Senate
7 April 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir A lister McMullin) took the chair at 2 p.m.. and read prayers.

page 799

QUESTION

SENATE SELECT COMMITTES ON SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:
Victoria

– by leave - I move:

Sir,I seek the indulgence of the Senate in proposing this motion - with great humility, I might add - because I know thatI am imposing upon the generosity of the Senate which approaches these matters, as I mentioned yesterday, with careful scrutiny and some doubt. I indicated to the Senate yesterday the reason why I sought leave to propose the motion that I proposed and to which the Senate agreed. For this my Committee is extraordinarily grateful. The Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, under the acting chairmanship of Senator Sim, sat in Perth yesterday. The Committee has now returned to Canberra. At 10.15 this morning a full meeting of the Committee was held here and the report of Senator Sim, as Acting Chairman, Senator Wheeldon and Senator Rae, who were in Perth, was presented. The matters that they have disclosed to the full Committee this morning are of such order and importance that 1 felt compelled in the interests of the Committee and in the interests of the Senate to ask for this further indulgence. I hope that honourable senators will grant this further privilege.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 799

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the Senate discussthe loss of wheat sales to China as a result of the attitude of the Government and the public statements of the Leader of the Country Party.

page 799

QUESTION

JERVIS BAY STEELWORKS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the plea of the Prime Minister to the States to exercise caution in their spending, will the Prime Minister draw the attention of Premier Askin to an assessment of the Jervis Bay steelworks plan appearing in the March issue of the Australian Quarterly’ by Mr T. Dughteren, chartered engineer management consultant, that New South Wales would be squandering$75m of public money to prop up the inefficient sector of the United States steel industry and, in the final analysis, cause New South Wales to squander federal aid that could be spent on more laudable objectives?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI shall refer the honourable senator’s question to the Prime Minister and get a reply as expeditiously as possible.

page 799

QUESTION

TELEVISING OF FOOTBALL MATCHES

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to a dispute in Western Australia between the league and television stations over the televising of league football matches. It has been reported that an application has been made to the Trade Practices Commissioner on the matter in dispute, namely, arena advertising. Will the Minister ascertain for me as a matter of urgency the facts of the matter?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · LP

-I am unable to answer on my own initiative any of the issues which have been raised by the honourable senator. I shall convey the text of his question to the Attorney-General and also his request that it be treated as urgent.

page 799

QUESTION

PROVISIONAL TAX

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that provisional tax is required to be paid in cases where persons are collecting interest on small legacies and that in most cases this causes undue hardship to the persons concerned? Will the Minister take the necessary action to exempt such persons from the requirement to pay provisional tax where the only other income is a weekly wage or salary?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI could not undertake any responsibility to relieve the incidence of provisional tax or any other tax. The only thing I can do is refer the honourable senators request to the Treasurer.

page 800

QUESTION

QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE

(Senator Hannan proceeding to address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry) -

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson - Mr

President, I regret having to do so, but I must take a point of order. A notice of motion was given in this place today and the question which is now being asked is canvassing the whole area of the notice of motion. I suggest that the question should go on the notice paper, and I suggest also that the question cannot go on at this time in this fashion.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I suggest to the honourable senator that he put his question on the notice paper.

page 800

QUESTION

DDT

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Health. On 16th March I addressed a question to the Minister who then represented the Minister for Health concerning tests in New South Wales and Victoria which indicated that human mothers’ milk could contain up to 20 times the amount of DDT that is acceptable to dairy milk marketing authorities. Can the Minister provide me with any further information on this matter, as I regard this as a very serious situation? If the information contained in my question is accurate this matter should be the subject of urgent action by the Government to ban the use of DDT in Australia.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am aware that this question was asked by the honourable senator on 16th March. I understand also that a question was asked by Senator Prowse on the same date. At the moment I am not in a position to give the honourable senator any information, but I think I can give him some solace by saying that the question he has asked today will prompt me to get the information as quickly as 1 am able.

page 800

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. I preface my question by referring to an interview with the Treasurer which was published in the ‘Sydney Morn ing Herald’ on 3rd April 1971 in which he is reported to have said:

The Arbitration system has sanctions on both sides. If you take away one form of sanctions, then the argument would bc that the others, against employers, would have to go too.

In the light of this statement of the Government’s attitude that the industrial law should be enforced impartially against unions and employers, is the Minister in favour of the imposition of sanctions, including fines, on the employers who are at present imposing a lockout on miners at Broken Hill?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The latter part of the honourable senator’s question implies an interpretation of recent industrial activity which I for one am not prepared to accept. I do not canvass the alternatives, but the verities of what he attributes to the Minister for Labour and National Service are incontestable. In other words, if we are to have an effective system of arbitration, the awards and decisions of the arbitrator must have means of enforcement. They may be fines, civil actions or other sanctions, and in Australia it is characteristic of the system that those sanctions are applied impartially.

page 800

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities, refers to the failure of some briefly constituted travel agencies, one recently in South Australia, resulting from which booked passengers, including migrants, have now lost savings or money which they had secured on [oan to visit families overseas, without much chance of recovering the fare money. Is the Government contemplating, either on its own behalf or in concert with the States, any legislation which would provide protection to such people or to the industry?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I remind the Senate that I gave a long answer to a question asked on this subject by Senator Mulvihill yesterday, the substance of which I shall restate. A number of travel agents - the number is relatively few in comparison with the number of travel agents operating - have defaulted their obligations, often as a matter of fraud. Those cases of fraud are justiciable at the present time under the criminal laws of the States. But due to the operation of the travel agents, the laws of the States are not fully effective to apply the appropriate sanction. Therefore the Government has authorised me to enter into discussions with the Travel Agents Association for the purpose of proposing legislation on a Commonwealth basis for the regulation of the licensing and operation of travel agents operating in the interstate and foreign fields. I have had those discussions with the Association and I am happy to say that the Association as such fully supports the proposal. The legislation is now in the course of preparation. When it is drafted it will be a matter of discussion again with the industry, lt is my objective, if and when the Government approves of the legislation, to bring the Bill to the Parliament in the Budget session. I recognise that the activities of these travel agents is a matter which could be of growing significance in eroding the integrity of tourism in Australia, particularly at a time when tourism has such an opportunity to expand.

page 801

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONS

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, lt concerns the proposed amalgamation of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society and the Sheet Metal Workers Union. ls the Government fully informed as to the purpose of the amalgamation of these 3 unions? What will be the total membership of the amalgamated union? What will be the total income? What will be the total amount of the political fund? How many members of the Communist Party or parties belong to the national staffs of these 3 unions, including the Federal office and the State offices, and what are their names? What percentage of membership of the 3 unions voted in the recent ballot dealing with amalgamation? Who counted the ballot? Was the ballot counted by persons actually supporting one side or by persons representing both sides?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I recognise that the honourable senator’s question is directed to a field of great significance in the trade union movement involving, as it does, the proposed merger of 3 of the largest unions in Australia. The matter is being watched in the ordinary course of events by the Department of Labour and National Ser vice. Processes of law have to be followed after a ballot in this respect is taken. The total membership, the income, the amount of the political fund, the percentage of members who voted and the scrutiny of the vote are matters upon which I would wish the honourable senator to have accurate information. That would necessitate a reference to the Minister for Labour and National Service. I shall expedite that.

page 801

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware that the American Central Intelligence Agency is responsible for the financing and equipping of a provincial reconnaissance unit in Vietnam? Is he also aware that the unit is better known as the assassination squad? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the Australian Government is responsible for a similar unit in Vietnam, which comes under the control of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or does the Australian Government rely on the American Central Intelligence Agency to do work required by Australia in this field?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The honourable senator injected info his question some words which are grossly offensive. For that reason, I do not propose to give any answer to his question.

page 801

QUESTION

LAMB EXPORTS

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I preface my remarks by saying that about 4 months ago, during a visit to Australia by representatives of the United States Sheep Producers Association, a consultative committee comprising representatives of the Australian and New Zealand Meat Boards and the United States Sheep Producers Association was formed, with the object of increasing prime lamb exports to the United States. Can the Minister give the Senate any information about the activities of the consultative committee and what progress, if any, has been made?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– Representatives of the various organisations to which the honourable senator referred met last November and formed a committee. Early in December an announcement was made by the Minister for Primary Industry. I understand that the committee has met with a view to examining ways and means by which it can implement a programme, directed at consumers, teachers and students, and the trade generally, to promote the sale of lamb in the 3 countries that the honourable senator mentioned. [ further understand that this programme is due to come into operation about the middle of this year. That is all the information I can give the honourable senator.

page 802

QUESTION

PARAMEDICAL SERVICES

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. In view of promises made by his predecessor as Minister for Health that he intended to institute an inquiry into the means of including paramedical services in the health services, with special emphasis on optometry, can the Minister advise whether this inquiry has been commenced or completed? If it has, when will its findings be made known?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The subject is under general review within my Department. At this point of time I am unable to say what progress has been made in this general review, nor am I able to say when it will be completed. I can assure the honourable senator, as my predecessor assured him, that I have an’ interest in this matter. In due course I shall communicate to him and others the result of these inquiries.

page 802

QUESTION

INVESTMENT

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he is aware of a statement by Sir Archibald Glenn, the chairman of an important company, who in an annual report suggested that with the current situation of company tax being increased by 5i per cent, when tariffs are being cut and when wage increases are at a record rate, it seems a strange time at which to further discourage investment in new and more efficient industrial processes, as is evident in the recent decision of the Government to suspend the investment allowance. That decision underestimates the difficulties that confront Australian industry. Will the Treasurer and the Government give urgent consideration to the reintroduction of the investment allowance with a view to achieving greater efficiency in manufacturing industries in Australia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The investment allowance legislation was passed through the Senate, I think with the co-operation of the whole Senate, in recent times. What the honourable senator is asking me is, in any event, a matter of policy. I could not react to it in those circumstances. If he chooses, he may put his question on the notice paper and it will be referred to the Treasurer.

page 802

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services examine what appears to be an anomalous position when a widow who is in receipt of a war widow’s pension and a part social services pension, and who receives a 50c increase in the former is then informed that the latter will be reduced by an equivalent amount? In these circumstances the recipient is therefore denied any financial benefit as a result of an upward review of social service payments.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am not in a position in my representative capacity to give an answer at this time to the honourable senator. I shall be quite happy to convey to the Minister for Social Services the question he asks. I ask the honourable senator to supply me with the details of the case he has in mind, because undoubtedly the obtaining of results from inquiries will be facilitated by exact details.

page 802

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I am not sure whether my question should be directed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral or the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. It is a borderline case. I understand that 43,000 young men have failed to register under the provisions of the National Service Act. Of these, 23,000 have been classed as having committed no offence, 8,000 have been excused, 7,800 have been under investigation for more than 3 months, 2,800 have been under investigation for less than 3 months, 1,113 have been prosecuted and 6 have been sentenced to gaol for 2 years. In view of this massive opposition to the National Service Act can the Government justify sending 6 men - Zarb. Reinsenlelter, Bed do w. Ross, Martin and Mullen to gaol for 2 years?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I wish to inform the honourable senator that his colleague Senator O’Byrne has a similar question on the notice paper to which I will be furnishing an answer at a later stage this afternoon. I think it would be preferable for me to withhold the information and give it accurately in that form.

page 803

QUESTION

ANIMAL QUARANTINE

Senator MULVIHILL:

– 1 preface my question, addressed to the Minister for Health, by referring to question No. 935 on the notice paper. Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin, who formerly represented the Minister for Health in this chamber, will recall that an answer came back from the former Minister for Health but was mislaid. The question again was placed on the notice paper. As the Minister is in control of this portfolio, could he expedite a decision on the procedure now being followed in New Zealand affecting Australians who take their dogs to that country in view of the fact that there is now a new and modern animal quarantine station at Wellington?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 shall give attention to the question asked by the honourable senator and inform myself further by referring to the earlier question which he said he asked and of which I am unaware.

page 803

QUESTION

UNION MERGERS

Senator POYSER:

– My question is addressed to the Lender of the Government in the Senate. Has the Commonwealth Government any control over the merger of large companies, including banks and other commercial institutions as well as mining companies? Can it veto decisions by industrial unions to merge in the common interest of their members? If so, under what legislation does this right of veto exist?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Because of the field covered by the honourable senator’s question I think I should ask him to put it on the notice paper in order to get a precise answer. I have the feeling that there are some pro visions in the banking law relating to banks and I have a feeling that there is some provision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act relating to industrial unions. The question is a fair and interesting one but 1 think it should be put on notice and receive a considered reply.

page 803

QUESTION

HOSPITALS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware that a comparatively small country district hospital such as the Angaston hospital in South Australia is incurring embarrassingly heavy losses, no less’ than $15,580 in the last 7 months, in providing for pensioner patients? As the Commonwealth grant of $5 a day and the State grant of $2 a day are obviously insufficient to provide for the hospital costs of pensioners, will urgent consideration be given to alleviating this position which is common to such hospitals throughout the country, as it is to privately owned hospitals?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The question asked by the honourable senator, together with similar questions raised by honourable senators in the last week, covers matters which are primarily within the province of the State governments. Hospitals are subject, to State government legislation and the State governments primarily are responsible for their financing. However, the Commonwealth is involved in 2 major ways. The first is that the Commonwealth has an arrangement with the States by which financial assistance grants are given to them. One can only expect, as a result of what the Premiers said after the successful Premiers Conference this week, that the States will find that their revenue problems for this current year are not as difficult as they were expecting them to be before that conference. I am not in a position to say how the State governments will apply their moneys but it may mean that the position of the hospitals in South Australia and the other States will be alleviated. The other way in which the Commonwealth is involved is through the hospital benefits scheme and the various Commonwealth benefits which help the hospitals to alleviate their costs. As I informed the Senate last week, this is an area under review in the Department. I hope that within a short time there will be an announcement by the Government as to what is proposed, but it is not to be taken from what I have said that any announcement is imminent. The matter currently is under review following the Nimmo Committee recommendations of over a year ago and I hope that there will be an early announcement of what the Government is proposing.

page 804

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Works who represents in this chamber the Minister for Labour and National Service. My question follows an answer provided to Senator Wilkinson on matters relating to national service. I ask the Minister whether, in the course of the answer he proposes to provide today, he will incorporate a reply to a matter I raised some time ago relating to different interpretations in Victoria and Western Australia as to what constitutes a hearing to determine the question of conscientious objection made on the initiative of the Director of Labour and National Service. I refer to question No. 978. If he is not yet in a position to provide an answer to that question, when may I expect one?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I can assure the. honourable senator that the question has been referred to the Minister. If an answer has been awaited for more than 3 weeks, a reminder has gone to the Minister. I shall get a specific answer by a specific reference as early as I can for the honourable senator.

page 804

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator BISHOP:

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for Air, refers to Press reports of an address given by the Chief of the Air Staff in Canberra on Monday evening. It appears that he questioned or sought to modify the current effectiveness of purchasing policies, particularly in relation to helicopters but also in relation to air refuelling requirements for F111 aircraft. I ask: Do the views expressed by the Chief of the Air Staff represent a change of opinion by the Government? Is it a fact that resulting from a defence study the requirements and role of Australian helicopter squadrons are likely to be modified? Is it apparent that air refuelling capability is essential if the F111 aircraft are to be finally accepted by Australia?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Chief of the Air Staff was addressing a conference. He said that in the light of the Vietnam campaign he thought a study should be made of the capabilities of helicopters performing in both permissive and non-permissive areas; that is, when not under ground fire and when under ground fire. A very careful study is being made. The Chief of the Air Staff went on to refer to the maritime contribution. A study is being conducted by the Department of Defence in respect of the maritime contribution of the Royal Australian Air Force in conjunction with Navy patrols. He then referred to the possible end of life of the Hercules C130A transports and suggested that we could be looking at a tanker cum transport aircraft which would help our flying capabilities with Mirage and helicopter aircraft and would give greater range to the F111. However, I remind the Senate that the distance capability of the F111 is no worry whatsoever to us because it meets all our requirements without tanker support.

page 804

QUESTION

COMMUNIST CHINA

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government is aware that one condition of Communist China’s entry to the United Nations on which Peking has indicated it would insist is that it receive the same right of veto as certain major powers. What would be the attitude of the Australian Government to investing Communist China with this power completely and at will to nullify operations of the United Nations?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is well known that Communist China insists that it be recognised as China for the purpose of entry into the United Nations, from which it would acquire the right of veto that was accorded by the treaty to China. It is quite obvious that at present that situation presents us with a matter for consideration with deep anxiety. Beyond that I shall not go.

page 804

QUESTION

ANZAC DAY HOLIDAY

Senator MILLINER:

– On Tuesday lastI addressed a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior requesting that the statutory holiday for

Sunday, 25th April 1971, be transferred to Monday, 26th April 1971, for employees in the Australian Capital Territory. Has the Minister any information to convey concerning this proposal?

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

– I remember the question. I have not yet received the information from the Minister concerned but I suggest that later this afternoon the honourable senator come to my office and I will endeavour to obtain an answer for him.

page 805

QUESTION

APARTHEID

Senator WEBSTER:

– Can the Minister representing the Attorney-General advise whether the Commonwealth Government wishes to become involved in, or to express a view regarding, the present topic of interest relating to the type or class of person to be included in the South African cricket team to tour Australia? Is the rumour true that the British Government has sent a telegram to the Australian Prime Minister indicating its wish to have 2 Aboriginals included in the Australian cricket team when it next tours the United Kingdom?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I fail to see how this question can properly be addressed to me in my capacity as Minister representing the Attorney-General. The Government has made its attitude clear in statements which have been made by the Prime Minister over the past few days and I have no wish to elaborate upon them.

page 805

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE ACT

Senator KEEFFE:

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service aware that 2 young Australian men are currently serving long gaol sentences for allegedly refusing to comply with the provisions of the National Service Act? Will the Minister use his good offices and prevail upon the Governor-General to exercise his prerogative of mercy and release both men forthwith?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The exercise of the Governor-General’s prerogative is a matter which is considered in appropriate circumstances upon the presentation of proper material and after the proper procedures have been adopted in the submission of the petition.

page 805

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

(Question No. 870)

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

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

  1. Do over 1,100 young men now face prose cution for various breaches of the National Service Act.
  2. Is only one man now in jail for refusing to be conscripted despite this wide-spread defiance of the Act.
  3. Does this not indicate that the Government, facing massive disenchantment with its conscription and Vietnam policies, especially by its own Liberal youth branches, is not anxious to exacerbate the situation by jailing the draft resisters.
  4. When will the Government, in view of its economy drive, stop this hypocrisy by repealing the National Service Act and withdrawing all Australian troops from Vietnam.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Since some in the community are seeking to confuse the situation regarding breaches of the National Service Act it may help ifI explain matters in some detail.

The more serious areas of default under the National Service Act are threefold:

When it comes to my Department’s notice that a man does not appear to have registered or has not registered at the proper time the matter is investigated to ensure that national service obligations are not being avoided. It is in the interests of both those who are affected and the men who meet their obligations that investigations should be carried out vigorously and with the thoroughness and care essential in the circumstances.

Frequently, in cases of apparent failure to register or to register at the proper time, no default is found. In many instances the man is not required to register; he is in the Permanent Forces or has arrived in Australia after the registration date of his age-group. In other cases the person’tu rns out to be non-existent or when correctly identified he is already registered or may not have been in Australia at the time when his age-group was required to register, but has done so correctly on his return.

Some men register late, for example, because they were in hospital at the time their age-group was required to register, others would be in prison and there are the mentally retarded. Where no mitigating circumstances exist, however, and the men failed to register at the proper time they are denied the benefit of the ballot.In addition, particularly where the men have registered only after coming tothe notice of the Department or have refused to register at all, they are also liable to prosecution for their offence.

The great majority of men registered as required. During the last 3 years to 31st December last when those opposed to national service have been most vocal,

When a man is called for medical examination to determine his fitness for Army service, he is asked to advise the Registrar before the due date if for any reason be will be unable to attend so that another date can be arranged. If he does not do so and fails to attend, he is normally sent another notice for a later dale. He is also advised that the National Service Act provides in the. event of prosecution for a fine and being sentenced to 7 days imprisonment if he persists in his refusal.

Again the great majority’ of men attend for medical examination when requiredto do so. Over the past 3 years to 3 1st December last 66,780 men had been medically examined; 50 men, or less than 0.1 per cent, have been prosecuted.

Men who have been medically examined and found to be fit, or have refused to undergo a medical examination and been prosecuted for that offence and persist in their refusal, are called up for Army service. Otherwise no man is called up while any doubt exists regarding his eligibility for exemption orhis fitness for service.

Some men do not attend on the date set down for their call-up because, for example, of illness, family death or other unavoidable causes. In these cases arrangements are made for their enlistment at a later date. Other men at the last minute apply for recognition as conscientious objectors or seek deferment on the grounds of exceptional hardship and are subsequently granted exemption or are enlisted. Men who refuse to attend for call-up normally have at least two opportunities to consider their situation and report for service.

Over the past 3 years of the national service scheme to 31st December last, 11 men have been convicted of refusal to obey a call-up notice to render service, or 0.04 per cent of some 25,487 who have been calledup and enlisted during this period.

At each of the stages of medical examination and call-up, particular consideration is given to men who have indicated that they may hold conscientious beliefs which could entitle themto exemption from national service but have not applied themselves. They are considered for referral under the provisions which the Government introduced last August. Their cases are thoroughly examined before any prosecution action is launched. If such men are granted exemption, no further action is taken, otherwise prosecution proceeds as it does in other cases where reference is not warranted.

  1. Two men are currently imprisoned following conviction of failure to obey a call-up notice and render service.
  2. and (4) The figures in (1) above speak for themselves.

page 806

QUESTION

THE QUIET MUTINY

(Question No. 950)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Did the Australian Broadcasting Commission consider the use of a documentary on Vietnam called ‘The Quiet Mutiny’ produced by Australian reporter John Pilger; if so, for what reason was it rejected?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

Yes. ‘The Quiet Mutiny’ deals with a highly controversial subject. It was not purchased because the ABC could not present, within a reasonable period, another film which would balance the strong and decided views expressed in The Quiet Mutiny”.

page 806

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES TO CHINA

(Question No. 953)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

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

Did the Minister for External Territories, during the Senate campaign in November 1970, stale at a public meeting on the Queensland Gold Coast that he was not perturbed at the loss of the Mainland Chinese market for Australian wheat as in any case Australia was only disposing of its inferior wheat to that country; if so, is only inferior grain, which is unsaleable elsewhere, being sold to Mainland China and has the statement by the Minister for External Territories contributed to the apparent loss of this market?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Primary industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question: 1 have noted that the Minister representing me in the Senate replied on 15th March, to an identical question without notice asked by the honourable senator (Hansard pages 480-481). I would add only that in years when weather conditions have caused some wheat to be ‘inferior’ it has been sold to many markets, including large quantitiesto the United Kingdom, for feed purposes.

page 806

QUESTION

CHILD CARE CENTRES

(Question No. 827)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

What progress has been made towards the establishment of child care centres in accordance with the Minister’s statement that there would be consultation with State, Municipal and voluntary bodies to work out guidelines and standards covering the nature of accommodation and equipment requirements, staffing needs, and the training of staff for the effective conduct of the child care centres?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The matters referred to in the question are being considered by an interdepartmental committee. The evolving of guidelines and standards to ensure the effective conduct of child care centres needs considerable investigation and a full exploration of the possible approaches is being made.

page 807

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 835)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Post master-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Postmaster-General seen a report that plans are under way for a1-hour prime time worldwide programme, via satellite in commemoration of the United Nations International Childrens’ Emergency Fund, and that the programme, which is being promoted by the International Telecommunications Union as part of its world telecommunication exhibition scheduled for Geneva from 17th to 27th June 1971 will be arranged by an international group that will include the United States networks, the European Broadcasting Union and other national and international bodies.
  2. Has Australia been invited to participate in this programming; if so, will the Government ensure that any Australian programme for this venture is written and performed by Australians and that all possible assistance is given to enable our writers and dramatists to display to the world that Australians are second to none in the production of programmes, especially children’s films, for television purposes.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. I understand that the International Telecommunications Union has offered the European Broadcasting Union free use of the global satellite on the occasion of the World Telecommunications Conference in Geneva in June 1971, and that the presentation of an hour long television programme to celebrate the 25th Anniversary of UNICEF is being considered to mark the occasion.
  2. As an associate member of the European Broadcasting Union the ABC has been provisionally invited, and has agreed, to participate in the satellite programme. Bearing in mind that the Australian contribution, if accepted, must fit into the overall concept of the programme I am assured that it will be made by and with Australians.

page 807

QUESTION

CLICK GO THE YEARS

(Question No. 916)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Post master-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission been able to assess any increase or decrease in its audience measurement ratings on television for the series ‘Click Go The Years’.
  2. What sort of response has the Australian Broadcasting Commission had to the programming of these historical Australian film productions.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. According to the commercial rating reports available for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide, the ‘Click Go The Years’ series has resulted in an increase in ABC audiences in Sydney and Brisbane, while the audience levels in Melbourne and Adelaide have remained more or less constant.
  2. The ABC has had a generally favourable response to the series.

page 807

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RECORDING EQUIPMENT

(Question No. 919)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Is the telephone recording equipment being developed by the Australian Broadcasting Commission more suited to broadcasting than telephone recorders made by the Postmaster-General’s Department.
  2. When is it expected that the Australian Broadcasting Commission recorder will be available.
  3. How many regional studios are operated by the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  4. Which of such studios have telephone recording equipment on hand, and which have not.
  5. When is it expected that all regional studios will have such equipment available to them, and what is the estimated overall cost.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Yes. The Postmaster-General’s Department assisted in its development.
  2. A limited number is expected to be available in July 1971.
  3. Thirty.
  4. PMG recorder connector units are in use in the following ABC regional studios: Canberra, Grafton, Newcastle, Kempsey, Albury, Broken

Hill, Toowoomba, Townsville, Cairns. Rockhampton, Mackay, Longreach, Maryborough, Port Pirie, Mount Gambier, Renmark, Darwin, Horsham, Sale and Bunbury. Units are at present on order for the ABC studios in Tamworth, Orange and Wollongong. The PMG’s Department has not yet been requested to supply recorder connector units to the ABC studios in Bega, Wagga, Kalgoorlie. Albany, Geraldton, Launceston and Rabaul.

  1. It is not known when all regional studios will have telephone recorder equipment installed. The present arrangement is that the ABC regional manager requisitions the PMG’s Department locally if he considers that a recorder connector unit is warranted. The cost to the ABC of a PMG recorder connector unit is $8 for installation and $20 per annum rental.

page 808

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RENTAL CONCESSION SCHEME

(Question No. 952)

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister repre- sentingthe Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. What percentage deduction, under the telephone rental concession scheme, is allowed to qualified aged, invalid and widowed pensioners
  2. Does the deduction apply only to the rental portion of a pensioner’s account.
  3. Has the percentage deduction been varied following the last increase in telephone charges; if so, to what extent, and why.
  4. Has the percentage deduction been previously altered at any time since the introduction of the scheme.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneralhas provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (!) 33 per cent.

  1. Yes, but only to the amount of rental covering the exchange line and one telephone.
  2. No.
  3. No.

page 808

QUESTION

ELECTORAL: MOBILE POLLING BOOTHS

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 23rd February 1971, Senator Milliner askedthe following question, without notice:

Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior agree that it could be to the advantage of all concerned if mobile polling booths were provided at private and public hospitals, aged person; homes and similar institutions throughout the Commonwealth for use at federal elections: If the Minister approves of the proposal, will he give favourable consideration to its implementation.

The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answerto the honourable senators question:

The provision of mobile polling booths at hospitals and institutions to enable patients and inmates to record votes at Commonwealth elections has been considered by the Government and I am pleased to be able to inform the honourable senator that the Commonwealth Electoral Bill which I introduced in Parliament on 31 March’ 1971 provides for the establishment of such booths at hospitals, convalescent homes and the like.

page 808

QUESTION

TAXI SERVICES IN CANBERRA

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 25th February 1971, Senator O’Byrne asked a question without notice concerning the Commonwealth car pool in Canberra and associated matters concerning taxi services in Canberra. The Minister for the Interior has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

The report prepared for the Department by a firm of consultants sets out facts concerning the present usage of the passenger car service in Canberra. The number of taxi licences in Canberra is kept under continuous review to ensure that there are sufficient taxis to provide a reasonable service to all users, including those travelling on government business. The existing level of taxi licences is considered to be satisfactory, having regard to the interests of the public andthe taxi operators. It is inevitable that during periods of peak demand some delays will be experienced. This is a feature of the taxi industry in all major centres.. The Department is in the process of setting up a Taxi Advisory Council which it is intended will inquire into matters such as those raised in the question.

page 808

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE LEAVE

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yesterday, Senator Willesee asked me a question regarding Royal Australian Air Force leave. I said that if I could obtain any further information I would provide it. I have made further inquiries about leave for RAAF servicemen and have been informed that members of the RAAF on mainland bases and units who have been involved in additional work in the preparation of the flying displays and the RAAF anniversary celebrations will be granted a day’s leave in the near future. This is to compensate them for the many additional hours they have been required to work over this period without overtime pay which civilians would receive. The leave is at the discretion of the officers commanding.

page 809

QUESTION

AIR DISPLAY, TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yesterday, Senator Rae directed a question to me regarding a flypass over built up areas in Tasmania. I have examined this matter again. The position is that there are no Royal Australian Air Force supporting facilitities in Tasmania and to undertake a flying display there would involve the movement of many personnel and supporting equipment to Tasmania and this would bring heavy expenditure in a period when we are endeavouring to keep costs down. In the case of the mainland displays the RAAF has been able to use the facilities of RAAF bases for personnel, equipment and support generally. The total cost of the displays was therefore kept to a minimum. I regret that I cannot agree to a display as requested.

page 809

QUESTION

ANSWER TO QUESTION

Senator GAIR:

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General tell me when I might expect a reply to question No. 952 which relates to telephone rebates for pensioners?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

-I am sure that the honourable senator will receive an answer to this question almost immediately. The question appears on the notice paper for today but, in accordance with the direction given recently that answers to questions on notice shall be incorporated, the written answer to the question has been given to the Hansard officers.

page 809

ECONOMIC POSITION OF SENIOR CITIZENS

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull - The President has received the following letter from Senator Kane:

Mr President,

I give notice that on Wednesday, 7th April 1971, I shall move that the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.55 a.m., unless otherwise ordered, for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely:

The grave deterioration as a result of inflation in the economic position of senior citizens dependent on income from superannuation schemes or from the investment of savings accumulated by thrift and sacrifice during their working lives, and the need for urgent appropriate action to relieve their financial situation.

The urgent need for an immediate adjust ment of superannuation payments to former

Commonwealth employees in accordance with the ‘Notional Salary Adjustment Scheme’ and for incorporation in the Superannuation Act of provision for regular review of the level of payments.

T. KANE

Is the motion supported? (More than the number of Senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I call Senator Kane. I draw attention to the fact that this is the honourable senator’s maiden speech and that it is the custom in such circumstances for an honourable senator to be heard in silence.

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

– I move:

I do so for the purpose of debating a matter of urgency, namely.

  1. The grave deterioration as a result of inflation in the economic position of senior citizens dependent on income from superannuation schemes or from the investment of savings accumulated by thrift and sacrifice during their working lives, and the need for urgent appropriate action to relieve their financial situation.
  2. The urgent need for an immediate adjustment of superannuation payments to former Commonwealth employees in accordance with the ‘Notional Salary Adjustment Scheme’ and for incorporation in the Superannuation Act of provision for regular review of the level of payments.

I feel that the Senate will agree that there is an urgent need for appropriate action to relieve the present financial situation of senior citizens who sought in earlier years to ensure their future by wise investment, insurance and thrift. I believe also that the Senate will agree that there is need for action to relieve the financial situation of those who have been deprived by inflation of the benefit of superannuation for which they have paid as Government employees. Inflation is a major source of our current social and economic problems. At present it bears hardest on those Australians who are dependent on social services, pensions and savings which have been invested in fixed income securities. Inflation is a cause of industrial unrest. Wage and salary earners of all classes and self-employed people also make strong claims for extra income to compensate for inflation. In the process they put in bids to anticipate future inflation, all of which aggravates the problem. Companies too are not to be left behind. The people who tend to get left behind are the people with least political strength. These are pensioners and people living on past savings which have not been invested in an inflation proof manner.

One of the objectives of this urgency motion is to impress upon the Government the need for a thorough survey of the whole complex area of private superannuation and retirement funds. The Government adheres to the view that the private schemes must remain and that social services provided from general revenues must not bear the whole burden of providing for income in retirement. Yet the workings of this complex private system have never been the subject of a thorough survey or critical examination. Let me briefly outline the facts as far as they can be ascertained from obsolete and incomplete statistics. Almost 1 million superannuation policies ure held by life insurance companies. If private pension funds are to be included, these policies earn about $500m a year and have an outgoing of more than $200m a year.

Various government instrumentalities provide private schemes for their employees, and the number of these is almost as large as those in the private sector. They comprise 600,000 contributors, 120,000 pensioners, with an income of $3 50m a year and outgoings of some $170m a year. There is also an immense number of life assurance policies, many of which are used as retirement funds. They are being cashed in after retirement or when savings are needed. This huge private social service system is even bigger than the public or government run social service system of the Commonwealth. Yet it is extremely difficult to obtain detailed data on this system since it is composed of a multiplicity of small funds and countless policies which are differently administered. What we do know is that the system has never been the subject of a thorough review. lt is possible to state some general defects. The contributors to these funds have great difficulty in obtaining full protection against inflation. Many funds invest in real property such as office buildings or houses which appreciate in value with inflation. Equity shares have been a major object of investment of contributors funds.

But two constraints on the funds hamper the efforts of management to make them inflation proof. The first is the myth which, from the point of view of the Government is highly desirable, that there is something solid about fixed interest debentures or loan investments. This creates some psychological pressure on the investors to put money into fixed interest securities, the value of which is seriously eroded by inflation.

The second constraint is even more serious. 1 refer to the legislation known as the 30-20 legislation which provides that all private insurance funds must hold at least 30 per cent of their funds in public authority securities and 20 per cent in government securities. The measure was introduced in something of a panic in the boom of 1960. It is legislation of a most dubious nature. After some pressure was applied it evidently was changed from a system of complete compulsion to a’ system of taxation penalties for non-compliance with these percentage provisions. But the effect is virtually the same as compulsion. The 30-20 provision ensures that the value of superannuation and retirement funds is eroded because government securities naturally erode in value. They are all investments of the fixed interest loan type. This measure prevents fund managers from investing in inflationary-proof investments such as houses, properties or equities, lt means that at least ;i portion of the superannuation and pension funds must be lost to inflation.

I turn my attention now to one of the areas of Australian economic life which is in the greatest need of scrutiny and attention. Perhaps as a hangover from the days of Marxist analyses, many people still think of our community as divided between workers and capitalists or between wage earners and profit earners, to use less ideological but otherwise similar terms. If is we and they. Our problems are problems of social services, wages and prices. The affairs of companies, of banking and of the stock exchange are their problems. This is a dangerously unreal distinction. The efficiency and able management of Australian business affect every Australian. Profits of companies these days are no longer going to some tiny rich minority, as the latter day Marxists and trade union opportunists would have us believe. Fifty per cent of all profits go to the Commonwealth Treasury, as company taxation, foi a start. Therefore, profits of Australian companies provide a major source of the revenues needed to finance social services, defence, rural reconstruction, education and health services. A reduction in the profitability of Australian business is therefore directly reflected in the reduction of the finance available to Australian governments for their various public service activities.

The biggest receivers of dividends in Australia are various life assurance and superannuation funds. No individual or groups of individuals come near the small superannuation funds as recipients of company dividends. The real proprietors of the superannuation funds and life assurance companies are hundreds of thousands of Australians of moderate and modest means, including many government public servants, who are saving. Some are saving to build a house, others for their family, most for their old age and retirement. If inflation cuts into company profits, if industrial strife disrupts commercial life, if companies are managed badly or if their funds are used incompetently or corruptly and if the stock market is in chaos, it is these hundreds of thousands of people who suffer, not some undeserving collection of highly wealthy people. Inflation distorts the direction in which small people’s savings go. Inflation erodes the value of money and makes investment on fixed interest loans progressively more ruinous. The sum of S 1,000 invested now is reduced in value to $500 return on investment in 10 years if inflation continues at present rates. This is not investment at all but a sure way of losing money.

So the saving is directed away from prudent investment towards areas of risk and speculation - land, housing and shares. Noone should tell the Australian small shareholder of any security attaching to socalled blue chip stocks such as BHP, Mount Isa, Coles, CRA, Broken Hill South, Western Mining Corporation and Woolworths. All these stocks have plummeted in recent months to a fraction of their former value and their investment yields are pretty low. Inflation makes complete nonsense of any inclination the small investor may have to put his money into gilt edged government or semi-government securities. They are gilt-edged guarantees of real capital loss. La addition, the Government, by operating a variable interest rate policy, can cause the holders of the so-called gilt-edged securities to suffer considerable capital loss. For instance, over the past 2 years the Commonwealth increased the interest yield of securities from 6 per cent to 8 per cent. This effectively deprived holders of bonds of 25 per cent of the value of their investment if, for various reasons, they were forced to realise their investment on the market. In a similar matter the small savers and investors are badly hit when the stock exchanges are manipulated and misused for the benefit of a few big brokers and wealthy investors. The Senate, to its credit, is taking quite a leading role in examining this problem. I hope that this will be followed by appropriate action.

It is obvious that at present intolerable rackets are going on which must be ended. Federal and State governments for far too long have put off the business of implementing effective company law arid exercising the proper supervision’ of stock exchanges which must be institutions operated for the benefit of the many, not manipulated as private clubs to be turned on and off at the whim of the few. To call for appropriate action to combat the effects of inflation on persons dependent on superannuation and on investment of savings invites the question: What action would be appropriate? As I see it. action to compensate those on fixed incomes for the increasing cost of living can be taken at 2 levels, either (1) benefits can be adjusted regularly, preferably automatically in line with -the movements in the cost of living, shown per medium of a consumer price index. This would ensure that the purchasing power, that is, the real value of benefits, did not decline over time, or (2), benefits can be tied to the average weekly earnings. This represents a more generous alternative. It would ensure that the purchasing power of benefits did not fall relative to incomes currently earned. Such a system implies that retired pensioners share in the benefits of increasing productivity.

The action necessary to compensate for inflation is clear cut. But how to finance the action is a more difficult problem. It is most unlikely that the problem can be overcome by reliance on private superannuation or savings schemes. The Democratic Labor Party holds that the most satisfactory solution is to be found in a national superannuation scheme whereby the majority currently employed ensure the welfare of those in retirement. There are several difficulties associated with private schemes. Firstly, any investment for retirement must be secure, that is, almost riskless, and therefore the interest paid will be relatively low. Secondly, most people do not have sufficient expertise to manage their own investments, so they must rely on institutions such as insurance companies. Thirdly, an ideal investment to hedge against inflation is real estate, but most people do not have sufficient capital or expertise to seek such opportunities.

Now let me turn to the urgent need for the immediate adjustment of the superannuation pensions of former Commonwealth employees. In 1961 the Government declared a policy and applied a formula for the adjustment of Commonwealth superannuation pensions. This is known as the ‘Notional Salary Adjustment Scheme’. This scheme operates to keep the retired Commonwealth employees’ pensions in line with movements in the Commonwealth Public Service salaries. But the last adjustment was made in 1967 and this 4-year delay has resulted in a drastic erosion in the purchasing power of these pensions. The truth is that by December 1970 the real value of pensions had declined by 1 1 per cent since the 1967 adjustment. The notional salary formula should be applied to Commonwealth superannuitants immediately and the Commonwealth Superannuation Act should be amended to provide for an annual adjustment on the basis of that formula. As we of the Democratic Labor Party see it, the Commonwealth Government is the largest employer in the land. It has a responsibility, therefore, not only to its own retired employees but also to set an example as a good employer.

In conclusion, let me repeat what I said at the outset. There is an urgent need for appropriate action to relieve the present financial situation of senior citizens who sought in earlier years to ensure their future by wise investment, insurance and thrift. There is also need for action to relieve the financial situation of those who are being deprived by inflation of the benefit of superannuation for which they paid as government employees. I commend the motion to the Senate.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– 1 am sure 1 speak on behalf not only of Government supporters but the whole Senate when I extend congratulations to Senator Kane on the occasion of his maiden speech in this place. He has come to the Senate with a reputation as a redoubtable fighter in the interests of his own Party. 1 am quite sure that now he has broken the ice we can expect to hear from him in this place in the way that people outside it have heard him from time to time.

The honourable senator devoted himself to a motion today which seeks to have the Senate adjourn until tomorrow for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency. This is a procedure permitted under the Standing Orders, lt enables the discussion of a matter of urgency to proceed in such a way that all the matters concerned in the alleged statement of urgency may be canvassed. At the outset I query, in response to what has been said, whether there is any urgency about the matter raised in the sense that there is something novel, some new revelation or some event which has happened recently,- which , would justify describing the matters raised by Senator Kane as urgent. I have noted the statement of urgency. The first paragraph relates to:

The grave deterioration as a result of inflation in the economic position of senior citizens dependent on income from superannuation schemes or from the investment of savings accumulated by thrift and sacrifice during their working lives, and the need for urgent appropriate action to relieve their financial situation.

Firstly I regard that statement as a statement replete wilh the general adjectival phrases which, to have meaning given to them, requires some elaboration. In fairness to Senator Kane he did survey the field, with suggestions as to the manner in which there could be some review taken, firstly, of the way in which pensions are adjusted and, secondly, of the whole range of private superannuation schemes. But :he language in which the statement of urgency is couched in the typical language so frequently used when matters of inflation are discussed and without some elaboration are quite purposeless in their expression.

The second point 1 make is that the statement, as expressed, represents merely an occasion for more talking when we should really get down to the job of dealing with the problems. 1 can only comment that this urgency motion will delay further consideration by the Senate of legislation designed to increase the rate of pensions by 50c.

Senator Kennelly:

– That is not altogether fair, you know. Is there no provision for retrospectivity in the Bill relating to the pensions to be paid?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I appreciate that if one wants to be rather technical and legal, as Senator Kennelly is by the way he phrased that remark, it is fair to say thai retrospectivity covers the point. All I say is that if this matter had not been raised we would now be discussing a measure designed to give pensioner* an increase of 50c. The third point 1 wish to make about the statement of urgency is that it refers to a situation which is well recognised by the Government and one in respect of which it has been taking positive action. It may be that there is a difference of opinion as to the type of action which the Government should take. Although I did not hear from Senator Kane any criticism of the action the Government is taking, I apprehend from what he said that he would suggest that there are line’s of inquiry and reviews which could be taken in other directions. I am quite sure that the Government will bear those mat lets in mind in its review of the whole situation.

It is an accepted fact that in any inflationary situation the people on fixed incomes are the main sufferers. I refer to recipients of superannuation payments which, at the time they entered into the arrangement to provide for themselves on retirement, were thought to be adequate. When the event comes, they find that the value of money is so reduced that they do not have the comfort and security for which they planned. Similarly, pensioners find that with a generally eroding situation as far as the value of their pensions is concerned their money is buying less than it was buying a year, a month or a week ago. Classically these persons have been regarded as the main sufferers under inflation, and they are.

Of course, there are others - people who lack the powerful industrial strength of members of the mighty unions. They do not have the power which the larger unions have exercised to secure benefits for their members. They are in a not often discussed group. They are also sufferers in an inflationary situation, but they are not the only sufferers. They are the individual sufferers, but there are people in other areas which impinge on the national scene as largely and are the responsibility of the Government. After all, the people who build schools and hospitals and work in those institutions find in an inflationary situation that their wages and salaries are increased. This adds to the cost of establishing schools and hospitals. It means that the money allocated by the Government for education, health and the whole range of State services and public works will not go as far as it was intended to go at the time of allocation. That is one aspect of inflation which has an effect throughout the community because it merely increases and enhances the difficulties involved in the initial situation.

The inflationary position, as I have said, is well recognised by the Government. The only hope one can express is that its difficulties and problems would be recognised by many people outside the Parliament who, in their clamour for higher profits and wages, greater returns and more money to spend, would recognise that there is a cost to be paid every time that $1 or $10 is added to their remuneration. This is the area in which the Government has been seeking by example and dictum to impress upon the community that inflation is not a matter solely for the Government to deal with but a matter which affects everybody. In that way it ought to be everybody’s responsibility to exercise caution and restraint in the national good.

This statement of urgency enables a general restatement of the Government’s recognition of the inflationary situation which is constantly posed as a threat to government and the steps which the Government has been taking in order to meet it. The Government has as its primary economic objective a reduction of the rate of inflation. This is a current primary objective and it was initially stated with considerable emphasis and publicity by the previous Prime Minister in January. It has been a constant concern of the Government for the 20 to 21 years of rule in Australia by Liberal and Country Party governments. In that period, if there is one distinctive and abiding achievement to which every Australian can point and from which every Australian can draw benefit, it is the financial management of the economy which successive governments have given in the last 21 years. It is the way in which the community has been managed and there has been a rising standard of living and an avoidance of those booms and depressions which were the constant fear of the 1930s and early 1940s. It is a positive achievement of the Liberal and Country Party governments over the last 21 years that they have given to Australians security in their employment and a financial management of the economy which has prevented the excesses which it was the concern of the government in the 1940s to avoid.

Likewise, in the stresses which have been developing in late 1970 and early 1971 the Government has been concerned to reduce the rate of inflation as its primary objective. What has it done? Firstly it has endeavoured to reduce demand pressures because, in whatever way it is couched, the essential inflationary situation is where there is either excessive demand or an undersupply, and that has the effect of reducing the value of what is available on the market. The demand pressures have been reduced in areas where they have been judged to be excessive. So it is that in public authority spending the Commonwealth Government has been reducing its expenditure by $70m from what it would have been in the current financial year. Equally important, in February of this year the Commonwealth Government said to the States which sought to have extra money granted to them that that was not the time for such a step.

In the private investment field after the Government had surveyed the areas of increased spending there was a dampening down of excessive spending in the area of manufacturing. Accordingly, the concessional taxation allowance granted in respect of manufacturing plants was suspended. These were steps taken by the Government designed in themselves to have a beneficial result. Equally important was the impact of these measures on the public mind, because they did create a consciousness in various places of the developing inflationary threat in respect of which everybody should be prepared to play a part. I think we can all from our own experiences refer to an area in which there has been a cutting down of what could be described as unnecessary spending. It is that type of co-operation which must be engaged in if the inflationary problems in the community are to be met.

The other broad area where the Government has acted or is acting is in the taking of direct means to counter those factors influencing costs and prices. Only within the last month the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) indicated that there was to be a tariff review. Only within the last week the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has indicated that there will be amendments along the English lines to control resale price maintenance, li is believed that these steps will have an effect upon the factors influencing costs and prices in the community. Those are areas in which the Government is endeavouring to control the economy, to reduce the rate of inflation, to control in some way the demand pressures and to endeavour to take action in the areas where prices would otherwise be rising.

Quite apart from what I have outlined, the statement of urgency stresses the need for urgent and appropriate action to assist those people whose economic position has deteriorated because of inflation. I have stressed the position of individuals who classically have always been so affected. I do not think it is fair to say that there is a need for appropriate action if the implication in the statement is that the Government has taken no action at all. The Government has been prepared - I instance what I said earlier - to increase the rate of pension, and the Bill to achieve that end is currently before the Senate. The increased pension for those on the maximum rate enables the real value of the pension to be increased above what it was at any stage in the past 20 years.

Senator Murphy:

– This does not deal with the second aspect in the motion which relates to superannuation.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– No. I am dealing generally with the position which has been raised by Senator Kane. If one takes a technical viewpoint maybe one would find difficulty in bringing this in. but it is a technical viewpoint which did not commend itself to the mover of the motion and I respond merely to what he had to say. I have indicated that by increasing the pension the Government has acted to increase the real value of the pension. That is involved in the current increase of 50c. Bearing in mind Senator Murphy’s interjection, the fact is that income for the purposes of the Social Services Act and eligibility for pensions does include superannuation payments, lt is not to be supposed that simply because a person receives a payment under a superannuation scheme he is to bc denied any pension. The point is that where a person invests his savings to provide an income, on his retirement, income received from the investments is disregarded completely for pension purposes. The capital value of the investments, however, is taken into account in the same way as are other forms of properly in determining his means as assessed. A person who is on a reducing income in terms of superannuation payments is entitled to claim eligibility under the Social Services Act and to receive a full or part pension according to the category in which he places himself.

I sense thai the real point which comes forward from what Senator Kane has said is the need for a review of the private superannuation schemes with the design in mind of determining whether those forms of. superannuation are satisfactory in the present circumstances to provide adequately for people on their retirement.

Senator Byrne:

– It could be something like this: If a person in a private superannuation scheme is getting no more than the pension he should be entitled to the ancillary benefits as if he were a pensioner. That is another available proposition.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– lt is a proposition. Without going into the details of what Senator Byrne has said, that was the purpose - this has always been my understanding and the Government’s intention - behind the amendments to the Social Services Act commonly called the tapered means test which were introduced in the middle of 1969. They were designed to meet to an increasing degree that situation.

Undoubtedly one of the problems of any Liberal government - in fact, of any government which desires to maintain the virtues of thrift, saving and individual responsibility - is to weld those concepts and virtues into a scheme which gives social justice. There is no doubt in my mind that the person who throughout his life exercises caution, prudence and thrift should be in a better position than that of a person who throughout his life, like the prodigal son, has squandered what he may have earned and then places himself in a dependent position on the state. Undoubtedly the state has an obligation, but as far as is possible the obligation should be met by not denying to those who have been thrifty and saving the benefits of their own prudence and foresight in taking into account the problems of their retirement.

Senator Byrne:

– Those who rely on the pension are not necessarily those who squandered their entitlement.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I hope that in what [ said I did not suggest that.

Senator Byrne:

– lt was open to that impression and 1 thought you might wish to correct it.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am indebted to the honourable senator for his assistance. As I understood him. Senator Kane made a plea for a review, not only of the present private superannuation schemes but also of the way in which pensions are adjusted. I desire to say nothing at this stage on the way in which pension rates should be adjusted because that is the subject of amendments which have been proposed to the motion for the second reading of the social services legislation which is now before the Senate, and I will have something to say about them at the appropriate time.

The final area to which Senator Kane directed himself, although very shortly, was the need for an adjustment in superannuation payments to former Commonwealth employees in accordance with the notional salary adjustment scheme. As I understand it, the last adjustment was made in 1967. I am informed also that this was a matter which was placed before the Government for consideration when it was preparing the last Budget, but having regard to the Government’s then obligations and the need to maintain stability and growth and not to engage in excessive expenditure, it was not then found possible to make any adjustment. I am sure, however, that (he points which have been made will be borne in mind by the Government when it is considering its Budget in the ensuing year. The Government regarded its own recognition of the inflationary situation as something which required action. That action has been taken, and I have mentioned the broad outline of it. Insofar as the motion which has been moved by Senator Kane carries the implication that the Government is not alive to the situation, the Government will not support it.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Senator Kane made an extremely thoughtful maiden speech. It was constructive and showed an awareness of the social problems which are affecting a great number of our people. I congratulate him on it. The subject which has been raised as a matter of urgency perhaps could be described more properly as a matter of public importance. It may well be that we should change the provision in the Standing Orders, or insert another provision in the Standing Orders, so that we will be able to deal directly with matters that are of great public importance irrespective of whether they can be described as immediately urgent.

Senator Byrne:

– It means laying aside other business and the notion of urgency becomes significant.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. I think we should consider that and also provide that these matters be brought directly to a vote on the substance rather than on the question of the adjournment of the House. That is a device which is unnecessarily technical. We do not need to have such devices. We should have a provision so that we can go to the heart of the matter, if it is a matter of public importance, and vote on it and get the consensus of the Senate.

The matter before us is of considerable publice importance. As the motion sets out, there is a grave deterioration, as a result of inflation, in the economic position of those who are dependent on income from superannuation schemes or savings. Inflation has occurred and is occurring. Inflation has occurred over centuries. It seems to be inbuilt in our monetary sys tem. No doubt it has some advantages in causing alterations in the system which otherwise might tend, to be static. It is not social justice that the brunt of inflation should bear upon people on fixed incomes and on people who are not able to take the protective action which others can take.

The inflationary device has been used as a means of paying for wars. After the last war most nations deliberately allowed that to happen in order to cope with the costs of the war. The inflation in Australia is due partly to the deliberate actions of the Government. Senator Greenwood, who spoke on behalf of the Government, said that it is well recognised that the Government is taking action to cope with the inflation. He spoke of the steps that, have been taken recently in cutting back on some expenditure. That is an extremely strange attitude on the part of a government which in the last Budget deliberately introduced measures that were bound to increase the inflation.

I refer to the increases in excise duties - honourable senators will recall the imposition of excise duty on wine, which was a new duty - increases in the excise duty on tobacco and cigarettes and increases in sales tax. The last of those was one of the worst because with the increases in costs the sales tax collections would have gone up anyway; but what the Government did was actually to increase the rate of sales tax. In addition, there were increases in post and telegraph charges, telephone charges and a whole host of other charges and imposts which were bound to increase the inflation further - and they did. After those increases had taken effect, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission adjusted general wages by 6 per cent. It has been estimated and widely published that probably about half of the 6 per cent increase in the inflationary factor could be attributed to the Government’s own measures.

On top of that, the extraordinarily high interest rate apparently is not achieving any purpose in reducing inflation; instead it has pushed up costs. Those who have to pay these extraordinary rates in business or those who have to meet them as workers naturally have to press for higher wages in the case of the latter and higher prices for the goods and services they are selling in the case of the former, because they have to meet various charges, particularly the extraordinarily high interest rates. So, the Government itself is a contributor to inflation and its suggestions that it will curb inflation or even stop inflation, as was said at one time, seems pretty hollow.

The reality is that if the inflation were stopped there would be disaster in the country. What is happening is that all over the world inflation is occurring. The inflation is much heavier in the United States than it is here. The wage increases that are being granted in the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe are far in excess of what the Government has become panicky about here, ft is just laughable to read all the nonsense that is being put out by Government spokesmen who talk about the tremendous increase in wages here when one looks at the increases that even the Government of the United Kingdom is prepared to grant to its employees and at the increases that are being given in private industry in most of the rest of the world.

Senator Young:

– Surely you would not like Australia to have the same set of economic conditions as exists in the United Kingdom at the present time.

Senator MURPHY:

– I certainly would not.

Senator Wright:

– Or in the United States.

Senator MURPHY:

– lt all depends on what one is speaking about in relation to the United Slates. The question is too broad to be able to say yes or no. I would like some of the conditions, but I would nol like some of the other conditions. But let me return to the matter before the Senate. On the whole question of the position of superannuitants and others who have to fend for themselves on retirement, the obvious solution is what was proposed and dealt with in detail by me yesterday - that is, the proposal for a national superannuation scheme and for that proposal to be investigated in detail by a standing committee of the Senate. 1 will not repeat what I said yesterday.

Senator O’Byrne:

– It would stand repeating.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank the honourable senator. But I suggest that shortly after this matter is dealt with the Senate will have the opportunity to refer that other matter to the relevant standing committee. I hope that it takes that course. In the meantime we support this proposition, not only because of the general observations that are included in it but also because of the second part of it which speaks of ‘the urgent need for an immediate adjustment of superannuation payments to former Commonwealth employees’. That is an urgent matter, lt ought to be attended to. If it has not been done since 1967 it means that the people concerned are suffering social injustice. If they ought to have received superannuation of a certain value, the Commonwealth should see to it that that value is maintained. What the Minister said the Government did is not right. It considered the matter at last Budget time and said: ‘No, we will not do that’, lt is forcing these persons to suffer a diminution of the value of what they are receiving, and that is social injustice in any term, lt ought to be corrected and it ought to be corrected urgently. No Bill to deal with this matter is before the Parliament. A Bill ought to be introduced. It is not good enough to wait until, say. August and see whether something is done about it. The right of these persons to a maintenance of the value of their superannuation ought to be preserved. That ought to be a matter of priority. The Government ought to let some of its other frivolities go out the window. While the superannuitants are suffering this injustice we ought not to have the nonsense that we have about VIP aircraft and a host of other extravagancies which have been aired in the Senate.

Senator Wright:

– They are utilised by the Opposition just as much as by any other section of the Parliament.

Senator MURPHY:

– If Senator Wright were to go through the relevant documents, I do not think he would repeat that. If he wants what those documents, which have been placed before the Senate, reveal to be made clear, let us have it out.

Senator Wright:

– They are open for public discussion.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes. Senator Wright should not start to suggest otherwise. The adjustment to which I have referred ought to be made. There ought to be a proper adjustment of all social services. Their value ought to be maintained. More than 12 months ago President Nixon stated that in a message to the United States Congress. He then advocated an immediate increase of 10 or 15 per cent, I think it was, in social services, and that those payments then be adjusted automatically according to the increases in the cost of living. 1 do not recall precisely how the adjustment was to be made, but the substance of it was that as inflation occurred there would be an automatic adjustment. It is time that these matters were dealt with in this way. Why should we have to go through this procedure of the Government giving SI here or $1 there and adopting the attitude that in some way it is giving people a present? We as a Parliament ought to be determining what is the right level of social services. Once we have determined the level on existing monetary values, that ought to be maintained; there should be no need to look at it again, except to make a substantial adjustment. The value, once it is fixed, ought to be maintained. That means that it must be tied in some way to the cost of living index or something of that nature. Is that not common sense? Why should we have this yearly - unfortunately, in some cases if is not yearly - adjustment of these values? It is shocking to think of what has happened in respect of child endowment and other social service payments. No adjustment has been made to them for many years with the result that the value has dropped right out of them.

Senator Prowse:

– Do members of the honourable senator’s Party support him in the views that he is putting forward?

Senator MURPHY:

– I would think that they would because the views that I am putting forward are incorporated in the platform of the Australian Labor Party. This platform is formulated by a federal conference, democratically elected.

Senator Prowse:

– I was tempted to ask the question because the Senate does not give any appearance that that is so.

Senator MURPHY:

– Senator Prowse is referring to the fact that all honourable senators representing all Parties are not present in the Senate. That is really a childish suggestion to come from a distinguished senator from Western Australia. He knows that a number of committees are meeting, including a select committee of this Senate. He knows that Party committees are meeting also. The honourable senator knows that there is a great pressure of work and that people are working in this place. But that does not necessarily mean that all honourable senators should be sitting in this chamber. It does not disturb me that some members of every Party represented in the Senate are absent from the chamber. This is a common occurrence and I should think that the public of Australia would be pleased to know that their representatives here are working in one way and another rather than simply spending all their time in this chamber.

The matter of public importance raised for discussion is important. I hope that the Senate will agree to it. If the passage of this motion will be an indication to the Government, as the Minister said, that this Senate feels that the Government is not acting with the expedition expected of it, that is the basis upon which we shall support it because we do not think that the Government is acting with expedition. Let the passage of this motion be taken as an indication of the view of the Senate that the Government is not acting as it should in the matter of social service payments and that it is not acting as it should in regard to the adjustment of superannuation rights. I ask that, if nothing else occurs, let the passage of this motion stir the Government into correcting a social injustice which it has allowed to persist for far too long.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Order! The Leader of the Opposition’s time has expired.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

- Mr Acting Deputy President, this afternoon we heard the maiden speech of Senator Kane. I join the other honourable senators who have spoken in this debate in congratulating him on his excellent address. He gave us a balanced presentation on a very important matter. He dealt with areas of business and private industry. He dealt also with the effect on individuals of the current world wide problem of inflation. In some areas he offered his views as to certain solutions to that problem. I heartily congratulate him on his effort. I hope on many future occasions he will add to the eloquence that we hear in the Senate from time to time. 1 find myself in agreement with Senator Kane in respect of some areas of the economic problem that is before Australia today. Some of the words used by the honourable senator are quite strong. He has referred to: ‘The grave deterioration as a result of inflation. . . .’ This proposition probably could be argued. Certainly there is a deterioration, but I believe that the honourable senator is using words which are too strong when he describes this as’ a ‘grave deterioration’. There has been throughout my working life and indeed 1 would say throughout the working life of the honourable senator, an erosion of the value of Australian currency each year. If that means an inflationary rate, the situation has existed in this community at least since I was born. Indeed, the condition is world wide. One can only say in defence of the Government, as the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) did in his response that nobody, in Government or Opposition, can point the finger at the financial management of Australia during those years in trying to pinpoint the blame for this situation.

Senator Kennelly:

– Oh, you are joking, are you not?

Senator WEBSTER:

– We do not joke as often as you do. 1 am not joking when discussing a matter such as this. I think that the honourable senator on reflection will agree. He may have the opportunity to demonstrate whether there are other countries which are able to manage their internal affairs better than the way in which successive Australian governments have been able to do. On al least one occasion since the beginning of this parliamentary session I have mentioned in this place the effect of the movement of consumer prices in Australia compared with movements in other countries. I, as a Government senator, whilst criticising the effect of inflation in the community, take some comfort from the fact that Australia demonstrates a better record than nearly every other like country in the world. Senator Kennelly undoubtedly may have some, knowledge of other countries which are performing better than Australia is and 1 would be very pleased to hear from him on (his point al some future date.

Let me quote one or two figures to demonstrate my argument. I refer honourable senators to page 172 of the Senate Hansard for Thursday, 18th February 1971. Speaking in a debate on the Austraiian economy I referred to the situation in 1963 regarding the annual movement in consumer prices in Australia compared with the movement in other countries. The movement in consumer prices in Australia in that year was 0.6 per cent. The comparable figure in Canada was 1.7 per cent. In the United Kingdom, the figure was 2 per cent. In Italy it stood at 7.4 per cent, in France 4.8 per cent and in Japan at 7.6 per cent. 1 offer to take any other year that anyone may choose between that year and the present time to demonstrate my point. For purposes of comparison I take 1968. The figure for the annual movements in consumer prices in Australia in that year was 2.6 per cent. In Canada it was 4.2 per cent; in the United Kingdom 4.7 per cent; in France 4.6 per cent: and in Japan 5.4 per cent. I come to the latest figures that I was able to disclose to the House. These are for the first half of (he 1970-71 financial year. Much argument has raged around the suggestion that so many of the problems confronting Australia are the result of the budget policies followed by the Australian Government. The rise predicted in the consumer price index for the financial year was 3.9 per cent. The figure for the first half of that financial year in fact was 3.9 per cent. During the same period, the increase in Canada was 4.2 per cent. In the United Kingdom it was 5.4 per cent. Italy showed a rise of 4.9 per cent. Consumer prices in France rose 5.7 per cent and 7.9 per cent in Japan.

If any comfort can be taken from the fact that inflation is a world wide problem, it can be taken in Australia where, although inflation occurs and we may criticise the fact that it has occurred, the Commonwealth Government has acted responsibly as demonstrated by the figures that I have quoted which show that the situation is better here than it is in any comparable country in the world. Senator Kane has described the problem that he has raised as representing a ‘grave deterioration’. The true situation in Australia does not support that view.

I said that in some instances I would agree with him. I agree with his comment that those senior citizens who depend upon income from superannuation schemes or from the investment of savings accumulated by thrift and sacrifice during their working lives are affected seriously by this situation. Indeed I have noted over the years the position of people involved in finance who have prepared for their retirement by setting aside sums of money during their working lives. This has been to their disadvantage as it has been done during periods when they have been bringing up children. They have set aside an amount so that on retirement they would have a fixed income - one which, incidentally would make them ineligible to receive a social service pension. These people have found over the last 10 years that, the value of the money that they have invested has been eroded to such an extent that the dividends that they receive from such investments have been scarcely sufficient to provide them with the things which they thought in these earlier times of saving they would secure. This is a problem with which Senator Kane did not deal and it is a matter in respect of which there have been very few suggestions by governments or private individuals.

Senator Byrne:

– To which aspect is the honourable senator referring? I did not quite follow what he was saying.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Where an individual has set aside money over the period of his working life during which he is raising his children-

Senator Byrne:

– But that is in the resolution, senator.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator interrupts me. I was saying that Senator Kane did not put forward a solution to this problem and that a solution to it would be most difficult. A person might have saved through an insurance company because he had been influenced back in 1940 by suggestions that insurance was a wise thing. He might have retired in 1955, depending on an investment of at that time £10,000- that is $20,000- which he thought would see him through for some time. A return of 6 per cent on a §20,000 investment would not provide him with the equivalent of what a married pensioner would receive today. In this way there has been an effect on the minds of individuals and there has not been enough encouragement for them to save or invest for their retirement. The Government has taken action in this matter. In recent years the Government has indicated its interest in individuals making some provision for their future lives. Some years ago a $600 taxation concession was introduced in respect of investments in insurance and superannuation schemes. This allowance has now been doubled so that a $1200 deduction is allowable from one’s assessable income to enable him to provide for some insurance cover.

Senator Byrne:

– But would that be a concession to the principle or an acknowledgement of the inflation?

Senator Kennelly:

– A concession to the principle,- but how many could afford that?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Do not take my time because I have not very long at my disposal. The comment made by the honourable senators is quite true. The concession achieves both those purposes. But it must be acknowledged that the Government has seen the need to encourage individuals in this way. The problem is to bring to the attention of wage earners the need, as successive Prime Ministers have said, for them to save for their future. At present there is insufficient encouragement to save in Australia. Whether saving is achieved through private insurance or superannuation schemes, or whether it is through government schemes, attention needs to be given to the incidence of erosion by inflation of the return from those schemes. I suggest that individuals who are involved in government schemes have a much greater opportunity to give periodic attention to the return on their investment than those who are in private industry.

Senator Kane did not pinpoint this problem that a person involved in a private superannuation scheme suffers a great erosion of the value of his investment. I suggest that it is probable that the problems of investment that have become evident on the stock exchange in the last year or so have been prompted by people having this problem in mind. Investment as it is today does not provide a sufficient return. There is an erosion of 3 to 4 per cent in the capital value of any investment, unless the investment is made in those areas which can keep pace with the inflationary tendency. I invite honourable senators to consider how this problem is dealt with in other countries. Honourable senators would find it interesting to consider whether the same situation applies in the countries where I have mentioned that the erosion of the value of an asset may be as high as 6 or 7 per cent, as it is in Japan. A similar position prevails in Canada, Great Britain and other countries. 1 believe that it is necessary in debates such as this to emphasise to the people that it is important that they re-assess year by year the investment that they are making because an inflationary situation is with us. An inflationary situation has continued over the last 20 years and 1 would suggest that it would be as well for individuals to look to the period between now and the end of this century. This Government has not said that it is interested in eliminating inflation, and no member of the Opposition says that policies can be devised to eliminate inflation.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What rot.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I hear an honourable senator suggesting that that is rot. Perhaps we can hear from him at some stage as to what policy which would be acceptable to the Australian community would eliminate inflation. I believe that it is the Government’s contention that inflation must be brought within acceptable limits.

Senator Byrne:

– Inflation or undue inflation? Some say that an element of inflation is inseparable from a modern economy and that it is not bad.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That is so. The Government has demonstrated by its record that it can do better than most other countries or governments in this regard. The latest action that it has taken to dampen the inflationary trend in this country has perhaps been a little delayed. I have been prompted to remark on several occasions that competition between government and private industry was one of the things that led to the inflationary trend in Australia. I am pleased to see that in some instances the Government has dampened down the inflationary trend by withdrawing from competition with the private sector for labour, money and materials. It is the private sector which provides the income enabling a government to act. If by the actions of government the demand for building materials grows and competition increases, prices will rise in that area. We have seen an attempt by the Government to control government expenditure. We saw the previous Prime Minister take some action in an attempt to keep government finance from the pockets of the community for as long as possible. There were demands for increased pensions and demands in other areas. Some of these requests have now been granted. This in itself might create some slight inflationary trend. The Cabinet which decided not to grant the increases is at least similar to the one which has now reversed that decision. I believe that a review of tariffs will help the situation, and I think also that some investigation of and influence in respect of resale price maintenance agreements might be helpful. It might be suggested that some action which has been taken in Victoria

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I join honourable senators in congratulating Senator Kane for what we of the hard school refer to as breaking the ice. He will now find that things become easier. I support him in the matter that he has raised as a matter of urgency. The honourable senator referred to the grave deterioration as a result of inflation in the economic position of senior citizens. Surely one could nol fail to agree with those words. While the Minister for Health (Senator Greenwood) was speaking I went outside the chamber and obtained interesting figures which show that there has been a grave deterioration. In 1949 the age pension was 24 per cent of the average weekly earnings. In October 1970 the age pension was 16.9 per cent of average weekly earnings. I would say that a drop in pensions from 24 per cent to 16.9 per cent of average weekly earnings could rightly be described as a grave deterioration of the pos:tion of pensioners.

Although J agree wholeheartedly with the proposal Senator Kane has put before the Senate for consideration, I cannot agree altogether with some of the remarks he made. With modern finance and business practices today I admit that there are a number of small investors in a lot of industries, but when all is said and done, if one examines the position it is found that the people who gain the most are those who put in the major portion of the finances. Whether this position is right or wrong is a matter for debate. But the facts arc that, although the capital is spread to a very small degree, those who receive the greatest dividends are far removed from the small investors. I have often considered this position in relation to inflation.

The Minister endeavoured to paint a very glowing picture of the situation from 1950 to 1970. I am sorry to inform him that his concept of the situation does not agree with mine. I went to the Library and found thai in comparison with the 1950-51 figure the consumer price index rose by 112 per cent in the December quarter of 1970. The Minister has said that this is a very great triumph for the Government. What he calls a triumph and what 1 call a triumph are different matters.

I now refer to the subject of senior citizens. As stated in the House of Representatives Hansard of 31st March, the general Government expenditure on health and welfare expressed as a proportion of gross national product for the year 1968 - I take it they are the latest figures - is as follows: Europe-Denmark 20.48; Germany 17.95, Sweden 17.45, France 16.8. A number of other countries are listed but I do not want to take a quarter of an hour in reading them out. If one looks at the figure for the nation of which I and the Minister arc citizens, one finds that health and welfare expenditure represents the princely figure of 7.09 per cent of the gross national product. To my mind that bears out very greatly what Senator Kane has proposed in the terms of his motion.

My friend from Victoria, Senator Greenwood, has said that insurance premiums paid by a citizen are tax deductible. That is true. He mentioned that a person can receive a tax deduction for insurance premiums paid of as much as 51,200 a year. Lel me put the matter on the line. How many people classed as average wage earners could. expect to pay out SI, 200 a year in insurance premiums? A person earning an average wage, which I suppose is from $76 to $80 a week, or approximately §4,000 a year, would be a pretty good economist if he could spare 51,200 a year for the purpose of reducing his tax. So we ask ourselves: What are we to do? 1 do not exclude the possibility that a lot of the responsibility for the present inflationary situation rests on the shoulders of the people themselves. Having taken an interest in politics in this country for about 55 years, I am of the opinion that the greatest disaster which befell the Australian people was as a result pf the prices referendum in 1948. 1 do not say that we would hot have a mild inflationary situation even if the proposal had been carried at that time, but at least we would have been able to damp it down. But today the sky is the limit. If ever there is talk of increasing the salaries of senators, one is rather amused to see the headlines which appear in the Press, but the fact is that we suffer in the same way as does the ordinary citizen. When 1 look back over the years - the Minister can look back also - and think of the price of land, say. 20 years ago and compare it with the price of land today, 1 asked myself: What hope do the young people have? Honourable senators opposite cannot say that governments could not have prevented this position. Of course they could. The price of land was pegged in 1949. Governments of the same political colour as that which the Minister supports have lifted controls on land prices, and of course the price of land has just gone haywire.

I looked also at the question of loans today. I remember reading an interesting speech made some time ago by the then member for Balaclava, Mr Joske. If I remember correctly, he is now a judge of the Commonwealth Industrial Court. In his speech he took by way of example two persons who had £5.000 to invest in those days. One person put the money into a loan at 3i per cent interest. Mr Joske compared this with . the case of a person who put £5,000 into real estate. The result would astound honourable senators. I do not know whether government loans are being filled today but I have often wondered why it is that you cannot have a variation in interest rates. If a government wants to raise loan moneys for the progress of the nation at least the interest rales should be flexible.

I believe a lot more could be done by the Government. Firstly, a lot more could be done in relation to superannuation payments to Commonwealth employees or even in relation to superannuation of senators, because in a few weeks time I may be receiving a superannuation payment. 1 make no bones about the fact that I am concerned to see that superannuation payments made to people who have served in this chamber are brought up to date. But 1 am vitally interested in the superannuation payments made to Commonwealth employees. If my memory serves me correctly, some adjustments have been made to these payments but the adjustments have not kept pace with the decrease in the value of money. Unless the Government corrects the position, the standard of living of those who move on to superannuation payments must of necessity fall. 1 doubt whether the Minister meant this as he said it, but as I understood him, he said that this debate was delaying the passing of social services legislation. I think that at times wrong words are easily said. What the Minister said does not appear to convey what he may have meant to convey. I think he has used the wrong words. I think the Senate would be extremely wise if it carried more of these fine resolutions. Each of us could learn what the other’s point of view is, irrespective of his political party. 1 have never thought that the Labor Party was other than the best. One would expect me to say that readily.

Senator Greenwood:

– You must have had some doubts on some occasions.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Perhaps we have made a few mistakes.I will not say how many. I will leave that subject. If this motion is carried, it will do good. It will say to the Government that the majority of the Senate wants the Government to do something more than just utter words. The Minister said that positive action will be taken. That will be most interesting. I hope we will be able to learn what the positive action is so we can say that Senator Kane has not stopped the passage of important legislation by introducing this matter, because some good will have come from it. When Senator Webster was speaking, Senator Byrne interjected and said that in the economy, as it is today, there has to be at least a small measure of inflation. Possibly that is so, but how long can this country suffer inflation when it continues to increase at an average of 3 per cent to 4 per cent a year?

Senator Webster:

– What is the situation overseas?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am not worried about what is happening overseas. God forbid! I am worried only about what is happening here. We are not paid to govern overseas.

Senator Webster:

– Some people have to have widervision than that.

Senator KENNELLY:

– If you. want that wider vision and if you want to rectify the wrongs of the world, I leave them to you. I am more concerned with the wrongs here. I know that my time is almost up. I support very heartily the motion.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– As a member of the Democratic Labor Party, 1 express our appreciation to all honourable senators who have participated in the debate for their complimentary and kindly references to the maiden speech delivered by my colleague, Senator Kane. I add my personal congratulations to him. He selected a unique vehicle for his maiden speech - a subject of very great urgency and of great importance. He discussed it with a depth and penetration that did him considerable credit. I think that the Senate can look forward to many similar contributions of such a thoughtful character from the honourable senator.

The urgency motion, which has received the attention of a number of honourable senators, highlights the situation that is now developing in Australia as a result of the economic inflation and the cost of living inflation that are operating in the community. The approach of the Democratic Labor Party to this matter is to consider firstly the cause of the situation and, at the same time, to deal with the immediate consequences. This motion is not dealing with the cause because that is not germane to the motion. It is dealing with the relief of those who are suffering the immediate consequences in a very grievous way. This is the second motion of a similar character that has been moved recently by the DLP as a matter of urgency. The first dealt with social service payments. Some weeks ago we moved, as a matter of urgency, that there should be an immediate review of social service entitlements in view of the inflationary situation. Notice of this motion was given in December. As soon as the Parliament met in February the motion was duly’ moved. It was supported by the Opposition and was carried. Some time after that the Government did increase the rate of pensions by a not very great amount, but nevertheless in some way it eased the desperate position of these people. We moved that motton to give immediate relief to these people and also to draw the attention of the Government to the grievous need of this body of people.

The present motion has a similar purpose, although, if it is carried, we perhaps cannot hope for similar immediate action. It deals with another group, and that is not those who are in receipt of social service entitlements but those who are trying to sustain themselves from the benefits of their thrift over the years or from their participation in superannuation schemes. This motion is the second of a trilogy of similar motions. We would hope that the moving of this motion would have the same effect as we think our earlier motion did have on the thinking of the Government. Al the moment the Government is moving into its annual pre-Budget examination of the economy. No doubt it is devising ways and means by which revenue can be raised and expended to the best advantage. We hope that this motion will bring, with a sense of urgency, to the notice of the Government, in the course of its pre-Budget discussions, the importance which the Senate attaches to the desperate plight of these people so that that will be taken into budgetary consideration with a view to providing relief.

Therefore, on this occasion we are ‘ dealing with the second of the trilogy of motions relating to particular segments of the community. This deals with those on superannuation or those, who by their own investment during their working lives, their thrift and their savings, have in some way been able to sustain themselves. I indicate to the Senate now that the third of the trilogy of motions that we shall move as matters of urgency - of which we perhaps might give notice today - deals with child endowment. On the resumption of the Senate on the Wednesday of the week after next we shall move that the Senate adjourn to discuss this as a matter of urgency. That is a third area of grievous and immediate need. Again we hope that, by bringing this area of need to the attention of the Government at this time, the Government will be persuaded to take this into the forefront of ils Budget considerations and attempt to provide some relief. We feel that this is the function of the Senate. Therefore, I am appealing to all honourable senators to support this motion, as I would hope that the similar motion to be moved as a matter of urgency in a fortnight would be similarly supported, and, as happened with our motion in relation to pensions, I would hope that the Government might be persuaded to give immediate relief and centainly to give relief in the forthcoming Budget.

The people who have invested in superannuation schemes or who have accumulated savings and committed them to investments are in a particularly desperate position. Let us consider for a moment the position of both groups. Those who have contributed to superannuation schemes during their working lives have participated in savings schemes from which they draw annuities at one level or another. Let us not think that those people who have retired from active life are still not participating in a very real way in the economic . life of the community. They are. They are participating because their savings, which are absorbed in their superannuation schemes, are invested and committed by those superannuation funds into the public sector of investment, such as Commonwealth loans. The life work of these people is still operating at a level in the community. Although they are still participating they are not able to be assisted in any way from the national revenue. Their position is becoming increasingly difficult. We think that the Government must give immediate consideration to some form of relief.

Those who are relying on their personal savings find themselves in the same situation. They are people of industrious habits, thrift and personal discipline. So often during their lives they have deprived themselves of many amenities which they could very well have enjoyed and in which they could have indulged their tastes. They chose not to do it from a sense of pride and self reliance in which they would provide for their own future out of their savings. But they have found that for reasons completely beyond their control their life savings are dissipated in terms of value. These people are totally defenceless. Members of trade unions who find the value of their wages eroded have their trade union organisations which can take employers to the court and have adjustments made in wages in accordance with the rise in the level of prices. But the people for whom this motion is framed are totally defenceless. They are innocent victims of a situation which they cannot possibly control. If we do not move to help these people their defencelessness will remain and will aggravate their level of living.

For those reasons I appeal to honourable senators to vote unanimously for this motion or at least vote for it in the numbers they can. Senator Murphy has indicated that we are going to receive support from this side of the chamber. I hope some Government senators may be persuaded to support the motion also. If that happens the Government will realise that urgent and deep concern is felt in this chamber for the conditions of these people. Such a vote will obviously persuade the Government to bring these matters to the forefront of its consideration in the fiscal and budgetary discussions which are to take place within the next few weeks.

I turn now for one or two moments to the second area of the motion which deals with the position of superannuated Commonwealth public servants. Somewhere in the 1950s there was adjustment of the number of units in which superannuated Commonwealth public servants could participate. But in 1961 this was done by statute by a notional adjustment in this way: If a Commonwealth employee retired on 20 units of superannuation and the salary for the job on which he was engaged when he retired was subsequently raised, and the unit entitlement attached to that position went to 50 units, then notionally a man who was already out of the Public Service but who had held that position would receive his superannuation on the 50- unit basis. An adjustment was made in 1963 and 1967. But no adjustment has been made since then.

The principle is a recognised statutory principle which has operated 3 times but, for one reason or another has not operated for the last 4 years. That is grossly unfair to these people because, after all, they can do nothing about the position. Their former employer - the Commonwealth - has a responsibility for the condition of the economy and they must look to it to try to rectify their situation. We plead with the Government for an immediate review of the present level of unit entitlement of superannuated Commonwealth public servants. A requirement should be written into the statute that there will be a regular, periodic review; it should not be left merely tothe annual budgetary considerations. Because we feel it is important that a vote be taken on this matter for the reasons I have indicated - that is, that the Government should be made aware of the feelings of the Senate on these situations at this time of pre-budgetary consideration - I shall move that the question be now put.

Motion (by Senator Byrne) agreed to :

That the question be now put.

Original question put:

That the motion (Senator Kane’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 26

NOES: 20

Majority . . . , 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 826

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The PRESIDENT:

-I inform the Senate thatI have received a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) notifying the appointment of Mr MacKellar to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in place of Mr Fairbairn. who has resigned from the Committee. .

page 826

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate thatI have received notice from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) appointing senators to the following committees: The Senate Standing Committee on Social Environment: Senators Laucke. Davidson. Webster, Keeffe, Mulvihill and Kane; The Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts: Senators Sir Magnus Cormack, Hannan. Prowse, Milliner, James McClelland and McManus.

page 826

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE 1970-71

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the following papers:

Particulars of Proposed Provision for Additional Expenditure for the service of the year ending 30th June 1971; and

Particulars of Proposed Provision for certain Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30th June 1971.

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

  1. That the Particulars of Proposed Provision for Additional Expenditure for the service of the year ending 30th June 1971, and the Particulars of Proposed Provision for certain Additional Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30th June 1971 be referred herewith to Estimates Committees A. B, C. D and E for examination and report.
  2. Thatthe Committees deal with the departmental estimates as follows:

Estimates Committee A:

Department of Supply

Parliament

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Department of Defence

Department of the Treasury

Department ofthe Vice-President of the

Executive Council

Estimates CommitteeB:

Department of Health

Attorney-General’s Department

Postmaster-General’s Department

Department of Immigration

Department of Social Services (including Aboriginal Affairs)

Estimates Committee C:

Department of Works (and Tourist Activities)

Department of Foreign Affairs

Department of Education and Science

Department of Labour and National Service

Department of External Territories

Department of Housing

Estimates CommitteeD

Department of Civil Aviation

Department of Trade and Industry

Department of National Development

Department of Shipping and Transport

Department of Customs and Excise

Department of the Interior

Estimates Committee E:

Department of Air

Department of Primary Industry

Department ofthe Army

Department of Repatriation

Department of the Navy

  1. That the Committees report to the Senate on or before 27th April 1971.
Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr President, the Opposition has no objection to the motion except that I am a little concerned about the time factor. If the Committees are to report by 27th April the motion does not give us much time at all.

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

– Only 5 sitting days.

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, 5 sitting days. The 27th April is a Tuesday. From what I have been told of the programme of sittings we would require at least another week following that. I do not want to have to move an amendment but 1 suggest that the date be the 29th April instead of the 27th. At least that would give us another couple of days. If the matters to be examined are within a short compass then the Estimates Committees might be able to conclude their sittings.

Senator Wright:

– Yes. I will adopt that date.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am content then.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 826

REPORT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– Mr President, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee 1 present the One Hundred and Twenty-Seventh Report.

With the concurrence of honourable senators, I incorporate the following statement in Hansard:

The One Hundred and Twenty-Seventh Report relates to the report of the AuditorGeneral for the financial year 1969-70. Your Committee would congratulate the Auditor-General and his staff for their sustained effort over many years to present the report to Parliament during August. The tabling of the report at that time each year has assisted your Committee greatly in this very important area of its work.

The matters examined publicly in this inquiry related to fires that occurred in 1969 at the Lyneham Primary School in Canberra and at the Wool Stores at Botany, New South Wales; a fraud perpetrated in the Lithgow office of the Department of Social Services and the construction of towers and ancillary works for the Department of the Navy at Port Wakefield, South Australia.

The evidence relating to the fire at the Lyneham Primary School shows a strong need for the problem of classification of all schools in the Australian Capital Territory as special purpose buildings to be resolved without delay by the Department of the Interior in consultation with the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Education and Science. We also believe that, in accordance with the requirements of Treasury Direction 32/53, the Department of the Interior has been in error in failing to maintain appropriate details relating to these schools on its assets register. While it is clear that thermal fire alarm systems are currently being installed in primary schools in the Territory we believe that this action could well have been taken sooner. We also believe that, as a matter of urgency, the Department of Education and Science must continue to pursue its investigations into burglar alarm systems for all government owned schools in the Territory.

The evidence taken in relation to the fire at the Wool Stores at Botany shows that the stores, which were built early in World War II to meet wartime needs constitute a high fire danger. Your Committee believes that appropriate action to provide adequate fire protection and to redevelop the stores in line with current needs should have been taken by the responsible authorities as soon as it became apparent that the stores would be required to meet long term postwar needs. Your Committee also believes that in view of the fire risks involved at the stores, the Australian Wool Board’s lease and tenancy agreements should have been examined critically and amended several years ago and that the Board’s third party insurance cover, which has been amended recently, should be kept under regular and frequent surveillance.

Regarding the fraud that occurred at the Lithgow office of the Department of Social Services the evidence shows that a number of weaknesses existed in the administration of that office during the period in which the fraud was perpetrated. In particular we were disturbed to learn that the programme of the regional office inspector for New South Wales was not designed, at that time, to detect fraud.

In relation to the ammunition testing facility for the Department of the Navy at Port Wakefield it appears from the evidence that the structure required was unusual in nature but was similar to facilities previously constructed in Britain and the United States of America. Your Committee believes that the Department of Works should have investigated these overseas structures fully during the planning and design stages of the Australian facility. Such an investigation may well have obviated many of the problems that arose later during the construction of the project. Much of the evidence tendered suggests that the Department of Works was ill equipped, at that time, to meet the problems that were encountered. Your Committee would commend that Department for the introduction of new policies and procedures designed to overcome problems of the type manifested in the Port Wakefield project, but believes that these developments should have been introduced sooner.

Your Committee has noted the growth that has occurred in the volume, variety and complexity of the audit function over the past 10 years and the continuing action taken by the Auditor-General in relation to his organisation and staffing tq meet these developments effectively. Due to the introduction of refined auditing techniques and the use by the Auditor-General of his discretionary authority to dispense with detailed audits under the provisions of the

Audit Act, the growth pattern in the audit function has reflected an increase of only 58 positions on the staff establishment of the Auditor-General’s office over this decade. in recording its appreciation of this achievement, your Committee also notes thar, notwithstanding assistance provided by the Public Service Board and organisational changes made to the staff structure of the Auditor-General’s office, the past decade has been characterised by a significant loss of trained and experienced audit staff. This has caused difficulties in relation to the maintenance of auditing objectives and procedures and the effective prosecution of. the audit programme. We believe that the importance of the audit function in the interests of the Parliament, the administration of the Government and the effective operation of your Committee under the Public Accounts Committee Act cannot be overemphasised. Having regard to the experiences of the Auditor-General over the past 10 years and the fact that further expansion in the scope and complexity of the audit function is in prospect, your Committee believes that the resources available to the Auditor-General must be maintained at a level and quality which will enable that function to be discharged adequately and confidently.

Your Committee has been disturbed for some lime by the fact that the status of the Auditor-General is currently below that of a number of First Division officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. Your Committee believes that, in view of the importance of the audit function and its continuing growth and complexity, this situation places the Auditor-General at an organisational disadvantage in the exercise of his onerous responsibilities. Accordingly, we believe that, as a matter of principle, the status of the Auditor-General should be reviewed. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 828

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– 1 present the Sixth Report from the Publications Committee.

Report - by leave - adopted.

page 828

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - The statement I now read was made in another place yesterday by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Bury). When 1 speak in the first person the reference is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

It has been the practice, and I think a good practice, for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make from time to time in addition to statements on particular overseas events and developments a statement on the international situation as a whole. I propose to continue that practice, so that the House may have a comprehensive account of Australia’s foreign relations. Such a. review was in course of preparation by my predecessor and I feel it would he of interest to honourable members. In order to save the time of the House, however, I shall at the end of my speech table a document incorporating information of detailed character on the global situation. I shall then move that the document be printed. I shall therefore confine my statement to four questions of particular current interest and importance to Australia, Indo-China, China, the Middle East and Pakistan.

Indo-China

The primary objective of Australian policy in Indo-China has been to help the peoples of South Vietnam, Laos, and the Khmer Republic to maintain their right to determine their own future free of external aggression or interference. This remains the continuing purpose of our policies in the area.

We have sought to promote this objective, wherever possible, through peaceful means. We have maintained a consistent policy in favour of a peaceful settlement in all 3 countries. In Vietnam, we have stressed repeatedly that we do not seek a military solution and we have given full support to allied efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement. In Laos, we have given full support to the 1962 Geneva Agreements and to the efforts of Prince Souvanna Phouma to preserve the independent and neutral status which those Agreements sought to guarantee. As to Cambodia, we took an active part in the Djakarta Conference of Foreign Ministers, which sought to secure by peaceful means the continuing independence and neutrality of the Khmer Republic. We are continuing to explore ways and means of working towards peaceful solutions.

But it takes 2 sides to negotiate and the North Vietnamese have so far refused to enter into a genuine negotiating process. It is they who have sought, and continue to seek, military victory. It is nearly 3 years since Hanoi sent a delegation to Paris. Yet. throughout that time the North Vietnamese have refused to engage in substantive talks, insisting that the United States must first undertake to withdraw all its forces from Vietnam unilaterally and unconditionally, and to dismantle the elected government of the Republic of Vietnam. They have also rejected offers by the Republic of Vietnam of direct talks - public or private - about a political settlement. In Laos, North Vietnamese forces have been violating the 1962 Accords, and attacking the neutral government of Prince Souvanna Phouma, since the Accords were first signed. In Cambodia, it was again the North Vietnamese who rejected the Lon Nol Government’s request to withdraw from Cambodian territory and who then launched direct attacks against Cambodian centres and Cambodian forces, weeks before the cross-border operations by the United States and South Vietnam.

Because the North Vietnamese have refused to negotiate and have persisted in their aggression, the countries of IndoChina have had to defend themselves and to seek assistance from outside. Australia has responded to these requests for help. During the past year, as a result of the Republic of Vietnam’s increasing selfreliance in all fields, it has been possible for Allied forces to withdraw progressively from South Vietnam. One Australian battalion was withdrawn last November and a further 1,000 men from all Services will be withdrawn in coming months. The fact that such withdrawals can be undertaken without detriment to the security of South Vietnam or of our own forces is a tribute both to the assistance which Australian and Allied forces have given, and to the advances made by the Government, the people and the Armed Forces of South Vietnam.

Australia is now engaged in an intensified programme of training assis- tance to help the South Vietnamese to develop further their own ability to defend their country. In the field of economic aid, thanks to the improved security situation, it has been possible to proceed with important new infrastructure and development projects. Although the declaration on the neutrality of Laos permits it to receive assistance for self-defence, Laos has never sought military aid from Australia. Australia has, however, given economic, technical and financial aid to Laos as well as diplomatic support for its independence, integrity and neutrality. The Government of the Khmer Republic has stated repeatedly that it wants outside assistance only so long as it is faced with foreign invasion. It has not asked Australia for combat troops and there is no question of our sending any. But in response to its requests, Australia has made two special aid grants to the Khmer Republic bringing our total aid this financial year to $2m.

The Australian Government continues to hope and will continue to work for a just and peaceful settlement of the present conflicts in South Vietnam, Laos and the Khmer Republic. If the other side maintains its refusal to enter substantive negotiations, we shall continue to give appropriate assistance to the governments of these countries in their resistance to aggression. But we also hope that as security improves and the level of fighting declines, it will be possible to consider ways and means of launching a wider and longer-term international reconstruction effort to help the peoples of these unhappy countries to improve their living conditions and build a better future.

China

A major factor in the ultimate resolution of the problems of Indo-China will of course be the policies of the People’s Republic of China. This in turn will be influenced by its relationship with the international community. The Government has never ignored the immense fact of life which the People’s Republic of China represents. It comprises about one quarter of the population of the globe. Though it has problems of under-development it has made much progress industrially and agriculturally over the past 20 years and nas great economic potential. It has a strong influence in a number of Communist countries and some others. It has extended support to insurgent movements in several countries both in and beyond the South East Asia region. It is developing an arsenal of nuclear weapons together with missiles. We accept that, perhaps more than any other government, that of China has great domestic difficulties. But it is necessary to point out that the isolation of China from the international community has been largely the result of its own international attitudes.

Over the last 12 months there have been relevant developments and our own policies must be sensitive to change. Peking has made some progress with internal reconstruction following the turbulence and anarchy of the cultural revoltion. It has adopted a more active foreign policy. Peking has been recognised by Canada, Italy, Chile, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Kuwait and Cameroun, and is exchanging ambassadors with Nigeria. It has shown and continues to show signs of renewed interest in membership of the United Nations. At the most recent Assembly there was a shift in its favour and a number of other countries including the United States of America and Japan have their policies towards China under review. This Government, for its part, is studying the changes in Peking’s international standing, the likely pattern of voting in the United Nations and the constants in the problem. We live in the same region as China and in pur consideration we must attach considerable weight to the interests and rights of our neighbours, including the republic of China on Taiwan. The Australian Government considers $hat the Republic of China is as much a fact of international life as is the People’s Republic on the mainland. There are more than 14 million people in Taiwan, more than in most member countries of the United Nations. The status and rights of Taiwan as a member of the international community must be protected.

The Middle East

The Middle East which has long been important to our communications with Europe is an area of growing commercial significance to Australia both as a market and a source of raw materials. But the area is bedevilled by the so far intractable problem of Arab-Israeli relations. That problem is complicated by the competing interests of the great powers in the region and the presence of Soviet military personnel there in support of one of the parties to the conflict. We welcomed the acceptance by Israel, the United Arab Republic and Jordan of the United States initiative which led to the resumption of the mission of Dr Jarring, the special representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to assist in implementing the principles for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East as outlined in Security Council Resolution 242. It is a matter for regret that Dr Jarring’s mission has been temporarily suspended, but we can at least be thankful that currently the military restraint for which the Secretary-General appealed on 5th March is being substantially exercised.

Australia’s position is quite clear. We enjoy friendly relations with both Israel and Arab countries. We are committed to neither side. This does not preclude us from expressing our views on specific issues. Our basic position is that there must be a settlement ensuring the sovereighty, independence and territorial integrity of all states in the area, including Israel, within agreed borders. It should also provide for a just settlement of the refugee problem, guarantee freedom of navigation through the international waterways of the region and protect areas of deep concern to three of the world’s great religions. Meanwhile the build up of weapons and war material goes on. Continuance of a conflict which carries such grave risks of escalation is against the interests of all. Itis not the exclusive concern of the adversaries. This conflict has continued for a generation - through the failure of the two sides to come together in a solution which the rest of the world holds to be long overdue. It is essential that the parties continue to keep the peace and to search in sincerity for a just and permanent settlement.

Pakistan

I feel I should not address the House, even briefly, .without some reference to events in Pakistan, a country with which we have, for 23 years, enjoyed close relations. Pakistan has been under martial law for years under the presidency of General Yahya Khan. It has been the President’s prime objective to arrange for a constituent assembly to be elected and for that assembly to draft a new constitution. He proposed then to hand political power back, to the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan. Elections for the constituent assembly, which were held last November, produced an unexpected polarisation: the Awami League, a party limited almost solely to the east wing, won a majority of seats; the only other party to win a substantial number of seats was the Pakistan People’s Party, based in the west wing. The Awami League’s platform gave political expression to a sense of grievance among its supporters in East Pakistan, which contains the majority of Pakistan’s population, about their share of power and wealth in the nation. Its political programme, in brief, envisaged virtual autonomy for East Pakistan within a loose federal framework. This programme was not acceptable in its entirety to the Government of Pakistan.

For some 3 months President Yahya attempted to work towards a compromise. His task was complicated by the positions taken up by the two main political leaders, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman of the Awami League, and Mr Bhutto of the People’s Party. The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly had to be postponed. In midMarch, President Yahya and subsequently Mr Bhutto went to Dacca and it was hoped that the talks that were held there with Sheikh Mujib would lead to some generally acceptable constitutional arrangements. Unfortunately, the talks failed to produce agreement and on 25th March President Yahya decided to put an end to the virtual autonomy which Sheikh Mujib had claimed for his party, and to attempt by force to re-establish the authority of the central government. At the same time, President Yahya charged Sheikh Mujib with treason and banned the Awami League. I cannot yet give honourable members a detailed account of the military action that was instituted on the night of 25th-26fh March, or of the tragic events that have ensued. Until a sufficient picture of the facts has been authoritatively established, I am able to speak only in the most general terms.

There have been reports of widespread conflict and loss of life. It appears that in parts of East Pakistan the authority of the martial law administration has not been reestablished, and that fighting and disorder is continuing. Pakistan is an old friend of Australia’s and it saddens us to read these reports of bloodshed and destruction, following as they do so closely on the hurricane disaster of last November in the same area. I have been deeply concerned about the safety of the 60 Australian citizens in East Pakistan. Some of those whose presence there was not essential have been evacuated. On 2nd April, 9 adults and 9 children from the Dacca area were flown out to Singapore. Others may be evacuated by internal flights of Pakistan International Airlines as opportunities arise, but the bulk of the 42 Australians still in East Pakistan are up-country in areas which are considered safe, or from which they could not, without unjustifiable risk in present conditions, journey to the evacuation points.

I have touched upon the rightful concerns of the Australian Government in these matters. The situation that has arisen in East Pakistan is, of course, an internal matter and the responsibility for resolving it is Pakistan’s alone. From a humanitarian viewpoint, however, I must record our concern at the reported scale of the loss of life and suffering. We have noted President Yahya’s statement on 26th March that his objective remains the same, to transfer power to the elected representatives of the people as soon as the situation permits. It is the Australian Government’s hope, therefore, that conditions of peace, order and security will be restored in East Pakistan as soon as possible.

Forthcoming Overseas Visits

Like my predecessors, my induction as Foreign Minister is to be a rapid one. In a few days I am leaving for London to participate in the five power meeting on defence arrangements for Malaysia and Singapore. I shall be attending a meeting in Geneva of our heads of mission at European posts before proceeding to Washington for the ministerial meeting of troop contributing countries in Vietnam. I return to London for the meeting of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation Council of Ministers on 30th April. My business during three of these meetings will be concerned essentially with South East Asian affairs. It would have been my wish, normally, to visit countries of the region as

Foreign Minister before entering detailed discussions with our allies in this way. This has not been possible. I shall, of course, be reporting to the House on the business involved in these meetings after my return. I look forward to visiting Indonesia at an early opportunity.

Conclusions

I make one final point. The objectives or means of achieving our foreign policy need to be widely understood and supported.

We hope that the studies of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the debates in the Parliament will be accompanied by serious research and informed debate both within and outside the Parliament by the Australian people. Foreign policy will be stimulated and fortified by this democratic process. I hope this speech and statement which I am tabling with it will make some contribution to mis process.

For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the Minister’s detailed statement on international affairs, and move:

That the statement be printed.

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

– In speaking to the motion that the statement be printed I wish to bring before the attention of the Senate the fact that this statement has been read already in another place. Could we not adopt the practice of a Minister introducing a statement and then asking for the statement to be incorporated in Hansard instead of, as in this case, honourable senators being required to sit here for 25 minutes and listen to the Minister reading a speech that we read in the newspapers this morning? I am not criticising anyone but I would like the procedure to be simplified so that in future when a statement is made here a day or even an hour after it was made in the other place all that is required is for the Minister to introduce the statement and request that it be incorporated in Hansard. I ask you, Mr Acting Deputy President, to take up this matter with the appropriate body.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Very well.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The Opposition would like the opportunity to have an early debate on this important statement on foreign affairs. Could we have an assurance from the Government that it will accede to this request? I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - Without closing the debate may I respond to Senator Turnbull’s suggestion and say that hitherto the presentation of a statement on the floor of the Senate has been regarded by honourable senators as an entitlement, if not as a matter of courtesy. To Senator O’Byrne I say that I shall communicate his request to those associated with me and use every endeavour to afford the earliest opportunity for resumption of the debate. I move:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 832

PLACING OF BUSINESS

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Is it desired to rearrange the business of the Senate?

Motion (by Senator Devitt) agreed to:

That notice of motion No. 2, Business of the Senate, be postponed until the next day of sitting.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) agreed to:

That notice of motion No. 1, Business of the Senate, be postponed until the next day of sitting.

page 832

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 April (vide page 796), on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Fitzgerald had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add - “. but the Senate is of the opinion that -

the increases proposed are inadequate;

social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living;

steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty;

a national superannuation system should be established and the means test eliminated; and

pension payments should be a proportion of average weekly earnings adjusted annually” -

And upon which SenatorGair had moved as an amendment to Senator Fitzgerald’s proposed amendment:

Leave out paragraph (5) and insert the following new paragraphs: “(5) rates of pensions should be determined by an independent tribunal or committee of experts on social services including pensioner representation;

  1. pending the creation of an independent tri bunal or committee to determine pension rates, pension payments should be a proportion of average weekly earnings adjusted annually”.
Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · Victoria · LP

– At the adjournment of the Senate last night, 1 had been addressing myself in reply to what had been said in the course of the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill to amendthe Social Services Act by which an increase in the pension will be payable. I think that I had in effect covered all the matters which had been said and to which 1 thought it was necessary to respond with respect to the proposal itself. I had intended and now proceed to deal with aspects of the amendments which have been moved.

Senator Fitzgerald, on behalf of the Opposition, has moved an amendment by which he seeks to add words to the motion: ‘That the Bill be now read a second time’. These words indicate 5 heads of Senate opinion. The first of these heads is:

  1. the increases proposed are inadequate.

I suppose it is inevitable that when there is a motion proposed that a pension be increasedthe Opposition will claim that the amount proposed is inadequate. This is in the way of politics. The real difficulty is determining what is and what is not an adequate rate of pension. These matters involve far deeper questions than can be raised in the course of a response by me to an assertion - and simply an assertion - which is made by the Opposition that the pension rate is inadequate. I think that it has been demonstrated in the tables which have been presented to the Senate and incorporated in Hansard that there has been a real increase in the real value of the pension over the last 20 years. If one examines any period within that 20 years, one can see similarly an improvement in the rael value of the pension.

I do not desire to reiterate the facts which already have been canvassed in the course of this debate. But I do think that it is important, as I see it, that one looks at the position over the last 3 years. There has been a great deal of criticism about the amount of pension increase which was granted in the Budget for 1970-71. Some suggestion was involved in Senator Fitzgerald’s assertion yesterday that the present increase, the additional 50c a week which has been announced and which is now being carried through in legislative form, is inadequate. I think it is important to consider the position over the last 3 years so that there can be a perspective.

When the former Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, took office in January 1968 the rates of the standard age pensions were $13 a week for the single person and $11.75 a week for the married person. The consumer price index for the December quarter in 1967, which showed the available figures at the time when Mr Gorton took office, indicates that the index was 103. The index for the December quarter of 1970, which is the latest figure available, shows that the figure is 114. There has been effectively an increase of 11 in that period.

To maintain the real value of the January 1968 pension, the following weekly rates would be required: A standard rate of $14.35 for the single pensioner and $13 for the married pensioner. That is, over that period, having regard to the movement in the consumer price index, what would be required to maintain the real value. If the real value was maintained at what it was in January 1968, there would need to be a weekly increase of$1.37 for the single pensioner and$1. 25 for the married pensioner. That would be required to maintain the value of the pension in real terms at what it was in January 1968.

But the position today is vastly different from that. There was an increase of SI a week in the pension in 1968. There was an increase of a further SI a week in the pension in 1969. An increase of 50c a week was granted to the pensioner in the middle of 1970. A further increase of 50c is involved in the legislation now before the Senate. So, for the single pensioner there has been in fact an increase of $3 a week over the last 3 years.

Having regard to the increases that I have just mentioned - that is, a weekly increase of S3 for the single pensioner and $2.50 for the married pensioner - we see that this has brought the rate payable to the single pensioner to $16 a week and to the married pensioner to S 14.25. These increases thus significantly exceed the amounts which would be required to maintain the real value of the pension at its January 1968 figure. I think it can be asserted that an improvement has occurred in the real value of the pension over that 3 years.

I mention these matters not because they of themselves disprove an assertion that the pension is inadequate, but because they do indicate - and this is all that the Government has been asserting over the years - that it does concern itself with the pensions position and that it does approach the matter humanely. I believe that the evidence of the increases granted over the past 3 years indicates conclusively that a concern has been expessed in action to improve the real position of the pensions.

The second point which is raised in Senator Fitzgerald’s amendment is:

  1. social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

His next point is:

  1. steps should be taken immediately to alleviate poverty;

Again, this is an expression of opinion largely stemming from political conviction and from a position in the Senate, namely, Whether one is on the Government side or on the Opposition side. This is involved in such assertions, ft is very difficult, as I have said, to determine what is poverty. It is difficult to determine what is an acceptable standard of living. It is difficult to determine whether or not pension increases are adequate or inadequate. But I think that it is important that, when one considers the question of poverty, one has regard to the relevant facts. One relevant fact is the amount of the pension itself. These are areas which I have canvassed in what I have said already.

Quite apart from the actual amount of the pension there are the facilities, the concessions and the benefits which pensioners are entitled to receive in other areas. I stressed last night that there were fringe benefits of real value in terms of not only taxation allowances but also the benefits which come in the way of television and radio licences and a whole host of other benefits which I do not elaborate again. But these things ought to be regarded as having value and they ought to be taken into account in determining what is the effective lot of the pensioner.

J think that it was last year when the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) estimated that the value of these fringe benefits, so-called, amounted to $5 a week. If we add $5 a week to the rate of the pension at the present time, that is a further indication of the improvement in the pensioner’s real- lot, whether it be over 3 years or over the life of Liberal Party-Country Party governments in Australia of some 21 years. Again I say - and it is, I think, a most effective thing which can be said to the points made by Senator Fitzgerald - that the Government has shown a real concern over the years. Whilst the criticisms which are made from time to time may appear to have weight - indeed I am not saying that they do not have weight in some instances - a government has the responsibility to govern and a government must place the position of those deserving of welfare from government alongside the other commitments for which government is responsible.

The fourth point raised in Senator Fitzgerald’s amendment is that a national superannuation system should be established and the means test eliminated. These are matters which, in a sense, were involved in the urgency motion which was moved earlier by Senator Kane of the Democratic Labor Party, and they were also involved in the proposal moved yesterday by Senator Murphy on behalf of the Opposition for the reference of this whole question of a national superannuation scheme to a standing committee of the Senate. The point I want to make is that on present figures the abolition of the means test would involve an amount in excess of $400m. These considerations have to be borne in mind in determining whether a Government is entitled to allocate that additional amount, or that portion of revenue, for a particular social service. The approach of the Government over the years has been to allocate to the National Welfare Fund and to those aspects of expenditure from the National Welfare Fund such amounts as could be allocated having regard to the many demands which were continually being made upon the Government for expenditure. This determining of the priorities is essentially the privilege and the responsibility of the government of the day. 1 think that is one fact which any government recognises and no government can yield.

The fifth point raised by the Opposition in its amendment is that pension payments should bc a proportion of average weekly earnings adjusted annually. This also is an aspect which is affirmed in a slightly different way. but nevertheless affirmed, by the Democratic Labour Party in the amendment which Senator Gair moved to Senator Fitzgerald’s motion. 1 desire to say something about the disadvantages which Bow from attempting to adjust a pension rate as a proportion of average weekly earnings. I know that the Australian Labor Party in its platform has a proposal that social security payments should be tied to a proportion of the average weekly earnings so that persons receiving benefits will receive automatic increases as productivity increases, as other factors increase general prosperity or as inflation occurs. I appreciate that in a political party’s platform’ there must be a general statement, but it would seem that if the Labor Party is desirous of ensuring that pensioners will receive automatic increases as productivityincreases, as other factors increase general prosperity, whatever that means, or as inflation occurs, average weekly earnings would not be the best criterion to which to tie the adjustment.

Senator Prowse:

– Nor do they suggest the proportion that they desire.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– As Senator Prowse mentions, the proportion is curiously omitted, and curiously it has been omitted during the debate by members of the Democratic Labor Party and the Opposition in supporting their prospective amendments. They have not asserted what the proportion should be.

Senator GAIR:

– We have stated a proportion - 50 per cent of the base rale, the average wage.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– lt is interesting to hear that Senator Gair says that it should be 50 per cent of a base rate, a basic wage or a national wage. As I understand Senator Gair’s amendment to the motion, he is not asserting that; he is asserting that pension payments should be a proportion of average weekly earnings adjusted annually. That is vastly different from what Senator Gair said by interjection a. moment ago. I think the distinction which he sought to make was made because he appreciates the position and, 1 suggest, because of the very real difficulty there is in determining what the proportion shall be. I am indebted to Senator Prowse for the interjection which he accorded to me.

My point at the moment is: Why are average weekly earnings taken as the base or criterion to which the pension should be adjusted? The consumer price index is a better indication of price movements within a community and a better indication of what might be supposed to be the needs of people who have to buy the commodities of which the prices are a reflection. Average weekly earnings merely reflect the average earnings of. wa.ge and salary earners throughout the community. Among those people there would be persons receiving thousands of dollars a year - hundreds of dollars a week - and those who are on the lowest level. The average would be nothing more than what the phrase itself involves, an average of earnings. Why tha.t should be regarded as a base or criterion to which the pension should be adjusted escapes me. I have heard no considered argument from the Opposition as to why the pension should be tied to average weekly earnings. Movements of average weekly earnings as shown by the Commonwealth Statistician-

Senator Gair:

– In the main they arc determined by increases in the cost of living.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I think it is fair to say that Senator Gair’s interjection that these figures are tied to the cost of living is an assertion which examination does not bear out. The average weekly earnings figure ma,y be the result of award increases granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, increasing the earnings of a wage or salary earner, or the result of something which the Public Service Arbitrator gives, or it may be the result of one seeking to follow the other.

Additionally, a factor of some consequence in determining what the earnings shall be are consent awards which are made as a result of industrial action, or threatened industrial action, in which case occasionally there will be an employer who feels that he cannot stand the cost of a strike and so simply agrees to what the unions ask for. All these factors influence average weekly earnings. It is not a criterion of productivity movements in the community and it is not a criterion of what represents the needs or the change in needs of persons who are dependent on the pension.

That is just one comment by way of challenge to the Opposition that something more than the glib assertion that pensions should be tied to average weekly earnings is required to make it a feasible and sensible guide as to what the pension rate should be. There are so many difficulties involved in the computation and the results which flow from it that it is incredible that the suggestion should have been advanced without the necessary research being done. Additionally, any government would desire to be able to control the amount which it has to place into the national welfare fund so as to be available for pensioners. It must have the ability to determine what amount shall be allocated in the light of its various commitments and in the light of the revenues which are at its disposal. Tying the proportion to the rise or fall in average weekly earnings could involve - one must go further and say would involve - the Government in expenditure commitments over which it would have no effective power. It would inhibit the Government in its economic policies. 1 propose to illustrate that because I think the point needs to be made. If we look at the increase of average weekly earnings over the past few years - we get from the Commonwealth Statistician what the average weekly earnings are in every quarter - we find that in the March 1970 quarter average weekly earnings in this country were $71.30 a week. In the December 1970 quarter, 9 to 12 months later, they were $84.80 a week. If the pension happened to be one-third of average weekly earnings, in March 1970 it would have been $24 a week and in the December quarter it would have been $28 a week. That movement in average weekly earnings would involve, in terms of expenditure on pensions, an amount in excess of $240m. No government could tolerate that sort of situation because involved in it would be a vast amount of Government revenue which would have to be allocated, not as the Government determined that it should be allocated but simply as average weekly earnings moved.

The movement over the last 12 months, frightening as it is and indicative to Government that action has to be taken to prevent inflationary consequences flowing, would have alarming consequences in terms of what the pension movement should be. I believe that is one of the solid, sound arguments as to why we could not - no . Government could - tolerate pensions being tied to average weekly earnings. The fluctuations are so enormous and dependent upon factors which may affect the higher income wage earners or the lower income wage earners that one could not from that derive any satisfactory indication of what a pension, which ought to be related to needs, should be. .

This is Labor Party policy at the moment, but I do think it is relevant to bear in mind that there have been attempts in Australia’s history to tie the amount of the pension to a consumer price index or a figure which moves supposedly automatically. The first attempt was made in 1933 when variations in the pension were linked to the price index for food and groceries. That experiment lasted only 4 years and it was abolished in 1937 by the Invalid and Old Age Pensions Bill. I have researched previous Hansards to find what was said on that occasion. The then Treasurer, Mr Casey, said:

Honourable members will recollect that in 1933 provision was made in the principal Act for an annual review of the rate of pension in accordance with cost of living variations, and a table was inserted in the Act for the purpose. In July, 1935, in accordance with the movement in the cost of living, the rate of pension was increased to a maximum of 18s. a week. In September, 1936, in connection with the Budget proposals of that year, an alteration was made in the table relating to cost of living for pension purposes in favour of the pensioners, and the rate of pension was increased from 18s. to 19s. a week although the cost of living variation at that time did not warrant an increase of ls. a week. It is now proposed to repeal all the provisions which deal with the variation of the rate of pension in accordance with the cost of living.

What did the Leader of the Opposition of that day say? Mr Curtin, who I think was the Leader of the Opposition at that time, said:

In this bill the Treasurer proposes to eliminate all reference to index numbers, so that henceforth the pension will be fixed at £1 a week and will nol vary except by an amendment of the statute. The Opposition accepts that point; it thinks that it is right for the- Parliament to accept full responsibility for the rate at which pensioners shall bc paid.

I draw some comfort from that. I have heard in this place that the old Australian Labor Party was all right but the new Australian Labor Party is not all right. The only doubt I have is that now the Australian Democratic Labor Party, which normally says that, is in line with the new Australian Labor Party thinking. I believe the point which Mr Curtin made at that time and which the Government of the day asserts, that it is the responsibility of the Parliament to determine what the rate of pension shall be, is the only policy which a responsible Government could pursue.

Senator Kennelly:

– Has your research gone any further into the 1941-48 era?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I think if Senator Kennelly will only bear with me I will refer lo the next occasion-

Senator Kennelly:

– lt was tied to the index figure then.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If Senator Kennelly will bear with me I will refer to the next occasion when an attempt was made to tie the pension rate to some Statistician’s figures, and that occurred from 1940 to 1944. In 1944 the then Labor Government introduced the Invalid and Old Age Pensions Bill to alter this situation. Dr Evatt, who introduced the Bill on that occasion, said:

The main purpose of this Bill is to give legislative effect to the Government’s decision to abandon the principle of Unking the rate of invalid and old-age pension with the cost-of-living figures, namely, die weighted average retail price index number for all items of household expenditure.

One puts this before the Australian Labor Party on the basis that what its own leaders said when it was in government ought to have some weight with its members. The fact that the Australian Labor Party has changed its policy over the years ought to have no real weight, except to settle its existing policy alongside what it did when it found that it had the resopnsibility of government.

Senator Gair:

– You have changed your policy more frequently with advantage.

Senator GREENWOOD:

- Senator Gair is entitled to that opinion. He well knows what sort of things compel a government from time to time to change its mind. Might I refer to what Dr Evatt said during the course of that debate. He said:

As to the merits of the matter. I point out tha any automatic system of pension adjustment is necessarily arbitrary. When a scale of index numbers is taken and applied to pensions there must be arbitrary turning points. In this case a reduction of I. per cent in the index led, on application of the automatic scale, to a fall of nearly 2 per cent in the pension rate. Beyond that, the scale previously adopted by Parliament made one index, the average of the 6 capital cities of Australia, apply to pension rates throughout Australia. The reason for that was that it was desired that the amount of old-age and invalid pension should everywhere be the same throughout Australia. The implications of this were evidently not generally realised when the scale was adopted in 1942, because it was evident in November, 1943, that it was anomalous that an automatic adjustment system should operate to produce a reduction in pension rate in a place, e.g., Hobart, for which the index had actually risen. Again it was contended that the fall in the index in some places had been so slight that there would have been no pension reduction in those places if they had been on a scale of adjustment on their own index instead of on the average of the 6 capitals.

He said in conclusion:

As a result of a further examination of the position, and having regard to the fact that considerable administrative work and many complications arise from the present system, the Government has decided to ask the Parliament to repeal the sections of ,he Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act which provide for the adjustment of the maximum rate of pension in accordance with the variations of the price index number.

I have mentioned these things because they are part of our history and they are part of the experience of what happened when in 1944 an attempt was made to tie the pension to the Statistician’s figures. The statistician’s figures showed that there should have been a drop in the pension but the Government of the day was not prepared to accept that position. By regulation - this goes back to the days of the Labor Government - it avoided the consequences of what it was supposed to do by Act of Parliament, because no Government will willingly accept a situation when, in accordance with the Statistician’s figures, there should be a drop in the pension because electorally the Government knows that the people would not like it. If there was a drop in average weekly earnings, as there could be because the figures for the last three or four years show that over various quarterly periods it does happen - would the government of the day be prepared to accept a drop in the pension? These are realistic matters. I think they are effective answers culled from experience as to why governments are wary about committing their obligation to Statistician’s figures over which they have no control.

The one remaining point for me to deal with was made by the Australian Democratic Labor Party. The Democratic Labor Party seeks to amend the Opposition’s amendment by inserting a provision that rates of pensions should be determined by an independent tribunal or committee of experts on social services, including pensioner representation. Tn the first place, the considerations which I have urged as to why pensions should not be linked to the Statistician’s figures apply equally to decisions of independent tribunals. For example, an independent tribunal could determine that the pension rate should increase from $16 a week to $24 a week, and the Government would thereupon be involved in an increase of something like $500m a year. The Government could scarcely go aginst a decision of the independent tribunal. I sense that when Government seeks to put itself in the hands of a tribunal one finds the problems with which the Government has been confronted in relation to the decision of the Arbitration Commission to increase wages by 6 per cent.

Senator Gair:

– They do that with the Arbitration Court.

Senator McManus:

– And with teachers tribunals and others.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I sense the force of what Senator Gair says. Governments over many years have committed to the Arbitration Commission powers which, as our history has developed, have enabled it to determine what award rates of wages shall be and to see that that determination is carried through in a mixture of legislative and industrial provisions to all wage earners. Senator McManus by way of interjection said that the same position applies to teachers tribunals. About 1 million pensioners are involved. The amount involved in a $1 increase - 1 think it is approximately $60m - is so large that no government could cheerfully or willingly depute the task of determining the amount to an independent body.

The second point that 1 would make is this: Who would comprise the members of this tribunal? I notice that Senator Gair’s amendment has suggested that it should be an independent tribunal or committee of experts on social services, including pensioner representation. Who would comprise the committee? 1 suppose, as the amendment refers to a committee of experts on social services, the honourable senator would exclude judges, although he possibly might include Mr Justice Nimmo. He would include pensioner representatives, but 1 do not suppose he would include, because he does not specify them, representatives of the taxpayers. The whole point is that, superficially attractive as these proposals are - and f know this has long been a policy of the Democratic Labor Party - in practical terms, the proposals have no attraction for a government which has the responsibility of raising revenue and of allocating the revenue at its disposal among various priorities competing for and demanding expenditure. By this measure the Government proposes an increase in the pension which, in the light of Australia’s current circumstances the Government believes can be afforded and should be granted.

These amendments, which reflect the competing desires of the Opposition parties, do not quality what the Government has done. J suggest that both amendments should be rejected because they seek to take away from the Parliament and from the Government what should be the sole prerogative of the Parliament. These matters should not be committed to independent tribunals because of the consequences to the Government if the amounts of increase are so great that they impose what could be well nigh impossible burdens on the public purse.

Senator Gair’s amendment to Senator Fitzgerald’s proposed amendment negatived.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Fitzgerald’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 19

NOES: 24

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 839

REPATRIATION BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 April (vide page 756), on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-I move:

The reasons for the amendment were given in my speech last night.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Bishop’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 25

NOES: 20

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second lime, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate.

Adoption of Report

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockman) proposed:

Thatthe report be adopted.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I draw attention to a matter because I think it ought not to pass without notice. If the report of the Committee is adopted the Repatriation Act 1920-1970 will contain a most important clause. It is clause 2 which states:

  1. This Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of April, One thousand nine hundred and seventy-one.

That clause is important because it illustrates that these financial measures which confer a benefit can and should date from a time certain so that the legislation will not be rushed through the Parliament. Debates need not be curtailed under the threat that if the legislation is not rushed through without giving it full consideration someone will be deprived of a payment for a week, or something of that nature. This means that in the case of adjustments made by the Budget such Bills perhaps should date from the commencement of the financial year, from the introduction of the Budget or, in any event, from some date certain. They should not be left in this uncertain manner where it is suggested that Parliament by discussing social legislation is denying or deferring the payment of moneys or in some way doing an injustice to those who receive the benefits.It is with pleasure thatI see that date incorporated. I for one feel that that provision ought to be in every one of such measures.

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

– in reply - I think I should comment on the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy). It is a fact that usually such provisions are expressed to operate from the date of royal assent. In the second reading speech of this Repatriation Bill 1970 the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) pointed out that in this case, due to special circumstances, this action had been taken. He also pointed out that this was not to be looked upon as something that would happen every time. While I shall convey to the Minister the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks,I want the Senate to understand that this practice will not occur on all occasions.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Drake-

Brockman) read a third time.

page 840

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 April (vide page 756), on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 840

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 20th April, at 3 p.m.

page 840

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

– I ask leave of the Senate to bring forward item No. 24 under General Business. This relates to a notice of motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) concerning the reference of a matter to a standing committee. In my absence, Senator Greenwood graciously moved the adjournment.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

page 840

QUESTION

NATIONAL SUPERANNUATION SCHEME

Debate resumed from 6 April (vide page 762), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare the following matter - the introduction of a national superannuation scheme and the methods of financing and operating such a scheme.

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

(5.56) - The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) moved this motion and spoke to it yesterday. I regret that I was not here when the debate took place. I consider - it also is the view of the Government - that the terms of reference are very wide. One could wonder at the magnitude of the task being put to the Committee. But on balance I think this question should be decided by the Committee when it gets the reference. The most expeditious way to deal with it would be to put the question. Perhaps it could be carried on the voices.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Silting suspended from S.57 to 8 p.m.

page 840

DRIED FRUITS LEVY COLLECTION BILL 1971

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 1st April (vide page 728). Clause 11.

Penally: Two hundred dollars. (2.) A prosecution for an offence against this section may be commenced at any time within 5 years after the commission of the offence.

Upon which Senator Milliner had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out ‘five years’, insert ‘twelve months’.

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

– When the debate was adourned we were dealing with clause 11 of the Bill. It relates to offences against the legislation. The Committee will recall that when I sought leave to report progress the Opposition had proposed that clause 11 be amended by omitting ‘Five years’ and inserting ‘twelve months’. During the debate Senator Byrne of the Australian Democratic Labor Party gave his opinion that the period of 5 years is too long and that a period of 12 months could be too short. He suggested a compromise period of 3 or 4 years, or even 2 years. He also suggested that I consult the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and his departmental officers.

I will remind the Committee of what took place. In clause 11 the Government of its own accord has restricted the time during which court action may be taken, in order to meet the wishes of the Senate. In other research legislation the equivalent provision states that a prosecution may be commenced at any time. Honourable senators from all parties had expressed their disquiet at the provision. The period of 5 years has been chosen after a considerable amount of thought by the Department. After all, the levy is a tax and it must be collected equitably from all who are liable to pay. Parliament lays an obligation on the operative department to collect the levy and the Auditor-General on behalf of Parliament expects the operative department to be able to demonstrate that it is taking action to collect all the levies that Parliament has approved. Honourable senators should remember that there are 7 similar levies, most of them involving greater sums than that detailed in this measure.

The Department of Primary Industry has only a limited staff to inspect and audit the books of growers, packing houses, abattoirs, brokers and so on, through whom the levies are collected. The Department operates a rolling system of spot checks. It takes several years for the range of industries to be covered throughout the States. In this industry only certain States are involved and it is hoped to be able to integrate the packing houses in those States into the producers governing levy collection without the need to increase the number of inspectors. Of course, it would be an absurd situation if in order to try to cover the field in an unduly short time the staff had to be increased to such an extent that the cost of checking the levy collection would form a sizeable proportion of the total available for research, even though this cost is not borne directly by the research fund itself. Even when an infringement is uncovered, the Department makes every effort to adjust the matter without recourse to prosecution. Court action is taken only as the last resort.

There is thus a need for a moderate period of time, in addition to whatever period is needed to enable the inspectors to function in the course of their operations, to oversight levy collections throughout the industry so that the facts may be determined, and if possible the levy may be collected without legal action. That is the whole aim of the measure. The Committee should also bear in mind that we are dealing with what is purely a civil matter concerning levy collection. It is necessary that there be some power of enforcement so that some growers do not escape their obligations towards their fellow growers. At the same time the Government wishes to be able to ensure that the levies are collected, and with the minimum staff of inspectors. That is why the time period of 5 years was provided.

Following the expression of doubts by the Committee I sought leave to report progress and agreed to look into the matter. I have consulted the Minister and departmental officers and am prepared to accept a period of 3 years in substitution for 5 years as provided in clause 11. In enforcing the collection of levies imposed by this and similar legislation for research purposes the Department prefers to avoid prosecution if at all possible. It has no wish to harrass people. The period of 5 years proposed in the Bill as submitted would permit time for negotiation about overdue payments in order to effect collection, without recourse to court action.

By limiting the period to 3 years there is a risk that the Department may have to proceed with prosecutions which the longer period of 5 years would enable it to avoid. Naturally, the Department will still seek to settle any difficulties amicably, but there is a possibility of having to go to law rather than allow someone to escape his obligations through the effluxion of the time that the Parliament is prepared to allow for this purpose. However, the Government is prepared to accept the shorter period of 3 years. 1 suggest that the Committee might now go on to deal with the amendment proposed by the Opposition. When we have dealt wilh it, should the Committee see fit lc negate it. I will move that a period of 3 years be substituted for that of 5 years now provided in the Bill.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Opposition · New South Wales

– The duty of the Committee’ is to endeavour to improve the clauses of the Bill and this is the task upon which we are engaged. What we have heard tonight from the Minister is quite extraordinary. The proposal has been put forward by the Opposition that the time limit for prosecution for offences against this legislation ought to bc 12 months and not 5 years as is now provided. The proposal is based on logic, the logic being that the general provision for a time limit in regard to prosecutions for summary offences, and in particular where imprisonment is not provided for, is a penalty of $200.

Section 21 of the Crimes. Act, which provides for a time limit in respect of Commonwealth offences generally, is in these terms: 21. (1.) A prosecution in respect of an offence against any law of the Commonwealth may be commenced as follows:

  1. where the maximum term of imprisonment in respect of the offence in the case of a first conviction exceeds six months - at any aim after the commission of the offence;
  2. where the maximum term of imprisonment in respect of the offence in the case of a first conviction does nol exceed six months - at any time within one year after the commission of the offence; and

This is the case with which we are concerned -

  1. where the punishment provided in respect of the offence is a pecuniary penally and no term of imprisonment is mentioned - al any lime within one year after the commission or the offence.

If this is the general law applicable to die whole range of. Commonwealth offences, why should there be a departure in the case of the farmers of this country? A number of Bills came in dealing with various rural matters, and because they were regarded as relating to rural affairs there was a tendency not to look at what might be called the fine print. However, we discovered that in a number of cases the rights of the citizen under these Bills were being affected severely. Powers were given to search premises. That was extremely unusual and not applicable to the rest of the community, but because it was what might be called a rural Bill and was not examined as carefully as it should have been, these matters gol into the legislation. We have corrected the search provisions and now a formula has been arrived at. I notice that an honourable senator on the Government side is shaking his head. He thinks that we have nol corrected the search provisions. Maybe we have not corrected them entirely but 1 thought that some satisfactory formula had been arrived at.

The position is unsatisfactory. If there is a general rule and a principle providing time limits for very serious offences, for offences of a lesser nature, in fact even for those in regard to which one might be liable for imprisonment for up to 6 months and for those in regard to which there was no term of imprisonment - that is the case here - it is that the prosecution must be instituted within I year after the commission of the offence. That is a wise rule. All over the world there are limitations of time for prosecution of minor offences because it is thought from everyone’s point of view- that includes the individual citizen and the community as a whole - that these things should not hang on. Either the matter is proceeded with within a reasonably short time - after all, they are minor offences and subject to summary jurisdiction - or it does not hang on. lt is no answer for the Minister to say: The provisions are 5 years and 12 months so we will compromise and make it 3 years’. That is not dealing with the logic of the matter. It would not be sufficient for the Minister to say that the term should be 15 months. We are saying that there should not be a departure from the general rule. If the period is to be 15 months in this case then it should be 15 months in the other cases. If it is 3 years in one case then let it be 3 years in all cases. The provision to which I have referred has been in the legislation certainly for many years. The Crimes Act was passed in 1914. The relevant section was amended - T do not know in what regard - in 1926, so for some 30 or 40 years certainly, and perhaps for 56 years, that has been the law of the Commonwealth. Why should we not stand to that unless some very strong reason is given for a departure from it? This is not to be treated as a compromise. We will not compromise between justice and injustice. There are times when you do not say: ‘Let us make it 3 years which is splitting the difference between 1 year and 5 years’. With all respect to the Minister, who is a very congenial person and who is doing his best to meet the situation, 1 must say that having looked at the matter he has arrived at a compromise by saying: ‘Let us split the difference between .1 year and 5 years and make it 3 years. That should make everyone happy ‘. It does not make us happy. It is not founded on logic.

We are depending on the principle of the matter. That is why we say that the provision should be 1 year. We did not say 6 months; we did not say 9 months. We said 1 year, and that is what we regard as the proper provision in respect of the offences generally. A1J of this talk about staff and so on would apply in many other spheres. That is no good reason for interfering with the limitations which have been thought to be properly applicable to citizens generally. I see no reason why the persons concerned in these rural matters should be singled out and subjected to treatment which is different from that meted out to the rest of the community. If the proper rule is that if you have committed a minor offence and the prosecution has not commenced its action within 12 months so that is the end of the matter, and if that rule applies to persons who have been involved in even more serious offences which attract a penalty of up to 6 months imprisonment, why on earth should the rural people be singled out for separate and worse treatment? The Commonwealth still has its right to proceed against them civilly to collect the money.

The other provisions which provide that the Commonwealth can proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction and collect the money will be remembered. But we are dealing wilh an offence and prosecution. I suggest that those who have dealt with the matter should not act in some predetermined way; rather they should operate on the logic and sense of the matter and not expect a compromise which does not go to the logic and sense of the matter. If 12 months is the” correct general provision, then it should be applied generally. Let us not have a departure or a compromise of this nature which does not go to the rationale of the provisions.

Senator Webster:

– Can you indicate what time limitations apply to levy collections in a primary industry such as the poultry industry?

Senator MURPHY:

– I think the Minister said that there was unlimited time. I do not know whether the 5 years was taken into any recent matters. I would be surprised if there was no limitation and if the law said that a prosecution could be commenced at any time. If the legislation did not provide that, then the Crimes Act provision would apply because the offence would be an offence against the law.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– There is no limitation in any research levy Bills.

Senator MURPHY:

– That does not quite answer the question. If there is any limitation my view, subject to correction, would be that the Crimes Act provision of 12 months would apply. If, on the other hand, the Act provided that prosecution could be commenced at any time, that would be a special provision. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether there is a special provision in the other Acts to the effect that the prosecution can be commenced at any time. Can the Minister enlighten me?

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I think that is what I said, that prosecution can be commenced at any time.

Senator MURPHY:

– If that was the provision it clearly was a most serious departure.

Senator Byrne:

– This is a considerable improvement on that.

Senator MURPHY:

– The honourable senator says that it is a considerable improvement. I think it is a change in the right direction. However, in all logic, why should there be any departure from what applies generally? One might say that 3 years is as bad as 5 years in that it is a departure from what should be the general provision. This may be regarded as a minor matter but it is not at all minor if those who are subject to this law are to be treated differently from the way in which the rest of the citizens are treated.

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The circumstances are different. There are fellows who are dodging their own producers and their responsibility to their own industry. Those are the ones to be worried about.

Senator MURPHY:

– Through the whole range of the law there are cases which are just as bad or even worse. We might have a case in which someone has committed a criminal act and we say that it is dreadful that, because 12 months have passed, he cannot, be prosecuted for that act. After all, this is only a fairly trifling matter of $200. Why should this be expected? People with all sorts of obligations in other parts of industry aDd other parts of life are subjected to summary penalties, and one could put up many arguments to say that it is dreadful that once 12 months have passed they cannot be prosecuted. But that has been deemed to be the law, and a long standing provision of the law. We have not pulled the 12 months out of the air as the 5 years apparently was pulled out of the air or as the “3 years was arrived at by splitting the difference. All we are suggesting is that the logic that is in the law ought to be applied and, if a period of 12 months is proper in respect of summary offences, it ought to apply in respect of this summary offence as well as others.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– There is one point that I would like to make to Senator Murphy on this matter. As 1 said the other night, we have an entirely different set of circumstances here. Firstly, the man who has met his responsibilities to his fellow growers and the industry has no worry whatsoever. The area of concern is to catch those who have tried to dodge their responsibilities. If we do as Senator Murphy has suggested and reduce the period to 12 months, we will incur a great increase in the cost of the policing and administration of this levy: a great deal of the levy that will be collected will be used in trying to keep a very few growers honest and trying to make them accept their responsibilities to their industry. In that case we would have a levy that was virtually being wasted because of the restriction of time. If we make the period 3 years or 5 years, we will be able to have a lesser number of inspectors who will be able to catch up with those growers who have not met their responsibilities. This is the point on which there is disagreement.

I wish to emphasise again that the main aspect of this Bill is that this is a grower levy collected from the growers to help the growers themselves. The grower who tries to dodge his reponsibilities is the one whom we are trying to catch in this 5-year or 3-year period, f can assure Senator Murphy that if he were to ask a great number of the growers throughout the industry what they would like he would be informed, as I have been informed, that they are quite happy with 5 years or 3 years; but they are concerned that if the period is too short the policing may cost nearly as much as the amount collected or much of the levy will be wasted on administration. I must say that I definitely would not be happy to see the period set at 12 months.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– As one who intimated that a way might be found through the difficulty created by the fact that originally the Bill was introduced with a limitation of 5 years from the date of the commission of the alleged offence and that Senator Murphy has suggested that the limitation imposed under the Crimes Act for offences of this nature under Commonwealth law should properly apply, I believe that the period of 3 years may be not inappropriate - not as a matter of compromise but as a matter of practical quittance from what are the real circumstances and difficulties surrounding the investigation and detection of offences of this nature.

I am informed by the officers and the Minister that one of the difficulties is that of detection - not merely because of limitations of staff, although there are limitations of staff, but because unless we had an undue staff so that all offences could be established within a very short time after their commission it would represent an immense financial burden and administratively it possibly could not be justified financially. In those circumstances we have to try again to solve this problem of achieving a resolution between the rights of the individual and the communal rights of all those involved in the industry in which the individual participates. This is part of the constant conflict in which I find myself with Senator Murphy and other honourable senators.

After all, as Senator Young has properly said, this is a levy imposed on participants in this industry for the benefit of other participants and the industry generally, and to the extent to which default is made by any individual participant the whole community in that industry must inevitably suffer. Therefore, it is a responsibility on those who have the administration of what is really a trust to ensure that each participant plays his individual part so that an undue, unjust and unfair burden shall not fall upon the balance of those involved in the industry. In order to ensure that this is done, there must be the necessary deterrent and the possibility, if there is a violation of the requirements of the law, of that deterrent being put into practical operation.

If we were to prescribe immunity after a period of 12 months, which would be the effect of Senator Murphy’s proposition, and if we were not prepared to increase administrative staff enormously to enable all detections to be made within 12 months, we would be guaranteeing immunity after 12 months to all those who chose to default in relation to the collection of this levy. I believe that that would be a very unsafe and very unwise thing to project into the industry and that it could result very quickly in a complete programme of defiance by those who elected to move outside the requirements of the law. This could disturb the whole concept of the organisation of the growers within the industry. I think that would be extremely regrettable.

Senator Murphy makes the point , it is a valid one , that the general Commonwealth law prescribes a period of 12 months in relation to the commission of offences of this nature. Of course, that law is not the law of the Medes and the Persians. Senator Murphy says that it has been the law for a long time. But we have amended many laws that have been the law for a long time. Particularly at the instance of Senator Murphy, we have amended laws that have stood for very many years in relation to the fixing of the salaries of officers and the prescription of allowances by regulation. Senator Murphy, to his credit, has been in the forefront, according to his views, in insisting that these matters be looked at and that amendment be introduced.

The fact that a law has been in existence is no warrant for it remaining in perpetuity. From time to time governments - 1 presume that in respect of these commodity boards and the levies in relation to them this applies to governments of all political characters - have seen fit, for reasons of practical administration, to move outside the limitations imposed in the Crimes Act in relation to the general purview of simple offences, or those attracting monetary penalties, and have found that in the particular circumstances it has been wise, prudent and even necessary to provide for an indefinite period of time within which prosecutions can be launched.

Actually, therefore, this Bill, in a sense, is a new circumscription or limitation of a power which formerly was taken in all legislation of this type. To that extent, honourable senators should welcome the fact that at least some prescription of time has been introduced. This chamber, however, has drawn attention to the fact that the prescription of 5 years as compared with the limitless time in other similar legislation is still, in the opinion of this chamber, too long. The Minister intimated that he would review the matter. He has done that in co-operation with the Minister in charge of the department concerned and his advisers. So, it is suggested, I presume not as a matter of mathematical compromise but as a matter of the shortest reasonable period that can be adopted consonant with the administrative requirements and limitations of the department, that 3 years is the appropriate period within which prosecutions can be launched. After all, there are many occasions on which offenders may be pursued during a period of 6 months or more after the commission of the offence is detected - not after it is committed, but after it comes to notice. That would be a very much longer period than 5 years. It might be 10, 15 or 20 years. There are many occasions on which that is the only time limitation imposed. This prescription of time is very much more severe than that.

For those reasons, allowing for the fact that we do not like to see legal vulnerability unduly prolonged and levelled against any individual but consonant with recognition of the fact that, within the primary community of which he is part and from which he earns his living, the individual has duties to others participating in it, that there are practical difficulties and that this provision is an advance by the Commonwealth Government in restricting the formerly limitless time within which such prosecutions could be launched, and having in mind that it may be opportune at some stage to have a complete look at this type of proposition as it appears in statutes, I support the amendment moved by the Minister and commend its adoption to the Committee.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– The Opposition persists with its amendment which seeks to insert ‘12 months’ in lieu of ‘5 years’. How the logic put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) could escape anybody is beyond my comprehension. I never thought that we would see the day when we would be referring to the Crimes Act. But, as Senator Murphy has said, this is in general usage and penalties under the Crimes Act must be prosecuted within .12 months. Yet this Bill which, when compared with the Crimes Act, is comparatively innocuous, provides for a period of 5 years as against the prescription of 12 months in relation to the prosecution of serious charges under the Crimes Act.

Stress tonight has been laid on the fact - this was done in passing by Senator Young - that there are few of these growers who would be prosecuted. The Minister laid great stress-

Senator Young:

– ‘Probably’ should be added to that statement.

Senator MILLINER:

– I thank the honourable senator. The addition of the word probably’ makes it even worse from the point of view of the honourable senator. The Minister said that if the prescription were reduced to 12 months additional staff would be required. Mr Temporary Chairman, where are these dried fruits grown? Are they grown from the tip of Cape York to Darwin? J suggest that they would be found in the principal areas of South Australia and Victoria. If inspectors could not detect within 12 months whether any grower or packer had tried to defeat the provisions of this Bill, I cannot visualise for one “moment that a need would exist for an army of inspectors, to be recruited for the purpose of policing the provisions of this Bill.

I wish to quote the words of the Minister during the Committee stages of the Dried Fruits Levy Collection Bill 1971 as reported in Hansard of 1st April at page 727. The Minister said: 1 wish lo take a few minutes to reply firstly to Senator Milliner. He referred to the grower who, because of fire or some similar happening, lost Kia receipts for his fruit. I think the simple answer to that problem is for the grower to ask the company or packing house for duplicates.

It is quite a simple matter, in the mind of the Minister, for the grower to go to the packer and to obtain duplicates of any receipts that have been issued. Does it not follow as a consequence that it is equally simple for the inspector to go to the same packing house to obtain duplicate receipts? Consequently then, why is the prescription of 5 years as set out in the Bill required or the prescription of 3 years as set out in the compromise amendment needed to achieve this end? If it is a simple proposition for the grower to go to the packing sheds to obtain a duplicate receipt, equally is it a simple proposition surely for the inspector to follow such a course.

The logic of the case becomes clear by comparing this provision with the provisions in the Crimes Act which is a most serious Act. I have criticised the Government within the past 12 months or so for invoking provisions of the Crimes Act in respect of certain growers in country areas. I have criticised that action, f am not suggesting that the Crimes Act should be invoked on this occasion; let me make that perfectly clear. If we turn to the general principles established and find for example that in the provisions contained in the Crimes Act a prescription of 12 months appears, should we not ask: Why should a comparatively minor Bill of this nature seek to extend that period to 5 years; equally, why should the compromise amendment propose 3 years. There can be no compromise. Surely it is right or wrong. If the Government felt that it was right in introducing a prescription of 5 years, surely it should have maintained its position. Now it has come up with a compromise. I repeat that the compromise is totally unacceptable to the Opposition. We persist with our amendment.

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

– Mr Temporary Chairman, I think that some clarification of the situation is needed. Under the existing 7 Acts relating to research the equivalent clauses state that a prosecution may be commenced at any time.

Senator Byrne:

– There is no limitation of time at all.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-BROCK AN - As I am reminded, there is no limitation of time at all. Knowing the disquiet of senators on all sides of the Committee regarding similar clauses in other research Bills, the Government has proposed a limitation of 5 years in this Bill.

Let us look at the situation. We are dealing with the dried fruits industry. This includes dried vine fruits, dried apricots, dried peaches, dried pears, dried nectarines and dried prunes. If honourable members study the legislation they will see that all fruit delivered to a factory up to 30th September is subject to a levy to be paid on 30th November. If a, grower has a line of late fruit and he delivers that fruit on 1st October, payment of his levy is not due until 30th November, 12 months later. So, to insert ‘12 months’ into this clause would not fit this situation at all because in the case that I have mentioned nearly 14 months would have elapsed before the grower was due to pay his levy.

I said that periodic inspections are carried out on the various packers. Let me get the situation right with Senator Milliner.

The honourable senator said that dried fruits are grown in a small area of Australia only. That is true, senator. But I point out that these inspectors carry out inspections on all other research schemes. So, they are not concentrated full time on dried fruits; their activities include all other research levies. Inspections are not conducted every 12 months. They are conducted at all sorts of times. Even 15 months or longer may elapse before inspectors get around to a particular factory. Because a grower may deliver fruit on 1st October in one year and payment of his levy then is not due until 30th November of the following year - and some time must be allowed to elapse to enable detection of non-payment of that levy - as in the case I have just instanced, there would be no hope of trying to carry out a prosecution within 12 months. So, the time allowed must be more than 12 months.

The Government, aware of the feelings of the Committee on the 5 years provision, has had a look at the situation. It says: Well, we can reduce it to 3 years’. But the reduction to 3 years means that, instead of having talks with offenders to try to get them to pay the levy rather than go to court, we may be forced instead because of the limitation of time to prosecute them. We do not want to do that. We do not want to harass growers. While agreeing to the new provision of 3 years, because this is the wish of the Committee, the Department of Primary Industry hai expressed a doubt about this provision. I believe that the proposed amendment to insert ‘12 months’ if carried would provide far too short a period. I believe that the 3 years proposed, perhaps, is far too short to do justice to the growers. Nevertheless, the Department says that it believes that it can operate under this proposal but it has some doubts. As Senator Young has said, this levy has been sought by the industry and it will be paid by the industry. If it is necessary to employ more inspectors to ensure that every grower who delivers fruit to a packer has paid the levy, the industry might say that the scheme has become too costly and that it will not continue with the levy. I believe that the Minister and the Department have done everything necessary to meet the wishes of the Senate. I hope that the Committee will agree to a period of 3 years rather than 5 years. Most certainlyI shall not support a period of 12 months.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Milliner’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator Bull)

AYES: 20

NOES: 0

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (by Senator DrakeBrockman) agreed to:

In sub-clause (2.). leave out’ ‘five’, insert ‘three’.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remainder of Bill - by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) read a third time.

page 848

BUSINESS ON THE SENATE NOTICE PAPER

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

(8.48) - In a moment or two I propose to ask that we call on order of the day No. 6, which is the adjourned debate on the ministerial statement on the Australian Military Forces in Vietnam, in respect of which Senator Cavanagh is listed to continue his remarks. However, before doing that,I should like to go through the notice paper and, strictly with the co-operation of the Senate, perhaps remove some items of business from the notice paper. If the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) and Senator Gair have the notice paper in front of them, perhaps, if it is the will of the Senate, we can remove some of the business listed.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I think it is sensible that the procedure proposed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate be followed and that some of the matters on the business paper should be got rid of. However, perhaps we could be more liberal in our approach to the removal of matters from the notice paper. Might 1 suggest that if through some misunderstanding or oversight, or if an honourable senator who wished to discuss a certain matter on the next day of silting is not here at the moment, that matter should be restored.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

-I would be happy to do that.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the following order’ of the day be discharged:

No.8 - Mapping Surveys Hill 1971 - Second Reading - Adjourned debate.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the Senate take note of the ministerial statements,the subjects of the following orders of the day:

No. 9 - Payment of Pay-roll Taxtothe Commonwealth - Ministerial Statement.

No. 10 - Vietnam - Ministerial Statement - Adjourned debate.

No. 1 1 - Foreign Affairs - Ministerial Statement - Adjourned debate.

No. 12 - Cambodia - Ministerial Statement.

No. 13 - WoolIndustry - Ministerial Statement.

No. 14 - Economic Assistance to Indonesia - Ministerial Statement.

No. 15 - Defence - Ministerial Statement.

No. 16 - Royal Australian Air Force Strike Bomber Capability - Ministerial Statement.

No. 17 - Crown of Thorns Starfish - Joint CommonwealthQueensland Committee - Ministerial Statement.

No.18 - Aboriginal Aged Persons Homes Trust - Ministerial Statement.

No. 20 - Defence Aircraft Industry - Ministerial Statement.

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That the Senate take note of ; he report, the subject of General Business order of the day No. 1 - Interparliamentary Union - New Delhi Conference 1969 - Report of Australian Delegation.

page 849

FUTURE OF AUSTRALIAN FORCES IN VIETNAM

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 1 April (vide page 732), on motion by Senator Wright:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– When this matter was before the Senate previouslyI stated my views about the future of Australian forces in Vietnam. I discussed the trial and the allegations against Lieutenant Calley in America and the upsurge of protests as a result of the verdict of guilty brought in against him, although there was no suggestion that he was not guilty of the 22 murders, which included the killing of civilian women and children. There, was a suggestion that he was not the real culprit but that he was carrying out orders in accordance with the training that he had received from the time he entered military service until the time of his arrest. The protests have been of sufficient magnitude to force President Nixon into releasing Lieutenant Calley from prison into confinement in his own barracks,until such time as all appeals have been heard.

Senator Wright:

– Is this matter referred to in the ministerial statement?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Obviously this matter is not referred to in the statement. The statement was concerned with justifying our altitude in respect of Vietnam. I believe that what is happening in Vietnam is a condemnation of participation in brutality by normal citizens who would not act in this way if it were not for the war in Vietnam. We as a respectable Government should not be involved in such an issue as Vietnam.

Since the statement was submitted to the Senate our attention has been drawn to another individual who attempted what he would term murder at the direction of the American Central Intelligence Agency.

Those people who were involved with him could not be charged with any offence because the CIA would not release evidence for the purpose of a prosecution. This clearly shows that there is a force in America that can order the killing of certain people, other than those engaged in war, for the purpose perhaps of silencing them or punishing them for previous actions.

Senator Prowse:

– Have you evidence of that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am only commenting on a report which was given over a network of American radio stations and which related to an admission that an individual did attempt the slaughter of a particular Vietnamese agent. The report stated that some 7 men were on trial at that time but the trials could not proceed because the CIA refused to release the evidence. The serious question about this is: How far does this involve us? Is Australia aligned with a country which can order the killing of citizens in another country? There is obvious evidence that it can do this in Vietnam.I have raised questions in this House about a book written by Mrs Dalton who suggested that that can happen in Australia. I would say that my inquiries and the replies I have received to questions directed to the former Attorney-General and the former Prime Minister would place me in the position of saying that by no means could I claim that there is definite proof that this happened in Australia in the case of Dr Bogle and Mrs Chandler.I am of the belief that, before this session is ended, it will be proved beyond doubt that another death which has occurred in Australia was due to the organisation which America is operating in Vietnam and which orders the deaths of those whom it desires to dispose of. It will be proved that that organisation is operating and has operated in Australia.

Another matter to whichI refer is linked with Vietnam. I refer to national service. Today the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), in a reply to a question, mentioned the low percentage of those who suffered some penalty because they refrained from participation in national service. It is surprising that of those who defiantly refused to undergo service under the National Service Act only very few were prosecuted and imprisoned. The Government has tried to implement the legislation where it has thought it will meet the least opposition or the least sympathy for the individuals who have such high Christian conscience.

Senator Buttfield:

– What is that?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– You would not know. I know that some people have such a high Christian conscience that they will not undergo training; they refuse to be trained to kill. The Government imprisoned John Zarb. It found, to its sorrow, that he had a strong industrial union behind him - the Postal Workers Union. The threat of industrial action and the industrial action itself made it essential that John Zarb be released. The Government needed an excuse to justify the Minister for Labour and National Service getting a pardon from the GovernorGeneral. Zarb had a seriously ill mother or father, so compassion was shown. He was released before the expiration of his sentence.

The Government would not pick another industrialist. It went to Sale, about 200 miles from Melbourne, in the hope that the imprisonment of a small dairy farmer would not raise opposition to his imprisonment for defiance of the National Service Act. So the Government put Brian Ross in gaol because he was in defiance of the Act. Due largely to the strong militant action of the Victorian Executive of the Australian Labor Party, there was strong support for Brian Ross in New South Wales. As I have stated before, I attended a motorcade to Sale. I visited the prison and addressed a successful meeting there. The continued agitation was such that the Government had to find some way of getting Brian Ross out of gaol. Although he did not seek exemption from the Act as a conscientious objector, the Government sent Mr Justice Smithers to Sale to ascertain whether Ross had a conscientious objection to military service so that the Government could release him, stop the protests that were being held in Melbourne and so provide the Minister with some excuse for releasing him from gaol.

Brian Ross went to the open inquiry at Sale. In a prepared statement he said: ‘I. have nothing to say. I will not co-operate with this tribunal. I am opposed to the

National Service Act and I will not assist in making an excuse for the Minister to release me from gaol’. Therefore Mr Justice Smithers, with all his sincerity, could do nothing about the matter. He held a secret session - everything was held in camera - and submitted a report. He found that Brian Ross had genuine conscientious beliefs which prohibited him from serving in any theatre of war. On that recommendation Brian Ross was pardoned. In a television interview subsequently Brian Ross said: ‘I said nothing different from what I said at the public trial. I said that I would not help the tribunal’. Nevertheless Mr Justice Smithers found that, in his opinion, Brian Ross did have a conscientious objection. South Australians are not so active in protest, participation in demonstrations and so on.

Senator Young:

– I thought that on one occasion you told us they were. It was a damp squib, was it not?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am endeavouring to make them so minded for the purpose of securing the release of poor victims of a tyrannical government which seems to imprison those who will not be trained to kill. So the Government picked on Charles Martin. As I have stated before, Charles Martin would be the nearest approach to He whom we in the Christian religion uphold. He is 22 years of age. He follows the faith of the leader of our Christian beliefs insofar as he refuses to be a party to killing. He believes in brotherhood upon earth. He is a carpenter, the same as Christ was. He works for his father, the same as the Saviour did. The only difference is that in his case the penalty comes at the age of 22, whereas Christ did not recive His penalty until He was 32. South Australia has been awakened from its apathy. About 104 miles from Adelaide, at Cadell, where Charles Martin is imprisoned, last Sunday there was a motorcade or freedom ride in which about 300 people participated. The authorities were co-operative and allowed the demonstration on the lawns of the prison. Charles Martin was released from gaol for the afternoon to deliver a public address to the demonstrators. His public address to the demonstration was: ‘I believe in defending this country. I would support conscription if the urgency or the necessity were there, but I am opposed to the National Service Act which conscripts men to be taught to kill victims in Vietnam.

That is Charles Martin’s philosophy. For that philosophy, today he is serving 2 years imprisonment. He has spent 6 months in gaol in South Australia. He will possibly have to serve 15 months. He said: ‘1 hope to be out for Christmas’. Whether Charles Martin is a victim of his conscientious beliefs, he is a victim of the fact that he comes from a Stale which is not renowned for its protests. Everyone who believes in the right of the individual !o follow his own conscience and every Christian in South Australia has a responsibility to protest, in a similar fashion to the protests over the gaoling of John Zarb and Brian Ross, to ensure that Charles Martin does not rot in gaol until Christmas.

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– What about the Communists? Wilt they support you?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Although Senator Young does not have sufficient Christian principles to feel some duty to follow those who do, nevertheless there are enough non-Senator Youngs in South Australia and enough honest people in South Australia that I am convinced that the Government., by the continuation of its policy in South Australia, will arouse sufficient enthusiasm for and sufficient protests over Charles Martin that he will not stay at Cadell until Christmas of this year.

I raise one other matter. The South Australian Labor Government is opposed to national service. The Premier has expressed his opposition to national service. That Government is now joined by a Labor Government in Western Australia. It gave some support to 2 State governments which are opposed to the National Service Act. At considerable cost they are keeping in prison those in breach of Commonwealth law. As those State governments are oppoed to that law why they should make facilities available for the purpose of punishing offenders against Commonwealth law I do not know. Because we now have 2 State governments which are opposed to the unjustifiable National Service Act it is to be hoped that there will be some action. The Attorney-General of South Australia gave Crown law opinion that there is a constitutional obligation for the States to carry out the punishment inflicted by a court for breaches of Federal law. I could not find that provision in the Constitution but, as I said, 1 am not a legal man and I presume it is there.

I cannot see why the Commonwealth Government could not take an alternate view and release Charles Martin in South Australia. If there is a Commonwealth obligation I suggest that the responsibility should be thrown on to the Commonwealth Government to take legal action through the High Court for a writ compelling the South Australian Government to honour its constitutional obligation. Furthermore .1 can see no reason at all why the South Australian Government has the responsibility of imprisoning Brian Ross. Why cannot it detain this person in some rented property in Adelaide or put him into the custody of his parents under house arrest in his home town? Why the State Government has to carry out this formality connected with a law with which it has no sympathy I do not know. Recent elections have shown that State Labor governments will increase in number. In New South Wales at the recent election there was a big increase in the Labor vote, but it was not sufficient for Labor to form a government. But as State Labor governments increase the Commonwealth must recognise that added to the number of protests against the application of the National Service Act will be protests from an increasing number of State governments.

The Commonwealth cannot hope to control or carry out this Act in the future. It cannot hope to continue with it. Some consideration must be given to this fact. The Commonwealth must also consider whether an Act which it cannot fully enforce because it only selects particular individuals for breach of it should be permitted to remain, ls it just for such an Act to remain? Is it right that Brian Ross should be committed to prison because of his conscience? Is it right that the house hungry public of South Australia should be excluded from the talents of Charles Martin who has a degree in builing science and a knowledge of building construction? Can we afford at this stage of shortage of skilled tradesmen to lock someone away for 2 years because he has a conscience? [ say that the States cannot do it and the country cannot do it. Therefore these people should be released. In this paper presented by the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) there is nothing new. We have had notification in the statement of the Minister that there is going to be a withdrawal of some one thousand troops from Vietnam beginning in May, which is in some 2 months time. We have had notification that America is getting out a lot quicker. Today the agitation in America is for the naming of a date for a complete withdrawal. Why does not our Government follow suit and name a date for the complete withdrawal of our troops?

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– Before dealing with the farrago of nonsense to which the Senate has just been subjected I think it might be helpful if I referred to section 120 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. It might ease any doubts which Senator Cavanagh may have about the responsibility of the State of South Australia to deal with people who offend against Commonwealth laws. Section 1 20 states: 120. Every State shall make provision for the detention in its prisons of persons accused or convicted of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth, and for the punishment of persons convicted of such offences, and the Parliament of the Commonwealth may make laws to give effect to this provision.

My recollection of statements by the Premier of Western Australia is that he obviously regards himself as bound by that provision. It may well be that I am doing Mr Tonkin an injury, but 1 have never read any statement by Mr Tonkin which indicates that he is opposed to the national service legislation.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator has been reading only the comic books, otherwise he would know.

Senator HANNAN:

– This is a serious debate. If the honourable senator is going to act the goat I suggest he go outside. I watched with considerable interest the first interview with Mr Tonkin on television. He gave what I regarded as rational, sane, intelligent answers to his interviewer. He gave not the slightest suggestion that he was opposed to the defence of this nation or to the national service legislation. Maybe I missed some statement that he made. I merely mention that situation in passing. For myself and probably for some other people I take grave exception to

Senator Cavanagh’s quasi blasphemous association of Charles Martin with Christ. It is absolute rubbish. Whenever honourable senators are stuck with a difficult proposition they try to identify the victim or the person whom they are championing with the person of Christ.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They both had the same occupation and the same philosophy.

Senator HANNAN:

– I shall go this far: Christ was a carpenter and apparently so was Martin. To Christian people that is a quasi-blasphemous association and one to which I take grave exception. I feel sure many other people while perhaps not possessing the very high Christian principles enunciated by Senator Cavanagh also take exception to this quasi-blasphemous association. If we are going to get into a theological argument as developed by Senator Cavanagh, I would be quite happy to accommodate him at any time.

Senator Byrne:

– Thou shalt not kill.

Senator HANNAN:

– I shall come to that in a moment. Blasphemy is bad enough at any time, but when Senator Cavanagh picks Holy Week to intrude this rubbish into the Senate I take even greater exception. If he looks at the Gospel of St Luke which was read in the churches last Sunday he will find that Christ was saying to his Apostles: ‘If you do not have a sword sell you cloak and buy one’. It is quite obvious that the honourable senators and St Luke are complete strangers.

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

– The honourable senator and Christ are strangers, too.

Senator HANNAN:

– I am not blasphemous enough to associate myself with Christ, but some honourable senators are. I at least know the Gospel of St Luke, Senator Turnbull.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! 1 ask the honourable senator to come back to the matter immediately before the Chamber.

Senator HANNAN:

– I have been attempting to deal with the nonsense we have heard already.. I am going to attempt to traverse some of the strange and quaint allegations that Senator Cavanagh has put before the Senate. Speaking in the earlier part of the debate on this matter he said: lt was only in 1968, after the Tei offensive, that the then Prime Minister’ stated that it was impossible to have a partial withdrawal of our troops in Vietnam - it had to be one out, all out - because it would he dangerous to the small force which Australia had in Vietnam to withdraw some of the troops.

He then went on to say.

Although this risk still remains, we find that some of the supporting troops of our forces in Vietnam are to be withdrawn.

The truth of the mailer is that the same position does not obtain as at the time of the Tet offensive. Three years ago very many of the roads in Vietnam were impassable at night, large areas of the country were under the control of Communist thugs and the central government of Vietnam was working its way out so that it could take over and control, as it does now, 95 per cent of the area of that unhappy country. That is the real crux of the situation explaining the withdrawal and it appears, of course, in a statement by the Prime Minister. Progress is being made with Viemamisation. Vietnamisation is a success. That is the reason why, fortunately, we are able to withdraw 1,000 of our troops without endangering the remaining forces. 1 notice, too, that Senator Cavanagh alleges that we are trying to suppress a small country of some 1 1 million people; that we have used 3 times the weight of bombs which we used in the First World War.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is true.

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA · LP; NAT LP from March 1974

– lust a moment. Part of it may be, I do not know.

Senator Keeffe:

– Why do you not inform yourself before shot,tine your head off?

Senator HANNAN:

– -If you keep quiet and listen you may learn something. The point is that North Vietnam is a country with many more people than 1 1 million. If the rest of the honourable senator’s statement is no more accurate than that, how much weight can be attached to it? The population of North Vietnam is somewhere between 18.5 mil/ion and 19 million people, not 1 1 million. So far as the bombing is concerned, even when the Americans were unloading a fairly heavy weight of bombs. 95 per cent of what normally would be regarded as military targets were off limits. 1 will give an example and I add that f disagree greatly with this particular philosophy. Russian, Polish and some Liberian chartered British ships were observed by the Seventh Fleet to be entering the port of Haiphong. They were carrying rockets and other missiles for the war machine in Hanoi. They were observed entering but there was no bombing. The missiles were observed to be unloaded but there was no bombing. They were observed while being placed in revetments so that they could be used to shoot down aircraft. Again there was no bombing. Once the revetments were completed and missiles were in a position to be fired, permission was given to bomb them. If that is not sheer lunacy. I do not want to know what is. I dissociate myself completely from that aspect of the situation.

I notice, too, that the honourable senator alleges that the American ground forces have not captured nearly enough territory to make peace possible. Inasmuch as the Government of Saigon is in practical occupation of roughly 95 per cent of the territory of South Vietnam, it is difficult to visualise how much country the honourable senator thinks should be occupied by the Saigon Government in order to make peace. He said that we have not made any progress geographically; nor have we made any progress towards the main objective of winning the hearts and the minds of the people of Vietnam. I want to know for whom the personal pronoun ‘we’ stands. Almost every sentence uttered by the honourable senator was in favour of our enemies and against ourselves and our allies. Presumably he is talking about his friends the Vietcong and the troops of North Vietnam. The honourable senator went further and read from a very complex article - I think it was from a quaint organisation called ‘The Liaison Committee of Peace Forces in Vietnam’ - on the intrusion of South Vietnamese troops into Laotian Territory. That is one of those snappy little titles to which the peace front organisation attach themselves so readily. He read from this article which contained considerable criticism of the Thieu Government by people in South Vietnam. All I say about that is that it defeats most of what he tried to put before the Senate. Ft shows that with all its faults and all its defects there is at least freedom of speech and freedom of expression in South Vietnam. Perhaps the honourable senator does not know that in North Vietnam the penalty for opposing the war is death. With all the faults in South Vietnam, that is not the penalty there.

Senator Keeffe:

– Don’t be stupid.

Senator HANNAN:

– If you would care to check on the reports of the Hanoi presidium you would find that what 1 say is correct. 1 am not going off half ‘cocked as did the honourable senator who preceded me. 1 suppose it is fatuous to try to traverse the farrago of nonsense, the myths and the rest of the fairy stories he brought out. Perhaps I should make some reference to My Lai, or Song My, to give it its correct name.

Senator Keeffe:

– No doubt you approve of it anyway. So why refer to it?

Senator HANNAN:

– I beg your pardon?

Senator Keeffe:

– No doubt you approve of it so why refer to it?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order!

Senator HANNAN:

– I find it incredible, Mr Acting Deputy President, that an honourable senator opposite should imply that I approve of murder.

Senator Keeffe:

– Well, you do. You just said so.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Vietnam is murder.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Order! There are far too many interjections and honourable senators are sailing very close to the wind.

Senator HANNAN:

– Thank you, Sir. 1 listened with polite attention to the fairy stories of Senator Cavanagh but I find that my friends opposite are incapable of listening to facts when they are put before them. I want to talk about Song My. 1 regard that incident as a disgraceful episode in the long history of the American army. It is most reprehensible that that event took place. But I want to draw a distinction between the treatment of Calley, who was tried for his life, and the barbarians, the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese, who occupied the ancient city of Hue at the time of the so-called Tet offensive. It was at the time of Tet that the ancient city, the imperial city, was taken over briefly for 10 or 12 days by the Communist forces. During that time they disposed of somewhere between 4,500 and 5,000 of the inhabitants. They were slaughtered because they would not go along with the

Communist line. They were buried, mostly, in mass graves around the city of Hue. With the assistance of Red Cross investigators and the people who survived that dreadful massacre the graves were opened and the bodies were discovered. Then we beard rubbish from the Communist front organisations, from Burchett, that disgrace to Australia, and others, who said “that these people were killed by American artillery.

Of course, this allegation was simply rebutted because very many of the victims had their hands tied behind their backs and a bullet in the back of the head. As you know, Mr Deputy President, it is almost impossible for artillery to accomplish that. Honourable senators opposite may say that this is just another horror story and that some of the North Vietnamese and Vietcong ran riot, but that is not the point, because a fortnight after the Hue massacres Hanoi radio was boasting of the massacres that had been committed. The North Vietnamese were stating over the radio what they had done to the people who would not follow the Communist line. They were threatening other cities in South Vietnam that their citizens would be treated in the same murderous fashion if they did not toe the Communist line. These are the people whom Senator Cavanagh and Senator Keeffe are so ready to rush in to defend.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Are you saying that that justified My Lai?

Senator HANNAN:

– I did not suggest for one minute that it justified My Lai. I do not want selective indignation. I am horrified by Song My, but T am even more horrified by the 50 times worse massacres which took place in Hue. About 2 miles from where I live in Glen Iris, a Melbourne suburb, lives a young man who served as a national serviceman in Vietnam. I will not give his name. He wrote a letter home to his parents saying that he was disgusted with a lot of rubbish he had read in Australian newspapers which had been sent to him. He wrote: ‘If only the people at home could see the barbarous acts committed by the Vietcong they would never give them any support.’ He mentioned the name of a village that he and his comrades entered. If Senator Cavanagh wants the name of the village I will give it to him. He wrote that in that village they found the body of a baby girl of 2 years who had been hanged by the Vietcong. Do not let us have any rubbish about the Americans having a monopoly on violence. All ! am asking is that the indignation expressed by honourable senators opposite not be selective.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do you say that two wrongs make a right?

Senator HANNAN:

– I do not say that for one moment. 1 have not heard Senator Cavanagh criticise the massacres in Hue but I have criticised Song My and will continue 10 do so.

Senator Webster:

– Senator Cavanagh has not criticised anybody other than the Americans and Australians.

Senator HANNAN:

– That is true. I want now to say a word or two about the prisoners of conscience, the people whose sense of justice and rectitude is so strong that they are prepared to have themselves immured behind prison walls rather than fight in mi Australian uniform. Senator Cavanagh asks us whether it is not preferable and desirable from the point of view of a young man and his parents for him to say that he will nol .serve in the Army; that he will serve 2 years in gaol.- With remissions granted by the State the period of imprisonment would be shorter than 2 years. We are asked to judge whether tha! imprisonment is not preferable to a young man’s finding himself .in the position in. which an American lieutenant now finds himself, ls the honourable senator not suggesting that it is preferable for a young man to say that he is a conscientious objector than to take the risk of defending his country in a foreign land?

I am prepared to concede, Mr President, that there ore many honest, genuine, sincere and decent conscientious objectors but I am not prepared to accept the proposition that every man who says he will nol serve is motivated exclusively by the highest principles. 1 want to turn now to a matter frequently raised in this chamber by honourable senators opposite; that is the suggestion that no real fighting took place in Vietnam until the wicked Americans sent their troops there. Of course, that is arrant nonsense. 1 recommend to honourable senators who are interested in comic papers - and it seems that Senator Keeffe and Senator Cavanagh have that interest - that they go into the library and have a look at the ‘Vietnam Courier’ which is published at 46 Tran Hung Dao Street. Hanoi. After the address appear the words Democratic Republic of North Vietnam’. Honourable senators will discover that in 1959, Tra Bong, the hilly district of Quang Nov, was used as one of the first places for uprisings. In other words, revolt and rebellion were set in hand in 1959, about 12 months before the first soldiers of the American Army arrived in Vietnam. I would like to refer to some of the gentle practices of these rebels. Admittedly they did not like the people running them, mainly Diem. I do not have time to he diverted to that subject at the moment. 1 wish to quote from the ‘Vietnam Courier’. I suppose honourable senators opposite would treat this information as gospel. The Vietnam Courier’ states:

To ward off repression and especially to dodge the draft in the puppet army these buys left the jungle camps. In self defence they even had to dispose of the ruffians coming to arrest them.

I like the use of the euphemism, ‘to dispose’. The report goes on:

The children of those killed by Diem’s men organised themselves into decapitation groups, - For the benefit of Senator Keeffe I will explain that ‘decapitation groups’ refers to people who cut ofl the heads of other people. The report continues: - so called from the local practice of beheading the enemy. In August 1959 the area was asked to vole for the National Assembly.

These people were being given the democratic right to vote. What did they do? According to the ‘Vietnam Courier’ th«y resisted and the decapitation teams and members of the resistance came to the rescue. The publication then states:

We surrended the polling booths, overthrew tha ruling administration. The civic action groups were tried by people’s tribunals.

I do not have to tell honourable senators what that means in English. When people are tried by a people’s tribunal it means a quick bullet in the back of the neck. These are the friends and pin up boys of honourable senators opposite. 1 find myself totally unable to understand or to accept that. It is impossible to accept their argument without accepting also the line that they are barracking and cheering for a Communist victory, lt is impossible to listen io what they say without believing that they want to see Australia and her allies worsted in this conflict.

Much to their chagrin there is a steady improvement in the military situation in Vietnam. Sir Robert Thompson, who must be regarded as the greatest authority of our day on guerilla warfare, points out that the Tet offensive in 1968 was a tremendous psychological victory in the West because of the incredible way in which it was treated by the mass media and by people of the same political views as honourable senators opposite. But Sir Robert points out that it was a military disaster of the first magnitude for North Vietnam. He points out also that in the 6 months before and after the Tet offensive North Vietnam lost about 600,000 casualties. In Sir Robert’s words it was equivalent to Great Britain’s failing to get one man off two Dunkirks.

Since the time of the Tet offensive in 1968 the Communists have been unable to mount a military operation in South Vietnam, even in battalion strength. The incursion into Cambodia has had a marked effect on the ability of that little country to resist Communist aggression. It is interesting to note that at least a month and perhaps 5 weeks, before the Americans entered Cambodia with the South Vietnamese, the Communist attack on the Government which replaced Sihanouk’s had already begun.

Senator Young:

– It was 5 weeks.

Senator HANNAN:

– Yes. Let me raise one or two matters in regard to the position in the north. It seems to me to be strange - I say this as an armchair strategist and without pretending to be a person of great military learning - that with the Seventh Fleet at our disposal off the coast of North Vietnam there is no blockade of the port of Haiphong. Some 85 per cent of the war materials which go to the assistance of the Communists in North Vietnam enter through the port of Haiphong which we are physically in a position to blockade.

I conclude by referring to a statement on genocide issued by Cambodian students.

It is in these terms:

We solemnly accuse the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese as well as their mentor, the People’s Republic of China, of trying to erase Cambodia and the Cambodian people from the fare of this world. And Sihanouk, the puppet of these forces, is to be despised for the part that he has taken against his own countrymen.

The annals of history will lay the full blame for the current crisis in South East Asia at the feet of the Communist leaders in Peking and Hanoi.

With abundant evidence from inside the countries of South East Asia, it is clear that most Australians will rejoice in the fact that the Prime Minister has been able to announce the withdrawal of at least 1,000 Australian troops as an indication that the job which we set out to do some years ago is now well on the way to completion.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– We have just heard a diatribe of so-called facts. In most cases they were not facts, and even if they were facts they were very sadly misrepresented to the Senate. Some 2,000 years ago Christ died so that men may live, yet we have a heretic in this chamber who is repudiating all Christian principles and advocating kilting, all in the cause of so-called justice or freedom.

Senator HANNAN:

– Mr President, I object most strongly to the word ‘heretic’. It is offensive to me and I ask that it be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– Senator Keeffe, Senator Hannan has asked that you withdraw the word ‘heretic’. I think your language is going further than I am prepared to allow it to go. You will withdraw the word ‘heretic’.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Why should I?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Do not argue with me. I am not here to tell you why you should do what I request. I have told you to withdraw the word and you will do so.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If the word is offensive to my thin-skinned opponent, I will withdraw it. I suggest that if Senator Hannan, in the moments when his conscience is operating, looks at his hands he will see that they are red with the blood of the men who have been killed in Vietnam. He and the Party to which he belongs are responsible for the deaths of several hundred national servicemen and several hundred Regular Army men. The honourable senator cited section 120 of the Constitution to justify his argument that people should be gaoled because they have a conscientious objection to the National Service Act and all that it stands for. He then proceeded to misrepresent the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Tonkin, who is bound, as I am, by the policies of the Australian Labor Party. It was most unfair, untruthful and unwise for Senator Hannan to make utterances of that nature publicly. He also told us that the large area of the country which was under the control of Communist thugs was now 95 per cent free. I suggest in all sincerity that even areas occupied by Australian troops, at the cost of many human lives and hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy of this country, are not yet free of the so-called enemy. If they were, people in the Australian Army would not be killed and maimed as they are week by week.

Senator Hannan then further misrepresented the facts by saying that the penalty was death in North Vietnam but that that penalty was never imposed in South Vietnam. If the honourable senator cares to read current reports he will find that only a few days ago 2 Roman Catholic priests were imprisoned in South Vietnam for a lengthy period because they dared to say that there were things wrong with the war. We know that the Government of South Vietnam is corrupt. We know that 2 prominent members of it were charged recently with smuggling gold. We know that there are no free elections, as we know them, in South Vietnam. We know that the things for which Senator Hannan stands are the corrupt things in this society and that he wants to perpetuate them. Before moving to some of the details associated with the conflict, I suggest that one reason that Senator Hannan wants this war to go on is because apparently good oilfields have been found in the region of South Vietnam and that some 45 Australian companies are making big money out of the killing of Australian soldiers. I suggest that that is the real reason why he wants the war to go on, not because he is opposed to the Communist Party.

I have here details of the top 45 companies showing the value of their main defence contracts together with their products. The actual value of ail their defence contracts is probably 30 per cent to 40 per cent higher than the figure quoted - 1 will quote them in a moment - as the smaller contracts were numerous and time consuming to extract. The number of companies sharing in very small slices of the defence cake would be several thousand. The items manufactured vary from cloth and clothing for military use to food and ration packs, tents and mosquito nets, telecommunication, radio, navigational aids and electronics, aircraft components, engines, trucks and personnel carriers, landing craft, ammunition, shells, bombs, hand grenades and so on. The profits of those companies appear to be enhanced through these contracts, and that highlights the point I am making. The Melbourne ‘Age* of 8th September 1970 carried the fallowing report:

Textiller Bruck Aust. Ltd, staged a strong recovery in the year to June 30th, lifting both sales and profit. Dividend is steady at IS per cent. Profit in the latest year was $830,451 compared with $773,448 in 1968-69.

I point out that the firm in question obtained defence contracts worth Sim in the past 2 years.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It would be interesting to know who the shareholders are.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am not suggesting that Senator Hannan owns the company but I am suggesting that he is endeavouring to protect his own interests somewhere at the cost of Australian lives. I turn now to the companies to which I referred and the value of the contracts that they have obtained as a result of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam war. The details are as follows:

Senator Cavanagh:

– Mountains of gold out of rivers of human blood.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is exactly as my colleague says. The list continues:

1 would like it to be noted that most of these firms are situated in Victoria. So one can appreciate the fact that Senator Hannan is crying crocodile tears and other men have to bleed blood while he is looking after the affairs of these companies. The list continues:

That firm also comes from Senator Hannan’s State. Incidentally, it is obvious that he cannot stand up to the truth be cause he has now left the chamber. The list continues:

Senator Young:

– Haven’t you anything else to talk about?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the honourable senator afraid of having the names of his friends read out over the air and published in Hansard? If he has major shareholdings in any one of these companies, in which his money is earning interest at the expense of Australian lives, he ought to be damned well ashamed of himself.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Young:

– The point is that I have not any.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am happy to hear the honourable senator admit that he has shares earning money at the expense of Australian lives.

Senator Young:

– I did not say that I have;I said that 1 have not.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The list continues:

The contract value stated in the list covers only the major items during the period mentioned. In most cases there are many small contracts in addition to the onesI have mentioned. These would amount to approximately 30 or 40 per cent in addition to the figures I have quoted. The total number of contractors involved in the defence industry would number thousands. For the majority, however, contracts are for small amounts -from $1,000 to $30,000 in value. The ones 1 have quoted are the largest contractors in terms of money value of contracts obtained. These Australian defence contractors are making millions at the price of the loss of Australian lives. Let us look in retrospect at some of the aspects of this unholy and illegal war. We were told quite recently that 600 troops are to be withdrawn in the fairly immediate future.

Senator Wright:

– The number is 1,000.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is 1,025, to be precise. But many of those are not front line fighting troops. The Minister knows that as well as I do. I am talking about combat troops, but he is trying to distort the whole picture in order to protect his own thin skin. In October 1965, the year in which the first rebellion against the Vietnam involvement took place, 70,000 people demonstrated publicly in America. People demonstrated in even larger numbers in 1967. Last year in this country the public demonstration against the Australian involvement had to be seen to be believed. lt was not the rabble that so many members of the Government parties were inclined to describe it as.

Today wc see the spectacle of the national service draw becoming a social event. T propose to refer to what was probably one of the first public draws. I can recall mentioning it in this chamber, by way of a question, at the time. In 1969 the then Minister* for Labour and National Service, Mr Leslie Bury, announced the date of the drawing in Melbourne of the ninth national service ballot. Mr E. M. Fox, M.P.. of the Liberal Party presided and the draw was made by Air Vice-Marshal F. M. Bladin, CB.. C.B.E., formerly a member of the Air Board and at that time the National Honorary Treasurer of the Returned Services League. Fifty-two marbles were drawn. Each of the draws since that one have been public and have been carried out in a social spirit. The usual thing is that the death marbles are drawn out and then all those at the draw go off and have a cup of tea, chortling, chuckling and telling each other blue stories as if nothing had happened, whereas in each of these draws they have just consigned to their death probably 200 young Australian men who have no my as to whether they are to be sent to war or not.

Senator- Cavanagh - Some mother’s sons.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Someone else’s son. It is always the son of the man next door; never the person’s own son. My colleague Senator Cavanagh referred to Lieutenant Calley who, in fact, was the fall guy. The men who ought to have been in the hot seat, the men who ought to have been charged with the murders at My Lai and the men who ought to be charged with all the other atrocities that have taken place in South Vietnam are Johnson and Nixon. We had a Prime Minister of this country who on one occasion referred to the predecessor of Nixon in the phrase ‘All the way with LBJ*. Johnson and Nixon are the 2 people who ought to have been charged. Further down the scale, a so-called general named Westmoreland is another one who ought to be charged. For the deaths of Australian soldiers and for any atrocities that may be committed by Australian troops, the Prime Minister of this country is the man who ought to be charged.

I asked a question about Vietnam today. I was surprised that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) got out from under by saying that the question was not respectful and refusing to answer. I suggest to the Minister that he had a guilty conscience. He knows what is going on in Vietnam. The reason why he refused to answer the question as to whether Australia has an assassination squad in South Vietnam is that he knows that we have one. But he did not have the moral courage to face up to it or to say: T shall investigate the matter’. For his information I point out that the question is now on the notice paper. I hope that he plucks up courage overnight and asks for an investigation of the matter. I am not making the accusation that one exists. It is known that the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States has one. I want to know whether Australia’s hands are dirty too. If the Minister is not prepared to investigate this matter, he is condemning this country in the eyes of the world by saying in effect that we are guilty and he is not going to expose the truth. I hope that the Minister will take note of what I have had to say in this respect.

We on this side of the Senate have opposed consistently Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam war. Last night in this chamber we fought over the question of whether pensioners were to receive an extra 50c a week only, not to save them from starvation, not even to save them from death, but in order to make their lives just a fraction more comfortable. We know that 50c a week will not save them from either of the disasters I have mentioned. We do not know what the cost of the war in Vietnam is in Australia because the Australian Government is reluctant to disclose the cost. As far as I am concerned there is corruption in high places in relation to the Vietnam war. If this was not! the case, the Government of this country would be prepared to say thai its expenditure on this war is S500m per annum or $800m per annum. Why does not the Government come out into the open? Why does it not come clean on this subject.

The Government has never been able to produce the documents which it says involved this country in the war in the first place. The Australian Government has never been able to say who invited it to participate in the Vietnam war. The Government knows that it entered the war as a matter of some sort of social obligation to the United States of America. The Government knows that the Americans hold it in contempt because it has hung on to America’s coat tails. After all, what is the small number of people that we have in Vietnam going to achieve in relation to the so called elimination of the so-called Communists in that country? Australia would be far better off had it devoted the whole of its defence expenditure in Vietnam to some sort of civil aid work in the underprivileged countries in the Asian area.

Because of our involvement in Vietnam, we have made only enemies for ourselves and while the Government continues to participate in this conflict this situation will prevail. Australia will finish up holding a bag of dead cats for which young Australian lives will be the payment. I conclude on that note. This is the policy of the Australian Labor Party and we will stick to it. When the Labor Party is in control of the new Parliament, within a shorter period than most people probably believe, there will be no involvement of

Australian troops in this dirty, rotten Vietnam war.

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

– I think that for too ‘ long I have been silent in regard to the question of Vietnam. I more or less have believed that Australia was going to get out of this intolerable mess. But here again we are debating a mealy mouthed hypocritical statement without any regard to this insane war to which there appears to be no end at the present moment. I ask honourable senators to recall the principles put forward by the Government as to why Australia was fighting in Vietnam. We have seen every one of those principles evaporate into thin air. The result is that no principles remain. One wonders how the Government can justify its claim that we are in Vietnam in support of a just cause. Why is it, then, that Australia is the only white country that is involved in Vietnam. Why is it that we are so intelligent and so brilliant that we can analyse the situation to be thai we must be in Vietnam when no other white country will dream of sending troops to Viestnam

Senator Hannan:

– What colour is New Zealand?

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

– All right. Why is it that every white country other than Australia and New Zealand has not participated in the Vietnam war?

Senator Webster:

– What about America?

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

– -1 am sorry. I should have said America, too.

Senator McManus:

– The numbers are going up.

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

– I have 3. America is the country that is involved in this war and no other white country has supported it with the exception of Australia and New Zealand. Apparently the governments of every European country, of every other white country, do not believe in a Vietnam involvement. But our Government does. Why does it? The Government cannot give any answer to that question except to say that it is following the American hopes because it wants aid from America in order to bolster up its own electoral chances. The Government wants to save expenditure on expense so that it can spend the money that it saves by not building up Australia’s defence capabilities on electoral promises. It is time that we stopped this approach. There is no other expression to describe the situation than to say that it is time that Australia stopped licking the bottom of the American people by remaining in Vietnam. That is the only expression to describe what we arc doing.

This is the state that this nation has reached. Australia must take this action because it is so scared that in the future no-one will protect it. So. wc do this instead of building up our own defences to protect ourselves. Whatever America does, we do. Everyone knows now that America has admitted that its action has been wrong and that it should be out of this war. We will get out of it as soon as America does. With the accelerated withdrawal of American troops, we are starting to withdraw our own troops. Everyone knows that the American people cannot be trusted and that if some other war occurs in the Pacific or the Asian regions we have no guarantee that America will come to our aid. We have no such guarantee. Yet, we continue our involvement in the war in Vietnam to try to please the Americans. Every other country involved in fighting in Vietnam has been bought. Mercenaries are fighting in Vietnam. The Australian Government is proud of our troops who are fighting alongside these mercenaries in Vietnam. They are fighting there to please the American people. How low can we go?

The Government rationalises the situation in its mind by saying that Vietnamisation is occurring and that this is the answer. This is its excuse or its let out. The Government believes it can get out of Vietnam by saying: ‘Oh, yes, Vienamisation has been successful’. Everyone knows that it is successful at the moment, but I ask: Where will Vietnamisation be on the day when American troops are withdrawn completely from Vietnam? Everyone knows that it is not true that all people are supporting the Government of South Vietnam. Those honourable senators who have read the report by the Central Intelligence Agency will know that it shows that people in high places and their associates were really pro-Viet Cong. Yet, we continue to believe the nonsense that we are told about Vietnamisation.

We are informed that the military forces of South Vietnam are so good now that the Americans can leave. How many yards do honourable senators think the South Vietnamese would have advanced into Laos if it had not been for American cover? To what degree can we accept the credibility of the American President who has said that American troops will not advance into Laos when, as long as American troops are 10 feet above the ground in helicopters, they do so? Everyone knows that the South Vietnamese could not have moved one yard into Laos other than for the presence of American air support and artillary support. So much for Vietnamisation!

The Government talks about it because Vietnamisation is its only excuse to get out. lt has forgotton the principles upon which it entered the conflict. Not one of those principles is mentioned today because the Government is ashamed of them just as everyone else is ashamed of them. So, the Government lets them slide, lt says that Vietnamisation is taking place and therefore Australia can get out. The day Australia walks out of Vietnam it will discover that Vietnamisation is a myth. Everyone knows that it is a myth. The day that we walk out of that country i! will be back to where it was before the conflict.

Senator Hannan:

– Apparently everybody except the Vietcong know that it is a myth.

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

– The Vietcong. I should say. must be laughing up their sleeves all the way to-

Senator Hannan:

– Roaring their heads off in Cambodia.

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

– Yes, because this sort of talk is listened to. The Vietcong know that, in due course, they will be able to take over when they want to. What is Australia to do when the Americans leave Vietnam? Australia wants out of Vietnam and it rationalises its desire by saying: Well, we have Vietnamisation: therefore we can leave’. But Australia cannot leave Vietnam if it believes in the principles that it enunciated when it entered the conflict. If the Government believes in these principles it cannot leave Vietnam. So. the time has come for the Government to accept that Vietnamisation is a myth. The Government should get out. Get out, for God’s sake! Go with the Americans! 1 cannot understand for a moment why the

Government allows our armed forces still to stay in Vietnam. Of what value are they? If civil aid is needed, send civil aid. If the money that has been spent on this war by America and by Australia had been put into civil aid, there would never be need for a war. This is because Communism breeds on poverty.

Senator Hannan:

– As in East Germany, I suppose? It is a most prosperous country!

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

– I am glad to hear that. I never knew that before. I am not talking about East Germany-

Senator Hannan:

– The honourable senator is talking about Communism though.

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

– I am talking about Communism which breeds in people who have not. That is the situation in East

Germany, so I am told. Ali right. Let us get back to South East Asia. That is where Communism breeds. In every country where there are peasants who do not own land there is a fertile breeding ground for Communism. If we had spent our money supporting Vietnam with aid we would not be in the mess that we are now in. So I say to the Government: For God’s sake get out of Vietnam now. Be honest with yourself for a change. You will have to get out of Vietnam sooner or later and you will have no option but to leave when the Americans leave. So get out now and show some spunk.

Debate (on motion by Senator Young) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.11 p.m. till Tuesday, 20 April at 3 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 April 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710407_senate_27_s47/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant