was an unfavourable proposition or if it was a charitable organisation established for the purpose of looking after ex-servicemen, then perhaps we could adopt a different approach altogether, but it is a profitable organisation. The losses of the

Division are small. They are not even worth mentioning. People who have obtained loans over the years from the Division have been meticulous in making their repayments. They have to provide a minimum deposit. Consequently, the Division has proved to be a profitable institution. Those are general remarks. Now I want to refer to a particular group of people who have been deprived of war service homes.

I refer to all those men who served in the Torres Strait Islands Regiment during the Second World War. Of all the several hundred persons in the Torres Strait area who have qualified for war service homes, only 1 Torres Strait islander has obtained a war service home. He would have had no chance of obtaining this home had he not been able to obtain approval for a grant with which to buy an existing home. The excuse made by the Department is that there are no freehold title. A long time ago I asked the Minister for Housing to release some land on Horn Isand for the purpose of establishing homes for people living in the area, particularly those engaged in the cultured pearl industry. On the first occasion the Minister said: ‘We cannot do it. We need the land for the Defence Department. They are the people who need the land’. Some months later I asked virtually the same question, that land be released on Horn Island. For those honourable senators who do not know the area geographically, Horn Island is an island near Thursday Island, on which the local airport is situated. It is the base for a large number of people who are associated with the cultured pearl industry. In fact, a large area on the island is reserved for defence purposes. But there are a large number of people on the island who live under squatter’s conditions. They live in shacks around beaches and what have you. They are not living under conditions under which we would hope every Australian would live.

On a subsequent occasion I referred to the area of Bamaga, which is on the western side of Cape York Peninsula. The Minister and I got into quite a lengthy debate on this matter. I think it took place during the Estimates debate or during some similar debate. The Minister said that it was obvious I did not know what I was talking about because they were now growing frangipanni and hibiscus there. I think it was my colleague who sits on my left who interjected at that point of time and said: But people cannot sleep under frangipanni or hibiscus. Why don’t you answer the question?’

I will be quite blunt about this. This is a serious state of affairs. When this Government wants to give away tribal land to the mining companies of international repute who run this country, not only is it able to make land available, but it is able to give it to these companies for a mere fraction of the value of the land. When one looks at Cape York Peninsula, the Northern Territory and Western Australia one sees that this Government has been able to give away whole tracts of land that belong to the original Australians. This land has been obtained without any cost at all to this country. When it comes to building reasonable houses so that Australian Aboriginals may be properly looked after, this is when the old story comes in and the Minister says: ‘I am sorry, we cannot do it. lt is Crown land. I am sorry, we cannot do it. lt is reserved for defence purposes. I am sorry, we cannot do it. There is no title to the land.’

I now ask the Minister: Is the real reason why houses have not been made available by the War Service Homes Division to people who gave their lives to this country - as freely as white people did - that these people are black and because the Government is not prepared to give them the same chance as it is prepared to give to white Australians? Is this the real reason? On the other hand, why is the Government able to give away sacred tribal land to the mining companies as soon as the mining companies say: ‘There is nickel there, or there is oil there, or there is bauxite there, or there is some other mineral there that wc want to develop?’ In Queensland we see the scandal at Weipa where there is complete segregation between black and white. On a previous occasion when we argued this question in this chamber the Minister said that there was not any segregation, that there were separate schools because it costs too much to transport the black people to the other school. Those are virtually the words which were used by the Minister. So we have segregated schools at Weipa. We have one school for black children and one school for white children. We also have segregated housing. There is housing for the white people in the $30,000 category and housing for the black people in the $5,000 to $6,000 category, and some of these people are entitled to war service homes. Why can they not get them? Why can they not get them on Prince of Wales Island, Thursday Island, Banks Island, Ferguson Island or any of the other islands in Torres Strait? It is discrimination, first of all on a racial basis and secondly because the War Service Homes Division is developing into a national scandal and it will be abolished within the lifetime of this Parliament.

Senator Keeffe:

– You are a completely incapable Minister.

Senator Keeffe:

– What about the blokes from Vietnam who cannot get war service homes? What are you going to do about them?

Senator Keeffe:

– He did not.

Senator Keeffe:

– I will bet you will not be able to say that in 12 months’ time.

Senator Keeffe:

– What about-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! Senator Keeffe, you will cease interjecting.

Senator Cavanagh:

– How many?

Senator Georges:

– How many on Thursday Island?

Senator Georges:

– Thursday Island in Torres Strait is a very big place.

Senator Georges:

– That is one instance.

Senator Poyser:

– They can both sleep under bridges - both the white and the black.

Senator Bishop:

– What period does that cover?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But increased on the previously reduced amount.

Senator Georges:

– Well, it is falling short by 2 months. Why do you not do something about that?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am very interested. I can hear you.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Have not some loans been frozen for 6 months?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Plus 2 months, making 6 months.

Senator Georges:

– Why?

Senator Bishop:

– Can you tell us what is the reason for the delay?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are broke.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I wish to say a few words on this matter. I think the point of the debate is being lost in a mass of verbiage and innuendoes being directed from both sides of the chamber. We should be trying to get down to the problem that seems to be facing the nation. As Senator McClelland has pointed out, the 1967-63 Budget was brought down at a time when the Government was attempting to justify the introduction of the National Service Act to conscript young men for Vietnam.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I rise to a point of order. Has not the Minister’s reply closed the debate?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Senator Cavanagh is in order.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise to make some serious criticisms of the existing policy of the Department of the Interior with regard to Commonwealth territory and land usage. I direct my remarks particularly to the future of the Sussex Inlet region, or what could broadly be termed the Jervis Bay and attendant areas. I do so on a number of counts. I begin by referring to correspondence I have received from Mr Maddox, State Secretary of the Australian Railways Union. New South Wales Branch. That organisation has a holiday camp at Sussex Inlet. Mr Maddox expresses concern at the considerable soil erosion of the foreshores at Sussex Inlet. Although Mr Maddox does not criticise the Department of the Interior, one of the things that prompts him to raise this matter is that the Department, in its wisdom, is not backward in enforcing certain building ordinances relating to holiday camps. If it is good enough for the Department to act in that direction it is good enough for it as the custodian of the people’s land, to avoid some of the mistakes made by other countries.

The comment by the ARU is a general statement. To fortify the criticism from that organisation I quote from a letter from Vincent Serventy, a very prominent Western Australian who, among his many positions in the field on conservation, is the editor of’Wildlife in Australia’. Let me quote a criticism that he directs to this matter. He said:

  1. . regarding Commonwealth land at Jervis Bay . . . There is extensive and continuing pine planting going on there, both by the Federal and State governments. With the nuclear power station and the proposed steel works-

These are the points which I underline -

  1. .I feel it is time that the Government concerned had another look at the natural bush of the area and its potential use for recreation. I feel the Federal Government should create a national park in this area to include the coastline and the headlands, and also all the natural bush south of Sussex Inlet. Also, it would need a plan of management so this land could be used for recreation without destroying all its quality. Further we should cease continued pine planting expansion.

I know that if Senator Prowse was present he would endorse these fears about incessant pine planting.

The point that I am making is that Vincent Serventy sets out the situation as far as the Commonwealth is concerned clearly and plainly. During the last 3 years, when we have been discussing the estimates for the Department of the Interior, I have raised this matter and I have been assured that it is under consideration. My counter always has been this: ‘If you do not do something effective immediately, you will suddenly find that, either because of the value of minerals or for some other reason, you will want to scrap some particular plan for conservation.’

Any fears that I may have had - I fell that I might be unduly prejudiced - were more than answered by the ‘Australian Financial Review’ of 3rd April 1970, in which we saw a typical big time American capitalist Press release about the ArmcoKaiser Steel complex feasibility study at Jervis Bay. Once upon a time we used to get such patronising remarks from the board rooms in the city of London. Today, we get them from their American counterparts. They were similar to what we read in this article in the ‘Australian Financial Review’, which states:

They hope that shipping finished and semifinished steel to world markets from Down Under will be cheaper than making it at home.

In simple language, they wish to inflict another Pittsburgh on us at Jervis Bay.

This is just one aspect of the matter. So far, this Parliament has not been taken into any confidence as to where the steel works will end up and how much land will be mortgaged for this project rather than used for recreational purposes or saved for posterity. The matter does not end there. 1 refer to the ‘Canberra Times’ of 21st March 1970, which contains some excellent prose by Paul Dann. He referred to the iron curtain that exists in relation to areas that are visualised as future catchments for the ACT. He mentioned certain regions of the Cotter River and he asked whether or not a catchment area will be established in the Brindabellas to supply Canberra’s future needs.

I conclude my reference to these unanswered questions by referring to a letter from the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) dated 1st December 1969. I might say that I have maintained this pressure of inquiries, as the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton), who represents the Minister for the Interior in the Senate knows by placing other questions on the notice paper concerning the Black Mountain project and a much more important project, the Mount Kelly national park region. On 1st December - here we have shades of Senator McCielland’s reference to Ministers adhering to rapid reactions and answers - the Minister stated: . . I am aware that you have been earlier advised that a decision will be reached in the not too distant future. The fact that no decision has yet been taken is mainly because some active supporters of the proposal have specially asked that a final decision be deferred . . .

I made inquiries in the ACT. It is now 6th April. This letter was written 16 weeks ago. Honourable senators cannot tell me that the conservationists are still marking time. Eminent conservationists are asking for a decision to be taken. In relation to the matters I have raised, I think it is time that the Minister for the Interior stated the Government’s proposals clearly, because time is not on our side. I do not want to embarrass anybody on the other side of the chamber, but I put it to honourable senators in this way: If a house of ill fame were established in Mugga Way it would lead to the same intolerable situation as the establishment of an industrial complex in Jervis Bay. In my opinion there is no difference at all. This is the objection I have.

I cannot anticipate the answers which will be given by the Minister for Civil Aviation, who represents the Minister for the Interior in this chamber, but I know that the matters

I have raised are of concern to many honourable senators, including some honourable senators opposite. The setting up of committees of inquiry is frequently discussed in this chamber. I think the Minister for Civil Aviation would be doing us a service - and I challenge him to do so - if he were to say: ‘All right. The Department of the Interior has nothing to hide. It is not dominated by large United States companies. I shall name a team of 3, 4 or 5 senators and in the first available week in the recess we will go along the shores of Jervis Bay and Sussex Inlet and determine what use should be made of the area in the future’. Some honourable senators may smile at such a suggestion, but when it comes to planning I think the views of honourable senators are much more important than those of the boardroom czars in the United States, Britain or, for that matter, Australia’s Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd. I am concerned at the fact that this thing has dragged on for so long. I leave it at that point.

I particularly emphasise to the Minister that if the Government has nothing to hide it should allow half a dozen honourable senators - probably flanked by officers of the Department of the Interior - to have a look at the matter. Prior to the last Estimates debate I had an opportunity to go through part of the Mount Kelly ranges. The departmental officers were very frank. Their views were not parallel with my own, which did not mean anything, as they had alternatives, but neither their views nor my views have come to fruition. It is on that basis that I make this appeal concerning the 3 or 4 matters I have raised. Regardless of what the Minister may say in reply, I hope that we will be able to see for ourselves what is visualised in this respect so that we can appreciate what will happen in the future.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– Although the hour is late, the debate has been very interesting. We all know that Senator Mulvilhill is a great advocate of conservation. I think he would agree with me that conservation is very much the application of soil care and proper forest establishment and forest care as well as water care. These things are very much bound together. In many ways they are sometimes inextricable.

Very often it is necessary to have a forestry programme in order to protect a catchment area.

Senator Mulvihill raised a number of matters which I found to be very interesting. He talked of soil erosion on the foreshores of Sussex Inlet. He also spoke about pine planting programmes and the opposition to a pine planting programme in Jervis Bay. He said that Vincent Serventy takes the view that the natural re-establishment of the vegetation of the area is preferred. I say in passing that anybody is entitled to take that view, but there are views contrary to such a proposal held by other people who are equally eminent in botany ecology. Senator Mulvihill also raised the proposed Armco-Kaiser steel project feasibility studies. I think it is correct to say that the feasibility studies are only in relation to a site and it has not been determined that Jervis Bay is a site which is preferred to the others. Although it may well prove to be the case, it has not been so decided.

The honourable senator also discussed the catchment areas in the Australian Capital Territory. I have had a very good look at most of the catchment areas in the ACT and I know that the ACT is not well placed in relation to them. It may well be that in the future catchment areas will have to be secured outside the ACT. It is true that there is a need to be careful about the protection of the ACTs catchment areas, particularly in the southern portion of the Territory, where the vegetation is fairly sparse and the hills are steep and very rocky. Erosion hazards would be, without any doubt at all, quickly established if there is any kind of over-grazing or any other problem. Senator Mulvihill referred to letters he had written and replies he had received about the Black Mountain and Mount Kelly proposals. He also referred to the delays he experienced in relation to these replies.

Senator Mulvihill suggested that the Department of the Interior might make available facilities to enable interested senators to look at the Jervis Bay foreshores in due course to see whether or not erosion is likely, whether or not there is going to be substantial foreshore damage and if there is going to be a steel works there. All in all, I think the honourable senator will agree that I take an interest in these things. I will report his proposals to the Department of the Interior, along with his comments and concern and his belief that letters, which have been awaiting answers for quite some time, should now be answered. I willi also suggest to the Department of the Interior that prior to any inspection of the area by honourable senators who might wish to see it, officers of the Department ought to look at the various places mentioned and ought to be able to let us have some information. If the officers can give the information to me I will see that Senator Mulvihill and the Senate also receive it.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– 1 want to refer to an answer to a question which 1 received today from the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) as the representative in this chamber of the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock). It concerns cyclone Ada which devastated the Proserpine and Shute Harbour area. Honourable senators are well aware that winds of up to 150 miles an hour cut through the area and caused great devastation not only to the island resorts but also to the inhabited areas of Shute Harbour, Airlie Beach, Cannonvale and right through the valley up to Proserpine. Those who have witnessed the devastation know that houses were completely destroyed. Homes were lifted and carried a great distance away. Many people, including pensioners and aged persons, were left homeless, especially in the Cannonvale area.

As was indicated in the answer I received to my question, the Army did come to the assistance of the stricken area. Some 150 men went there and they showed great courage. As was indicated, one young soldier lost his life. These Army personnel went to the stricken area and gave great assistance especially in the town of Proserpine. However, although the cyclone occurred on the Sunday morning and the Army came quickly to give assistance, it was not until the Thursday morning - 4 days and 4 nights later - that Army equipment started to flow into the Airlie Beach and Cannonvale area which was still cut off from the main communication between north and south. For some reason, after the equipment arrived at Airlie Beach - some by helicopter and some by Army barge - just when the Army assistance was about to take effect the Army withdrew. It is of no use to say that the Army did not withdraw becauseI was there in a briefing room when a major gave the order for the Army to withdraw, leaving behind only 10 men. Of the 120-odd men who were available in the area to give assistance to the people only 10 remained in spite of the fact that a considerable amount of equipment had arrived.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Why did you not ring the GOC Northern Command? They are under his command.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– The honourable senator recently asked me some questions. I asked him to put them on notice and this afternoon I gave him answers to those questions. Apparently he is seeking further information and I shall direct his remarks to the Minister for the Army (Mr Peacock).I would have thought that if the honourable senator attached so much importance to his telephone call to Canberra, one would have expected that at least he would have asked who was speaking at this end.

page 582

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Message from House of Representatives (See page 568.)

Mr President,

The House of Representatives transmits to the Senate the following resolution which was agreed to bythe House of Representatives this day, and requests that the Senate concur and take action accordingly:

House of Representatives,

Canberra, 19 March 1970

W. J. Aston.

Speaker

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 April 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700407_senate_27_s43/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant