1964-11-16 25 1 2 REPS 2975 0 Monday, 16th November 1964. - Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers. PETITIONS. Human Rights. Mr. ASTON presented a petition from certain members of the Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad) praying that for the sake of the persecuted and oppressed believers in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and in the name of the sacred human rights free people are bound to preserve and uphold, the Parliament of this freedom loving country, Australia - a bastion of liberty and freedom of conscience in the free world - would add its authoritative voice to the universal protest against oppression and persecution of religion in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Petition received and read. Submarine Base, Neutral Bay. Mr. COCKLE presented a petition from certain residents of Neutral Bay, Cremorne, Mosman and North Sydney praying that the proposal to develop the Neutral Bay submarine base be reconsidered. Petition received and read. STANDARDISATION OF RAIL GAUGES. Mr. MORTIMER. - I address my question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I refer him to my recent question on the proposed turn around of the standard gauge railway line at Port Pirie and bring to his notice that a survey of that part of the line is reported to be completed. I ask: Is the Minister now in a position to inform the House of any decision that may have been made regarding the specific route on which the line will be laid or of any other matters connected with the standard gauge line in the area? If he cannot do so now, will he release this information as soon as it becomes available? I inform the Minister that there is room for a submarine base at Whyalla. Mr. FREETH. - I think the honorable gentleman asked me recently about a proposal for a crossing over Wandearah Road in Port Pirie and I told him then that as far as I knew the survey had not been completed. I understand that that part of the survey has been completed and it has been decided that the suggested crossing will no longer be required. The railway will not cross the road that he mentioned. That is the only information I can give him additional to that which I gave him in answer to his recent question. REPATRIATION. Mr. FOX. - My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and refers to television and radio licence concessions which are given to service pensioners and to war widows. Will the Minister consider extending this benefit to widowed mothers, many of whom are in more necessitous circumstances than are some people who receive the concession? According to the figures given in the latest report of the Repatriation Commission, probably fewer than 2,000 widowed mothers would be involved and, therefore, the cost would be very small. Mr. SWARTZ. - I think the honorable member meant to refer to the telephone rental concession rather than the radio and television licence concession. Mr. Fox. - One is contingent on the other. Mr. SWARTZ. - In fact, the radio and television licence concessions are not granted to certain of the classes mentioned. Consideration was recently given to a wide range of people who are receiving benefits from the Department of Social Services and the Repatriation Department and a concession on telephone rentals was extended to certain groups. The group mentioned by the honorable member was not included at the time. However, as he has now raised the matter, I will discuss it with my two colleagues who are concerned in this matter when the next review is taking place. SERVICEMEN IN MALAYA. Mr. GRAY. - I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that some members of the families of servicemen stationed in Malaya have sent telegrams to relatives in Australia stating that they have been warned to be ready to leave Malaya and are hurriedly seeking accommodation in Australia? Is the Prime Minister in a position to say why this warning has been given? Sir ROBERT MENZIES.- I confess I am not aware of the warning having been given but I will find out about it and advise the honorable member, INDONESIAN ATOMIC BOMB. Mr. HAWORTH. - My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has he any further information on a statement made yesterday by Brigadier General Hartono that Indonesia proposes to fire its first atomic bomb next year? Does this statement indicate a desire on the part of the Indonesians to see a spread of nuclear weapons in the world? Sir ROBERT MENZIES. - All we know about this statement is that apparently it was made. Whether it was made having relation to the facts or made by way of some threat is anybody's guess. It does not seem probable that Indonesia would be in a position to fire an atomic bomb, because so far as we know Indonesia has two atomic reactors, both of them experimental and neither of them calculated to produce the fissionable material that is needed for an atomic bomb. Therefore, the simple truth is that we know no fact that would support the probability of the truth of the statement. But I do want to point out that Indonesia, like Australia, is a signatory to the partial nuclear test ban treaty and is therefore, with us, involved in a state of affairs in which we will not have atomic testing ourselves, and we do not want to see the spread of atomic weapons beyond those countries in which they now exist. I would hope that Indonesia would observe the terms of that ban just we we do. On the whole, I am bound to say that I think that what is involved in the statement is what might be called a little threatening material rather than fissionable material. STATEMENT BY SENATOR. Mr. NICHOLLS. - I preface a question directed to the Prime Minister by saying that during the weekend I consulted with the Honorable Norman Makin, a senior member of a previous War Cabinet, concerning the allegation against former honorable members, namely Dr. H. V. Evatt and Mr. E. J. Ward. He informed me that such allegations were outrageous untruths. Will the Prime Minister, who at the relevant time was Leader of the Opposition, set up a royal commission to inquire into the alleged treasonous action by these former members? Sir ROBERT MENZIES. - The answer to the last part of the question is that I will not set up a royal commission. Of course I will not. The statement had no authorisation by me. I think it is a great misfortune that it should have been made. I do not believe in this kind of thing. But really, to set up a royal commission to investigate the actions of people one of whom is now dead - two of whom are perhaps now dead - and one of whom is incapacitated, would seem to me to be a grossly improper proceeding. Mr. Curtin. - Why does not the Government cut the senator concerned off its Senate election ticket? Sir ROBERT MENZIES. - That is an interesting proposal, but it might rebound on the honorable member. I have stated, Mr. Speaker, that this is not my line of country. I do not believe in this kind of thing and I think it is deplorable that it should have happened. TOBACCO. Mr. BRIMBLECOMBE. - I address my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Many growers are complaining that leaders of the tobacco organisations are not giving them sufficient information. Can the Minister say what progress has been made towards the stabilisation of the tobacco industry? Mr. ADERMANN. - Representatives of the tobacco growing industry have met me along with other Ministers and have even consulted with us in the presence of manufacturers on this matter of stabilisation. It appears that the growers have not been kept fully informed on this matter by their leaders. However, discussions on the matter have proceeded. As I indicated in reply , to a question some weeks ago, I have met with the State Ministers concerned. Following that meeting, officers of the Commonwealth conferred with State officers and today they are conferring with the manufacturers and the growers. If that conference is concluded in time and if its decisions lend themselves to a statement, it may be advisable for me to make a statement on the progress to date. BEEF ROADS. Mr. NELSON. - I ask the Minister for Territories a question. Has a decision yet been reached to proceed with the construction of the Willeroo to Katherine road in the Northern Territory as a beef road project? If a decision has been made to proceed with this road, will it be sealed, and when will a start be made on the road? If no decision has yet been reached, will the Minister give reasons for the delay in proceeding with this most important work? Mr. BARNES. - The construction of the Katherine-Willeroo-Top Springs road has been referred to my colleague, the Minister for National Development, for consideration in relation to the entire beef roads programme. Although no work will be started on this road, documentation of the road will continue. As to the latter part of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to what has already been said. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES.- Will the Prime Minister consider offering to the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to travel at no cost to himself to South East Asia, Taiwan and Korea so that he may learn at first hand something about the facts of international life in those regions - about the fact that unfortunately we are at war due to Communist and Indonesian aggression against other small nations who are our friends and allies, about whose sons are protecting Australia today, and about Communist inhumanities and atrocities in some of the nations in those areas? Sir ROBERT MENZIES. - I need hardly say that if the Leader of the Opposition got in touch with me and said that he would like to pay a visit to these countries to study the situation there, I would be entirely co-operative. I think it is very desirable that the facts of these matters should be well understood on both sides of the House. PUBLIC SERVICE. Mr. STEWART- Is the Prime Minister aware that grave dissatisfaction exists amongst professional grade officers in the accountancy field in the Commonwealth Public Service due to the failure of the Public Service Board to deal with the claims of their organisations for increases in salary, which were lodged with the Public Service Arbitrator in February 1963? Did the Public Service Arbitrator, Mr. Chambers, at a statutory conference held in April 1964 instruct the Public Service Board and the organisations representing the claimants to confer with the aim of reaching agreement or, alternatively, of reducing the matters in issue? Why has the Public Service Board been so dilatory in dealing with the matter? Will the right honorable gentleman instruct the Board to expedite a decision in the matter and make retrospective any increases granted? Sir ROBERT MENZIES.- I am indebted to the honorable member for directing my attention to what he states are the circumstances of this matter. I must confess that I am a little surprised to learn that the Public Service Board has been dilatory. I have never known people to work so hard or so continuously in relation to these problems as have members of the Public Service Board. I have the greatest admiration for them, but I will direct their attention to the points made by the honorable member. HOUSING. Mr. STOKES. - I preface my question to the Minister for Housing by reminding him that there are certain building and development companies in Victoria, to my knowledge, and probably in other States as well, which develop land and sell it to intending purchasers conditionally upon the intending purchasers signing a contract with the company concerned to build a home. Is the Minister aware that there are a large number of applicants whose eligibility for the Government grant has been questioned in the Department's Melbourne office because of this so-called package deal by which the applicants sign contracts simultaneously, one to purchase land and the other to build a home? As deferment of these applications is not within the spirit of the legislation, or even within the administrative interpretation of the legislation, will the Minister take action to see that these applications are dealt with and cleared as was intended by the legislation? Mr. BURY. - A relatively small number of cases have arisen which involve a technical difficulty because of these double contracts - one to buy land and the other to build a house. Technically, in these cases, the person who sighs the contracts does not own the land on which the house is to be built, and payment has been held up in a number of cases because we have to seek legal advice on whether the grant is payable in terms of the Act. This matter is among those which we have listed and are now considering and which may involve possibly small changes in the legislation based on practice, experience and the operation of the Act. The honorable member will appreciate that the Act has been in operation for only just over three months, and even now a number of new unforeseen cases similar in kind to those he has mentioned are bound to arise. BROADCASTING. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON.- Will the Prime Minister tell the Parliament why he did not attend, as scheduled, the Opening of the Asian Broadcasting Union's first general assembly in Sydney last Saturday? Was his non-attendance because of any distaste for Asians, or any dislike for the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Sir ROBERT MENZIES.- I have great respect for the Asians and I have a very distant and polite respect for the A.B.C. The honorable gentleman was good enough to inquire why I could not be there. I will answer him. I had to be in Melbourne making what I hope he will look at in due course - a very powerful 30-minute television appearance in relation to the forthcoming election. Although I admit that occasionally I have been credited with versatility, my versatility does not extend to being in two places at the same time. COINS. Mr. TURNBULL. - I address my question to the Treasurer and in doing so refer to his recent statement in which he directed attention to the shortage of pennies in circulation and appealed to the people not to hoard them. Did this appeal bring the desired result? How necessary is it now for the people to release more pennies? If the matter is urgent, will the right honorable gentleman consider having a small card printed on which is typed a renewal of the appeal, and ask all senators and members of Parliament, and Government departments -especially the Postmaster-General's Department and the Department of Social Services - to enclose the card with normal correspondence, and so conduct a wide personal coverage of the appeal? Mr. HAROLD HOLT. - The honorable gentleman was good enough to let me know of his interest in this matter and I made it my business, therefore, to obtain the latest information available on it. Whilst there has been some improvement in the flow of coins back into the banking system, we still are sending out coins at a much faster rate than they are coming in. We have prepared what seems to me to be, for the Treasury, a rather lively leaflet about this matter. This leaflet is to go to school children, and notes are to be supplied to school teachers so that they can elaborate on what appears an the leaflet. Honorable members may be interested in one or two of the facts which I find set out in the leaflet. It tells the school-children that we are looking for 800 million pennies. It reads - We're looking for pennies! 800,000,000 of them! 7,000 tons of them! Laid out in a chain they would reach from here to the North Pole and back again! Somebody has gone to a great deal of trouble to work out the mileage. Other facts Which it sets our are - This year alone we've already had to make 80,000,000 to keep you supplied. And it's pretty clear to us that you don't really need them. There are 70 pennies around for every man, woman and child in Australia. More importantly, we can't go on making pennies much longer - we have to make cents to be ready for decimal currency in 1966 - hundreds of millions of them. There is a good deal of further informative material set out in the leaflet which I am sure would interest a great many of those amongst whom it is circulated. The honorable member makes the practical suggestion that a card be enclosed with the correspondence of members as a helpful gesture. I could gladly make some of these leaflets available. I think they would serve the purpose quite admirably. SUPERANNUATION. Mr. COSTA.- I ask the Treasurer whether he is aware that the Commonwealth Superannuation Board has recommended, as a matter of urgency, the distribution of a surplus existing in the superannuation fund. Retired superannuation pensioners were hopeful that the Superannuation Act would be amended so that the distribution of this surplus could be made before Christmas. Will the Treasurer inform the House whether the necessary legislation will be passed before the end of this sessional period? If this is not to be done, why is no action being taken? Mr. HAROLD HOLT.- I am not able to give any encouragement to the view that there should be further legislation in this sessional period. However, I shall' take into consideration what the honorable member has put to me about the views of certain people with relation to this matter. I think some of the information I gave earlier will indicate that a good deal of consideration has been given and is continuing to be given to these matters in the Treasury, and in other relevant departments. OIL SEARCH SUBSIDY. Mr. BUCHANAN.- As the effect of excluding certain defined areas from the oil search subsidy, to conserve funds, will be to encourage expensive offshore and deep well drilling by the large oil companies which can afford this form of exploration, and which set off their costs as a deduction from taxable income from marketing, anyhow, and seriously to discourage the smaller local operators engaged solely in the search for oil, I ask the Minister for National Development whether he will consider altering the basis of restriction to a limitation of the amount that may be paid against any one operation. I suggest that it will be a maximum of £25,000 or £30,000. Mr. FAIRBAIRN.- At the present moment we have authority to limit the amount of subsidy that is paid in any particular case. I should think that this authority would certainly be used in the case of offshore drilling where the cost is likely to be very large indeed. We discussed this matter very closely with the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association. That Association told us that the method used by the Government was the best possible method of making the available funds go as far as possible. I point out to the honorable member that, in any case, if a well is drilled and it proves to contain oil or gas in commercial quantities, no funds are paid out by the Government. Therefore, if drilling works are being carried out in an area that is known to have either gas or oil, there is quite a possibility that the operators will not receive any funds, anyway. SUBMARINE BASE. Mr. JONES. - I preface a question addressed to the Minister for the Navy by drawing the Minister's attention to the petition presented by the honorable member for Warringah in which it is stated that the people of the Neutral Bay area are opposed to the base being located in Neutral Bay. I advise the Minister that I will be delighted to have the proposed new naval base located on reclaimed land at the delta of the Hunter River. When the Naval Board was considering the location of a base for the new " Oberon " class submarine, did the Board give any consideration to the claims of Newcastle, with its State dockyard, its excellent ship repair establishment and its shipbuilding record which is the equal of any in Australia, or to the claims of Port Stephens, which has an excellent deep anchorage and which, for years, was reserved for a naval base? Can the Minister say what are the advantages of Neutral Bay compared with those at Newcastle and Port Stephens, bearing in mind the engineering and shipbuilding background of Newcastle and that if the base is located in either of these harbours fighter aircraft and guided missile protection would be readily available from Williamtown? Finally, is this not another example of putting all our eggs in one basket and centralising everything in the capital cities instead of decentralising our industries and defences? Mr. CHANEY.- I think I might at this stage put on record the case for the establishment of the submarine base at Neutral Bay. The selection of the Royal Australian Navy Torpedo Establishment, Neutral Bay, as the site for the R.A.N, submarine support facility was made after close investigation into possible sites around the Australian coast. In the general area finally selected, seven sites in Port Jackson and four on the east coast came under consideration. These were, in Port Jackson, Balmoral in Hunter Bay, Watsons Bay, Athol Bight, Garden Island, Shark Island or Clarke Island, Woolwich Dock area and R.A.N.T.E. in Neutral Bay; and on the east coast,. Port Stephens, Botany, Jervis Bay and Port Kembla area. The role of R.A.N. submarines in peace time and the disposition of ships and aircraft about the east coast of Australia limit the area in which it is productive to base dieselelectric submarines for anti-submarine training purposes. In addition, a safe berth with deep water and no swell, and developed and diversified supplies and services at the berth, must be provided. For the reasons of submarine availability and logistic support, and because of the very high cost of providing a suitable submarine base elsewhere, the Sydney port area is the most suitable place for a submarine support facility such as is required for the four Oberon class submarines now on order for the R.A.N. The availability of housing and amenities for families of submarine crews and the base staff was not the least of the considerations which led to this conclusion. The cost of meeting these requirements outside a modern industrial complex would be very great, even if water conditions and proximity to the exercise areas were satisfactory, and cannot be justified when a suitable site easily capable of the necessary development is already available. Of all the sites examined, the Neutral Bay site was the most suitable and could be developed at the least cost to meet the needs of the advanced and complex submarines which will form the submarine arm of the Royal Australian Navy. This facility could be provided at about half the cost of a similar base elsewhere in the Sydney port area. The Neutral Bay base can be built without our acquiring additional land and without detriment to the foreshore or the environment. Special attention has been given to the provision of facilities designed to reduce nuisance to the residents of Neutral bay, and in this regard comprehensive electrical battery charging, to eliminate noise and exhaust from diesel generators at present used for submarine battery charging, and full facilities for the disposal of effluent through the metropolitan sewerage system will be provided. With the provision of these facilities environmental conditions in Neutral Bay should, indeed, be much improved on those obtaining for many years when the Royal Australian Navy Torpedo Estab lishment base has been used by submarines of the 4th Submarine Squadron. " EMPRESS OF AUSTRALIA Mr. FALKINDER. - My question is addressed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is the Minister able to give any indication as to when the "Empress of Australia " will make its maiden voyage from Sydney to Hobart? Mr. FREETH. - I informed the House recently that the first voyage of the "Empress of Australia," scheduled for 5th December, had to be postponed. No final decision has been made as to when the maiden voyage will take place, lt will be early in January, as far as is known at present, and a public announcement will be made as soon as possible. CUSTOMS HOUSE, SYDNEY. Mr. COPE. - I desire to ask the Minister for the Interior a question. The Minister will be aware that the Customs House at Circular Quay, Sydney, is now deemed to be inadequate for present and anticipated needs. It is understood that one suggestion under consideration is the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new building on the site. I ask the Minister: Will he take into consideration the attitude of the Sydney City Council in seeking to preserve the present building, due to its classical architecture and great historical value? Mr. ANTHONY.- It is true that the Customs House is inadequate for the Department of Customs and Excise, lt is also true that there have been negotiations between that Department, my own Department and the Sydney City Council. I would like to say, however, that if there is any reconstruction of this building or alteration of existing policy, every consideration will be given to proposals put forward by the Sydney City Council, particularly as they relate to town planning. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE. Mr. SINCLAIR. - I direct my question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the decision by Mount Isa Mines Limited to cease exporting copper following the shut down of its copper smelter with a possible consequential effect on the employment of 500 workers at Townsville at the copper refinery? Is this shut down a result of constant industrial unrest? Have skilled labour and tradesmen groups fled Mount Isa in large numbers as a result of the delicate industrial situation? Does the Minister consider that this industrial situation is related to the lack of concern among those radical members of shop committees in the trade union movement for the development of Australia or to their lack of concern for the earning of export income so as to minimise the opportunity for Australia to finance an expanded defence effort? Mr. McMAHON__ I think it is to be deplored that the industrial dispute at Mount Isa still continues. Last week an application was made to the Queensland Industrial Commission but, due to some technical problems that arose, the case is not proceeding before the Commission and has been stood over for the time being. I think it is true to say that the dispute has been engineered on this occasion, not so much by shop committees, but by one man who is not a trade union official, who is not now employed by the company itself but who seems to have the power of persuading the men not to return to contract work, despite the fact that the northern union officials and the State branch of the Australian Workers Union are urging the men to return to work and urging them to return to contract work. I think it is to be deplored that the dispute continues. It is now in the hands of the Industrial Commission in Queensland and I think there is little at the moment that the Commonwealth Government can do about it. I make one other comment to you, Mr. Speaker, and that is that a tremendous amount of our foreign reserves has been lost by this strike and if commonsense did prevail these men would be back at work in very quick time. PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA. Mr. DUTHIE.- I direct my question to the Minister for Territories. Has the Minister noted the startling views expressed on the lack of education in Papua and New Guinea by Professor O. H. Spate when he said that New Guinea could become a second Congo unless higher education were quickly promoted? As an interim attack on the problem, pending implementation of the Currie report, would the Minister consider bringing a quota of Papuan and New Guinea students to Australia for tertiary and secondary education as a part of an outpost Colombo Plan? Would the Minister agree that time is not on our side in the campaign fully to educate these most important neighbours of ours? Mr. BARNES. - Mr. Speaker, the honorable member quotes Professor Spate from this morning's Press. Of course that is Professor Spate's opinion. There are also plenty of other opinions on education in Papua and New Guinea. Dr. Margaret Mead, on her return from the Territory, had a very complimentary report on our efforts in advancing education in Papua and New Guinea. Professor McAuley, who spoke at the same time as Professor Spate, had an altogether different opinion also. I might add that we are making very strenuous efforts in promoting education in Papua and New Guinea. As I have pointed* out previously, the Government has accepted the report of the Currie Commission. That report embodies very many aspects of affairs in Papua and New Guinea which we need to consider. We also have problems in tertiary education in Australia. According to the Press, the University of Melbourne has introduced quotas because of a lack of accommodation. Whether that is right I do not know. We have to consider tertiary education in Papua and New Guinea in the light of many other factors, and I assure the honorable member that that is just what the Government is doing. COMMUNISM. Mr. KEVIN CAIRNS. - Did the Minister for Labour and National Service see, during the weekend, the report of a statement attributed to Mr. Oliver, the President of the Australian Labour Party in New South Wales, in which Mr. Oliver stated: "The Communists are now better organised than they were in the days of Thornton "? Does the Minister consider that statement to be correct? If he does, does it apply in the industrial sphere or the political sphere, or in both? Mr. McMAHON. - I did not see the statement that the honorable gentleman has attributed to Mr. Oliver. But I think it can be stated clearly that the Communist movement in the industrial sector of our country is at least as well, if not better, organised today than it was in the days of Mr. Thornton - tout not in the Federated Ironworkers Association, of course. I do not think it can be said that, overall, the Communists have greater power or greater control; but in some key unions - notably the Amalgamated Engineering Union in Victoria - there is undoubtedly Communist control of the unions and far too many shop and area committees. That is why the number of industrial disputes involving the Amalgamated Engineering Union in Victoria is on the increase. That applies to the waterfronts of Sydney and Melbourne, too. There is no doubt that in those ports the Communists do what they like. They control those two waterfronts. On the most frivolous of political pretexts, they pull the men out, and consequently lose the men their wages. So, there is a lot in what the honorable gentleman has said. If I were to give a complete explanation of this matter, I would need to make a second reading speech. NEW GUINEA: UNIVERSITY. Mr. WHITLAM. - I direct a question to the Minister for Territories. He will remember that in April 1962, in replying to an Opposition motion calling for the establishment of a university in Papua and and New Guinea, his predecessor said that the Government was proceeding immediately to carry out an inter-departmental committee's suggestion that 1966 should be the target for establishing such a university. As no appropriation has been made for such a university in this financial year and as there is a smaller percentage increase in the appropriation for education in general in Papua and New Guinea this financial year, I ask the honorable gentleman what target has now been set for establishing a university in New Guinea. Mr. BARNES. - As I have pointed out repeatedly, this matter requires an overall consideration of many factors. We have to consider the staffing situation of universities. I recall that at a seminar last Sunday Professor McAuley, of the University of Tasmania, said that it was ridiculous to consider establishing a university in Papua and New Guinea before 1969. Many factors are involved. The requirement of funds to establish such a university is very considerable. The figure set out in the report of the Currie Commission is £15.7 million. We have accepted the Commission's recommendation for the establishment of a university, but not from the point of view of timing. That has to be considered in the light of many other factors. The development of primary, secondary and technical education has to be considered, too. This is no simple matter. If we consider this matter in isolation, it is all so easy; but it has to be considered in the light of our overall responsibility. IRON ORE. Mr. GIBSON. - I direct a question to the Minister for National Development. I refer the Minister to his Press statement today announcing that he has given approval for a Western Australian company to export 210 million tons of iron ore. Has he received an application from Tasmania for approval for the export of ore from the Savage River deposits? Mr. FAIRBAIRN.- The Government has not received any application from the company that controls the Savage River iron ore deposits. I understand that the company intends to beneficiate the ore and to export it in the form of pellets. I repeat that we have not so far received any application from the company for approval of the export of ore. NATIONAL SERVICE BILL 1964. Second Reading. Debate resumed from 11th November (vide page 2839), on motion by Mr. McMahon - That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr. ALLAN FRASER (Eden-Monaro) [3.17]. - Mr. Speaker, this conscription Bill is the one concrete outcome of the Government's defence review. Other proposals are to become effective in 1968 and 1970. But the power to take possession of the bodies of young Australians and to transport them to fight and maybe to die in foreign countries in wars to which Australia is not even a party is to operate now, in peace time, and the first call-up is to occur within the next few months. This is indeed the one concrete step that has come out of the Government's defence review. Conscription is brutal and brutalising. So, of course, is war. But we are not at war. We are at peace. In war, the overriding consideration is the safety of the state. Yet, even in war, Australians have never found it necessary to give their government powers such as are now sought. In all the dread perils and horrors of two world wars, powers such as these were not required. And everyone knows that if there is a third world war conscription of manpower into the Army will not be of the least avail. So the position stands that the power now sought was not required in either of the two world wars and would be useless in the event of a third world war. The magnificent traditions of Australians in time of war are entirely opposed to conscription for service anywhere in the world in the way that this Bill proposes. This measure is immediately an offence against Australian traditions and Australian democratic history. Even the troops in France in 1916 and 1917 voted against conscription. Australians have never failed their country as volunteers in an emergency. No-one in this House, in supporting this Bill, would dare to cast on Australians of either the previous generation or this generation the slur of suggesting that they had failed to volunteer in their country's hour of need. The men of Australia have never failed their country in an emergency. Mr. Irwin. - We cannot continue to think in terms of 1917. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- In all the history of Australia, its men have never failed their country in an emergency. They did not fail it in 1917 and they would not fail it in 1964. The fact is that Australians are now voluntering in numbers sufficient to meet all the stated needs of the Army. It is a lie for anyone to suggest the opposite. Despite all the lack of encouragement and even the active discouragement of Army service, many more than just the number of men sufficient for Army needs are now volunteering for service with the Australian forces. Here are the figures. In 1963, 24,932 men applied to join the Services. Of these, 6,478 were accepted and 18,454 were rejected. Mr. Jess. - Some of them may have had only one leg. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- The honorable member is quite right. I shall give him the facts about those who had two legs, good civil records and all the qualifications to make good soldiers, except educational qualifications. Mr. Chipp. - How would the honorable member know? Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- These are the official figures. In 1963, a total of 11,079 men applied to join the Army. Only 2,839 of these were accepted. A total of 11,079 volunteered and 8,240 were rejected. The honorable member for Higinbotham (Mr. Chipp) appears to be astonished at these figures. He should not have come into his place for a debate of this kind without knowing these figures, which are from the official records. Mr. Jess. - What were the reasons for the rejections? Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- I shall tell the honorable member. These figures demonstrate beyond contradiction that there is no lack of volunteers. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) claims that he must have 4,200 conscripts in 1965. Yet 4,487 volunteers for the Services in 1963 were rejected on educational grounds alone. Mr. Daly. - How many? Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - The number rejected on educational grounds alone was 4,487. That is the answer to the rather foolish interjection made by the honorable member for La Trobe (Mr. Jess). 1 emphasise that this was the number rejected on educational grounds alone, quite apart from those who were rejected because they were below the required training potential or because their civil records were unsatisfactory. Mr. Falkinder. - Or on medical grounds. Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - Yes. These 4,487 men were quite apart from those rejected on other than educational grounds. They were eager and willing to serve. They were of the required training potential. They all had first class records of citizenship. They were quite apart from those rejected because they did not meet the required training potential or because of unsatisfactory records of citizenship. These were 4,487 men of the required training potential for the Army. They had good civil records, and they lacked only the required educational qualifications. This number was more than the Prime Minister has said the Government wants to conscript in 1965. Mr. Haworth. - Does not the honorable member think it is necessary for recruits to have any educational qualifications? Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- That interjection rather astonishes me. Mr. Anthony. - What a reply. Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - I am about to give the answer to it. These figures are not an argument for conscription. They are an argument for more expenditure on education in Australia and for increased educational opportunities for Australian youth. Of course, that is the long term solution to the problem. That is not the solution for 1964 or 1965. But there is a solution for 1964 and 1965 for these lads who are first class citizens and who have all the required potential to make good soldiers. If the Government was not prepared in previous years to provide the funds needed for education, is there any reason why these men should not be given the opportunity to improve their education in Army schools? They have all the requirements. They lack only the educational standard. They have the ability; they need only the opportunity. They are eager to serve and they could be brought to the required educational standard within a few months - long before the first conscript could go into service. Mr. Jess. - How does the honorable member know that they have the ability? Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - Because these are the official figures. Mr. SPEAKER.- Order! The honorable member for La Trobe will cease interjecting. He has his name on the list to speak later. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- I repeat that the official statement shows that these men have the required potential. They are capable of serving and they have the ability. They lack only the educational qualification. No-one conscripted under the Government's new proposal will be on actual active service before some time in 1966. The Government has ample opportunity, if it wants to do so, to give the volunteers who have been rejected the schooling and the education they need and are eager to have. They would be good students because they want to achieve the required educational standard and to serve in the Australian forces. What reason then can be given by the Government for refusing to give these young men the opportunity to obtain the necessary education unless it is that this Prime Minister is for political reasons hell bent on conscription of Australian youth for service anywhere in the world, just as a former Prime Minister was before him? I hope and I believe that this Prime Minister will be equally unsuccessful. At least William Morris Hughes had the argument that Australia was engaged in a world war and at least he was prepared to submit the issue by referendum to the democratic judgment of the Australian people. This Prime Minister, whose conscription plan was not announced in the election campaign of 12 months ago and who has no mandate whatsoever from the Australian people for the action his Government is now proposing to take, has neither the argument that Hughes possessed - that Australia was engaged in a life and death struggle in a world war - nor is he prepared to allow the issue to be decided by referendum. He knows that the spirit, the tradition and the determination of the Australian people are utterly opposed to the plan that he proposes to force upon them and that is why he is not prepared to allow them to be the judges by vote at a referendum. The fact is that the Government has no legitimate ground whatever on which to base this proposal. I will be astonished if any honorable member on the Government side is able to produce one legitimate ground for the Government's proposal. It has neither the ground of war and national emergency nor the ground of lack of volunteers, and it does not even have the ground of military necessity or military advice. What other ground could there be? Mr. Nixon. - How does the honorable member know that? Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - The honorable member asks me how I know that the Government has not the ground of military necessity and military advice. I know that for reasons which should be plain to the honorable member. Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes. - I accept the honorable member's challenge, for anywhere in Australia. Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - What challenge? Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes- That no honorable member on this side is able to produce grounds. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- I accept with great pleasure. Mr. Fox. - Where and when? Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- There is no qualification on my acceptance. The answer to one honorable member who asked on what ground did I state that the Government could not advance the argument of military necessity or military advice is that its military advisers are flatly opposed to conscription now. That is also on official record. It is stated in a statement circulated by the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) on the very day before Cabinet made this decision. We do not expect the military advisers to come out publicly against a decision of Cabinet after it has been made, but up to the very moment that the Government made the decision, its military advisers were flatly opposed to the proposal that the Government is now putting to the Parliament. Mr. Malcolm Fraser. - The honorable member knows that that is a lot of humbug. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- Is the statement of the Minister for the Army a lot of humbug? That is the statement I am quoting. Mr. Malcolm Fraser. - The honorable member knows that he is misquoting it. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- Am I misquoting it? I accept the invitation of the honorable member for Wannon (Mr. Malcolm Fraser) - I notice that the Minister for the Army is not happy about it - to quote to the House the exact words of the statement. Honorable members on the opposite side have copies of the statement in front of them and I invite them to check me as I read. The Minister for the Army made a statement to the National Congress for the Returned Servicemen's League in Hobart on 26th October and copies were circulated to members of the Parliament a week ago. If the honorable member for Wannon will give me leave, I will have the whole of the Statement incorporated in "Hansard". If not, I will read extracts. Speaking of conscription the Minister said - Our military advisers have indicated in the clearest and most unmistakable terms that it is not the most effective way of creating the Army we need to meet the situation we face. Dr. Mackay. - No one ever suggested it was. Of course, it is not. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- This is the situation we are facing today. Dr. Mackay. - It never is the most effective way. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- The Minister proceeded - I stress that this is military advice. I shall be delighted to hear the honorable member for Evans (Dr. Mackay) state during this debate whether he is in favour of the conscription of Australian youth for service anywhere in the world in peacetime. That is the issue; there is no quibble about it. The honorable member will be judged on his answer to that question. I invite him to rise in this debate, not to quibble but to say plainly whether he favours or is against -the conscription of Australian youth today for service anywhere in the world in peacetime. Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes- It is not peacetime. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- The honorable gentleman says that it is not peacetime. I am sorry indeed that honorable members opposite do not read the statements of their own Prime Minister. I refer to the defence review of the Prime Minister on 10th November 1964. Is it suggested that we have changed since 10th November from a situation of peace to a situation of war? The Prime Minister in his review declared plainly that this is peacetime. He referred particularly- Mr. McMahon. - Read it out Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - Yes. He referred particularly to our need to establish a peacetime force. There is no question about it. Mr. McMahon. - Read out what the Prime Minister said. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- I will. Even the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) has not studied this statement closely enough. I find the attitude of Government supporters regrettable. There is no opposition to the Prime Minister. There is no questioning of what he says. They do not even read his statements, but simply accept them. Now I will read from his defence review. He said - The question of Army manpower is more difficult. The numbers are larger; the whole strength and organisation of the Army are involved. We have given close attention to this problem which has before now given rise to great controversy. After an examination of all the factors, and in full consultation with our military advisers, we have' reached the conclusion that the Regular Army should be built up as rapidly as possible from the present 22,750 to an effective strength of 33,000 men, which means a total force of 37,500. A peacetime Army of this size would be adequate to meet our immediately foreseeable operational requirements and form a basis for rapid expansion in war. I leave the honorable member to argue with his Prime Minister whether this is peacetime or not. I now proceed with a quotation from the most illuminating statement by the Minister for the Army to the Returned Servicemen's League national congress in Hobart. He said - Although it has been stated many times before, it is perhaps worth mentioning briefly the purely military disadvantages of conscription. I say in parenthesis that I am explaining and justifying my statement that the Government's military advisers are opposed to this policy. The Minister continued - First, even a scheme which provides for a two-year period of service - This is what this Bill provides for - does not provide the people we most need, that is experienced officers and N.C.O.'s and specialists. These are the people we are short of now. The deficiency would be even greater if conscription were introduced. That is the view, and the considered statement, of the Government's military ad visers. They state that a two-year period of service would not provide the people Australia needs - experienced officers, N.C.O.'s and specialists. The advisers say that the deficiency in these categories would be even greater if conscription were introduced. I quote again from the Minister's statement - Secondly, it (conscription) is wasteful in the sense that you only get about 18 months' service out of each person you train compared with 5i years' service for most Regulars. In his next paragraph - and this I suggest is of crucial importance - he said - Thirdly, conscription would have a marked effect on the efficiency and- availability of the field force. It would injure the efficiency of the field force. It would decrease the availability of the field force. Mr. Reynolds. - There are not many interjections now. Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- There are not so many. The Minister continued - This is partly because scarce officers and N.C.O.'s would be required to train conscripts and partly because of the frequent turnover in the personnel of field force units which contained conscripts. Later he said - An Army composed entirely of long-term volunteers is a better one than one based on a mixture of volunteers and conscripts. Yet one of the most rigid features of the Government's present proposal is that conscripts and volunteers are to be mixed together in the same unit. The Minister for the Army knows very well the disadvantages that are inherent in that decision, because he also made this plain in his speech in Hobart. He dealt with the real reasons why the Australian military forces were not obtaining all the volunteers they would like. I am going to summarise what he said, in this respect, but the whole of it appears on page 4 of his statement. He stressed that it is a psychological problem more than anything else associated with the status of the soldier and his acceptance in the community. Yet now it is proposed that the Army units will be a mixture of volunteers and conscripts. The volunteer is naturally a prouder soldier than the conscript. The Minister for the Army made it clear that one of the reasons for dissatisfaction with Army service is that a soldier feels that he does not obtain from the community the respect that he deserves. So with mixed units the pride of the volunteer would obviously be reduced and there would be less incentive to volunteer and less incentive to re-enlist. Dr. Forbes. - The honorable member should not believe that. Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - The mixture of volunteers and conscripts together in a unit will destroy the very factor which the Minister for the Army claims is essential - that the Army should be recognised as a proud and full-time career. Mr. Jess. - I have heard enough of this statement; what about getting on with something else. Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - The honorable member has had enough of the Minister's statement. I think I have quoted enough from it. Let me now proceed to quote the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge). I am sure that the honorable member will pay more attention to statements by his own colleagues and ministerial chiefs than he would be prepared to give to statements by me. On 10th July 1964, when he announced that the Government did not intend to reintroduce national service training, Senator Paltridge said - On the advice of its Chiefs of Staff, supported by similar overseas experts, the Federal Government believes the correct way is to develop mobile, hardhitting, well equipped and well trained forces. He went on to say - This is the basis of the Army build-up and the Government will not depart from it. So, why are we in the situation we are in today? The answer is, of course, that it is the Government which has failed to carry out the advice of its Chiefs of Staffs and its own military experts. It is the Government which, in bringing forward a conscription law today, departs from that advice. The Government has, therefore, now departed entirely from the statement of Senator Paltridge - "This is the basis of the Army build-up and the Government will not depart from it". The Government has departed from it; not the Opposition. The blame, through this statement by Senator Paltridge, is sheeted home to the Government. Mr. Jess. - Did he not say also that there would be no hesitation about introducing national service If the military advice changed? Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - There is no such comment in my copy of his statement. Dr. Forbes. - There is in mine. Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - The honorable member says, and the Minister for the Army confirms that it was said, that if the advice of the military experts changed the Government would not hesitate to introduce conscription. I ask the Minister for the Army now whether the advice of the military experts has changed in the last week. Mr. Pollard. - Will it change next week; that is the important thing? Mr. Daly. - Their silence is golden. Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - Yes, their silence is golden. We have shown that the military experts are against conscription. The Minister for the Army leans on the claim that if the military experts change their mind then the Government will do the same. I ask him: Have the military experts changed their mind? He is silent, but he still supports the proposals to conscript Australian youth against the advice of his own military experts. The Minister for the Army well knows - because he showed it in his Hobart speech - the real causes of the failure to bring the Australian military forces up to regular strength. Many of the men on the Government side have had honorable and excellent military records. They are well acquainted with military affairs and military psychology. I ask them to study the following figures showing the wastage in the Australian Regular Army. The intake into the Australian Regular Army for the first seven months of 1964 was 1,982. The wastage in the Regular Army was 1,435. The net gain was 574. Those figures relate to soldiers in the Regular Army - men who might have been expected to make the Army their full time career; men who might have been considered glad to re-enlist. Mr. Mclvor. - Will the Government tell us why those men got out of the Army? Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- The Government might well tell us why they got out. During that period the Government spent £175,000 on advertising to encourage more people to join the. Regular Army, even though the figures showed that only SOO of every 2,000 would stay in the Army once they got the chance to leave it. What the Government should be doing today instead of trying to introduce conscription is remedying the situation that is causing good, faithful, loyal Australians who want to serve in the Regular Army to realise that they have no future there and that they have to get out- of it. The conscription proposal is to call up 20 years olds. I wonder why the Government chose 20 years olds to be conscripted and to go out and fight these battles on foreign battle fields. Mr. Reynolds. - They do not have a vote. Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - That is true. Surely a very great responsibility rests upon this Parliament when it takes upon itself the right to control the lives and to possess the bodies of men who do not even have a vote in an election of members of this Parliament. These are young men at the very threshold of their lives. They have everything in life to which to look forward. At 20 years of age they have every opportunity of rendering many years of useful service to their country. They are surely the very flower of our manhood. Is the requirement to fight and to die to be restricted exclusively to 20 year olds? If so, why? Is a man over 20 too old to fight for his country? Many Government supporters have splendid records of military service to this country. Not one of them would wait to be conscripted in an hour of national emergency. Is this an hour of national emergency? Government supporters. - Yes. Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - Then the answer is up to Government supporters. No Government supporter should wish to conscript another and yet refuse to go himself. He should not shelter behind the body of another man. The Opposition does not believe that the steps proposed by the Government are necessary. If Government supporters believe they are necessary, then the duty is upon them to volunteer again for service in this hour of national emergency. What would be a greater inspiration to the people of Australia today than if those who now propose to conscript were to rise in their places this afternoon and walk to the recruiting offices, which are open? Let Government supporters first give a lead. Let them all volunteer. Some would be rejected on the ground of age. Some would be rejected on the ground of medical unfitness. Mr. Devine. - What about intelligence? Mr. ALLAN FRASER. - I am trying to keep the debate on a high level. But many Government supporters are fit and well. All are patriots. AH are ready to serve their country. All believe that this is an hour of national emergency. Why are they in their places here? Why do they not go out and offer themselves for service in the military forces of their country at £16 or £16 16s. a week as they are now requiring the 20 year olds to do? Mr. McMahon. - Is the honorable member clowning or is he sincere? Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- Of course I am sincere. There can be only one reason why the Minister would ask whether I am clowning. He does not think it is possible for anybody to believe that Government members would offer their services to the country in this situation because they know that the situation is not as they represent it to the Australian people. If not enough recruits are coming forward, what is the reason? I say there are more than enough recruits, but if there are not enough the reason is not far to seek. It certainly is not that young Australians are cowardly or lacking in faith in their country. It is certainly not that young Australians today are not as ready as their fathers and grandfathers were before them to serve their country. Australia has a unique record in two world wards. In World War I Australia twice voted against conscription for overseas service. Nevertheless, 350,000 Australians voluntarily enlisted and 60,000 gave their lives. No other country made a comparable effort in relation to its population, which was a little less than 5 million. Those men went to the other side of the world to fight in the firm belief that they were dying to save Australia from conquest. But now, 50 years later, the researches of historians place World War 1 in a different light. It begins to appear as a ghastly and avoidable mistake. Those who have seen the recent Australian Broadcasting Commission television series showing the dread conditions on the Somme and at Verdun will know afresh the incredible heroism and the agony of the ordinary men in uniform there, both on the German and on the allied sides. We have seen in this television series the mass slaughter of human beings ordered by generals and scenes of utmost misery and horror. The abiding impressions that those films give to everyone who sees them is, I am certain, one of pity at the epic tragedy and the epic futility of it all. Who, in the light of those films, ought not now to hesitate to denude Australia of its young manhood and to' put at risk the lives of scores of thousands of young Australians on foreign battlefields under other than Australian commanders when this country may need them in its defence? Who now believes in the sacredness of the cause for which young Australians were called upon to go out and fight in the Boer War or in the Sudan Campaign, or, to come much closer to the present, as honorable members would like me to do, in the Anglo-French attack on Egypt m 1958, which this Government so strongly supported and which led us to the brink of a world war? Who would trust this Government with unlimited power to conscript 20 year old Australians? Looking at World War II 20 years later, the need for resistance to agression was plain beyond doubt and the issue then certainly was freedom or servitude. From the moment that Japan entered the war Australians were unquestionably fighting for their own soil, even though they did not have to fight upon their own soil, thank God. In that emergency the Australian people, under the trusted and inspired leadership of John Curtin, accepted total mobilisation of manpower and resources and the extension of the area of military service. I venture to say that the present Prime Minister is unable, in anyone's judgment, to give the Australian people the trusted and inspiring leadership which John Curtin gave them in that emergency. Even then - this is very important when you are considering conscripting Australian youth for overseas service in peace time - troops sent to other commands from our shores were completely lost to the desperately needed defence of Australia. We remember the 8th Division in Singapore. Our 9th Division equally would have been lost - in Burma - to the defence of Australia if Churchill had had his way. The lessons of the past should be learned. Yet today, when no remotely comparable emergency exists, when Australia is both officially and actually at peace, this Government suddenly seeks powers even wider than any proposed in the most desperate hour of World War II. But they are much wider powers in one field only. In the Second World War when there was a real national emergency the total resources of this nation, both manpower and material, were mobilised. Today the Government has no proposal to deal with property, material or wealth. All it seeks to do is to mobilise and conscript manpower. That is its valuation of the national emergency which today confronts Australia. The Government proposes to seek unlimited power - I emphasise this - to conscript young Australians and to disperse them to the ends of the earth under other commands - not Australian commands - irrespective of the threat to Australia at any time. Very few people outside this House realise, because they have not seen the Bill, that there is no limitation whatever in the Government's proposal on the number in the prescribed age group which may be conscripted. There is no limitation on where they may be sent. There is no restriction on their use in wars to which Australia is not even a party. There is no restriction on placing them under any command, Australian or non-Australian. True, the Prime Minister has said that the Government intends to conscript 4,200 in 1965 and 6,900 in 1966 and subsequent years. But there is nothing to prevent him changing his mind because those figures are not in the Bill. Instead, what the Prime Minister seeks in the Bill is a blank cheque which he can fill in with as many Australian lives as he chooses or as he considers the situation necesitates Remember that yesterday this Government was completely opposed to conscription. Today it proclaims the need for limited conscription. Tomorrow it may equally well decide on total conscription. If it does, it will not need to come to the Parliament again. This Bill gives it the power to do as it likes on this question. This is the real issue before the Australian Parliament. In 1965 there will not be 4,200 youths of 20 years of age; there will be 94,000. In 1966 there will not be 6,900 youths of 20 years of age; there will be 106,000; and in 1967 there will be 109,000. This Bill will give the Government power to conscript all of them for service anywhere in the world. All may be conscripted for two years full time service in the Regular Army and, after that, three years in the Army Reserve - five years in all. Men may be required to begin that five years service up to age 26, In the case of deferments, and in some cases up to age 30. These facts should be known by every Australian elector and by everyone who is concerned with the issues that confront this country. I have shown that the voluntary system has not failed. Every Government statement until a week ago said the same thing. I have looked at dozens of them. The Minister for Army (Dr. Forbes) knows it to be true. If recruits were not offering in sufficient numbers, whose fault would it be? Would it be the fault of the youth of Australia, or would it be the fault of their elders? I think it is a tribute to our youth that they are prepared to volunteer at all for the military forces of this country when they see the cynical and destructive attitude adopted by the Prime Minister on every national issue on which the opportunity occurs to inspire Australian patriotism and love of country. It would be magnificent if we had a Kennedy or a Roosevelt, a man with that high sense of inspiration and patriotism. How far Australian leadership today falls short of the leadership given by John Curtin and Ben Chifley in time of war. How far Australian leadership today falls short even of the leadership given by Winston Churchill. When the young people of Australia additionally see the way in which the natural resources of this country arc being handed over to foreign ownership and foreign exploitation; when they see the open handed way in which foreign big business is being permitted and enabled to take over all Australian enterprise; when they see the encouragement of ruthless takeovers by big business which are proceeding in this country day after day; when they see the death blow dealt by this Government to Australian drama, music and literature - the very features which can inspire an Australian way of life - so that our children are exposed to a continual cacophony of foreign programmes, how can one expect to develop a spirit of Australian patriotism? It is magnificent that Australian youth has responded in the way it has. I think I have shown - I hope I have shown - that conscription is not necessary and that not one member of the Government parties was prepared to advocate it in this Parliament a week ago or to demand a vote upon it. Mr. Gibson. - Where was the honorable member? Mr. ALLAN FRASER.- If the honorable member for Denison will tell mc when he sought a vote on this issue I will be glad to correct my error. In the meantime, the Government's proposal is exposed as a deliberate attempt to create an atmosphere of hysteria and emotion for political reasons and for the purpose of winning a Senate election, but in the light of the devastating speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) on the defence statement, and in the light of the campaign now to be waged, that effort will fail. Dr. FORBES (Barker- Minister for the Army) [4.2]. - The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) frequently told the House that Australians had never hesitated to volunteer in an emergency. Nor have they, and nar will they again. But what the honorable gentleman and his party fail to realise is that we do not want to wait for a war to break out. They have not even appreciated that one of the principal ways of ensuring that a war does not break out is to have readily available forces of an adequate size in peacetime to deal immediately with situations which may escalate into something very much more serious. I refer honorable gentlemen opposite to the brilliant little operation that took place only two or three weeks ago when a party of Indonesians attempted to subvert the integrity of one of Australia's allies. The fact that we and our friends in the Commonwealth, including Malaysia, had on hand adequate forces immediately available to deal with that position in, as I have said, a brilliant operation, stamped out that attempt. Who knows what it would have escalated into if these forces had not been readily available to deal with it. The honorable gentleman has been attempting to get his party off the hook in this matter by making debating points about the military advice that the Government has received. Most of the views expressed by him and by other members of the Opposition have been based on sheer unadulterated fiction. So that the House and the country at large will have no doubts on this matter let me briefly state the position. It will be recalled that in May last year the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) announced that the strength of the Regular Army would be increased to 28,000 and that the aim was to reach this target by June this year. In addition, the strength of the Pacific Islands Regiment was to be doubled as soon as possible, consistent with adequate training and equipment, and the target strength of the Citizen Military Forces was to be increased to 35,000. These decisions were, of course, consistent with the strategic and manpower considerations put before the Government at that time by our expert military and diplomatic advisers. In the first months of 1964 - normally, I might say, a fruitful time for recruitment - it was beginning to be apparent that the Regular Army was falling behind in meeting its interim recruiting targets and would have difficulty in achieving its 1967 manpower objective unless something was done to stimulate recruiting. As a consequence, in May of this year, the Government further reviewed the situation against a background of continuing instability in South East Asia, which, of course, is the area of direct strategic significance to Australia. As a result, and again on the advice of its military experts, the Government decided to continue to rely on the voluntary principle for recruitment to the Services. To provide a stimulus in this direction, substantial pay rises and improved conditions for both regular and citizen military forces were introduced in May this year. It was hoped that these improvements, in spite of the rising tide of economic prosperity, would result in the necessary progressive build-up of the Regular Army to meet the then established targets and thus enable us to avoid certain obvious drawbacks in the introduction of any national service training scheme - the effect on efficiency and availability of the field force and the relatively limited period of effective service available from each national serviceman. At the same time, military advice was that a selective service scheme might become necessary if voluntary recruitment failed to meet the requirement. I repeat that: At the same time, military advice was that a selective service scheme might become necessary if voluntary recruitment failed to meet the requirement. I wish to emphasise that while these measures have not proved successful, they did bring about a stabilisation of the Regular Army and, in fact, enabled a small rise in strength to be achieved. Without these measures, it is not unlikely that, with rapidly rising employment we would have experienced a serious decline in Regular Army manpower, including officers, non-commissioned officers and specialists. This would not only have seriously impaired our ability to meet current commitments but - this applies particularly to the loss of officers, noncommissioned officers and specialists - it would have made the introduction of national service training in an emergency even more difficult. The very comprehensive defence review which the Government has just completed has now made it clear that our commitments cannot be met by adherence to the voluntary system of recruitment for the Regular Army. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, since strict targets for the Regular Army were last established and the subsequent review this year, there has been a further deterioration of the strategic situation in South East Asia, and, to meet our commitments, we are not only aiming to increase our target for the Regular Army, but we also propose to accelerate the rate of build-up to the new target. Secondly, the rising tide of prosperity and employment has created a situation in which it is apparent that we shall be unable to reach even the target set down in 1963 by relying on volunteers to fill the deficiencies in the Regular Army. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) stated as a positive fact that we could meet this target by voluntary means. I ask honorable members to bear in mind the figures I am about to quote. To achieve a target of 28,000 by 1967 - not 33,000 by the end of 1966 - we would need to achieve an enlistment of 3,800 in 1964-65, 3,550 in 1965-66, and 3,700 in 1966-67. These figures allow for normal wastage, but any short fall in any year would, of course, add to the requirement in the following years. Let me set that against what we have actually achieved in the last three years. In 1961-62, our enlistments totalled 2,661. In 1962-63 they numbered 2,475, and in 1963-64 they totalled 2,240. So that our enlistments averaged about 2,500 a year against a minimum annual requirement of 3.500. It will be' obvious, therefore, that notwithstanding the special measures taken, a very large gap appeared certain. In fact, our best estimates are that a net gain of only 750 a year could be expected. This would give us a total of 24,900 in June 1967, against the required 28,000. It was therefore quite obvious that for the acceleration of the build-up to 33,000 by December 1966, voluntary enlistment alone was insufficient. In view of this situation, and in spite of the difficulties inherent in the transition from the voluntary to the national service system to which I have already referred, if our commitments are to be met, we have no alternative to introducing national service now. This is the view of our military advisers, and the Government accepts it. Honorable members opposite have not made it clear - the honorable member for Eden-Monaro was very careful to avoid this point - whether they agree with the Government and its military advisers that, in the face of a deteriorating situation in South East Asia we should achieve an effective Regular Army of 33,000 by the end of 1966. They, of course, have been so busy attempting to pin on the Government the charge that it is introducing compulsory service for electoral purposes that none of them has paused to ask himself whether the safety of this country demands a larger Army. I would have thought that at a time like this a responsible Opposition would have looked beyond the party political situation and the debating points to the safety and security of our country. No-one is better than the honorable member for Eden-Monaro at making debating points. In fact, his speech consisted of nothing but debating points from beginning to end. But let us be charitable. Let us assume that honorable members opposite have assessed the situation in a responsible fashion and agree with the Government and its military advisers that the Regular Army must be increased substantially and quickly. Where, then, do they stand? They say they are opposed to compulsory service, root and branch. Why? In a minute, I shall have something to say as to why they say they oppose it; why the honorable member for Eden-Monaro said they oppose it. At this point I want first to indicate why they really oppose it. They oppose it because they believe it will be unpopular with the Australian people; because they think it will bring them a few votes. Why do they think it will be unpopular? They hold that belief because they are prisoners of outworn dogmas and because they are living in the past. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the speech just delivered by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro where he talked of 1917. He said that conscription had been the subject of a referendum in 1917, and that the Government therefore had no right to bring it in now. But in 1917 we were still not an independent nation in our own right; we were protected by the British Navy; the making of wars was the exclusive preserve of the nations of Europe, and wars were fought on the other side of the world. Things have moved on since then. We are now a proud and independent nation in our own right. We live in the most turbulent and changing part of the world. We have a responsibility to play a mature part in the security and well being of the South East Asian region. Even if the minds and hearts of members of the Labour Party are still festering and stagnating in the mould of 1917, I do not believe that those of the majority of Australians - particularly young Australians - are. But let me leave for the moment the Labour Party's true reason for opposing compulsory service and come to its stated reason, which is, that compulsory service is unnecessary because the required numbers can be obtained by voluntary means. This suggestion is worthy of the closest examination, because the Labour Party's whole publicly stated case rests on this point The honorable member for Eden.Monaro said that compulsory service is unnecessary because the required manpower can be obtained by voluntary means and, presumably, in the time required. Mr. Speaker, if this argument can be exposed as the ignorant, damaging nonsense that I believe it to be then the Labour Party's true motive lies open in all its naked ugliness for everyone to see. The argument takes two forms. I hope I am representing the honorable gentleman correctly. The first is that the Array has a high wastage rate and that if only the Government would improve conditions of service sufficiently discontent would disappear and the strength of the Army would climb rapidly. One would have thought that before putting forward such an argument the honorable gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and the Deputy Leader (Mr. Whitlam), who have all made the same point, would have attempted to find out what the Army's wastage rate really was. Perhaps they did not want to find out because this made a good argument. For some years now wastage from all causes in the Regular Army - from death, retirement, medical unfitness, failure to reengage and so on - has been less than 10 per cent, of the Army's total strength annually. Within that percentage the re-engagement rate has been pushing 70 per cent, in recent years. I challenge anyone to show me any large employing organisation in Australia, whether it be a private firm or a government department, which does much better than this. What has been achieved reflects great credit both on the conditions of service created by the Government and the administration of the Army. We are determined to do better, but in the light of such figures it is utterly irresponsible for the Opposition to suggest that it could make much impact on the numbers in the Army. The second and principal argument used by the honorable member and the Leader of the Opposition to support their root and branch opposition to compulsory service is that the numbers can be obtained by accepting a larger proportion of the applicants for the Regular Army than is at present being accepted; that is by accepting applicants who arc now rejected. This, above everything is a reflection, I believe, of the ignorance of honorable gentlemen opposite of the modern Army. They reflect the contemptuous view that anyone who is no good for anything else can be shovelled into the Army. If they had cared to make a few inquiries they would have found that the standards for enlistment which now apply were first laid down in 1943 by a Labour government. These standards were forged out of the experience of war, which proved conclusively that a man who did not reach these standards was an administrative liability, a danger to the lives of his comrades and a risk to morale. Every examination which has been made since confirms this view. I hasten to add that these standards are not very high. Contrary to the impression that some people have tried to create, the Army does not require people to have a university degree. Army studies to determine the levels of intelligence and literacy needed by a recruit to absorb basic military training have consistently shown that a recruit with a mental age of 11 years and 9 months or less is unable to learn basic military skills or to adjust to the Army environment. Illiterate or near-illiterate recruits, particularly those with a below average intelligence, have extreme difficulty in absorbing instruction. The present minimum levels of acceptance in intelligence and literacy are based on these studies. They represent, in intelligence, a mental age of under 12 years and, in general literacy skills, a standard expected at an educational age of 10 years. I might add, Sir, that I have tried these tests on my 10 year old and 8 year old daughters. They are both average students in their proper grades at a small, country primary school. Both reached the minimum level for acceptance into the Regular Army without any difficulty. Despite the establishment of minimum levels as guide lines, in the normal course of events no applicant is rejected on educational grounds alone if he is capable of benefiting by further education. The Army Education Service has had some outstanding results in recent years, and further education is an important part of the training of recruits at the recruit training battalion at Kapooka. Eighty per cent, of all recruits entering Kapooka are below intermediate certificate standard. Of this 80 per cent., as a result of the further education that is given to them by the Army 85 per cent, reach Army certificate standard, which is first year high school standard, before they finish at Kapooka. It stands to reason that in a society where practically all young people are compelled to undertake at least 10 years of schooling few people that have not reached the educational standard of a 10 year old will, when they present themselves at the recruiting centre at the age of 17 or greater, be capable of benefiting by further education. The fact is that a large proportion of the flotsam and jetsam of Australian society finds its way into the recruiting offices. These people are not a representative cross-section of society. For example, in the representative cross section of the community that will come out of the ballot under this scheme, 3 to 4 per cent, will fail to reach the intelligence level demanded by the Army, yet 10 to 16 per cent, of Army applicants have a mental age of less than 12 years. School leaving ages vary between 15 and 16 years, yet 10 to 20 per cent, of applicants are rejected as not having achieved the literary skills commensurate with an educational age of 10 years. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that there is such a high rejection rate. The acceptance of these people into the Army is the only suggestion advanced by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro and the Leader of the Opposition to support the Labour Party's contention that 12,000 men can be found for the Army by voluntary means in the next two years. This is how they justify their opposition to compulsory service - by the wholesale abandonment of standards which their own Government found necessary for the forging of an effective fighting Army, and this in the context of an Army which has become more complex with more sophisticated weapons and equipment, than when these minimum standards were laid down in 1943. I cannot imagine anything more utterly irresponsible. I remind the House than the Labour Party has based the whole of the justification for its opposition to compulsory service on this. I believe that the attitude of the Opposition is exposed as the politically opportunist, doctrinaire sham that it is. Few people have done more than I have to point out that compulsory service has its disadvantages from a military point of view because of the inevitably short period of service after training. I have no need to reiterate these disadvantages because honorable gentlemen opposite have done it for me. They think they are clever for quoting me as having said something about the disadvantages of compulsory service training which everybody knows or should know, because it came to them with the flash of a blinding revelation. This is why honorable members opposite enjoyed getting up and quoting it so much. They have never heard this before. My honorable friends on this side of the House have known this for years. But what I want to say is that the Australian people do not believe they are clever because they know, as the Government does, that there comes a time when the best becomes the enemy of the good - when the strategic situation worsens to the point where the disadvantages must be accepted in order to obtain an Army of the required size. As I said in Hobart when addressing the Returned Servicemen's League congress in the part of my speech which honorable members opposite will not quote because it does not suit their purposes - I hasten to emphasise that all this means is that an Army composed entirely of long-term volunteers is a better one than one based on a mixture of volunteers and conscripts. This of course, as you would readily appreciate, is not the only fact which has to be taken into account. Against such a conclusion, you have to set the size of the Army you require to meet the strategic situation at any particular time. If you cannot get volunteers you have to ask yourself whether it is better to have an understrength volunteer Army or one which, despite the difficulties created, has been brought up to strength by conscription. This will depend on a careful weighing of all the factors in the light of the strategic situation at any particular point in time. I can assure you that this sort of assessment is continuously undertaken by the Government. It was undertaken by the Government. Finally, let me say a word about the equity of selective service. All selective schemes are inequitable by their very nature. They cannot be anything else. Yet behind this talk of inequity lies the assumption, stated or implied, that those who are selected will suffer a disadvantage compared with those who are not selected. I want to place on record my strongly held conviction that they will not suffer. They will, it is true, have to interrupt their chosen careers for two years. But set against that they will have inculcated into them the qualities of self-reliance, selfdiscipline, initiative and the capacity to get on with all sorts of people. I know few people who returned from the last war who did not, as a result of their Army experience, go further in life than they otherwise would have done. I am confident that the same will be true of our selective service soldiers. Indeed, I believe that the Army is an even better place for inculcating the qualities which will stand a young man in good stead in later life than it was in 1939-45. I wish to place on record my sincerely held belief that the great majority of young men who serve under this scheme will regard themselves, not as the unfortunate ones, but as the fortunate ones. Mr. E. JAMES HARRISON (Blaxland) [4.39]. - I can well understand the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) coming into this debate this afternoon, using the type of language that he used and attempting to cover up his own real thinking on the question that he had to discuss having regard to some of the things that he has said on numerous occasions this year. I cannot help but remember what he said in August last during the Budget debate. I quote from page 439 of "Hansard" of this session where Dr. Forbes, speaking of compulsory service, is reported to have said - We have not introduced it because to do so would be against the unanimous advice of our military advisers. Why do our military advisers give that advice, and why do we accept it? Last night the honorable member for Bradfield rather mocked at the proposition that any Government should pay heed to or accept the advice of its military advisers in regard to such matters. I do not agree with him on this . . . This was said by the Minister who just resumed his seat. Before he has a chance to leave the chamber, I want to hurl back into his teeth the insult that he threw to every decent Australian who has enlisted in the last 15 years under this Government by saying that only the flotsam and jetsam of society volunteer for Army service. Dr. Forbes. - I did not say anything of the tort. Mr. E. JAMES HARRISON.- That is what he said. That is what will appear in "Hansard". I wrote it down as he said it. It is an insult to every Australian who has volunteered for service under his Government to use the term " flotsam and jetsam " when speaking of them. The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself for using such language in a debate such as this. I say to those honorable members who sit behind him that if they stand for that kind of language it is no wonder that the people of this country disapprove of this kind of Government and refrain from enlisting in the armed forces. I say that the use of that term by a Minister when speaking of those who have volunteered for the armed services in this country is a standing disgrace and will go on record to show this Minister for what he is for as long as he is the Minister and a member of the Government in this country. Honorable members should have a look at " Hansard " tomorrow. The Minister made this statement and any member who can sit behind him and not feel as I do about it is not Australian minded. Let us come to the subject of the debate. This Bill, in point of fact, is not a national service bill at all. It is a bill designed to gather for the Army the type of Australian artisan that the Army itself is not prepared to train. This is the real root of the trouble with our enlistment figures in Australia today. It is no use the Minister or any member of the Government rising in his place and saying that the voluntary system is at fault. It is the approach of the Government and of the Services to the young men of Australia that is at fault. We have a great vacuum of young Australians looking for work every year. Let us get the facts clear. Let us take, for instance, what happened at the beginning of this year. It is an irony of fate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) is forced to bring in this type of legislation. Let us look at the figures for the number of young males under 21 years of age who were looking for. work in the last month of 1963 and in the first three months of this year. I am now quoting from the records of the Minister for Labour and National Service. At the 24th December 1963 we had in Australia 19,200 juniors under 21, registered as looking for employment. In January 1964 we still had 18,056 registered as looking for employment. These figures do not relate to young boys looking for career appointments. They relate to young boys leaving school and looking for constant employment. At the end of February 1964 there were still 10,416 and at the end of March, after they had spent four months looking for work in this country, we still had 7,123 young men under 21 seeking work. Not one of those young men was approached on the basis that there was a career waiting for him in the interests of Australia as a permanent Army man, with a career set out in writing indicating what was offering to him. That is where the failure lies. The failure lies in the system and not in the young AustraIian Last Saturday night I watched the " Four Corners" programme on Channel 2 and I heard some dear old lady, whom the producers of the programme had approached, say that conscription was a good thing and that at least the young men concerned would get their hair cut. That is another insult being hurled at young Australians because they are not given national leadership. I approach this measure deeply conscious that conscription is unnecessary and that we are dealing with a measure that could undermine Australia's future requirements. That is the basis of my approach. Not so long ago the Minister for Labour and National Service made great appeals to the trade union movement in relation to the need for skilled tradesmen in Australia. He wanted to introduce a scheme to train tradesmen in two years. It is remarkable that that period of training coincides with the period of training that we are now talking about. I want to quote a statement that the Minister made in his second reading speech on this Bill. I am sorry that the Minister for the Army has left the chamber, because this is the kind of thinking in which he should be indulging. The Minister for Labour and National Service said - The Army requires trained people - tradesmen, doctors and engineers - for its specialist functions. It will be in the interests of the apprentices and the university students to get their training completed - to be qualified - so that they may take up their careers on return from service. Mr. James. - Who said that? Mr. E. JAMES HARRISON. - The Minister for Labour and National Service. What a tragedy! Only one really objective statement was made by the Minister for the Army in his speech that has been talked about so much in this chamber - the speech that he made to the National Congress of the Returned Servicemen's League. The Minister said - So, conscription or no conscription, we are still faced with a major problem. How do we persuade young men of at least average ability that the Army is a worthwhile career? This is the difficult problem, the challenging problem - not conscription, which is a problem which can be solved by the simple process of amending a few Acts of Parliament In my view, that was the only time that the Minister was on the ball. It is a challenging problem to determine what kind of offer we will make. The unemployment position in December of this year will be the same as it was in December last year. When we look at the unemployment figures that will be published by the Minister for Labour and National Service shortly after the end of December this year, we will find that the number of junior males registered for employment will be about the same as the number at the end of December last year, namely 19,200. I leave aside all the young men who put their names down at places other than offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service as seeking jobs. I also leave aside all the young men who have promises of jobs. Will the Government send each of the young men who are registered for employment a Christmas card saying: " Here is an opportunity for you to launch yourself on a career. Here is a training ground which you will leave as a tradesman?" Is private enterprise more competent, in the Minister's view, to train young men for skilled employment than is any system that can be established within the Services? The Minister for the Army has twitted the Labour Party with living in the past and with relying on the dogma of years gone by. Let me throw back in his teeth his statement that the principle that we are discussing was established in 1943. In 15 years under the Menzies Government not one thing has been done to ensure that the 19,200 young men who will be available for employment in December will have an opportunity to embark on a career. At this stage 1 have in mind a young apprentice who will finish his apprenticeship in the year after next at the age of 19 years and three months. In his last year, as a journeyman in the employ of the Commonwealth, he will be earning not less than the basic rate of £15 8s. plus £5 6s. a week. Bonuses are now being handed out in the department in which he is employed. Then the Government will say to him: "You have been a good boy. You have done well. You are intelligent. You are now a tradesman. We will now call you up and pay you £16 16s. a week. We will kill your future opportunities." That makes me think of what the Apprenticeship Commission of Victoria said in its annual report for the year ended 30th June 1964. The Commission said - Over the years the apprenticeship system in Victoria has provided industry with skilled craftsmen who are not inferior in skill and adaptability to (hose of other countries. Unfortunately we are not training enough of them and we are not attracting enough of the better qualified youths to fill the future requirements for the technicians which technical progress demands. But the Government has not done one thing along those lines. I smiled when the Minister for Labour and National Service spoke about a school that he established. That is the Government's only achievement in 15 years. It set up some kind of a school at which students will attain the first year high school standard. Will the Minister or any other honorable member on the Government side of the House tell me that the 19,200 junior males who were registered for employment at the end of December last year were the flotsam and jetsam of society or the people to whom the old lady was referring when she said: "It is time we called them up and cut their hair "? Is that the kind of thinking that we have now in the community, right up to the level of the Government? Have we not any appreciation at all of,, first of all, Australia's defence needs? Fancy talking in terms of calling up 4,000 young men, when a potential enemy immediately to our north has hundreds of millions of people. Remember that Perth is 500 miles closer to Djakarta than to Sydney. Are they the people against whom we are supposed to defend ourselves? The Government intends to call up a mere 4,000 conscripts and intermingle them with volun teers who are the flotsam and jetsam of society, according to the Minister for the Army. Who is living in the past? This Government, in its whole programme, is living so far in the past that it does not realise that what is needed in 1964 is different from what was needed in 1941, 1942 and 1943. The blame for the Government not giving some attention to this question falls not so much on the head of the present Minister for the Army as on the heads of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies), the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) and the other Ministers who have been in the Ministry longer than the Minister for the Army has. All that the Government intends to do under this legislation is conscript a percentage of our young men. The percentage is not very large; but, as the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) pointed out, this is a commencement. What will happen if the figure of 4,000 is not enough next year or in 1966? Will the figure keep on rising? Who is the Government conscripting? It is conscripting the apprentices of whom I spoke, the lads who will sacrifice £5 or £6 a week. They will not be trained in the Army. That is obvious from the comments that the Minister for Labour and National Service made. He said that young men will be called up at 20 years of age because at that age they will have finished their apprenticeships. He said blatantly in his second reading speech that it is the tradesmen, the doctors and the engineers that the Services want. If that is the position, why are not the Services training young men in those fields? Why does not the Government write to every one of the 19,200 young males who will be registered for employment in December this year and tell them that here is a career in which they will be trained instead of having to wait until March or April next year when about 10,000 of them will still be walking the streets looking for jobs? Are they the long-haired young fellows who will have their hair cut if they go into the Army, as the lady who appeared in last Saturday night's " Four Corners " programme said? Are they the flotsam and jetsam to which the Minister for the Army referred today, merely because they walk the streets looking for a job? Is that the kind of thinking that we will have to suffer for all time under the Menzies Government? The time has arrived in every field - especially in the Air Force and to some extent in the Navy - for the Services to be training grounds. What is done at present does not go far enough. Why should the parents of a child have to carry him through the first two years of an apprenticeship? Remember that after apprenticeship has been completed, a journeyman still receives less than the rate paid to a junior girl when she enters the Commonwealth Public Service in Canberra? The whole framework of Australia's programme of training, including the approach to the need for skilled tradesmen and for the technicians who are wanted in the Services, needs to be completely overhauled. Instead of undertaking an overhaul the Government has decided that it will not have a national service training scheme like the previous one, which trained youths of 17 and 18. In the minds of members of this Government, the training of youths aged from 17 to 20 is wasteful. The reason for this attitude is that this Administration wants the sacrifice to be made by the individual, not by the nation. The sacrifice is to be made by the individual who gives his time in training. What is a young fellow who is a member of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen to do? Is he to be pulled out of the service of the railways when he has been trained and is a qualified tradesman and would be of some service? Is he then to be dragged into the Army for two years and to have his seniority and everything else that applies to his railway service set aside? He would do far more for our defence effort if he were to remain in the railways than he can do if he is pulled into the Army by some military authority. The Minister for Labour and National Service, in a letter dated 23rd October 1964, answered some requests that I had made for information about the true position concerning the availability of tradesmen in Australia and the need for the training of apprentices. This relates to the training of doctors, tradesmen and engineers, who, according to the Minister, are the sort of people we need to train. The Minister, in his letter, referred to the number of youths registered for apprenticeship and the number of apprenticeship vacancies. I ask honorable members to bear in mind that these are registrations, not for the Army, but for careers as tradesmen. The letter stated - The largest demand was in Victoria, where there were 7S0 vacancies and 42 youths registered. The corresponding figures in the other States were: New South Wales - 247 vacancies, 73 youths registered; Queensland - 125 vacancies, 26 youths registered; . . . Maybe the youths of Australia today are flotsam and jetsam in the eyes of the Minister for the Army. Have we reached a stage at which our entire education system is completely failing? If we have, the blame lies at the door of the Prime Minister, who refuses to do anything worthwhile to remedy the situation. Have we reached a stage at which our whole education system is crumbling because we cannot educate our youths sufficiently well to fit them to become apprentices? Have we reached a stage at which our education system is not capable of producing youth sufficiently trained even to be fit for service in our Army? If such a stage has been reached, the blame lies at the door of the present Government, which, for 1 S years, has been guilty of maladministration in matters of education. I participate in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, subject to great fears about what the Government is attempting to do in terms of these proposals. I believe that what it is attempting to do will tend to destroy the very fabric that would make this the great nation that it ought to be in our part of the Pacific region. What the Government now proposes will release the Army from any further need to 'think about establishing an educational programme of its own. That is a need that has existed ever since this Government took office. The Army will now be free to refuse to do anything about training its own engineers, doctors and tradesmen. It expects those who are training themselves in these fields to make the sacrifice, in the words of one Minister. They are to provide for their own training and then will be called up willy nilly. Their future careers will be blasted as a consequence. Let us not forget that an apprentice, at the end of his apprenticeship, ought to be able to make a start immediately on his career in life. If he does not, it is ten to one on that his apprenticeship will be valueless to him for all time. It is of no use for Minister for Labour and National Service to talk about a young man having a job to go back to after his military service. If he is not able to take up his career on completing his apprenticeship, he will not have a job to go back to. The Victorian railways have advertised in the Press today seeking tradesmen. Fewer than 50 per cent, of those whom that service trains this year will remain with it when they have finished their training. The majority will move into other industries. There are two reasons for this. First, they will be wanted in other industries. Secondly, they will not be wanted in the Victorian railways. The lives of apprentices will be blasted by their compulsory military service. Many of them will not have jobs to go back to. Even if they had, the two years spent on military service would not help to fit them for consideration for promotion. This Government believes in seniority by selectivity, not seniority by service. This is a bill that provides for the conscription for military service of those who should be making a real contribution in civilian life to the development of this nation in the years that lie ahead. But that is not all. This Government does not want to give leadership to the youths of this country. It is not really concerned about whether they get their hair cut or anything else, lt is content to let them float about as they will. Let me repeat - it cannot be repeated too often - that, at 31st December last, 19,200 young men under the age of 21 were looking for jobs. Yet they were offered not one ray of hope by any of the Services or any of the Service Ministers. This is a standing disgrace to a government that talks at the present time of wanting young men in the Services and conscripting them as soon as their apprenticeships are finished. I never believed that I would like to see the day when a Minister would come into this chamber and chide trade unions and trade unionists for refusing to accept a proposal to water down trade training schemes by a scheme for the training of adult tradesmen in two years. The same Minister who made that proposal has now brought in this conscription Bill to deprive the Australian nation of the tradesmen, engineers and doctors who could be trained if young people were allowed to continue their careers, though, of course, they have to make great sacri fices to achieve the status that such training gives them. This approach is typical of the thinking of the present Government. The Minister for Labour and National Service has chided us on this side of the Parliament with living in the past. He is mouthing words merely to try to cover up the Government's own sins. Mr. Jess. - How was the honorable member affected? Mr. E. JAMES HARRISON. - I shall tell the honorable member how I would effect what is required. First, I would not have 19,200 men looking for jobs at the end of December each year. As I have said, that was the number looking for work at the end of December last year. I believe in the defence of this country just as much as the honorable member does. 1 would ensure the best possible defence effort by providing those who wish to go into the forces with worthwhile careers. I would give them proper training and education. I would enable them, when they left the forces, to go into industry much better qualified for having been in the forces. That is the kind of thing that should be done. That is one of the respects in which this Government falls down on its job every day of every week. No government in the free world has ever maligned itself so much as this Government has done by introducing the Bill now before us. I wonder just what the officers of the Department of Labour and National Service think about the measure. The Department has been hammering at the trade unions for the last two years and trying to get them to take certain action in relation to apprenticeships. Now, its own Minister has introduced into the Parliament a Bill designed to do only one thing - to deplete further the trained industrial forces of this nation. When I was only 14, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I won a prize for an essay explaining the reasons why Australians should not have been sent overseas for service in the 1914-18 war. I heard a speaker on the Government side of the chamber mention Switzerland earlier. That reference underlines the thinking of this Government. There are considerable differences between Switzerland and Australia. A young, rapidly developing country like Australia cannot afford to lose the flower of its youth, which is its future bulwark. According to the way we treat our youth, we shall receive our return. When I see legislation of this kind, which provides for a defence contribution on a selective basis, I wonder whether we ever learn anything from history. Are we or are we not living in times in which there will be an atomic war? On Thursday, I heard the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Gray) read a statement that had been made in 1925 by a great general, who said that horses would always play a part in war. I venture to say that horses would show more talent in serving the needs of this country than some Ministers are showing at present. Have we forgotten that the last war finished with the first blaze of atomic warfare? Have we forgotten that during the last war Australian manpower was needed in Australia, not in Egypt? Have we forgotten what the Labour Government had to do to defend this country? It had to bring our troops home against the advice of Roosevelt and Churchill. It is here in this country that Australians are needed most at every level. They are needed, first, for the defence of Australia; secondly, to maintain production in Australia to keep our defences secure; and thirdly, to train the future generations. The Army now says that it wants to conscript the skilled tradesmen.I repeat what I said earlier: The Army should go out and convince the youth of Australia that a career is available in the Army. At the end oflast year, 19,200 men under 21 years of age were registered for employment with the Department of Labour and National Service. Of these, 7,123 were still registered for employment at the end of March 1964. They were walking the streets looking for work and they were reporting week after week to the Department. Many of them would have volunteered for service in the Army if they had known that they could find a career there. This is where the Government has failed. It is not sufficient merely to keep a record of those who are looking for work. I throw back in his teeth the statement made by the Minister for the Army. These people who are unemployed are not flotsam and jetsam. They are the young Australians who will make Australia great. Wecannot sit back and let legislation such as this pass without giving some thought to where it will lead. The Minister was right in one statement he made, and it is worth repeating his words. He said - So, conscription or no conscription, we are still faced with a major problem. How do we persuade young men of at least average ability that the Army is a worthwhile career? I tell the Minister that we should do this first by making the Army a worthwhile career. We should offer these young men training that will make the Army attractive to them. We should go to the 19,200 men who will be looking for work at the end of this year and say to them: "The Army offers you a career". The Minister for the Army is a young Minister in the making and I hope that he will not be wedged down by the thinking of those who have been in the Ministry during the past 15 years and who should now have left it. They did not do anything to improve the training that is offered by the Army. The Minister for the Army also said - This is the difficult problem, the challenging problem - not conscription which is a problem which can be solved by the simple process of amending a few Acts of Parliament. We are in the process of amending a few acts of Parliament, but all we are doing is to hand out insults to the young Australians who will be looking for work at the end of the year. We are handing out an insult to every man who registers for work with the Department of Labour and National Service. These men ask: " Can you find me a job?" We should say: " Here is a job in the Army. This is your future. Our training will make you a better fitter than the man who has served his five years' apprenticeship. We will train you as a doctor, because we want you. We will train you as an engineer. Just come to us and we will give you the opportunity to train in the career you want." If the Army had that sort of approach, the problem facing the Minister would be swept aside by the end of the year, and it would not be necessary to introduce conscription in a free country such as ours. Dr. Forbes. - I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Failes). - Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Dr. Forbes. - Yes. The honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) alleged in various way during his speech that when 1 spoke I said that volunteers for the Army were the flotsam and jetsam of society. I said - The fact is that a large proportion of the flotsam and jetsam of Australian society find their way into the recruiting office. Mr. NIXON (Gippsland) [4.59].- The defence statement made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) last Tuesday night has, in my opinion, been received with general acclaim throughout Australia. The statement announced the introduction of national service training. This has been introduced with a sense of responsibility and through recognition of the responsibility that the Government has for the defence of Australia. Unfortunately, an emotional atmosphere has been created and now surrounds the National Service Bill. This atmosphere has been created by the Opposition, which, in my belief, has in view the election that will be held on 5th December next. The Opposition is trying to whip up opposition to the Bill. After reading the leading articles in many national newspapers, my firm belief is that the national service training concept has been received well. It is also my belief that on 5th December the people of Australia will again register their confidence in the measures taken by the Government to defend Australia. Opposition members have used such emotional expressions as " playing with lives " and " playing Russian roulette with the youth of Australia ". These expressions are highly emotional and should be examined carefully. I want to come right back to taws and examine the proposition without emotion and with a proper sense of responsibility. The Government has an obligation to defend Australia. This obligation was recognised by the electors at the elections held one year ago. They felt that the defence of Australia could be safely left in the hands of this Government and it therefore has a mandate to examine and to re-examine the defences of Australia at any time the need to do so arises. It also has obligations under the S.E.A.T.O and A.N.Z.U.S. treaties. As a responsible Government, it recognises its obligations and it is in the light of the present international situation that the Government has decided to introduce national service training. It has decided to increase, by one means or another, the number of members in the armed forces. It cannot be claimed that this review of our defences is a new concept. The Opposition claims that the Government is always reviewing the defence position. This may be so. But the continually changing international situation requires constant and immediate review. The Government is not frightened to face up to its responsibilities and it is willing to review the situation as the need to do so arises. Every time a defence review has been made, our defences have been improved. This has been so during the 15 years that this Government has been in office. Changes have been made in equipment and many millions of pounds have been spent on new equipment. The equipment now available to the Services is as modern as that possessed by any other nation. The Prime Minister's statement was made in the light of the present international situation. During the course of the past few years, the Army has made continuous efforts to increase the number of servicemen in the Australian Regular Army. Defence reviews in the past have resulted in increased rates of pay, improved fringe benefits and better publicity campaigns throughout Australia. This has all been aimed at increasing the number of recruits for the Australian Regular Army and encouraging people to make a career of service in the Army. This is desirable. Despite all these efforts, the number of members of the Permanent Army has not exceeded 22,500. So the Government, looking coldly at the situation, has decided to introduce national service training. The Australian Labour Party objects to national service training, and I want to look at the basis of the objection. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) said that the Australian Labour Party was opposed to national service trainees serving overseas in peacetime. Just what does this mean? It seems to me that this statement is quite ambiguous. It does not clearly define the attitude of the Labour Party to general conscription or national service training. It seems to me that Labour has shifted its ground somewhat on this subject', because Labour has historically been opposed to national service training. Let us look back to 1951. I have with me an article from the "Sydney Morning Herald" of 12th February 1951 which states - In Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia the (Labour Party) " machine " has declared its outright support of compulsory military training. On 3rd March of that year the then leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Chifley, rejected the idea of compulsory military service. At the Federal Conference which followed the Labour Party rejected the idea of national service training. Mr. Clyde Cameron. - What year was this? Mr. NIXON.- 1951. The honorable member should be fully aware of the position. Mr. Clyde Cameron. - I am, and I know that what the honorable member is saying is not correct. Mr. NIXON. - The honorable member can refute it when he makes his speech, and I will apologise if I am wrong. Earlier than this another leader of the Labour Party, Mr. John Curtin, introduced compulsory military training. This was flung fair in the face of members of the Labour Party of that time who attacked the principle of national service training. This was in wartime. Many Australians can say: " Thank goodness Labour had a leader of the stature of the late John Curtin ". The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) did not agree with what John Curtin did at that time. I quote now an excerpt from a speech he made at the time. He said - I believe that ultimately the Labour Party will become anti-conscriptionist again. I am hopeful that, even if this bill be passed, the Government will not put it into operation. I trust that if it reaches the statute book it will become a dead letter. Fortunately for Australia John Curtin pressed on with what he considered was a necessary measure, in the context of the time, to defend Australia. Here we have a historical situation. The Opposition in this Parliament - the alternative government - has what T would call a historical attitude against national service training. Despite all this there has been no clear statement by any Opposition spokesman on this Bill, or on the Defence Bill 1964, about national service training in general. Honorable members opposite have talked about service overseas. I have gone to the trouble of looking up the Federal platform of the Australian Labour Party, but I can find no mention whatever of whether or not the Labour Party is for or against national service training. Let us examine the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that he is against national service trainees serving overseas in peacetime. The crux of this whole question is the expression " in peacetime ". In my opinion we are either at peace or at war; there is no half-way position. Surely if we are at peace no one's life is at stake. The Leader of the Labour Party objects to national service trainees serving overseas in time of peace. Where does all this lottery of death, and playing Russian roulette, to which he referred, come in? I take it that if we were at war the Opposition would not be opposed to national service training. Not one member of the Opposition has said anything about the situation in war; they talk about men serving overseas in peacetime. I have made my point about peacetime; there is no risk to life in peacetime. Honorable members opposite have not said whether they would be opposed to national service training if we were at war, so where do they stand? Let us have a clear definition of what they mean. Let us take this a stage further. If the Labour Party supports national service training during war, whose is the war? Can I take it that the Labour Party would be prepared to back national service training if there were any sort of a war - any nation at war? This Government has a completely defined attitude on this subject. Where this Government stands is expressed in precise terms and one can understand and can interpret what the Government wants. We have our commitments under A.N.Z.U.S. and S.E.A.T.O. and, as far as I am concerned as a supporter of this Government, we have to demonstrate not only to the Australian people but to the other countries in these treaties that we are prepared to defend Australia. If we expect assistance from the other parties to the treaties WC have to show that we are prepared to assist ourselves. What right have we as a nation to expect the United States of America, for instance, to send its national service trainees into Asia? An interesting point on this is that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) said that no United States national service trainees have been in Asia. I want to nail this on the head for a start. National service trainees from the United States have, for many years, been in Vietnam continuously. This is further evidence of the inaccurate statements we have come to expect from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If we are not prepared to introduce national service training how can we expect our great and powerful friend, the United States, to use her national service trainees in the defence of Australia under the obligations of the treaties we have? The Opposition's position is completely confusing. Honorable members opposite have tried to whip up electoral emotion. They want conscription to become an issue during the campaign for the forthcoming Senate election. This is most unworthy of them. It is our duty to defend Australia. This is the first and prime consideration this Government must have. We have made our situation perfectly clear. We have taken the advice of our military advisers to introduce national service training. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) and the honorable member for Blaxland (Mr. E. James Harrison) both said that no military advice was given to the Government to introduce national service training. What they were trying to say was that the Government introduced national service training, simply and purely because of the forthcoming election campaign. This also wants nailing on the head. This Government is a responsible Government and it would not go so far as to introduce national service training without accepting the advice of its military advisers. This proposal for national service training has side benefits that are not completely apparent. First, there is provision that those persons who are serving in the Citizen Military Forces, or those who register for service in the C.M.F., will not, within 12 months of registration for service, be obliged to participate in national service training. I believe this will encourage many young men to look at the CM.F. with new eyes. I believe it will encourage them to join the CM.F. This will be another means of increasing Australia's defence potential. I am convinced that having looked at this provision many a man will say: " I will serve out five years in the C.M.F.". As I see it, another side benefit of the Bill is that national service trainees will come to know what the Army is all about. Despite the publicity campaigns of past years it is very hard for a young man to really know what an Army career offers. I think that after two years of national service training many young men will transfer to the Australian Regular Army because they will find to their sudden surprise that the Army offers good pay, good conditions and good opportunities for advancement. Australia has always had a different attitude to its soldiers in peacetime. We have not the same traditions of Army service as the United Kingdom, for instance, has. Australians have always 'been great soldiers. They are recognised as among the best soldiers in the world. However, in peacetime there is no inclination by many of our great soldiers to continue an Army career. I believe this is one of the difficulties of maintaining a regular force of sufficient numbers. Not enough young men join the Army, because of the lack of tradition. In the United Kingdom many men follow their fathers, grandfathers and possibly greatgrandfathers, into the armed Services. I think that the reintroduction of national service training will instil into the young men of Australia an understanding of what the Army can really mean. There is some difference between the proposed scheme and the last national service training scheme. Under the last scheme three months' basic training was considered sufficient but now training will continue for two years. This will give the Army every opportunity to train young men in the use of today's modern weapons. There is a limit to the number who will be called up under the scheme. It is estimated that about 100,000 young men will be eligible for call-up but that when the scheme is fully operative only 6,900 will be called up each year. So industry will not be seriously disrupted. Despite the charges of the Opposition about a lottery of death and a game of Russian roulette, I think the Government has devised a most equitable system. As the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) said, no system of selection can be completely equitable. The Opposition has launched its attack on this point, but it has not suggested an .alternative system. What would it suggest? Would it suggest the selection of all youths whose names began with the letters A, B and C? Would it suggest the selection of youths whose birthdays fell earlier than 30th June? This Government has had the responsibility of devising a method of selection that is fair and equitable to the young men of Australia. I am sure that our young men recognise this system as being the best system available and I am sure they will take their sporting chance of serving Australia. Under the system there will be total registration of youths. If ever full mobilisation is required we will have a ready-made register of the youths of Australia. I believe that the Government has done its best to devise a system that will disturb industry as little as possible. Apprentices will be given an opportunity to finish their training. This is why the Government has decided to call up 20 year olds instead of 18 year olds. At 18 most apprentices are only half way through their courses. Likewise at 18 university students have not finished their courses. Nothing could be fairer than to defer call-up for national service training until a young man has finished his apprenticeship or his university course. Reinstatement in civilian life is covered by the Defence Act. Upon finishing their national service training the young men will be able, if they wish, to go back to their old jobs. The Opposition has charged the Government with having no concern for the rehabilitation of national service trainees. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) has announced that his Department will set up a committee to study the rehabilitation of young men who have served under the national service training scheme. I think everything possible is being done to ensure that these young men are able to return to civilian life. Let me reiterate that the defence advisers support the introduction of national service training. They say that in view of the present military situation national service training is essential. I therefore support the measure wholeheartedly. Mr. CURTIN (Kingsford-Smith) [5.18]. - After many months of squabbling amongst Government supporters and the issuing of conflicting statements by various Service Ministers, the Government has succumbed to the pressure of the military brass hats to introduce this Bill for national service training, which will mean that Australian young men will be required to register for national service in the calendar year in which they reach the age of 20 years. The term of service for young men called up will be five years - .two years in the Regular Army Supplement and three years in the Reserve. They will be required also to serve overseas. This proposal is a very serious departure from the expressed wish of the Australian people who on two occasions during World War I, when asked whether they would agree to the conscription of our manpower for overseas service, voted emphatically in the negative. It is interesting to record that the vote taken amongst our troops serving overseas at that time also produced a vote against conscription. I remind honorable members that at that time we had experienced military action on our front doorstep - in New Guinea - and had suffered many casualties there. Despite that fact the people of Australia would not have conscription for overseas service at any price. This Government ignores the traditional sentiments of the Australian people. Urged on by the sabre rattling claqueurs in its ranks, it has taken the bit in its teeth and introduced this measure despite the wishes of the Australian people. The Government's action must be in conflict with the advice of its Service Ministers. A few weeks ago in Hobart the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) said that conscription was wasteful. He said that the military disadvantage of conscription was that even a scheme which provided for a two-year period of service did not provide the people most needed - experienced officers, N.C.O.'s and specialists. The Minister must have taken the advice of high military advisers. If so, why his sudden change of mind? I take it that the same high ranking military officers would advise Cabinet on military requirements. One is forced to the conclusion that much confusion exists in Government circles. Or is the Government directed by outside influences in its defence policy? Honorable members will know what I mean by that. The Government's plan of conscription provides for a call-up of 4,200 youths in the second half of next year and a call-up of about 6,900 youths in each succeeding year for three years. The Minister has said there will be a call-up of about 6,900. What he means by that I do not know. The Government's plan also provides for the protection of civilian jobs during the two year draft period. We heard about that before the last war. I do not know whether the Government has given any consideration to the great drain on manpower that will be caused by the call-up, which will continue to age 26 and in special cases age 30. Most people think that because they have attained their 20th birthday they will not be called up-that they will be free - but many will get a shock when they are called up at 22, 23, 24, 26 or even 30 years of age. About two years ago the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) stated in this House that he deplored the shortage of apprentices to various trades, which caused in turn a serious shortage of skilled tradesmen. The Minister proposed a scheme for the training of adults to fill the vacancies which he stoutly maintained existed for skilled tradesmen. But what is the position now? The same Minister says that most apprentices will be at the end of their apprenticeship training at 20 years of age and that the Army requires trained people, such as tradesmen, doctors and engineers. The Minister has said that it will be in the interests of apprentices and university students to complete their training before commencing national service, so that they may take up their careers on their return from service. The unions have recently decided to shorten terms of apprenticeship. This means that many boys will finish their apprenticeship training before their 20th year. Then they will be dragged away for military service. What will industry and the professions do while these young men are doing their national service training? We do not know. The mothers and fathers of these lads must give this matter serious consideration. Are they to be faced with the situation of struggling for years to educate their children, only to have them snatched from the family and conscripted for service in fever ridden jungles in South East Asia? All parents, I am sure, will resent and resist the action of this Government in ignoring the express will of the people by enforcing this legislation. What will they think when they learn of the provision in the Bill which does not require aliens to register but allows them freedom of movement to take any job in industry that may, or should I say will, become available when the 20 year old apprentices and the university students have been called up for overseas service and are no longer in Australia? Mothers and fathers of Australians, have you ever heard such a preposterous suggestion? We are told, of course, by the putrid Press, which uses scare headlines day after day, that Australia is in danger and that time is running out. That is the kind of propaganda that we hear. But we must remember that this Government has been in office for 15 years and has only now, on the eve of a Senate election, discovered the necessity to jettison the voluntary system of recruitment and enforce constcription on our youth - your son, maybe; a number of your sons, maybe - as they reach the age of 20. Although the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) is prepared to gamble with the lives of your flesh and blood, he showed a different frame of mind when I asked him a question in this House on Thursday last. I asked whether, in view of the great danger which he said existed, he would conscript wealth as well as human flesh and blood. He sidestepped the question and referred me to the report of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation. He had the audacity to say that the wealthy people in this country are already taxed sufficiently. If conscription is necessary, I believe that it should not be introduced except by direction of a referendum of the people. The Prime Minister knows that the thinking people of Australia would not tolerate it. The Minister has said that there must be some diversion of resources for military purposes and that this will affect the pace of our development, but there must be an even greater effort by everyone to improve our productivity. He went on to say that it is the Government's greatest hope that all sections of the community will generously participate in this great national effort. It was ever thus: The working section of the community should double its productivity; should give its sons; should give its all but - it is a mighty big " but " - when it comes to the question of wealth, that of course will not be conscripted by the Government as it should be. The Government will appeal to the generosity of the wealthy to participate. This they will do by investing in government bonds and government war loans at five per cent, interest. No sacrifices for the wealthy, of course; but a money making stunt for the wealthy while the poorer classes and the tradesman class in our community must give their flesh and blood. The Prime Minister believes that wealth is sacrosanct and that human flesh and blood is expendable, but the idea of conscription in peacetime should not be given any consideration whatever. Our Prime Minister, in an outburst of patriotic fervour, for which he is famous, especially when he is gambling with the lives of other people, is prepared to commit Australia. As he mentioned in his statement on defence, the continued instability of the Government of South Vietnam has made the task of resistance more difficult and to some extent, has frustrated the massive efforts of the United States and our own necessarily small contribution. I, like most other Australians, was under the impression that our servicemen were there solely in an advisory capacity. I think that is the term. I believed that they were there to give advice on technical matters, and that they were in other parts of the world in the role of a police force. In view of the lack of leadership shown by our Prime- Minister and the deception that he has practised, I suggest that he and his Service Ministers are not competent to evaluate the position that confronts them. Doubts exist in the public mind as to their efficiency. Those doubts are general. Is it any wonder that the people have doubts when we remember the Government's performance of the past 14 years, the criminal waste of public money which has occurred - it is frightening - and the assurances that the Prime Minister has given the people of Australia that all is well? This is the man who asks this Parliament to entrust him with the lives of their sons, in some cases the only child of a family. If the danger confronting Australia is so real, why has there not been a general call-up for the Navy and the Air Force, as well as for the Army? If this measure becomes law - I sincerely hope to God that it does not - does it mean that our soldiers will be sent to the filthy jungles of South East Asia without any military support, any air cover or any Naval protection? Will they be left to their fate? I suggest that the people of Australia consider these aspects when the time comes to pass judgment on this pathetic Government which wants to take a gamble with human life at stake. Why the indecent haste to bring in this Bill? We all know that a Senate election will be held on 5th December. Could not the Government have taken a referendum on that date? Is the Government afraid of the decision of the people? Why has it not taken the people into its confidence on the defence position of this nation? The Government has failed to prepare the defences that this nation requires, and to cover its failure it has, in the dying hours of this sessional period, introduced this Bill for the conscription of the flower of the nation's manhood. Already this has caused a great deal of of resentment throughout the length and breadth of the country. On Senate election day the Government will suffer a resounding vote of no confidence from the Australian electorate. In its haste the Government has neglected to give even the usual care which a Bill of this character demands. The cavalier fashion in which the Bill was introduced pinpoints the Government's attitude and its callous disregard for life or death on the battlefields of South East Asia. The fact remains that the Government is able to dictate to young men of 20 years of age. The Government is able to tell them what they are to do with their lives. This offends the principles of democracy for which they are told they are being conscripted to fight. Then, of course, we have to face up to the fact that the group of people who will be affected by conscription do not have the right to vote. Thus they have no way in which to lodge their objection to this Government's criminal actions. Are members of the Government conversant with the first principles of democracy? Peacetime conscription with compulsory service overseas is tragic and unnecessary and is not in line with traditional Australian policy. The Australian Labour Party is totally opposed to such a departure from tradition. If the Government had a mandate from the people to introduce conscription there would be some basis for the proposal, but the Government does not have that mandate; and I am sure that every parent will bitterly resent the actions contemplated in this Bill. Further resentment has been expressed at the method of call-up that will be adopted. According to the Bill, it will be a lottery of death. How gruesome - a lottery of death. 1 hope that Australian mothers and fathers will give this aspect some consideration. This is a gruesome lottery. Every conscript will be at the mercy of the god of chance. Has any honorable member ever heard of a lottery for human life? In our enlightened age, governments - this Government in particular - exploit international situations for domestic advantages, and the scare headlines published in the Press to help their nefarious schemes deserve the condemnation of all Christian people. This Government is committing our nation to what the Prime Minister is happy to call a conventional war. He is very careful to make the point that it is a conventional war, but does he realise that a small conventional war could easily develop into a world catastrophe, an atomic war? Once the mad dogs of war are set loose, no-one knows what will happen. The war in Vietnam has been going on for the past 20 years without any decision having been reached. Why can it not be settled at the United Nations, the world's forum which was set up after tragic World War II to end by negotiation any possibility of further conflict? We were told that no more blood was to be spilt in war. Already more blood has been spilt than should have been spilt in the war in Vietnam, The armament makers were not satisfied with a peaceful world. There was no profit in a peaceful world for them, with the result that today we find hot spots, as the Press loves to call them, appearing in several parts of the globe. By clever propaganda which, in the main, consists only of half truths, in the Press, over the radio and on television, the people are worked up to a fever pitch of patriotism. The Government plays upon their sentiments and ultimately they are goaded to such a frame of mind that, instead of living in the peaceful state which they were told they would have after World War II, they are kept in a condition of constant agitation with the Government, for political purposes, urging them to accept a dastardly plan for the conscription of their sons - yours and mine - to fight in the rotting jungles of South East Asia. As I have said before, this Government has been in office for 15 years and we are still in a poor state of preparedness. We should be tidying up our own house instead of sending our conscripted lads away to fight elsewhere. There are12,000 miles of coastline around Australia, with lovely harbours and rivers that are unequalled in any part of the world. On the Prime Minister's own admission, the whole of that coastline is undefended. We have no Naval ships to patrol it regularly. Our coastline is at the mercy of the enemy. We have no aircraft to speak of. After 15 years in office this Government has left Australia totally undefended. Our defence is worth nothing. In the event of a real war breaking out, we have not one ship that would be capable of carrying food and arms to our troops. What will happen if our conscripts go abroad? How does the Government propose to carry food and arms to them? Does it propose depending upon foreign shipowners who will dictate the price at which they will carry arms and food to our conscripted boys overseas? This lack of shipping constitutes an act of criminal neglect on the Government's part. It is hard to imagine that in its15 years of office the Government has not thought it worthwhile to build a Commonwealth shipping line but has been prepared instead to leave Australia at the mercy of foreign shipownerswho would decide our policy for us. Australians should wake up and digest the facts as I have stated them. The Australian Labour Party has a great record in defending Australia. Did not the Fisher Labour Government build an Australian Navy which distinguished itself in World War I? Did not the same Government introduce national service training for home defence? Did not the same Government finance the equipping of thousands of volunteers who distinguished themselves in France in World War I? One of our colleagues on the front bench was one of the soldiers who served with honour in World War I. In World WarII, did not Prime Minister Curtin rally the whole nation behind him? I repeat: Did not Prime Minister Curtin rally the whole nation behind him when the Menzies Government walked out and left Australia to its fate? Did not the Curtin Government bring back home from overseas Australian volunteers to defend Australia successfully against the Japanese invader, despite the opposition of the Tory Government of Great Britain? John Curtin did not shackle the Australian people with conscription for overseas service. When it came to the defence of Australia and its Territories, that was a different matter, but that great Australian Labour Party leader had the confidence of the Australian people to a man and he led Australia to victory against the Japanese hordes. He led Australia to victory despite the fact that the leader of the present Government, the present Prime Minister, walked out and left Australia to be defended on the Brisbane line. I ask the people of Australia to give these facts serious consideration. Do they think our present Prime Minister is a fit and proper person to lead our Australian boys? Is he to be trusted with the conscription of our Australian youth? I emphasise here, too, that this conscription will mean conscription of labour ultimately. I say he is not the right man. As a fifth generation Australian, I say he should not be trusted. I ask the people of Australia to exercise an emphatic vote of no confidence in the Menzies Government on Sth December next. Mr. DALY (Grayndler) [5.43].- I wish to address a few comments to the matter under discussion, but my broader remarks will be reserved for the defence debate later this evening. The Government's announced defence programme is designed not to protect Australia but rather to win the Senate election. On the eve of every election in recent times, the Prime Minister has made ponderous announcements of defence programmes that could have little or no beneficial result in the ultimate. Now the Government has sunk to an all-time low. Boys of 20 years of age are to be conscripted - an action which has been resorted to in the past only when we have been in the midst of a war - to fight anywhere at the whim of this Government. In other words, there is to be a dramatic change in Australia's traditional policy of sending only volunteer forces abroad. Now, for the sake of the survival of this warmongering Liberal Party-Country Party Government, boys who are not eligible to vote - the Government dare not select those who are - are to be chosen by ballot and conscripted to fight and die anywhere from Asia to the Congo. These boys are to be selected by means of a lottery in which marbles will be drawn from a barrel. It is a lottery of doom. A marble to eternity. That is the type of lottery to be conducted by this Liberal Party-Country Party Government. It tells us that this is the most affluent society anyone could live in, yet nobody is prepared to fight. The people do not trust this Government in wartime. The people of this country whose sons will be liable to conscription for overseas service would do well to remember that during the last war thousands of Australian soldiers walked off the boats at Singapore into the prisoner of war camps, unarmed, unequipped and untrained. That happened under a Liberal Government headed by the present Liberal Prime Minister who eventually had to capitulate because he could not lead the nation. Now this same Government brings forward this contemptible scheme. It wants boys to be conscripted to fight anywhere, and it proposes to offer them only 16 guineas a week, a miserable sum compared with the average of £25 a week going into the homes of workers at the present time. Why does the Government not demand that General Motors-Holden's Pty. Ltd., Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. and others pay the taxation that they should to protect the interests they have so that the Government could pay the men who are conscripted, and who may be expected to die, an income commensurate with the risk that they take? But no; the Government keeps taxation low for its huge, wealthy supporters, yet it will conscript, by the drawing of a marble, one in every 30 to fight and die for £16 16s. a week at a time when we are told that the country is not at war but we are preparing as the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) said. Anybody trying to understand the antics of the Minister for the Army would have to be like the man on the flying trapeze. Evidently the Government does not trust him, as he was not told anything. There has been a reference to recruits not having educational qualifications sufficient to enable them to get into the Army. The Minister for the Army has academic qualifications, but the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) does not trust him and the Cabinet does not trust him. One day he makes an announcement about conscription not being necessary, and the next night the Prime Minister announces that it is to be introduced. The present Minister for the Army should be dismissed from his post or should resign his place in this Parliament. He is the office boy of the Government, yet he will bc in charge of men who will be conscripted to fight - to serve under the most incompetent of Ministers, a Minister who, if we can judge from his statements, is not trusted by the Prime Minister, and who has given wrong and false advice to the Returned Servicemen's League and to the people of Australia. Boys are to be conscripted to fight and die under a Minister who is treated with contempt by the members of his own Government and particularly by the Prime Minister. Never in our history have Australians been conscripted to fight in time of peace, and if we are to judge on the record of the Government in recent times there is no real obligation now for them to do so. Later I shall deal with the equipment with which men were sent to war in 1939 and why the Menzies Government was thrown out of office at that time. Any Australian who really believes in the security of his boy in Australia today, any mother who has a boy eligible to fight, should remember that this Government could hardly be trusted to send a dog to war because it does nothing to equip fighting mcn and is acting as it is acting now only to serve the militaristic element in its ranks, who will conscript everybody so long as the wealthy interests behind the Government are not attacked. Let me say also that I wonder what Australian boys, and mothers and fathers of Australian boys, think when they realise that the Government is bringing to Australia countless thousands of migrants. We welcome the migrants, but if they happen to be aliens and do not become naturalised there is no obligation on them to make any contribution to the security that they enjoy. On what basis does the Government justify conscripting boys from Newtown and other places in my electorate, conscripting the sons of Australian men and women, while at the same time imposing no obligation to serve on migrants who settle here and accept the security that they find here. Do these people who will be called up to fight for £16 16s. a week realise that when they leave their job it may be filled by an unnaturalised alien? Does the man on the farm realise that when his son is called up and he needs more labour on the property his son's place may be taken by an alien? Does the person with a shop in a country town realise that his son who has been working in the business may be called up under the proposals of the Federal Government and that his place in the business, or the business itself, may pass over to an alien? Why has the Government brought in this proposal? The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) in a splendid speech today cited to the people of Australia exact figures to show that the Army is rejecting a large proportion of those who seek to enlist and serve. The real fact of the matter is that the Government has not given full effect to the volunteer system and has rejected many volunteers, as was instanced by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Devine) the other night. He referred to a man having been rejected by the Army and having immediately joined the fire brigade. Do honorable members opposite suggest that men like that are of inferior standard, while at the same time they propose that we pick names at random in the marble of death ballot of doom? Would such a man be rejected if his name were drawn? The Minister for the Navy (Mr. Chaney) can laugh. Because of the way he has been torpedoed in this place, he should never get off the ocean bed. Fancy any person having any confidence in sending his boy to join the Navy under the administration of the present Minister for the Navy. His only contribution to the debate is to snigger about matters that he was not told about by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister introduces all these matters without telling his Service Ministers. I think I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that national service training his already been tried. On 21st November 1950 compulsory military service was introduced by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), who was then the Minister for Labour and National Service and who, speaking in this Parliament, said - Our national service scheme is an integral part of the Government's general defence policy. Those remarks appear at page 2725 of " Hansard " of 21st November 1950. Then in 1957 we had the situation in which the Government broke down national service training to a selective ballot basis, and in 1959 this astonishing statement was made by the late Mr. Townley, then Minister for Defence - At the present time, however, national service greatly handicaps the development of a more effective Army because of the excessive demands it makes on both manpower and money without adequate compensatory military advantages. Later in his speech he said - The total cost of national service training is over £9,000,000 a year, which represents a subtraction of one-seventh of the present Army vote from higher priority military tasks, particularly the provision of modern equipment. Then he went on to say - The Government has accordingly decided, after a most careful review, that national service training should be suspended. There will be no further intake for full time training, and the January 1960 call-up will not proceed. In other words, under this Government the scheme was a failure because of the incompetence and the huge outlay involved. The sum of £150 million was spent on that scheme before the Government abolished it. Now it says that another such scheme is necessary to protect Australia. In 1959 there was not an election pending, so the Government could be reasonably honest in its assessment of the situation. This only serves to demonstrate that the Government is snatching at straws at this time in an endeavour to bolster up its fading Senate election prospects with this story about a period of great crisis. The Government says that there exists a great crisis, which apparently did not exist on 26th October when the Minister for the Army ran riot and told us that national service training was not necessary. Who is creating these crises in Asia and other places? I notice that the Prime Minister said that the training scheme is necessary because of the threat from Indonesia. That may well be, but it is only comparatively recently that the Government ceased to train Indonesian officers in Australia. Mr. Peters. - They have not given it up yet. Mr. DALY. - They have not given it up yet; that is quite probable. How do we know that Indonesia will be our enemy? I do not accept that theory at all, for the simple reason that the Government is always picking its enemies, particularly on the eve of elections. The real fact of this matter is that the Government has failed for a number of reasons to attract in any way the recruits that it wants. The crisis is not so serious as it might be, unless we have not been given all the facts. The Government has built up a state of hysteria for the simple reason that it knows full well that its prospects on 5th December are not bright. Let me say quite clearly that the Labour Party does not object in any way to the protection of Australia. We desire the fullest and most adequate equipment and protection for Australia. Honorable members opposite may say what they like, but in the two world wars it took a Labour Government to organise and to protect the country. The tragedy, which I have mentioned in this place before, is that it is not until war breaks out that the people wake up to the fact that the Liberal Party and the Country Party cannot organise the nation. Labour is always called upon to shoulder the responsibility. I refer again to Labour policy, as announced here the other night by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), on the question of conscription of boys in peacetime and I cite his remarks. The Leader of the Opposition said - Let me say unequivocally that the Labour Party opposes, opposes utterly and absolutely, conscription for the youth of this country for service overseas in peace-time. But when it is proposed, as the Government does now, to conscript one in thirty of the boys eligible each year, rank injustice is piled upon utter folly. These boys, with not only their careers, but possibly their lives at stake, are to be selected by some form of lottery, or Russian roulette. Someone has called the lottery a lucky dip, or should it be an unlucky one? There again I point out what has been stated by the Leader of the Opposition as our attitude towards conscription of manpower in peacetime. I record again the policy of this party which provides for the protection of Australia, but not on a basis of conscription for overseas service in time of peace. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro. in a splendid speech which he made today, indicated the shortcomings in the Government's defence policy particularly as it relates to national service. He did not have time to deal with exemptions but I ask, at this time, who is to be exempted from these proposals? Are supporters of the Country Party to be exempted? The last time a ballot system was in existence, if a person lived further than five miles from a drill hall they did not have to train at all. That meant that the only people who trained were those from Newtown, Marrickville and Erskineville and the great metropolises of this country. The sons of the workers were the ones carrying the full burden. I understand that statements have already been made, according to Press reports, that the Country Party is demanding a blanket exemption for sons of people in country towns as its basis for supporting proposals such as this. li that statement is not right, let honorable members get up and say it. If it is not right, it is very strange because it was right the last time a proposal like this came into force. I am opposed completely to the basis on which this selection of youth will be made. Why, for instance, is one boy in 30 to be chosen as the one to fight and die under this Government's regime? Why should not the system apply to all? After 15 years of bungling by this Government I know that it will not equip these boys as they ought to be equipped. The Army will be short of equipment as it was in 1939. Any survivors of a government that sent men to war without proper equipment in 1939, 1940 and 1941 will do anything in this age in order to win a Senate election. That is why the Government is conscripting men today, calling them from their homes, and creating a feeling of urgency. There is a new crisis according to when an election is being held. If the Government had half a dozen elections a year there would be half a dozen statements from the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) impressing the urgency of the situation on the people. I have not the time at this stage to deal with what happened during the last general election campaign when the bombers were sent to this country as an election stunt by this Government. I and other members of the Opposition will not sit idly by and let men be conscripted in this country under a government that boasts of the prosperity of the country, rejects volunteers by the thousand when they apply to join the services and now, saying that there is a great crisis, conscripts men to get the quota required. It is quite apparent that very few people outside this Government are taken into its confidence on great economic issues. Not one person in 100, if you could sincerely contact them, would trust this Government to conduct a war and not one honorable member of this Parliament has any respect at this time for a Minister such as the Minister for the Army because of the way in which he has been discredited by his own statements and the action of his own Prime Minister. If you study the record of the service Ministers on national defence and other things, they have been changed almost as often as you change your shirt for the simple reason that the Prime Minister has only been muddling with these questions. The true fact of the matter is that we are asked, together with Government supporters, to be parties to a form of conscription against every tradition in this country. I wonder does the Government, on this issue, discard the statement issued today by spokesmen for three prominent Churches saying that in times of peace it is a complete infringement of liberties on the part of members of the Government to conscript young men for overseas service. I wonder does the Government take any note of the wide range of opinion involved, or is it going to say: "It is quite all right because nobody cares much."? I think the Government is gravely misjudging the situation and is not aware of the consequences of its action which, I believe, will bring a revulsion of feeling from one end of this country to another. I would like to know why the Government has selected boys of 18, 19 or 20 years to serve. Is the Government going to give these boys a vote at this stage? After all is said and done, the Labour Party endeavoured to give boys of 18 years of age in the Services the right to vote but a Liberal Senate at the time amended the proposal and would not give them the right to vote unless they served overseas. The Government will call these boys of 19 and 20 years into the Services when they have no right to vote. Government supporters today, by interjection, indicated they were not entitled to vote. Any man called up to fight or to die for his country is entitled to a vote no matter whom he might be. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. Mr. DALY. - Before dinner I was explaining to the House the reasons which, I believe, prompted the introduction of this conscription legislation, which is unparalleled in the history of this Commonwealth in peacetime. The Government is stating, for the first time in history, that it is necessary to conscript men to fight overseas. It also claims that it has the confidence of the people and that the prosperity of the nation has never been greater. Those, in effect, are the words of the Prime Minister. If Australia is in its most prosperous state and the Government cannot get recruits for the armed Services - the figures refute that - there are two possible reasons. One is that the system is not worth fighting for and the other is that the people do not trust the Government. I believe that the prosperity that many people enjoy and the freedom that we enjoy are things worth fighting for. The reasons why people are not volunteering is that they do not trust the Menzies Government because of the Liberal Party's record in previous great conflicts. Let us face another reality. This Government is always, but particularly when an election is in the offing, telling the people that a war is about to occur. I quote the following from the Prime Minister's policy speech in 1951 - There is a very grim danger of another great war ... We solemnly believe that the state of the world is such that we cannot give ourselves more than three years in which to get ready to defend ourselves. Honorable members know that on the hour, every hour, at every election time, a crisis similar to the present one has been created by the Government. But never in thenwildest dreams did members of the Opposition or the people of Australia realise that this Government would play with the lives of 20 year old men in an endeavour to win a Senate election. Under this legislation men will be selected by the drawing of marbles and conscripted to fight anywhere in the world. The people should know that this is not conscription for home defence; this is conscription to fight anywhere from the Congo to Asia under a government that has been condemned from one end of this country to the other for not providing sufficient equipment for the defence of our own country, let alone for fighting abroad. Every person who is listening to me tonight, and who has a son who is eligible for national service, should remember that a Menzies government sent ill-armed men straight to prisoner of war camps in Malaya during the last war. If this legislation is passed, by the draw of a marble in a lottery of doom or death under a Liberal-Country Party Government whose Prime Minister was thrown out of office by his own people as being incapable of leading the nation in the greatest war of our time, young men will be forced to fight abroad. At this very moment this Government is almost challenging the world to attack us. We ask: Is the crisis as grave as the Government says it is? It was only on 26th October last that the Minister for the Army stated at the National Congress of the Returned Servicemen's League in Hobart that there was no need for conscription. I accept the fact that other members of the Government would not . tell the Minister for the Army much. He only happens to be the man who is running the Department of the Army. He was not taken into the confidence of the other members of the Government. Either they do not trust him or he is incompetent as the Minister for the Army. Today the Government is denying to young men in time of peace a right that was given to honorable members opposite in time of war. I do not believe that the voluntary system has been properly tried. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) pointed out that in 1963 there were 11,000 volunteers, of whom 2,900 were accepted and 7,300 were rejected. Almost 4,500 of them were rejected on; educational grounds. In other words, the Government is almost insisting on the possession of academic qualifications for men who want to serve. Today the Minister for the Army, in a most contemptible and insulting way, said: "We do not want the flotsam and jetsam in the Army ". We would not expect an Oxford graduate to accept an ordinary person. He wants the very best of intellects, not the poor fellow who has not had an opportunity to have an education. This talented Minister for the Army, whom the Government does not trust, says: "We do not want the flotsam and jetsam in the Army ". Let these boys of 20 and 21 years of age, whose names are drawn in the marble of death ballot, remember that the Minister for the Army thinks that they are flotsam and jetsam and the scum of the earth simply because they have not measured up to his educational qualifications. The fact of the matter is that this Government is rejecting men who are anxious to serve. In addition, it is refusing to accept many men whose educational standard is above the average. The one reason for that is that this Government is bent on conscription of the manpower of this country for service anywhere in the world. Let every person over 21 years of age remember that the age is 20 years today, it will be 21 years tomorrow, and in the not far distant future every man between the ages of 21 years and 31 years may well be subject to conscription under a government whose foreign policy is suspect and whose defence record is the worst of any government in our time. Let us be honest about this matter. Honorable members opposite know as well as I do that one division of the Japanese army could have taken this country in 1939 because the .Government then in office, led by the present Prime Minister and including some of the present Ministers, could not organise the defence of Australia. Every person outside this Parliament who subscribes to this legislation should know that his 20 year old son, to whom this Government will not give a vote, will be conscripted and sent to die, if necessary, under incompetent Ministers, as happened in the previous great conflict. This is happening at a time of peace. We are not at war. Of course, some members of the Country Party will tell us that we are at war with Russia and China but they will send delegations to those countries in order to try to sell wheat and other primary products. The Minister for Territories (Mr. Barnes) has said that we are in a state of war. The truth is that the only reason why the Government claims that we are in a state of war is that there is a Senate election on 5th December. That is the real basis of this legislation. I do not deny that there is a crisis in the world; there is a continuing one, but I am not prepared to let the Prime Minister judge when Australians should be conscripted, because he always seems to come to that decision when an election is coming up. No matter how good an organiser he is, how can he organise a crisis to coincide with every election? I have not the time to run over the full list of matters, as the Leader of the Opposition did last Thursday night. Any honorable member opposite may study the Prime Minister's defence statements and national service training statements and find that every time an election is pending there is a grave crisis and a need to take defence measures that were never necessary before. I say that gambling with the lives of young Australians just for the sake of gaining a few Senate votes is going too far. If there is such a grave crisis at present, why are the men not being called up tomorrow? These men will not be available for the best part of 12 to 15 months. In other words, the Government wants a couple of years notice of a war to enable it to get men into the Services to defend the country. That is the position after 15 years of Liberal Party government. The Government knows that the general pattern of Australia's defences is such that the people realise that there is danger internally - not so much in fighting abroad as in defending Australia - 'because of the Government's incompetence. I say quite sincerely that there can be no justification whatever for this Government conscripting men in this time of peace, contrary to all the great traditions of our country. Why is this Government introducing conscription when conscription is not in operation in that great loyalist country, Great Britain, or in Canada? In the United States of America there is grave concern about its conscripted Army because of all the trouble that goes with it - the constant transportation of men and so on. New Zealand has a very limited scheme of compulsory service. Yet here in this free Australia, in a society which the Prime Minister said is worth defending, the Government offers men a miserable 16 guineas a week to go and die. and wonders why men do not flock in their thousands to the Services. I tell the people of this country that the Australian Labour Party believes in the defence of Australia, Mr. Speaker? Labour's record has shown that it will defend this country and that the Australian people will be behind it in doing so. The tragedy is that this Government has plundered certain aspects of Labour's programme on social services and various other matters and now claims Labour's policy on those matters as its own. The other evening we heard the Treasurer quote a lot of Labour's policy and say: " A lot of this is yours ". If we did not have an election now and again for the Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Country Party to learn what was in Labour's policy speech, those parties would have no ideas about anything. That is the only way in which they can get sound ideas. Nowhere in Labour's policy in peacetime has there been any proposal to conscript men for service overseas. This Government will now call on 20- year-old youths to fight, but it denies them a vote. One in 30 of the young men in this age group will be chosen by ballot to go to war, even though they all are denied the right to vote. A blanket exemption no doubt will be claimed for the sons of those who are represented by members of the Country Party, and the sons of men and women in working class electorates represented by me and my colleagues will be the ones of whom the sacrifice will be demanded. Why does not the Government get at the wealth of this country and make General MotorsHolden's Pty. Ltd. and the Broken Hill Pty. Co. Ltd. pay more in taxes so that decent rates of pay can be provided for the men in the forces who are expected to give their lives? If it is good enough for a man working in a factory to be paid £25 a week, the Government ought to give servicemen more than that amount if it conscripts them to enlist and serve in Vietnam and other places. The fact of the matter is that this Government wants the sons of workers to fight the battles for it. The Government will not conscript the wealth of this country or peg prices. It will not introduce profit sharing schemes. Yet it requires boys of 20, who are denied a vote, to be conscripted and die. It would not dare at this stage to call up a man of 21, because it knows that he would vote against it That approach is typical of the whole pattern of this Government's attitude to defence. It cannot defend Australia and it says that it cannot get enough men to enlist in the armed forces, lt cannot get them because it will not pay decent rates of pay. The Government now proposes to take a backward step to conscript young men to go abroad, at a time when we are at peace. I issue a word of warning to the Government: the Churches of this country, of some denominations, have expressed their views on this issue. The Government may fly in the face of the people if it likes. But no fair minded person who is really Australian in outlook would ever be a party, in this Parliament or elsewhere, to a proposal in peacetime requiring one in 30 of our boys of 20 to give their lives under a scheme like the present one which, according to the Government, is designed to prevent war, though, at the same time, I point out, some members of the Government say we are at war. This kind of policy is foreign to everything that we on this side of the chamber stand for. I condemn it and I unreservedly oppose it. If this measure is passed, I shall use all my endeavours, wherever I may be, to see that it is repealed when the opportunity offers after the election of a Labour government. Mr. Clyde Cameron. - Mr. Speaker, I also wish to oppose the Bill. I want to speak on this measure. Mr. Harold Holt. - I raise a point of procedure, Sir. I had a certain understanding with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). I say this with no intention of curtailing discussion on these matters. Mr. Allan Fraser. - Of course the Minister is trying to curtail discussion. Mr. Harold Holt. - Is the honorable member the Leader of the Australian Labour Patry? Mr. Allan Fraser. - No. But I say that the Minister is trying to curtail discussion. Mr. Harold Holt. - We are not trying to curtail it. I may have incorrectly interpreted the understanding with the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader. If they think so, let them say so. My understanding was that the second reading debate would conclude before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, and that we would then proceed again to debate the statement on defence made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) . This would have provided opportunities for wider discussion on defence than are afforded by the debate on this Bill. That debate would not be restricted by honorable members being prevented from discussing the subject matter of this measure. Indeed, they would be able to discuss defence in all its aspects. That was the arrangement, Sir. If those who lead the Opposition are not able to marshal thenforces behind the arrangements that they make, that is their affair. However, honorable members on this side of the chamber would have risen to seek the call. Mr. Daly. - They do not intend to speak. Mr. Harold Holt. - They would have risen, not after the honorable member concluded, but after the preceding speaker concluded. Several honorable members on the Government side wish to discuss various aspects of defence, including the subject matter of this bill. But it was the judgment of the Leader of the Opposition and me - I understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition concurred - that we should conclude the second reading debate, reserve the Committee discussion for tomorrow and this evening resume the general debate on defence. This procedure, as I have said, would have left open a much wider field than is available during the discussion of this Bill. If the Opposition will not honour that arrangement, there will be a succession of speakers from this side of the House. Mr. Daly. - The Government is trying to stifle discussion. Mr. Harold Holt. - Honorable members on this side were ready and waiting to speak. But, because of the arrangement that bad been made, they proposed to speak in the resumed debate on the defence statement rather than on this Bill. That is the position, Sir. If my statement of the arrangement is disavowed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and his Leader, I should like to hear them say so. I have stated my understanding of the arrangements that were made. Mr. Beazley. - Mr. Speaker,-- Mr. Aston. - Is the honorable , member speaking to this Bill or to the point of order, Mr. Speaker? I, too, wish to speak on the Bill. Mr. Beazley. - I am speaking to the Bill. Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay). - I understood that the Treasurer accepted the call as a speaker on the Government side. Mr. Harold Holt - No, Sir. I rose to put a point of order relating to procedure. That is within the province of the Leader of the House. Mr. SPEAKER. - Very well. I call the honorable member for Phillip (Mr. Aston). Mr. ASTON (Phillip) [8.17].- Mr. Speaker, we have just seen another example of the divisions in the Australian Labour Party. Prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner, I was privy to some of the discussions that took place, and I fully support the remarks just made by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt). An agreement was made, and we now find that it has been broken completely, mainly because the Opposition wishes to play politics in the consideration of a bill that is of great national importance. This measure will affect almost every person in the Commonwealth, either directly or indirectly, over a period. Yet, for the sake of politics, the Opposition this evening has endeavoured to force the Government to gag the debate. The attempt to force this course on the Government has been made purely for political purposes. I believe that the Opposition's conduct has been completely irresponsible again. Yet the Australian Labour Party is supposed to be a responsible party. The public should know that, again, the left wing of that Party has completely dominated its thinking and that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam). It is understandable that, in any defence review, Sir, different opinions exist among Service and military advisers, and even perhaps among Cabinet Ministers and private members of the Parliament, about what equipment should be purchased for each Service and what action should be taken in other matters. For instance, it is most difficult to obtain unanimity in the choice of equipment, particularly in deciding where it should be obtained, and about whether we should wait for more modern equipment or put in service immediately equipment that is more readily available, though perhaps not so up to date as and possibly without the striking power of newer equipment. It is right and proper for these differences of opinion to exist. It would be dangerous for us all if we were as one on these serious matters. However, a question arises in my mind, Sir: Is it justifiable for one to adopt a purely party political approach on the questions that we are considering in the debate on this National Service Bill? Why is it that the Opposition in this Parliament is not big enough, in the national interest, to adopt a bipartisan approach on important issues such as foreign policy, defence and national service, at a time when our very existence could be at stake? I suggest that, not five minutes ago, we saw an indication of the first reason why the Opposition will not adopt this sort of approach. That is because the Labour Party is hopelessly bedevilled, dominated, controlled and manipulated by its left wing. It is not a left wing in the tradition of European Socialism or radicalism. It is a left wing which accepts Communist policy as its own. I will have something further to say on this point a little later. The main point of issue on this Bill, which the Opposition has so violently opposed today, is the provision that national service men will be liable for overseas service. It is on this question and this question alone which the Opposition, both left wing and the timid and frightened remains of the right wing, offers what appears outwardly to be a facade of unity. As the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) said in his second reading speech, the decision to send national service men overseas is historic. Let me say that this was a difficult decision and everybody regrets the deteriorating situation in the area in which we are involved that makes it necessary for legislation of this kind to be introduced. But I am sure that no one would seriously believe that this decision was made lightly, as Opposition members have suggested today; it was made after full consideration of its import. The Opposition has shown its desire to make political capital out of this Bill for the forthcoming Senate election. Opposition members have accused us of doing this, but their accusation is completely untrue. The Opposition has shamelessly traded on the understandable national fear and the protective instincts of the Australian people. The Opposition has implied that we on this side of the House are unsympathetic and take a delight in framing decisions that will compel our youg men to serve overseas. Such a suggestion is far from the truth and is completely irresponsible. I repeat with all the sincerity of which I am capable that this decision was made only after a review of events to our north and with a a full comprehension of the changing pattern of world events. The decision was made after long, thoughtful and extensive deliberations. It was made only because it was absolutely necessary in the interests of Australia. As I said previously, one aspect of the Opposition's attitude to the Bill is novel. Split down the middle on all sorts of important issues, the Opposition is doing its best to appear united - and I say that it appears to be united. But for how long this appearance of unity will continue is a matter for conjecture. Inevitably, before much time has passed, some differences on this issue will manifest themselves amongst Opposition members. Mr. Speaker, I would like to show how the right wing, represented by the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly), who has just sat down, and the left wing, represented by the honorable member for Yarra (Dr. J. F. Cairns), who has just come into the chamber, have affected a rather touching exhibition of political togetherness. I might add parenthetically that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) is happily in his usual role of a political schizophrenic. However, he is consistently maintaining his attitude of 1943. Even in the serious situation at that time he opposed conscription. All Australians must be relieved that his views at that time did not prevail. If they had, it may not have been possible for us to be here debating this issue today. It is interesting to read the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion. I would remind honorable members that at the time the House had before it a Bill brought in by his own Prime Minister, the late John Curtin, called the Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Bill of 1943. The Leader of the Opposition had this to say - I hope that this bill will be defeated and as I have already said, if it does become law I hope it will be a dead letter. If this does not become a dead letter, I hope that in a few months the Labour party of Australia, in conference assembled, will revert to the attitude which it formerly adopted in regard to conscription. When that occurs I believe that honorable members of the Labour party in this Parliament will do their utmost to maintain the traditional policy of the party, which is not only a good policy for Labour, but also the only safe and sane policy for the Australian people, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in the world today. This was stated by the present Leader of the Opposition who opposed a bill brought down by his own leader. Although he spoke about it in such devastating terms at the time, I find that when the vote was taken on the second reading the same honorable member, after expressing these opinions, supported the Bill by which the Labour Party introduced conscription in 1943. This man, the Leader of the Australian Labour Party, is at this stage making a song and dance about conscription or the national training of the youth of this country after, on one occasion, supporting a similar scheme. I want to refer now to the right wing of the Australian Labour Party. I have just been reminded that there are not many left in the right wing. But I believe that these honorable members in their opposition to this Bill, which introduces national training and which permits the Government to send national service trainees overseas, arc being entirely consistent with their nineteenth century isolationist policy. They see Australia as one separate nation whose defence is almost solely confined to defending the shores of the Australian coastline. Simply put, it means that Australia would have to wait until enemy troops landed on Australian territory before any action would be taken against them. This nineteenth century isolationism reminds me of the ostrich that puts its head in the sand and becomes completely oblivious of the reality of events around it. Surely members of the Labour Party know that Australian troops were recently engaged in action against Indonesian raiders in Malaysia. Do they not realise the need to assist in the defence of a free Malaya? It is interesting here to quote the words of the Leader of the Opposition. He is reported in the "Sydney Morning Herald" of 11th March 1963 as having said - The Labour Party would oppose any Australian commitment to defend Malaya or the projected Malaysian Federation. I believe that the Labour Party would have the same attitude towards South Vietnam, the Philippines and all countries with which we have treaty obligations. It may be as well to put this question to Opposition members: If Communist China were successful in carrying her policies of aggression to the point where she controlled most of South East Asia and Indonesia succeeded in crushing Malaysia, what would happen to Australia? Let me also pose this question: What would happen if Indonesia became a Communist nation of the Chinese variety? Where would Australia be then? I believe that we must face these questions. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Uren) is reported in "Hansard" of 12th October 1960 as having said - What have we to fear from China? I have said that we need have no fear whatever of the People's Republic of China. China is concerned only wilh her own development for peaceful purposes. I am pleased that honorable members opposite stick to their convictions, and I am sure that the Australian people will be pleased to know it, notwithstanding that since then China has developed atomic bombs and has engaged in acts of aggression. I am sure that honorable members and the Australian public will treat this statement with the contempt it deserves in any considerations we may have for Australia's future. It is for these reasons that I would desire that our defence perimeter be not confined - and I emphasise " not confined " - only to the shores of this country, as in the policy which the Australian Labour Party is pledged to carry out. As a nation we are concerned with, involved in, and to some extent responsible for, the defence of every free nation in the area to our near north. Let me remind honorable members of the Opposition's isolationist right wing that the situation has deteriorated in recent months, and is still deteriorating. As I have said already, recently Australian troops were engaged in action against Indonesian raiders in Malaysia. It is in these circumstances that national service training is being introduced requiring national service trainees to be liable for service overseas. I have already explained why the right wing of the Labour Party, intent on retaining its outdated and discredited isolationist policy, is opposing this provision, but let me now turn to something which I regard much more seriously. In the short time available I want to indicate why the left wing is opposed to overseas service. In the past the left wing of the Labour Party has been violently opposed to one Australian serviceman serving in Malaysia. It has been opposed to additional defence expenditure, to American confrontation of the Soviet Union in Cuba, to military advisers being sent to South Vietnam, to the strengthening of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation and to the establishment of a radio communication base on North West Cape. On the other hand it has advocated a policy of antiAmericanism and has supported the unrealistic and meaningless concept of a nuclear free zone. It is the left wing which sits opposite us which has advocated this inside and outside of this House, and it is on record to be seen. I do not want anybody to take my word for it; it is all on record. On every issue, with no exception, the left wing of the Australian Labour Party has advocated a foreign affairs policy and a defence policy completely consistent with the Communist Party's foreign policy. This is regrettable, but nonetheless it is true. The leader of these policies in this Parliament, and a man who is the choice of the Leader of the Opposition as his deputy leader - his heir apparent - is no less a person than the honorable member for Yarra. Where does he stand on this? The honorable member for Yarra has not even had a guernsey in this debate yet, and we would like to hear his views. Mr. Clyde Cameron. - The honorable member did not get a guernsey in the last war, but the honorable member for Yarra did. Mr. ASTON. - I beg the honorable member's pardon. Mr. Clyde Cameron. - I said that the honorable member for Yarra got a guernsey in the last war but that you did not. Mr. ASTON. - The honorable member for Hindmarsh ought to be careful to get his facts right. Mr. Clyde Cameron. - Where is your Returned Servicemen's League badge? Mr. ASTON.- To enlighten the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) I might say that I enlisted in the Army as a gunner. I passed through the ranks, saw service overseas, and came out with a commission. I return now to the honorable member for Yarra. He left no doubt whatever about where he stands on this matter. In an article in the Spring issue of " Dissent " this year, he wrote - We are situated in the political spectrum next to the Communists and they will stand for many things for which we also stand. We cannot therefore oppose those things. Because of our position in the political spectrum we will find ourselves in the same places as Communists on some occasions, doing the same things for the same ends. I think this is a damning quotation. It leaves no doubt where the member for Yarra, and those who follow him in this House, stand. I want now to give another quotation for the benefit of those honorable members who were not convinced by that quotation. This quotation can be referred to in "Hansard" of 12th October 1960. I remind honorable members that this is a statement from a member of the party which claims to be so concerned about the defence of this country. On 12th October 1960 the honorable member for Yarra - the heir apparent to the Leader of the Opposition - said - My point is that we should prepare ourselves to supply troops to the United Nations, and that is the only justification that Australia has for supplying any troops anywhere at any time. That leaves no doubt as to where members of the left wing stand in this debate. I believe that the left wing of the Labour Party, which controls the Opposition's approach to foreign affairs generally, is always consistent with the foreign policy of the Communist Party. This is certainly one of those occasions when the honorable member for Yarra believes that he is doing the same thing as the Communists to achieve the same ends. I cannot appeal to those members of the Opposition who follow the honorable member for Yarra, but I can and do earnestly appeal to the right wing of the Labour Party. Mr. Sinclair.- Both of them? Mr. ASTON. - There are more than two. Some are good friends of mine and they do not agree with the defence and foreign affairs policies of the Labour Party today. I appeal to the right wing of the Labour Party- Mr. Pollard. - Who are they? Mr. ASTON.- Certainly they do not include the honorable member. I appeal to the right wing "of the Labour Party to shed its 19th century isolationism and to view the defence review and this Bill realistically, and to discuss defence in a realistic atmosphere. I regret, however, that my appeal will probably fall on deaf ears and that the Opposition will not do this. Its attitude to defence has not altered. It is still of the same pre-war vintage. In fact, it is almost the same on many issues as it was before the First World War. The Labour policy always has been one of obstruction, never one of support, and this has been clearly illustrated in the debate that has taken place today. It is to be regretted that many of the phrases used by members opposite, although not disloyal, were an insult to the intelligence of the Australian people. They were phrases which should never have been used in relation to people, let alone Australian people. It has been clearly illustrated that members of the Labour Party are divided on this issue. But in spite of these known divisions and in spite of these known attitudes, I appeal to members of the parliamentary Labour Party to use what influence they have, if any, with their executive to obtain a review of the party's outmoded platform so far as defence, national service and related matters are concerned. These matters are too serious to be laughed off by members of the Opposition. These matters are far more serious than mere political debating points. For the sake of the security of this country the Labour Party's policy should be amended in keeping with the present changing world situation. I repeat that this situation is deteriorating. Enemies and aggressors are coming closer and closer to our shores. In view of the world situation I hope that the Labour Party may be able to use its influence on its executive to bring its policy up to date. Mir. Whittorn. - The 36 faceless men. Mr. ASTON.- Whether they are the 36 faceless men I do not care. The Labour Party should make a complete re-appraisal of its policy in relation to these matters. I repeat, for the benefit of the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Cope), who is interjecting: For the sake of Australia's security - df that is not a sobering thought I do not know what is - the Labour Party should amend its policy in keeping with the present changing world situation so that this Parliament may be united in its determination to provide sufficient deterrent to any potential aggressor and present a solid political front to the world on such important matters. Not only would this give great impetus to our national spirit and add to our zest for nationalism, patriotism and loyalty, but it would also serve as a deterrent to any possible aggressor. I, make this appeal in all sincerity because I believe that the situation is very serious indeed, as the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) has pointed out from time to time. I have just returned from a visit to Vietnam where I saw people killed fighting a Communist aggressor. I was in Singapore when the riots took place. I have been to Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. Mr. Cope. - There is trouble wherever you are. Mr. ASTON.- Even in this House. If you saw the loss of equipment, the useless loss of life and the disturbance* both civil and military, you would not want these things to come to our shores. In every instance these things have been brought about by Communist influence and interference. Yet the Labour Party on the other side of the House would not lift a finger in the defence of this country unless to protect our own coastline. This business of trying to put out a bush fire when it reaches your boundary fence is old hat. What is the use of having a fire brigade if it cannot leave its own yard? The Government is asking the people of Australia to accept its proposals and I believe that the people will overwhelmingly support mem. I accept the challenge of honorable members opposite, who have asked where Government supporters stand on this issue of conscription. I support the Government's proposals, I support the Bill. Mr. BEAZLEY (Fremantle) [8.45].- The essential feature of this Bill is not that it establishes national service. It is not, as some people on the " Four Corners " programme seem to imagine, that it will cut the long hair of some young men or take away their guitars. It is not designed to cure delinquency. The essential feature of the Bill is that under it the Government seeks power to conscript a man for service in Vietnam or anywhere else on earth. Whatever we do about this power, one thing is clear: The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) said nothing whatever about this during the last election campaign. In the course of that campaign in November 1963 he did not say to the Australian electorate: " I intend to bring in legislation to conscript men for overseas service." Quite clearly the Prime Minister has no mandate for this legislation under any sensible interpretation of a mandate. If he desires a mandate there is only one way to get it - to dissolve this House of Representatives and to stake the future of his Government upon his policy. Honorable gentlemen opposite have said that they stand by this and they fall by this. There is only one way of standing by this or falling by this, and that is by taking this question to an election of the House of Representatives in which the fate of the Government is determined. There is no argument that a Senate election achieves the same result. The new Senate will not operate until July next year. By that time this Bill will be through both Houses. The House of Representatives determines the character of the government of Australia. If this question is to be put to the Australian people it must be put to them in a House of Representatives election. Mr. Whittorn. - Why can this matter not be determined at a Senate election? Mr. BEAZLEY. - In answer to the honorable member, if the Government wins the Senate election it can say that it has an endorsement of its policy. If the Government loses the election, it may proceed with the legislation just the same. So this matter will not be determined at a Senate election. Even if honorable members opposite believe totally in the legislation as it stands, clearly the Government would have an unimpeachable mandate if it were re-elected at an election conducted on this issue. It is of no use saying that there is such a state of emergency that the issue cannot be taken to the country, because the Government does not intend to impose conscription until next July. In the seven months between then and now there is plenty of time for an election. The Senate election does not dispose of the matter in any way. It is an election of only half of the upper House - one sixth of the Parliament. It is an election where, as everyone knows, 121 per cent, of the vote will be informal. Mr. Freeth. - The honorable member's leader said that he will make this an issue. Mr. BEAZLEY. - Of course he must make it an issue as best he can. If the Labour Party wins every State in this election, does the Minister for Shipping and Transport guarantee the repeal of this legislation? That is what I mean when I say that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) will make this an issue as best he can. Only one thing could determine the repeal of this legislation, and that is if the Government were defeated. The only way for the Government to be defeated is for the House of Representatives to be dissolved. We are very unclear about the purpose of this legislation. The honorable member for Phillip (Mr. Aston) drew an analogy between the present situation and bush fires at the fence. Let us be realistic about this matter. If we go to war with Indonesia, the stategic problem will be that Indonesia lies between us and Malaysia. The main conflict in which Australia would be involved would therefore be in Australian territory - Papua and New Guinea. The question of Malaysia and Vietnam would necessarily be set to one side in a general war with Indonesia, because the lines of communication between this country and the Malaysian peninsula would be cut. So there is no question but that Australian troops would be inescapably involved on their own boundary fences in the Australian territories of New Guinea. All this stuff about the desirability of sending troops away from our shores as the great strategy, if the Government is speaking in terms of a war with Indonesia, is so much deliberate confusion of the Australian people, deliberate if it does not proceed from the Government's own confusion. On the question of the use of Australian manpower and the foreign policy objectives which he has, the Prime Minister referred to Vietnam in these terms - In particular, in South Vietnam the continued instability of government has made the task of resistance more difficult and to some extent frustrates the massive efforts of the United States and our own necessarily small contributions. I would have gathered from the speech of the honorable member for Phillip that he really does envisage that Australian troops will be in Vietnam. Is there any member of this House who believes that we can have clear objectives in Vietnam? Vietnam to the French, who put in 490,000 men, was a bottomless pit for manpower. It has been a bottomless pit for manpower ever since because of the guerrilla tactics adopted by the Viet Cong in that country. We saw recently in the " Four Corners " programme how very difficult it is to identify the enemy there. It is not very clear whether the Prime Minister believes that this is the field of Australian service, in particular, because he spoke about our necessarily small efforts in Vietnam. But honestly, is there anyone who believes that in the situation which exists in Vietnam the West has been able to be clear about its line of policy from the years when France started fighting there in 1946, and finally left at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, to the present time? Mr. Whittorn. - What does the honorable member think about it? Mr. BEAZLEY. - I am only saying that if the Government intends to appropriate manpower for a purpose, for Heaven's sal0, let it be for something about which we can have clear objectives. I am very doubtful whether there is a clear objective in this situation. The Prime Minister did not attempt to define that purpose. I will not gibe at the Government because it does not have an easy solution of the problems of Asia. There is a very simple feature about Asia. I think the whole of Asia is determined - it may hold this determination wisely or unwisely - that its affairs will not be settled by Europeans. This is why we find it so difficult to get a stable government even among the anti-Communists in these areas. Everyone knows that this is true. It has been very hard to build on anyone. If the Government has some objective for the use of Australian manpower overseas, let it not be in a place which, to a great power like France, proved itself to be a bottomless pit into which she poured 490,000 men and from Which she had to withdraw after hine years of war. Honorable members opposite may deride that view as much as they like, but this is a sincere query about whether we have any defined objectives or can have any defined objectives in Vietnam. The Prime Minister spoke about Indonesia. He said - If Indonesia provoked a war, the only people in Indonesia who would get advantage from it would be the Communists. It is China's aim to unite the limitless manpower of China with the technology of Japan and the resources of Indonesia. To prevent Japan being under the control of Communist China, the United States fought in Korea and so did the United Nations and the various component States of the United Nations, including Australia. Similarly, the United States maintains Formosa or Taiwan independent from Communist China because it lies athwart the trade communications to Japan from the south. The policy is to prevent Japan and her technology falling under Chinese Communist control. The question of Controlling Indonesia is very difficult from China's point of view and Chinese control could be effected only by Aidit and the Indonesian Communist Party being able to take over that country. It is quite clear that when the United States used pressure on the Dutch to leave West New Guinea because Indonesia claimed it as West Irian, she did so not because she believed the Indonesians could defeat the Dutch but because she believed that the Indonesians would be defeated, that Nasution and the Army would be discredited, that the Indonesian Communists would take over and that Indonesia's 100 million people would pass into the Chinese Communist orbit. The Prime Minister speaks of Malaysia and the whole situation there as one of tension and insecurity for Australia. If we defeat Indonesia and Indonesia goes Communist and the 100 million people of Indonesia pass into the Chinese Communist orbit, then our position is not one of tension but becomes one of imminent peril. So it is no use saying that we have clear, unshakable, unmistakable and undoubtedly undebatable objectives, that we can attain in Malaysia if we defeat Indonesia, and then say that we have thus added to the security of Australia. Mr. Jess. - The honorable member means that we give up in Malaysia? Mr. BEAZLEY. - I do not mean any such thing. I mean that one cannot play little party political advantage games with the facts of Asia. We can defeat Indonesia for Malaysia, but if Indonesia goes Communist and comes under Chinese Communist control and influence we are in greater peril than before. What would then be the point of war? Would it be added danger? That is merely a statement of fact. The Government should not pretend to the Australian people that there are clear easy solutions anywhere in Malaysia or Asia that it can obtain with 4,000 conscript troops, because that is not true. I am not deriding the Government because it cannot solve this Asian problem. I merely say that it should stop pretending that it can when the whole of the West has been unable to do so. Dr. Mackay. - Who has been pretending? Mr. BEAZLEY. - The Prime Minister certainly did not pretend that he can do so but the honorable member for Phillip did. What he said about Indonesia going Communist happened to be the precise opposite of what the Prime Minister said. Whatever is set up in Vietnam, whatever anyone likes to say, the demand is for unlimited manpower. Just as the French found that to be the position, I am afraid - I say this again - that Vietnam is a bottomless pit. The need is for a defence policy which produces the maximum assent and the maximum unity in this country. That is worth a good deal of sacrifice of minority bright ideas. The honorable member for Phillip said - I suppose we have heard this about 700 times from Government members - that we do not support the Government's defence policy and that a bipartisan policy was never possible. I was personally responsible, two or three weeks ago, for slating the Opposition's support of the Government's three defence Bills which were introduced at that time before the Government had made this decision on conscription. I said at that time, and I say again, that not once in the 15 years that we have been in Opposition and the parties opposite have been in government have we voted against a defence appropriation. So that statement of the honorable member is just not true. If we disagree with this proposal for overseas service, we disagree with it because we do not believe that it will add to the security of Australia, especially if the Government envisages the use of these troops in an area like Vietnam where it has no defined objectives, and in an area like Malaysia where it is afraid that if we defeat Indonesia she will go Communist and we will be in even greater peril. No one can give a mandate to the Government for this policy except the Australian electorate. It is not basically important that the Liberal Party thinks it is a bright idea and that the Labour Party thinks it is a bad idea. The basic question is whether the Australian people are to be given a chance to pronounce upon it and effectively to change the Government if they disagree with it. It is very clear that honorable gentlemen opposite are not supporting a policy and risking their seats on it. I am not going to pretend that I have the faintest idea what the Australian electors think about this election, but I do say that if the Government wishes to make a radical departure in its defence policy, which is not covered by anything said in its policy speeches, and which is not completely opposed to what has been said in speech after speech on defence by members of the Ministry, then the Government should go back to the Australian people for a fresh mandate. I am very grateful that the Prime Minister today repudiated a statement that was made in the Senate because I thought that once again we were going to discuss this kind of issue on the basis of defamation and rancour which is such a marked feature of Australian politics. The fact that the Prime Minister has repudiated that statement gives us a hope that we can debate this issue on its merits as we see them. I do not think that a very great deal of the conscription campaign or the conscription problem of the First World War has relevance, but I think something about the country at that time is relevant. When Fisher was Prime Minister of Australia, at various stages in his Prime Ministership, Australia was obtaining between 30,000 and 36,000 volunteers a month. The number fell to 12,000. Then William Morris Hughes became leader of the Australian Labour Party. He went to the United Kingdom, and this was at a time when Haig and Nievelle were using manpower in ways about which, as we know now - it is publicly admitted - they were completely unclear. Haig lost 60,000 men in a day in ian offensive on the Somme and Nievelle lost 80,000. Under this use of manpower, which Churchill does not trust himself to describe in his book " The World Crisis " - he merely puts out Haig's dispatches to speak for themselves and demonstrate Haig's inability to see the situation - the demand for manpower became unlimited, and the Western Front was a bottomless pit. Hughes came back to demand conscription. His mistake was not merely in doing that; his mistake was embarking on a campaign of defamation. Honorable members can take their sides on that issue. I leave that aside. I merely say that when the campaign was over Hughes scarcely got 36,000 recruits in a year whereas Fisher had sometimes got that number in a month. When Hughes went abroad,' William Watt, the Deputy Leader, called together Tudor and Scullin to the Governor-General's conference to try to restore the national unity which had existed in the first two years of the war. Someone's bright idea, accompanied not by real debate but by defamation, so bemused the Australia public that it destroyed national unity. This is something that can be done very easily. There are many people who agree with the Government on the question of national service, but they do not believe in the overseas service component. Still less will they believe in it if the strategic use of those troops is in a situation like that in Vetnam or such as that in Malaysia if the defeat of Indonesia achieves the turning of Indonesia to Communism. We are now having at election after election, the existence of crisis; but the crisis is never mentioned after the election. We come up to an election, there is said to be a world crisis, the Government is returned, and after the election the crisis is gone. The Government may be developing a habit of mind in which it has a vested interest in disaster and in developing in the Australian people a posture of hate and fear of Asia. I want to say something about this. I recently had to speak to a group of 25 intelligent young people. I asked them three questions. First I asked them what they thought was Australia's basic attitude to Asia. Secondly I asked them what they thought was Australia's basic interest in Asia. Thirdly, I asked them what they thought was Asia's basic need. The answers they returned were that Australia's basic attitude to Asia was one of fear; that Australia's basic interest in Asia was stability, and that Asia's basic heed was good leadership. I only want to deal with the aspect that Australia's basic attitude towards Asia is fear, because that attitude is now being played on here. If there is one thing that is quite clear about the whole history of Asia it is her conservatism on migration. There is a childish belief in this country that the whole of Asia wants to shift down to Australia to live. We see letters in the Press expressing the fear that we will be eating rice or wearing coolie hats. Let us look at the events that led to the white Australia policy. The first was the Kanaka labour trade in Queensland. Who organised it? Europeans did. Then there was the migration of Indians to Fiji. Who organised that? Europeans did. Then we had the position of the migrants to Natal. That, too, was organised by Europeans. Dr. Gibbs. - What about the Chinese gold miners? Mr. BEAZLEY. - I will speak about them. In the 53 years from 1788 to 1851, no Asian migrants came to this country although we had no immigration policy preventing their doing so in the Australian colonies. Then gold attracted Chinese gold miners who intended to return to China after they had won their gold. That intention to return was a marked feature of those Chinese people at that time. The Chinese migration to the Northern Territory was organised by the South Australian Government, and when the South Australian Government tried to get Japanese migrants, its representatives were practically ordered out of Japan, first for assuming that the Japanese were only capable of coolie labour, and then for assuming that the Japanese would want to migrate to a place like Australia, anyway. So, the thing that is striking about the Asian people is their conservatism towards migration. Neither the Dutch nor Sukarno have been able to persuade the Javanese to migrate to Sumatra although Java has more than 70 million people whilst Sumatra has about 7 million. They will not migrate. Again, in the Mekong Delta where the population is about 2,000 to the square mile, people will not migrate to other parts of the country which have only 10 to the square mile. This fear that everybody wants to come to live here has kept us cramped and unreal in our relations with Asia, and 1 believe it is time that we abandoned it. I am not so childish as to pretend that with Communist forces in Asia there is no danger to Australia. I merely want to say that, ante dating Communism and ante dating the Russian Revolution there was always this cramped attitude of fear and it could easily be used by the politicians in this country. It is radically false and it damages our thinking when politicians play upon the fear. We can have an intelligent relationship with Asia and I want to say to the Prime Minister's credit that in relation to Japan he has demonstrated that this is so. I believe that we can have other approaches. I do not know whether we can achieve anything like an alliance, but an area of mutual economic support could be developed between Australia, Japan and India, and that is the kind of thinking that we ought to have as far as Asia is concerned. Now we see the Government hurrying to provide for the conscription of youth in the Armed forces of the Commonwealth, with liability for overseas service. If the Government proposes to have this programme in Australia, will it reverse its IS years of indifference to national fitness? Apparently there are many youths in this country who will not be called up under this scheme. The national fitness grant has been frozen at very poor levels from 1949 onwards while the value of money has deteriorated. Has the Government a programme of life for our youths. If the Commonwealth Government will back national fitness - something unrelated to military service - it will show that it has a total programme for Australia, not merely a programme for the minority who will be going into the forces. The " Four Corners " programme on conscription showed such an appalling confusion of mind in the Australian electorate, that I think one or two things ought to be said about the thinking in evidence. Selective national service, despite the views of some interviewed is not a cure for delinquency. The United States of America has had selective national service for a long time and it also has a very great problem of delinquency. It is not the Army's job to try to cure delinquents. Those people who maintain that the delinquents should be taken off the street for the Army have a very low estimate of the intelligence of the officers who will be doing the selection of the men. They will choose the best. The purpose of national service with conscription for overseas service is to create an army. All these stories about how some delinquent will have his long hair cut and his guitar taken away from him are so much nonsense which is just confusing the minds of the Australian people. I want to speak finally about two other aspects of our defence policy. During the last election campaign the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) asked for the addition to the Australian fleet of an adequate attack carrier, as distinct from the kind of escort carrier that the " Melbourne " and formerly the " Sydney " represent. Honorable members opposite are fond of saying that it is a foolish policy to wait for the enemy to come to our front door. Are they satisfied that our Navy can cut the lines of communication between Indonesia and West Irian, because if the Navy cannot cut the lines of communication between Indonesia and West Irian, and is not superior to the Indonesian fleet in the area, the Indonesians could put all the troops they liked into West Irian for subsequent movement into East New Guinea. If the Government has a policy for conscription of a few thousand men annually while the Fleet Air Arm disappears and while the Navy remains inadequate, it is honorable members opposite and not we who are standing for a policy in which Indonesia - if it is envisaged as the enemy - could come to our own borders. I am not sure that Indonesia is so intent on war as honorable members have suggested. I have often listened to the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) and what he has had to say about Asia makes me very humble. I must admit that I am very confused by Asian statements. Of the two Asian powers with which we have recently had military dealings, one is China, which announced that it was not at war but poured hundreds of thousands of men into North Korea, and the other is Indonesia which has announced a policy of confrontation against Malaysia and drops men into Malayasia 20 at a time so that sometimes they are arrested by the police. These are odd developments the purpose of which I must admit I find somewhat baffling. I suggest that if honorable members opposite are thinking just in terms of manpower and have no effective policy of technological equipment for the services, especially the Air Force and the Navy, then I am afraid that Australia is destined for the utterly subordinate role of supplying infantry, perhaps, for jungle warfare while we are utterly dependent on the navy and air forces of other powers. If this is the Government's defence policy - and this is what its defence policy adds up to - honorable members opposite can point all the fingers they like at the Opposition, but every honorable member opposite will know in his own heart that the policy is not an adequate one. Mr. SINCLAIR (New England) [9.13].- The honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) has just given us his appreciation of the Asian situation. It seems to me that he has followed the line that the Labour Party has adopted in this national service issue which we are now considering, that is, of trying to portray the picture as being far blacker than it is. Honorable members opposite have been trying to put into the Australian people a fear of what might happen to the boys who are called up for training in the Australian Army. They are trying to distort this image in a quite unjustified manner. The honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) mentioned tonight a lottery of doom or death, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) spoke of playing Russian roulette with our youth. That is not the fact. Australia since the war has contributed a great deal economically to the development of South East Asia. In a booklet " Australia's Aid to Developing Countries" which was distributed to honorable members only a few days ago the extent of this aid is made apparent. Perhaps it is not so much as some of us would like, but certainly Australia has done a great deal to assist underdeveloped countries, not only in South East Asia but also in other areas. From 1945 to 1964 a total of £380.179 million has been provided in economic aid to other countries. Of this amount, approximately £200 million has been provided to Papua and New Guinea and of the balance of about £180 million, more than £100 million has been provided to assist peoples in South East Asia. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) did not suggest in his statement to the House the other night that Australia was going out with warlike or aggressive intent towards the people close to our shores. What he did say was that Australians must be prepared to defend their country. As a consequence of this he looked at the whole situation as it exists today. In his appreciation, he stated - At present, important questions arise which require frank answers. They will, I regret to say, indicate that there has been a deterioration in our strategic position since the review which I presented to Parliament last year. This is the crux of the measure that we are considering tonight. This is the basis of a decision by this Government to review the method of recruitment to the Australian forces. Australia is facing a deteriorating political situation in which there is certainly, unfortunately, no defined objective other than the defence of our own land, which I suggest was the objective defined in the speech of the honorable member for Fremantle tonight. The honorable member suggested, as I understood his remarks, that it might be possible for Australia to defend her shores with an increased quota by refusing to permit national service trainees to go beyond Australia's shores. I presume that his suggestion was that it would be necessary to divide our forces into two categories - volunteers and those who were recruited under this legislation. He has suggested that in this way we would be able to train these men adequately. Surely this is not realistic. If we have a deteriorating situation, a situation in which Australia has not for one moment any aggressive intent, what we must do is prepare to develop and train our armed forces to the utmost of our ability so that they can be operated as an integrated unit, so that they can be operated as a whole and so that they can be trained to the peak of efficiency. Surely this is not possible if we divide them into two categories, one of which can go overseas while the other stays at home. This issue was the basis of the argument of the Prime Minister the other night. He suggested that the deteriorating situation, not only in Indonesia but also in Laos, in South Vietnam and further north in Cambodia, was in areas into which Australia must be prepared to send her forces in order to ensure that the militant expansion of atheistic materialism does not encroach on our own foreshores. This is a position that the Australian people would do well to remember when considering the measure that we are discussing tonight, lt has been suggested that in this scheme we are playing with the youth of our country and that the older members of the community are not prepared to bear their fair share. I suggest that the men who are called up will not be going out into any more dangerous situation than exists on the Australian roads today. If honorable members compare graphs showing the number of deaths that occur on, and accident rates for, Australian roads with the number of casualties in the last war, and consider particularly the incidence of road accidents among the age group 17 to 20, they will appreciate that young people today face a more dangerous situation when driving along the road from Yass to Canberra or when driving down George Street or Collins Street than ever they would face in a situation of war. This is the perspective which I suggest members of the Australian community would do well to bear in mind when considering this frightening distortion that members of the Opposition have portrayed. You cannot view the situation as it exists in our near north today without appreciating that it is such that Australia's defence quotas as they were determined not so long ago are no longer realistic. It was with this in mind that the Prime Minister suggested that the quota of 28,000 men by 1967 was insufficient and that now it was necessary to recruit into the Regular Army as soon as possible an effective strength of 33,000 men, which means a total force of 37,500 men. This is the point which, I suggest, members of the Opposition, throughout this debate, have completely ignored. They have suggested that, as far as recruiting manpower is concerned there is no alternative other than lowering our educational requirements. I trust that in this national service call-up there will not be exemptions made on educational grounds. I trust that some of these people who have been described, I think, by some members of the Opposition, as having long hair and hanging around milk bars, will be some of those recruited into service because I feel that there is a place for these men. If there is no place for them there then perhaps we will have to extend beyond the grounds of the Regular Army to find some service for them, perhaps by way of a peace corps or a national development corps. I feel there are ways of utilising Australian manpower, particularly these young men, if they are not capable of meeting the standards laid down by the Australian Regular Army. There must be other forms of service. I think this is one field which might be considered in the future. Because of the buoyancy of Australia's economy and the fact that the young men in Australia today, fortunately, are earning high wages and in a position to enjoy a great deal of leisure, these people, I suggest, can frequently only think of their immediate gain. Perhaps they do not think any further than Bondi Beach on a Sunday - and a very pleasant place it is, too. But, at the same time, I suggest that these are the men who might well contribute more to the development of the underdeveloped parts of this country. If there is no room for these men in the Australian Regular Army it might be relevant to consider a national development corps which might utilise them. But this is not the basis of the discussion tonight. What we are discussing is utilising Australian manpower to ensure that the members of the Opposition, as well as every man, woman and child of Australia, continue to have their present security and continue to enjoy their present measure of prosperity. The working man, the farmer, the housewife and the man in the city can all continue to enjoy that measure of prosperity which they enjoy at the moment. It is no use looking at national service without also looking at the cost to the country. This is, I feel, one of the most favorable attributes of the measure that we are considering tonight. If we were to introduce total national conscription then surely, in a tight manpower situation, Australia would be faced with an economic position which would be quite impossible. The implementation of the proposed form of restrictive national service training, I suggest, will have a minimum effect on Australian manpower. As far as taxation is concerned, there is no doubt that because of the modifications in our defence assessment and the expansion of our defence commitments there is going to be a need for further funds to finance these commitments. This is a measure that the whole of the Australian community must bear. This additional commitment of taxation is one that, as has been suggested, must follow. There is, surely, no other way if we are going to increase our expenditure on defence by something like £404 million in the next three years. This is the only way that we can hope to finance it. I feel that the people of Australia will be only too prepared to meet this additional demand when the time comes. The other problem facing us is the diversion of our resources. One of our problems is that Australia at this stage is still largely undeveloped. Unfortunately there are many areas of Australia where the population is not as great as it might be. In our northern regions there are great areas where, unfortunately, there are not very many people. I am hoping that these areas will not be affected by this diversion of resources from development to defence. I hope that if there is to be a diversion of resources, if it is necessary for any restriction to be placed on Australia's development, that it will be in the south rather than in the north, because I think that the development of our north is essential as a build-up of our national defence effort. I think that by increasing our population and our productivity in the north we are also contributing to our defence. I think this also applies, but more so, to the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. I feel that in Papua and New Guinea we must continually be able to allocate increased sums of money for development. We must be prepared te assist those people so that they can progress towards some measure of self-sufficiency. I feel that this is one part of our nation's development which must not be affected by this build up in defence. I did want to mention some of the other side effects of this Bill. One of them it, I think, the essential consequential build-up of the Citizen Military Forces. One of the very wise exemptions from recruitment in the national service scheme, or from the ballot for call-up, is service in the Citizen Military Forces. I think that through the citizen military forces Australia, in the past has been able to build up, over a very short period of time, its regular services. The men who serve in the citizen forces do a wonderful job in this country. I think that one of the side effects of this legislation will be to encourage the young men of Australia to join the citizen forces. I trust that the men of Australia in a position to be involved in this ballot will bear this fact in mind. I think that if we could increase the number of people who voluntarily join the citizen forces then those men would be able to serve Australia far better than in any other way. One of the problems in any form of national service is that there will be a few who serve but many who do not. Those who do not serve will also be able to meet their responsibility by volunteering for the Citizen Military Forces. Another item I was glad to see was that there is to be some extension in the quota of school cadets. Unfortunately, I do not think the extension is sufficient. I think that, through the cadets, and through a follow-up from them in to the citizen forces, Australia's defence might be developed to a greater extent than has been done to date. I feel that young men who receive some basic training in the cadets go into either the Regular Army or the citizen forces with sufficient of the rudiments of military logistics and techniques to be able to make better servicemen. For this reason the Government might well consider extending the present quotas in the cadet force to a point where every person of eligible age will be able to get some cadet training during their second education. I think that this would certainly make those who eventually serve iq the Australian forces better trained and better equipped to face any emergency which might arise. The National Service Bill has been completely distorted by the level of attacks presented by members of the Opposition. I suggest that the problem we are facing is not that of an aggressor but of a peaceful country and that this problem has been caused by forces beyond our control. The Government is not adopting national service training because it believes that by so doing it will solve the problem. What it is trying to do is to continue to preserve Australia's integrity. I do not believe that there is any way in which that can be done other than by recruiting additional manpower into the Services. Tonight there has been much talk about the educational standards of the Australian Regular Army being a little higher now than they were in the past. No doubt, many of the most gallant Australian soldiers have been men with not a very advanced standard of education. But in this instance the measure introduced by the Government does not mention education. It is of no use to say that in the past volunteers have been rejected because of insufficient education, because the present standards have been laid down for the peculiar technical complexities which, it has been suggested, exist in relation to service in the Regular Army. This Bill does not exclude men who do not come up to those standards. That completely negates the arguments that members of the Opposition have put forward. Another point that strikes me about the Opposition's case is that members of the Opposition have not put forward a constructive alternative defence policy. It is all very well for them to say: " We disagree with the Government's quotas. We believe that Australia ought to have this item of equipment or that item of equipment ". But this Bill and the defence statement made by the Prime Minister not only have appraised the political tactical situation but also have provided, as a result, what I believe is an adequate means of combating the existing situation. I believe that this is one way in which Australia can continue to grow and in which we, as members of the Australian community, can be assured of retaining something of the measure of prosperity which has been our lot in the past. That is why I support this Bill. I agree that, unfortunately, there will be problems in the recruitment of personnel. I know that, unfortunately, there will be those who will be selected for national service training and those who will miss out. There will be criticism about that. That is why I believe that the Government should be praised for bringing down this measure before the Senate election. It is all very well for members of the Opposition to say that the timing of this legislation is wrong and that the Prime Minister brings down defence statements immediately before elections. But what better time is there to bring down a defence statement than before an election in which the people of Australia are given the opportunity to appraise the statement and to say whether or not they approve it. In my view, that is the only honest way to conduct the affairs of government. It is of no use to appraise the situation a month after an election and then say to the people: " It is just too bad. You will not have an opportunity to approve or negate this defence review until the next election ". Tonight the honorable member for Fremantle suggested, as I understood him, that the Prime Minister should have mentioned this defence review at the time of his last policy speech. How unrealistic can we be. The deterioration of Australia's situation has been mentioned in this House by several members of the Opposition in the past few weeks. It is that situation which Australia is meeting by this current reappraisal. It is of no use to say that things remain static in the overseas or international situation. Unfortunately, the international situation is changing weekly, if not daily. That is the reason why there can be no criticism of the Prime Minister for seeing fit at this stage to appraise realistically the situation to Australia's north and to appraise realistically Australia's defence situation accordingly. We, as Australians, seek to live in peace with our neighbours, to pursue our way of life and to develop further this great land mass of ours, with its disproportionate distribution of population, a population concentrated in the south-eastern corner. Those are our ideals. Australia is not an aggressor. What we seek to do is to maintain our currrent security and to maintain the integrity of the inhabitants of this land of ours and the integrity of the people of Papua and New Guinea. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON (Hindmarsh) [9.35].- The title of this Bill is: "A Bill for an Act to amend the National Service Act ". That is a misnomer. That is not the correct title for a bill like this. The title of the Bill ought to be: A Bill for an Act to authorise the conscription of Australian boys to fight in foreign wars. That is the real purpose of the Bill. The National Service Act is still on the statute book. It is not necessary to bring in a bill to recommence national service training. The only purpose of the Bill that we have before us now is to compel boys who normally would be doing national service training to go as conscripts to fight on foreign battlefields, not necessarily against a country with which Australia is at war. Mr. Barnes. - The honorable member would prefer the war to start here, would he? Mr. CLYDE CAMERON.- Of course I would not prefer the war to start here. The best way to get wars to start right here in Australia is to send our troops into some other country where we have no business to be, except to prop up corrupt and rotten governments such as those of South Vietnam, Formosa and Syngman Rhee's government in Korea, which collapsed as a result of its own rottenness and corruption. The Government of Chiang Kai-shek also collapsed because of its own corruption. The Communists under Mao Tse-tung would never have defeated the Chiang Kai-shek Government had that Government not been so rotten and corrupt. We are to send Australian boys overseas, as conscripts, in order to prop up these rotten, filthy military dictatorships which give no rights whatever to private citizens, and stifle trade unions. The only civilian rights of the people that they recognise are those which they can control. Is not that what this Bill proposes to do? Of course it is. The Bill proposes to use Australian boys to prop up rotten and corrupt military dictatorships in other parts of the world. We are completely opposed to the use of Australian troops for that purpose, because it is unworthy of Australia. I refer now to some of the remarks made by the honorable member for New England (Mr. Sinclair). He let the cat out of the bag when he said that the Government should conscript Australian youth into a labour corps so that they may be compelled to work for Army rates of pay on schemes such as a northern development corporation. That is the proposition the honorable member proposes. It is quite possibly within this Government's plans for the future, because the title of the principal act is: " An Act to provide for National Service in the Defence Force, and for other purposes". The " other purposes " could quite conceivably include the purposes to which the honorable member referred a few minutes ago; namely, conscription in order to obtain cheap labour for the development of the north. The north ought to be developed. I entirely agree with him on that point. The people who are solely responsible for the fact that the north is not developed and for the state of affairs that the honorable member now criticises are the members of the Menzies Government, because that Government has been in control of the treasury bench for 14 years now. They cannot blame anybody but themselves if Australia's defences are not adequate. We must blame the Menzies Government. The Labour Party cannot be blamed for that. If national service training collapsed, the Labour Party cannot be blamed because we were in opposition; we were not in government. The people to blame are the members of the Liberal-Country Party coalition Government. If the north has not been developed, we have to blame the members of the Menzies Government because for 14 years they have had control of this country. They are the ones who are responsible because they are the ones who have had the power and have not used it. The honorable member for New England said that taxes will be increased and that every section ought to be made to pay. Of course taxes will be increased. Let this be a warning to the Australian people that they will be taxed considerably more than they are at the present time, simply to pay for what is nothing more than an election stunt by the Menzies Government on the eve of the Senate election. The Menzies Government does not care how much it makes the Australian people contribute in additional taxes to pay for its elections stunts, so long as it can win the Senate election. It is about time the Australian people put an end to the squandering of their money in the process of supporting the Government's electioneering stunts purely for the purpose of keeping it in office. The increased taxation, of course, will be imposed on every section of the community. The greater part of the burden, however, ought to be imposed on the very rich, who have far more wealth to protect than anybody else has. All, rich and poor alike, have their freedom to protect. The rich have not only freedom but also their fabulous wealth to protect. They are the ones who ought to be compelled, therefore, to pay more for defence. The poor man gives his son to fight for his country and defend it. The rich man, if he cannot give his son, ought to be compelled to give his money. As Billy Hughes said once during the war, it is not only your money or your life; it is your money and your life. Anyone listening to some honorable members opposite would think that the only people who fought to defend this country were graduates of the University of Oxford. Listening to some honorable members opposite one would think that only those who had £10,000 in the bank let their sons go to war. The plain fact of the matter is that in the main the people who defended this country were the sons of working men. Had it not been for the sons of the working men in industry - the people whom you honorable members opposite now call Communists - this country would have been overrun long ago. Your Brisbane line proposal would have been implemented. Dr. Mackay. - Talk to Australia about that. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON. - If the honorable member, who came into this place with a machine gun in one hand and a Bible in the other, concentrated on his oil shares and stopped pretending to be a man of God, the people would more quickly recognise him for what he is. I think that the less we hear from him the better it will be. The honorable member for New England praised the Government for bringing in this Bill before the Senate election. The Government's reason for introducing the Bill is for the purpose of capitalising on the fear complex that it was instilling into the people's minds by trying to make them believe that we are about to have a war. Indeed, if one listened to the Government, one would almost believe that a war would break out tomorrow morning. The Government is attempting to make the people think that there is to be a war and that therefore they should get behind the Government and vote for Liberal candidates at the Senate election. The Government suggests to the people that they should support it because there is a war round the corner and that, if they did not vote for it, the war will be lost. How could any country possibly win a war if it relied on the defence proposals of the Menzies Government? One cannot win wars by relying on national service trainees armed with boomerangs. Wars can be won today only with up to date weapons, and we lack them. The Government adopted certain electioneering stunts in the campaign for the last general election for the House of Representatives, and these received banner headlines in the newspapers. Here is one of them - Check on U.S. Plane Deal. The TFX bomber was then being mooted. The next headline is - TFX Deal "best ever for Aust. defence". The next one reads - Menzies again defends TFX. Next was - Stir Over Jet Deal. This was followed by - Aust. Given Top Priority for Bomber. The fact of the matter is that these bombers, which before the last election, were promised for 1967 will not be delivered before 1970. Does anybody suggest that the enemy, if he is to attack us, as the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) says he is, will delay the attack until the TFX bomber is delivered in 1970? That is the logical conclusion that one ought to draw from the Government's defence plans, because its only plans concern equipment that will not be delivered in Australia until 1966 and, in some instances, 1970. The Government has announced that we are to have a £2 million submarine base at Neutral Bay in Sydney. That will be nice and handy to the cocktail parties. The admirals will not have to travel so far to attend parties. Who can forget 1951 when there was another election round the corner? Who can forget that the Prime Minister then promised to give us a war within three years? In this chamber, he almost gloated over that promise. He gleefully announced, in effect, " I can give you a war within three yeaTs if you will only put me back in office ". Mr. Daly. - Sir Eric Harrison even said that it could be advanced a year. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON. - He said that he could arrange for the war to come in two years. This is typical of the thinking of the present Government. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. Failes). - Order! I suggest that the honorable member come back to the subject matter of the Bill. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON.- The political situation that existed in 1951 is being repeated now, Sir. Supporting the Government on the back benches is a group of warmongers who would not care where the war was or who was sent to fight in it so long as there was a war. They want one. They do not care whether it is in South Vietnam- Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes. - I object to the statement just made by the honorable member. As one who has fought in two world wars I object to that statement on behalf of those who fought in both wars. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. - Does the honorable member claim that the statement is offensive to him? Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes.- Yes. I object to that statement and regard it as an insult. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.- What was the statement? Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes. - That those on this side of the House are nothing but warmongers. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. - The honorable member for Chisholm has asked for a withdrawal. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON.- If the cap fits, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the statement. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. - Order! Mr. Turner. - A withdrawal was asked for, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON. - I said that if the cap fits I withdraw. Mr. Turner. - I ask for an unqualified withdrawal, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. - I ask the honorable member for Hindmarsh to withdraw his statement. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON. - I withdraw it, Sir, but I have known of occasions when other Deputy Speakers have not asked for a withdrawal in similar circumstances. Let me now get on with the discussion. The Prime Minister, in his statement on defence, and the members of the Government Parties who have supported the need for a greater defence effort have all indicted the Government, because, whenever they criticize our lack of defence, they criticise those responsible for it. And who is responsible? Which government have we had, for the last 15 years or more? We have had none other than the Menzies Government. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.- Order! I remind the honorable member that he should come back to the subject matter of the Bill. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON.- The real issue here is not national service training. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.- Order! This Bill relates to national service training. Mr. CLYDE CAMERON.- The real issue is the right of the Government to take possession of a boy's body in peacetime and send it overseas to fight against a foreign power with which we may not even be at war. That is the real issue. Plenty of people favour national service training. The Australian Labour Party believes in voluntary national service training. We believe that a voluntary scheme of national service training could function satisfactorily if only we had a government that would give it a chance to do so. The present measure, Sir, embodies a proposal to conscript voteless boys aged 18. The Government appears to believe that it is safe in conscripting these boys, because they cannot vote against it. There are 200,000 aliens in this country who will not be required to register for national service training because they are not naturalised Australians. So we have a ridiculous situation in which boys bom in this country will be conscripted to fight in defence of the 200,000 aliens who will not be required to register or serve until they have become naturalised. How can the Government justify such a proposal? This is a Shameless and unadulterated form of tyranny. It is nothing else. There is no other way to describe it. The Government has no mandate from the people to do what it is doing. The Government, in its policy speech for the last Federal election campaign about 12 months ago, made no mention of its intention to introduce this proposal. It seems rather odd that it is a Menzies Government that introduces conscription for overseas service. On 20th December 1917, the Prime Minister had his 23rd birthday. I daresay he received several birthday presents. But perhaps the most valuable of all was the decision of the Australian people on that very day to reject conscription for overseas service. Honorable members will recall that the right honorable and gallant gentleman was at that time eligible for military service, and highly trained for such service. I do not blame him for not volunteering. I would not have been in favour of his being conscripted. He had every right, as an Australian, to refuse to go overseas and fight for his country if he had personal or other reasons for not fighting. I defend his right to refuse to go overseas to fight, and I always will defend it. I have never criticised the right honorable gentleman for exercising his right to refuse to go overseas to fight for his country. I have never once criticised him for exercising that right. I would like to know - this is germane to the present discussion - how the Prime Minister voted at the referendum on 20th December 1917. Did he vote in favour of conscripting other people to go overseas or did he vote against a proposal similar to that which he has now introduced into the Parliament? It would bc a very interesting exercise in logic to know whether the Prime Minister on that occasion voted in favour of conscription or against it. Only the Prime Minister knows. Mr. Curtin. - How do you think he voted? Mr. CLYDE CAMERON.- -I think the Prime Minister would vote against the proposal. I do not think the Prime Minister, having exercised his own right not to fight overseas, would vote to force others to go. One thing is certain - he would have been one of the first to be ca\ght in the net anyway. However, the PrN:.e Minister had every right to act as he did. I believe that service overseas ought to be authorised in certain circumstances. The Australian Government ought to give more support to the United Nations than it gives now. I believe that there is a strong case for the United Nations to establish a peace corps to operate in countries where trouble breaks out. It is in such a corps that Australian men would have the opportunity to take part in activities to quell trouble, if they wished to do so. This would be a laudable move. The Australian Labour Party does not oppose national service training. We make that quite clear. We have never opposed national service training. But we believe that it should be on a voluntary basis. We believe, moreover, that it can be operated successfully on a voluntary basis if some of the weaknesses that crept into the former scheme under this Government were eliminated. It is entirely wrong in a national service programme to have compulsory enlistment on the basis of a kind of lottery of death, where the name of every eligible person is put into a barrel and then a lottery is conducted to decide who shall go into the Army. " A lottery of death " is an apt description of the present proposal. Mr. Daly. - Who puts them into the barrel? Mr. CLYDE CAMERON.- Yes. Who puts the marbles in the barrel? That i3 another question we would like answered. Plenty of people, particularly in my State, are utterly opposed to a lottery of any kind. They do not believe in holding a raffle for a pair of stockings, for instance, because they say it is contrary to human dignity. What will these people say when they are asked to raffle a man's life? It is no wonder that the churches are opposed to the proposal and are up in arms about this wicked, monstrous action of the Government. I hope and sincerely believe that on the day of the Senate election the Government will be told in no uncertain manner that the people of Australia absolutely reject its proposal to conscript young Australian men and send them overseas to fight on some battlefield that has nothing at all to do with the Australian nation. Voluntary national service training has never really been tried. The rates of pay are too low. lt is utterly indefensible to say to a boy who can get £20 a week as a tradesman that he must go into the Army for national service training and receive £16 a week. The Government has no right to expect young men to do this, especially when it proposes to conscript them for service overseas where they could be killed. But the Government expects them to do this for £4 a week less than they can earn in industry. This situation cannot be justified. The Government is trying to defend the country on the cheap. It does not mind how much it pays for TFX bombers. lt is spending millions of pounds like water on the purchase of submarines, TFX bombers and fighter aircraft, but it wants to get men for the Army on the cheap. It wants to conscript young men to face the dangers of war for the lowest possible wage. In addition, the Government refuses to give them the benefits of the Repatriation Act. National service trainees are to be fobbed off with workers' compensation. This means that trainees if they are crippled for life, and their dependants, if they are killed, will receive far less than the benefits provided by the Repatriation Act. For instance the wife of a national service trainee who is killed during the course of his training will be paid off with £4,300, no matter how young she may be and no matter what obligations she may have to her family. That will be the end of the Government's obligation; it will forget all about the matter. These boys ought to be entitled to the full benefits of the Repatriation Act, and the Government ought to amend section 47 of the Repatriation Act so that it is clear that the Government, and not those who have an entitlement under the Act, shall discharge the onus of proof. Provision should be made for retraining and rehabilitation. The Government has no right to expect a man to serve in the Army until he is 40 or 45 years of age and then go out into the world to start a civilian life again. This is wrong. The Government should be made to accept the responsibility of providing him with proper rehabilitation. Servicemen do not have this opportunity now and that is one of the reasons why people will not join the Services. The Government should do more than it is to raise the prestige of national service training. The trainees do not have the respect that they are entitled to receive. The Government could do many things to raise the prestige of trainees. For years now the newspapers have been asking the Government to provide a better type of uniform so that the prestige of national service trainees would be raised. Other methods of improving the prestige of the trainees could be adopted. But the Government does nothing. It wants its defence on the cheap, and the cheaper the better because this means that its wealthy friends will have to pay less taxes. That is the Government's attitude on all these matters. One of the most objectionable features of the Act is that a mother can be forced to become an informer against her son. The Bill says that anyone refusing to answer questions or supply information concerning liability to register for national service training is liable to a fine of £50. How can the Government defend the inclusion of this provision? How can it defend forcing a father or a mother to become an informer against their son? The people of Australia do not know of these provisions. They ought to be told, because when they know that these provisions exist they will have something to say about the attitude of the Government. The Government abolished national service training some time ago. It was thus forced to the conclusion that Labour's viewpoint was the proper one, that a better result is obtained from voluntary training than from this form of national training. In fact, this was the Government's point of view until almost 14 days ago. On 10th July of this year, the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge) is reported to have said - The Government regards defence and recruitment as extremely important, but does not propose to go ahead with any national service training scheme. The newspaper article went on to say - Senator Paltridge said a restricted scheme for training 12,000 youths a year, out of a total of 102,500, would cost £20 million a year and mean capital expenditure over four or five years of another £24 million. lt was generally agreed that such a scheme would not be effective. That is what we are saying now. Before the issues of the Senate election had been decided upon, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) were still telling the truth. A newspaper on 1st August 1964, referring to the Minister for the Army, reported - He said the heads of all service departments were in agreement that a reintroduction of national service training would not help the present defence situation. Why did the Ministers make these statements as recently as August and why did they give as the authority for such statements the heads of the Service Departments? What has happened since August, in the view of the heads of the Departments, to enable the Government now to say that the proposal which the Services rejected as being impractical in August is now practical? The only change is that an election is now around the corner and the Government wants to try to create a fear complex in the minds of electors in the hope that they can be panicked into voting for this Government at the Senate election. I believe that this is purely a political decision. In 1959 when the national service proposal was defeated the then Minister for Defence, said that national service handicapped effective Army development by excessive demands on men and money. He said this on 26th November 1959. In 1957 it was estimated that national service had cost £20 million. Cabinet sat on 23rd February 1957 to consider a report by Service chiefs advocating a reduction in national service training and showing that the money saved could be better spent on buying equipment. I believe that the Service chiefs were completely right when they made that appraisal of the situation. One of the reasons why the voluntary system has failed in Australia is the apathy and maladministration of the Menzies Government. It is interesting to examine the Melbourne "Herald" of 17th June 1953. It contains a report which is indicative of what the present Government has allowed to occur in national service camps, and which has led to the whole scheme collapsing. A trainee in the 15th National Service Training Bat talion at Puckapunyal said that 4i weeks of his 98-day camp was almost entirely spent in preparing for a concert. He said that every afternoon for six weeks was spent rehearsing for a concert. All training ceased for a week before the concert began and was not resumed until four days before marching out. Military authorities, when they discovered that this information had leaked out to the Press, stated that if they had the power, and if this person did not have certain civilian rights, they would arraign the youth before a military tribunal and have him charged with giving information to the Press, because the Act specifically prohibited a national service trainee from disclosing information of this kind. Let me now give another example of the Government's attitude. In 1953 when the Prime Minister was addressing a lunch hour meeting of Sydney University students he was asked whether such activities as gardening and gymkhanas could be eliminated from national service training. The Prime Minister paused, pursed his lips, looked wise, dignified and thoughtful, and said that he could not answer the question offhand. This is the Statement which appeared in the "Sydney Morning Herald" of 31st October 1953. This was the Prime Minister's reply. Is it any wonder that the defences of the country have collapsed? No wonder national service training collapsed when the Prime Minister of the day adopted this type of attitude to it. I believe there is an unanswerable case against the Government for its defence failures. I believe there is an unanswerable case against the Government for allowing national service training to collapse. I am completely satisfied that voluntary training would be a success if we had a government which had enough gumption to do the things which need to be done in times of war and in times of national peril. What is more important than to have a lot of young men in the military farces armed with outdated rifles and the like is to have men properly equipped with the latest defence equipment, including the latest bombers and the latest fighters. We want new equipment for our Navy also. We want all these things, and we have wanted them for more than 10 years. But nothing has been done, or is likely to be done, and I hope that when the Senate election comes around the people of Australia will not hesitate to take the opportunity presented to them to tell the Government in no uncertain manner that they are not satisfied with what the Government is doing for defence and that they expect more. I hope that they indicate to the Government that if it does not do more in the line of defence, then in two years' time when the House of Representatives election comes around the Government will be thrown out of office. Mr. HUGHES (Parkes) [10.4].- When a serious question like this is under discussion not only the House but the country is entitled to expect from honorable members an appropriately high standard of contribution to the debate. If that is what they are entitled to expect, they have little to thank the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) for, because he has indulged in a thoroughly unworthy, unreasoned and prejudiced approach to this measure. Mr. Peters. - Get on with the business. Mr. HUGHES. - I will, if the honorable member stops interrupting. The honorable member for Hindmarsh has done nothing but rake over a political muckheap of his own making. The highwater mark of his muckraking was reached early in his speech when he made the disgraceful allegation that this Bill was designed to possess the bodies of young Australian boys so that they could be sent overseas to prop up rotten corrupt governments. I thought that there was a general measure of agreement between both parties on at least one question - that is, that we are committed, and rightly committed, to defend Malaysia, its people and its government against the sort of aggression that is going on there now and, if present events are any guide to the future, is likely to get worse in the near future. Is the honorable member for Hindmarsh, who has indulged in this sally of political muckraking, suggesting that if we send troops to defend Malaysia pursuant to our commitment - and the Opposition said they agreed to this commitment - we are propping up a rotten and corrupt government? I think that the House might have been entitled to expect the honorable member for Hindmarsh to be a little more explicit on that point but, of course, he sailed right away from it and went on with his characteristic invective. I thought before tonight that the honorable member for Hindmarsh was a fairly downy bird. I thought that his lapses into political irrationality were fairly limited and reserved for his pet aversion, Mr. Ansett; but there are no bounds to his irrationality. He has demonstrated that very effectively by his diatribe in this chamber tonight - a diatribe which has done nothing whatsoever to contribute any constructive thought to this debate. Mr. Peters. - Get on with the business. Mr. HUGHES.- Apparently the honorable member cannot take it. He does not like it. I can appreciate his shame at what has just come from the honorable member for Hindmarsh. I suppose really that I should thank the honorable member for Hindmarsh for having lost so many votes for his party in the forthcoming Senate election, because nothing would be more calculated to make a decent Labour man shrivel up in disgust than what they heard from the honorable member for Hindmarsh tonight - Mr. Nicholls. - How would you know a decent Labour man? Mr. HUGHES. - I would. I do not think that the honorable member who interjects at the moment would fulfill that description. It is about time, after having listened to the honorable member for Hindmarsh making his regrettable approach to this measure, that we got back to the facts. What are the facts? In May 1963 the Prime Minister announced to this House that in the light of the current situation and the reasonably foreseeable situation it was necessary to increase the strength of the Australian Regular Army to 28,000 men by 1967. At that time the strength of the Australian Regular Army was of the order of 22,000 men, so the target was to get another 6,000 men in four years, which would require a net intake of 1^00 men a year over that period if the policy objective were to be achieved. The first interesting point that should be made regarding that announcement, made as it was in May 1963, is that this House did not hear any opposition to the proposal from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). The Opposition apparently did not demand a debate on the subject because the motion to adjourn the debate was moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and there the matter rested. If I recall correctly no voice was raised outside the House by any responsible member of the Labour Party suggesting that that target was not a perfectly proper one in the light of the situation that then obtained. What has happened since that time? In the year that ended on 30th June 1964 the net rate of intake - the excess of recruits over wastage - was 737 men. This means that in the year 1963-64 the rate of intake was a little less than SO per cent, of what was needed to achieve by 1967 our target of 28,000. Next I come to the ten months which expired on 31st October last - a few days ago. If we look at the recruiting figures for that period of ten months it will be found that the net rate of intake, that is, the excess of intake over wastage in those ten months, has been only 614. If we project that figure forward for the next ensuing two months of this year, we have the situation where again, if we rely on the voluntary system, we would still be short by 50 per cent, of our recruiting target of 28,000 men set in May 1963. Mr. Daly. - This Government has not tried the voluntary system. Mr. HUGHES.- I am glad the honorable member has made that interjection because the truth of the matter is that we have tried the voluntary system. We have given it a thoroughly fair trial. Let this be borne in mind, and the honorable member for Grayndler might listen a moment: It is only in this debate and in the related debate on the Prime Minister's defence statement the other day that these charges that we have not given the voluntary system a fair trial have been bandied about by the Opposition for the first time. Let me demonstrate that point, because it is demonstrably plain. In June of this year the Minister for Defence announced a far reaching series of proposals, which have been quickly implemented, for improving the pay and conditions of service for the armed forces. Mr. Benson. - The Government took that point from our policy announced last November. Mr. HUGHES. - 1 rather think that if the honorable member for Batman- Mr. Benson. - Read our policy. Mr. HUGHES. - I have read it and think it is very threadbare. It has all the expansiveness and vagueness which you would expect from people who have been out of power longer than they care to remember. The improvements to which I referred were announced on 18th June this year. I ask the House to bear this next matter in mind when we are considering the sincerity or otherwise of the present attack of the Opposition: It is notable that between June and last Thursday not one suggestion was made in this House by any member of the Opposition that the proposals did not go far enough. On Thursday a strange change overcame the opposite benches. Mr. Allan Fraser. - It is a very good point. But what is the honorable member's point? Mr. HUGHES. - I do not expect to make the honorable member for Eden-Monaro see it, because I have in mind the educational tests about which he spoke this afternoon. This is the answer to the charge that the voluntary system has not been given a fair trial. This Government did its level best to stimulate voluntary recruiting by improving pay and conditions. Not only that, but the Government did its best - its timely best - to ensure that a permanent career in the Regular Army would be attractive to young men of initiative, energy and ambition. Let us go on a little bit after June. I have made the point, I hope even to the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), that these measures were met with complete silence; and silence in this context would denote approbation. Let us go forward to the four months which ended on 31st October this year. Let us look at the position with regard to recruit intake for the Australian Regular Army and wastage over those four months. I am in a position to inform the House, by reason of information that I have sought from the proper quarter, that in those four months the net intake - the excess of recruits over wastage - for the Australian Regular Army was 62. If you project that forward to put it on an annual basis, that number represents about 15 per cent, of what we would need to achieve our limited target of 28,000 men by 1967. I feel that the statistics speak for themselves. They show that despite every reasonable effort which was made by the Government to promote the voluntary system, it is not a sufficient answer to our present needs. Mr. Allan Fraser. - Why did the voluntary system fail? Mr. HUGHES. - I will tell the honorable member, if he will listen. The honorable member has anticipated my next point. The voluntary system has failed for the simple reason that in a country where we have full employment, thank goodness, and where we have unparalleled prosperity, the attractions of a permanent career in the Regular Army are less than they would be in less fortunate circumstances. Mr. Allan Fraser. - So the Government conscripts men instead of making conditions equally attractive. Is that the answer? Mr. HUGHES. - My friend cannot follow so he proposes to interrupt. I do not have the time to answer him. I will go on, and I hope that he might listen to me a little. Conditions in the economy are not calculated to promote recruitment on a voluntary basis for the Australian Regular Army. This is not to imply that the Government's means of stimulating the voluntary recruitment have been insufficient. The Government could not have done more than it did. That is demonstrated by the silence of the Opposition over the four months since last June. In our economy - buoyant, prosperous, as it is - there are not the appropriate conditions for large scale voluntary recruitment. As I have said, this does not imply any slight or insult on the young men of this country. It is perfectly understandable and perfectly natural that in this country's present economic situation a young man weighing the prospects of various future careers may feel averse to submitting himself to the long term constraint of military life. Mr. Allan Fraser. - Does the honorable member disagree with that? Mr. HUGHES.- I said that despite the fact that engagement with the Australian Regular Army has been made attractive - in fact, much more attractive than ever in the past - there is every prospect that some young men would prefer the freedom of civilian life, its lack of constraint and its unbounded opportunities. It is no stricture upon the young people of this country of military age that they have not offered themselves in sufficient numbers for full time service in the Australian Regular Army. This is the price of prosperity. In that situation it is only right and proper that the Government should turn its mind to alternative methods of bringing the Regular Army to the size which we now need. Mr. Allan Fraser. - And what does the honorable member believe- Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. - Order! The honorable member for Eden-Monaro will cease interjecting. He has already, spoken. Mr. HUGHES. - Let me point to another incontestable fact Last week the Prime Minister proposed, as the policy of the Government, that in the light of the drastically changed - for the worse - politicomilitary situation the size of the Regular Army for which we should now aim is of the order of 37,500 men. It is incontestable that no Opposition member has risen in his place and quarrelled with that proposal. I take it, therefore, that it is common ground that the Opposition agrees that we should have a Regular Army of 37,500 men. If any honorable member opposite who has not yet participated in the debate disagrees with that proposition, I would be glad to hear from him now. No one speaks. Silence is assent. So even the Opposition appears to be agreed that we need, as the Prime Minister propounded, a Regular Army of 37,500 men by 1966. The figures that I have cited demonstrate conclusively that despite all that has been done we will not achieve even our 1963 target of 28,000 men by the voluntary system. What hope is there, therefore, of achieving a much higher target by 1966? Those are the facts. We have a need, which is conceded by the Opposition, for a larger Regular Army. How are we to go about getting it in the light of the demonstrated failure of the voluntary system to achieve its objective? Mr. Allan Fraser. - It is the failure of the Government, not the failure of the young people. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. - Order! Mr. HUGHES. - I rather enjoy these unintelligible interjections, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they demonstrate that the shoe is beginning to hurt. I suggest to the honorable member for Yarra (Dr. J. F. Cairns) who is interjecting that he remain where he is in the political spectrum. He is very well suited in that position. What amazes me, and I should think a lot of people both inside this House and outside, is the dilemma in which the Opposition finds itself in dealing with this measure. Honorable members opposite have conceded the need for a largely increased Army. They must admit - they have admitted it by silence - that the voluntary system has failed. This is the crying shame: They are prisoners of time worn shibboleths that are entirely out of date. They are prisoners of history because all they can do is trot out the old emotional arguments, devoid of reason and refusing to face up to the facts of life. What do they say? They dress up their remarks, of course, in the most emotive language. They talk about taking the bodies of young men and about the lottery of death, but their king hit is their statement: "We are utterly and absolutely opposed to the conscription of the youth of this country in time of peace". The great difficulty about that proposition is that it contains a question begging an assumption. The assumption, which I claim is utterly unfounded, is that we are living in a time of peace. The facts seem to have passed by the Opposition. It is true, of course, that in this country we are enjoying peacetime conditions because we have had the good fortune of being well governed for a long time and of having powerful allies who will stand by us and who have demonstrated that they will stand by us I wonder how this statement that one hears from the Opposition would sound to a Malaysian? I wonder how it would sound to a beleaguered villager in South Vietnam who is likely, at any hour of the day or night, to suffer death at the hands of Communist insurgents to whom brutality of the most vile kind is no stranger? Can anyone seriously suggest that in the area which is of strategic importance to this country this is time of peace? The whole notion is nothing short of nonsense: It is a pity that a once great party which now, but for its obstinacy, would have the opportunity to ally itself with the national interest, will not face up to the fact that we are not living in a time of peace in this whole strategic area. Therefore, the very basis of that party's platform - 'that we cannot have conscription in time of peace - falls to the ground. Its members are really left with nothing once they are forced to concede that the voluntary system has failed. Once they are forced to concede, as they have conceded, that the Government has done everything possible to make the voluntary system successful, they are left without a feather to fly with - a sorry looking bunch. It is not yet too late for the Opposition to ponder its position and to consider a change of mind. Mr. Allan Fraser. - You are an ass, you know. Mr. HUGHES.- And another one is talking. It is not too late. I would suggest that even at this late hour the members of the Opposition should note and ponder the fact that they agree that there is a need for more men and ask themselves how, in the light of what has been tried, those extra men are to be obtained, short of this necessary measure of conscription. Mr. Cope. - Lower the educational standards. Mr. HUGHES. - I thought that my honorable friend the Minister for the Army had set that hare at rest for all time. The fact is that in the last year 4,400 men were rejected for service in the Regular Army because they could not satisfy the educational tests that a 10-year old child might be expected to satisfy. Mr. Cope. - Don't go too far. Mr. HUGHES. - I hear many interjections, but I shall continue to make my point. This bogey of rejection of large numbers of men on no good ground is completely without substance. No proof has been offered by any member of the Opposition that these men were not properly rejected. I know the Opposition would like to forget it, but it has to be remembered that, as the Minister for the Army pointed out this afternoon, the tests prescribed for these men were set down in 1943 under the Curtin Government. It is suggested that the Government has introduced this measure for purely political purposes. The sincerity and substance of the accusation can best be judged by referring back to the days of 1943 when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), then an ebullient backbencher, spoke against his Party. When the Prime Minister of the day, John Curtin, introduced a Bill for conscription for overseas service, he spoke against his Party. Of course) he voted for the Bill, but he spoke against it and said that it had been introduced for political purposes. I look at the Leader of the Opposition and remind him of his past. I salute him back and say that the leopard has not changed his spots. Paraphrased, that means: The parrot cry remains the same, Mr. REYNOLDS (Barton) [10.34].- During the course of this debate, the Government has put up some extraordinary propositions. First, it is trying to persuade the Parliament and the people that we are living in a time of great crisis and emergency. Then, having said that, the only immediate solution it offers to the problem is the conscription of 4,200 of our 20-year old Australians into the Regular Army. What the Government is trying to tell us is that even though the country is confronted with a period of crisis, of great danger and great insecurity, it is impossible to get that message across to the Australian people, to the young Australians in particular. Despite what the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Hughes) has just said, the Government is saying that the Australian people are not prepared to respond to the warning that the Government is now conveying to them. I have said that the only immediate solution the Government is offering to the emergency with which we are supposed to be confronted is the conscription, about the middle of next year, of 4,200 of the 20- year olds in the Australian community. Listening to the debate, one could gather the impression that the conscription of such an infinitesimal number of our youngsters is the main thing that we should be discussing when dealing with this legislation and with the defence statement made by the Prime Minister. Of course, when the defence statement is again before the House, honorable members will have more opportunity to draw attention to the very great deficiencies in Australia's defence forces at the present time. I believe that the Government has deliberately introduced this controversial matter of conscription to divert the attention of electors from the much graver matter of deficiencies in our Air Force, our Navy and our Army. This is a diversionary tactic and I think the Australian people might well give it a good deal of thought before casting their votes on 5th December next. If Australia is in the danger that the Government tries to tell us it is and that the honorable member for Parkes just tried to tell us it is, if we are facing a genuine threat, then I am prepared to believe that the Australian electors are intelligent enough to sense this danger to their nation and, having sensed it, to do as they have done in the past and volunteer. The Government has two alternatives. Firstly, if the danger confronting Australia at the present time is as serious as the Government would like us to believe it is, then the Government has to accept the accusation that it is incapable of providing leadership and that it is incapable of communicating to the intelligent Australian electorate the grave danger that confronts us. Alternatively the Government must admit that the threat that is supposed to exist does not exist at all; that the Government's assertion is not accepted by the Australian electors as having any reality. There cannot be any halfway measures about this. The Australian people do not see the dangers that the Government pretends to see at this time. Honorable members opposite cannot argue that the people as a whole are prepared to endorse this emergency measure for conscription merely because the Government says that there is an emergency. The point I am trying to make is that the real test of whether the Australian public accepts that there is an emergency is their willingness to do as they have done down the decades through Australia's history and volunteer for service - not just 4,000 or 6,000 or 9,000 pf them, but hundreds of thousands of them. Mr. Kevin Cairns. - Come off it. Mr. REYNOLDS. - Does the honorable member honestly believe that there is a dire threat to Australia's security today? Mr. Kevin Cairns. - Yes. Mr. REYNOLDS. - What does he think about the Australian public? Why do Australians not respond? If there is this dire threat, why are volunteers not coming in? The people have volunteered before. They have done on every occasion. In my view, that is the real test of whether the Australian public accepts the warning which the Government is putting to the Parliament tonight. Mr. Chipp. - Do you not think there is a danger? Mr. REYNOLDS. - I do not think there is the danger that the Government is telling us there is. If there is, the conscripting of 4,200 of our 20 year old boys will be of little use. The Government is putting us in a dilemma at this moment. It says there is a threat to Australia's security, and at the same time it says that it cannot persuade the Australian public to accept that there is this danger. They are not volunteering. The volunteer system has been tried, says the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Hughes), and has been found useless. That is a terrible slur on the Australian public. Mr. Cockle.- What rot. Mr. REYNOLDS. - What else are we to accept? Honorable members opposite suggest that danger is imminent, that there is insecurity and a threat to the nation, and that despite increased pay, improved conditions and other benefits - despite all these material benefits and the moral appeal of defending one's country in the face of immediate threat - the public is not prepared to respond. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the Government must accept either of two accusations: Either the claim of insecurity is largely spurious, especially in the immediate situation, or the Government is incapable of communicating a sense of the insecurity and the danger to the Australian people. That is what it amounts to, and all this laborious debate about calling up 4,200 20-year-olds is completely beside the point. The only reason why the Labour Party takes objection to the proposal is that it objects in principle to conscripting people in time of peace and directing them to serve overseas. In my view that proposal is completely obnoxious and morally indefensible, and I believe it is a grossly inefficient way of manning our Services. At present we are spending millions of pounds on our Services and propose to spend many more millions of pounds on equipment, yet the Government is asking that that equipment be serviced by 20-year-olds who will gain experience during a two year term but will be lost to the Service after that two years. In addition, they will have lost experience in civilian industry, where they might have made a greater contribution. I have no objection to increasing the strength of our Services, nor has the Labour Party any objection to that. As a matter of fact, the Labour Party has chided the Government for having so long delayed in doing something about defence. We have made strenuous accusations about the deficiency of material requirements for the Services. We think it is absolutely shocking that this country should not have had by now an interim replacement for the Canberra bomber, instead of our having to wait until virtually 1970 before the country has that kind of protection. These are the real things that will give Australia protection - not 4,200 young "conscripts, with all the respect in the world to them. We need an aircraft carrier and a Fleet Air Arm. After 15 years in office the Government has now promised that we will receive, belatedly, some equipment in 1966 and another instalment in about 1968, and the real things needed for the kind of defence that is envisaged at the moment probably will not arrive until 1970. That is why we find it so awfully hard to accept the Government's proposition about the state of the country and the state of the emergency today. Its statements are an insult to one's intelligence and they just do not add up. The measure that we are discussing relates to recruitment. I believe that every honorable member, including Government supporters, would accept that it would be better to have a volunteer force of adequate size. A volunteer has a vested interest and a stronger motivation. For him the Service - whichever one it happens to be - will be his career. He has the possibility of promotion that comes from service in a career occupation. He has the knowledge that his experience can be used to improve his own efficiency and the efficiency of the Service with which he serves. All those things are arguments in favour of a volunteer system. The system proposed by the Government is without doubt the worst of all the possibilities, because it is intended to put 4,200, rising to nearly 7,000 a year, young conscripts into a mixed force with the volunteers. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that this will not be a palatable proposition for the regular serviceman. He will not want to be mixed in with people who have only a limited term of two years to serve, who will become competent just before they finish their service. This happens in any vocation. In any profession it will be found that new people come in to work with an experienced man. If, after they learn the trade, they leave at the end of two years, the experienced man is confronted with a new intake of raw recruits who have to be trained and he has to go through the cycle again. This just does not work out. Despite what has been said, the volunteer system has not failed. It is the Government that has failed in running the volunteer system. I know that this has been said a number of times during the debate, but I have had personal experience and have been in contact with many people, as a result of which I believe that the volunteer system has not really been tried. No-one will convince me, or anybody of medium intelligence, that an additional 4,000 or 5,000 persons cannot be induced to join the Forces if conditions are made attractive enough. Do honorable members opposite mean to say that it would be impossible to devise Service conditions, pay rates, accommodation and all the other amenities of a standard that would induce people to join the Services? Are honorable members opposite trying to tell me that £16 16s. a week plus so-called keep - that is what it amounts to for a private in the Regular Forces - is the ultimate in trying to attract people to the Army? Mr. Cockle. - What does the honorable member suggest it should be? Mr. REYNOLDS. - I am not to know what the rate should be. I am not to know what is needed to attract people to the Services, but I would not be surprised if £16 16s. a week is not adequate. For a married man the rate increases to £22 lis. 6d. Surely this rate is not the ultimate in attracting people to the Services. We often hear from honorable members opposite about the law of supply and demand, but why is that principle not applied in this case? If somebody is needed to do a civil engineering job in the Northern Territory, perhaps to build beef roads or something else, it is necessary to pay a salary that will attract the right man. He cannot be expected to go to the Northern Territory for the same salary as he would receive here. We want to attract people to the Services where they will have to suffer social disabilities by serving in the north of Australia and in the islands, with the possibility of being killed in the service of their country, yet the best we can offer them is £16 16s. a week and their keep. Mr. Anthony. - Tell us what the Labour Party offered during the last war. Mr. REYNOLDS.- It is not for us to determine the rate. If a farmer cannot get labour when offering the basic wage, is it suggested that no labour is available if he is not prepared to increase his offer? Or is the answer to that situation an inquiry as to what might be a reasonable amount to attract people? In the Services there are all sorts of disadvantages. Mr. Chipp. - The Government paid me 6s. a day. Mr. REYNOLDS. - I believe that the honorable member for Higinbotham has reasonable intelligence. We are now talking about a special situation in what is ostensibly peacetime. I would not advocate this in a period of war - it would be stupid and impracticable - but if people are needed to serve in a peacetime vocation in the army it must be treated just like any other occupation. It must be put on a priority list. The Government has not put a priority on meeting the needs of the Services. To do so it must make the attraction sufficiently great to induce people to join the Services, despite the disabilities that they will encounter, including the possibility df having to fight in a war in South East Asia or in some place to the north of Australia. It has to make it worthwhile. Why should we not make it worthwhile? As the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) said earlier in the afternoon, I think, why should not those big enterprises in the community who have the biggest financial stake in it and who are going to benefit by the protection that these young people give to a country pay in taxation the money required to make these Services financially attractive? Why persuade young men to do this filthy job in a so-called time of peace? People are not going to volunteer unless you make it worth their while, unless you reward them for the service they give and the dangers they take upon themselves in that service. This is the Bible of the Government. These are the principles the Government operates on in so-called private enterprise. These are the principles; why not apply them in a matter of serving one's country in this time? As I said, it is not only a case of justice but it is a case of efficiency. The career man will nearly always be a better proposition that conscripts serving two years. That is what is proposed: Conscripts who do not want to go into the Service but are in for two years only. This is no way to run Australia's forces. I am sure that with these kinds of conditions, and with people induced to enter the Service under these conditions, it is not going to be an economic proposition in our defence expenditure. We are spending, as I said before, millions of pounds and we are proposing to spend millions more on costly equipment. But in many cases this equipment, apparently, is to be entrusted to short-term servicemen. It just does not add up whatever way you look at it and it certainly does not add up to the Government's proposition that we are living in a time of great military crisis. As I said before, there are a number of reasons why the voluntary system of recruitment has not worked. Payment for services rendered is only one of them. The Government has to acknowledge it. Now it has legally tied up the resignation of officers from the Services. It has said that they cannot withdraw from the Services. We know that cases have been before the court in which officers have tried to get out of the Service because of the inequality of their pay and conditions. But the Government has now prevented them from doing so. It has restricted their liberty. In fact, it has virtually taken their liberty from them in a period of peace. So not only does the Government propose to take into the Service unwilling conscripts but it is going to put them in there with people already dissatisfied with the conditions of their service. Mr. Cockle.- What rot. Mr. REYNOLDS. - The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Cockle) says: " What rot". How does he say that in the face of these figures? Can he say that to the poor Navy man who has been virtually breaking his neck, and who almost broke his neck the other day, to get out of the Service? The honorable member must know of cases similar to that. It is surely not a monopoly of mine, nor of my associates, to know of members of our defence Forces who are breaking their necks to get out of the Services and have not been allowed to do so. Why have a court case if they are to be allowed to resign? Why threaten them with legislative action to prevent them from getting out if it were not true that their resignations would not be accepted? As I said before, we will have the worst of both worlds. We will have conscripts - 4,200, rising to nearly 7,000 unwilling conscripts - put into the hands, in many cases, of unwilling permanent officers of the Service who are disgruntled about the conditions of their service. They are disgruntled about not having the ordinary mobility of moving from one job to another and disgruntled about the disabilities they face. There are other disabilities that effect these members of the permanent forces. One of them is the defence forces retirement benefits scheme. Surely no Government supporter is going to challenge me when I say that there is grave dissatisfaction about the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund? This is a matter of great concern. Government supporters have spoken about the increase in Service salaries but they must be aware that many of the older officers and servicemen are paying most of the increase they received - and in some cases more than the increase - in higher instalments into the fund. Is that not so? Is it not a fact? Of course these men are disgruntled and of course they want to get out of the Service. Of course it has been a heavy imposition on them. Virtually all of the salary increase has gone towards the higher contributions they have to pay into their pension fund, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. As I said before, there is discontent among the officers and Army personnel in not having the ordinary mobility of moving from one job to another according to the choice that belongs to all of us in the community. That choice does not belong to the officers of the Services. Of course, the young cadets who might be thinking of going into Duntroon for training as officers will have to think a few times about it from now on. Do they, at the immature age of 17 or 18 years, put themselves in a position where they will never be able to change their minds for years afterwards; a position where they will be tied down by their commissions to stay in the Services irrespective of the treatment afforded them? The Government says that the voluntary system of recruiting has been tried and found wanting. Tried? How has it been tried? Let us consider housing. The Government is proposing only at this present time to make substantial extensions in the matter of Service housing. I, and others, have received plenty of complaints by members of our serving forces that they have not been able to get Service houses at all and that they have had to go to the private market to rent home units at eight guineas and ten guineas a week. They include people receiving a private's salary. But even if they do get into homes provided by the Service, consider the high rentals that they have to pay. A major-general has to pay £16 3s. 2d. a week rental for his Service accommodation. A brigadier had to pay £13 4s. 9d.; a colonel £11 7s. 6d.; a lieutenant-colonel £10 3s.; a major £8 8s. 7d.; a sergeant £4 15s. 8d.; a corporal £4 9s. 3d.; a lance-corporal £4 4s. 7d; and a private £4 ls. 8d. out of his 16 guineas a week. I would not ask him to accept 16 guineas and pay this amount for accommodation. Dr. Forbes. - How much does the New South Wales Housing Commission charge? Mr. REYNOLDS. - The Minister is trying to argue about two different propositions. He is comparing somebody on a civilian salary with these people in the Services. One of the biggest grizzles - if the Minister for the Army would just listen for a moment - is that you find a colonel paying three or four times as much rent for a house just vacated by a private as was paid by the private. I do not want to have translated into the respective Services the conditions that apply outside unless the Government is prepared to pay servicemen comparable salaries. The Government is talking about 16 guineas a week when the average take-home salary of a man in civilian life today, according to the latest statistics, is £26 a week. It is just not arguable. This is a matter of grave dissatisfaction. One of the reasons why you will not get moral support for recruitment from officers in the Army is their discontent over circumstances such as social life, moving from one place to another, worries about furniture being moved and how it gets knocked about, and schooling. Schooling for children is very important, and Army officers and personnel move from one locality to another, from one State to another. They have to buy new school uniforms when their children move from one school to another. All of these things are disabilities for the serviceman that are not properly recognised by this Government. It is idle for the Government to say that it has tried the voluntary system and it has failed. It has not failed. Its success has been limited because of the way in which the Government has put up the proposal. I heard a man say on the "Four Corners" programme the other night that pineapples can be grown at the South Pole if one is prepared to spend enough money on the project. If the Government wants people to take on the job of defending Australia at this time, whatever emergency confronts it, it can only get them if it is prepared to pay and if it makes those people in the community who are able to contribute pay their way for the protection that they and their assets enjoy. Then we will be getting something like justice. That is why this little proposition of 4,200 young boys being conscripted into the Services is such a narrow minded approach to a national problem. There are other deficiencies in the defence forces retirement benefits scheme. For instance, if a member is retired compulsorily because of a physical disability of up to 30 per cent, and he has had less than 20 years' service, he is disqualified from receiving any pension at all. Yet honorable members opposite say that the voluntary system has had a fair go. If a member is boarded out of the Army, with its high demands of physical fitness, because he is up to 30 per cent, physically unfit, all he receives is a refund of his own contributions. All members of the Government parties have been circularised by a member of the forces - anonymously, I think. The circular states that the defence forces retirement benefits scheme is a racket. It goes on, fairly voluminously, to show how inequitable the Australian scheme is compared with the British scheme. In Great Britain pensions are provided by the Government; the serviceman does not have to contribute. Yet in Australia, servicemen lose nearly all the increases in salary that they receive because they have to meet their new commitments under the defence forces retirement benefits scheme. A number of other points could be raised. One relates to deferments for university students, teachers' college students, technical college students and apprentices. If they are still in the course of their training when they reach 20 years of age, they are to get deferments. That does not strike me as being a very efficient approach to the problem at all. When a young apprentice or a young teacher finishes his training, the most important thing for him at that stage is to get a chance to put his training into practice. Whether he is a young doctor, a young teacher or a young lawyer, the important thing for him is to get a chance to put his training to the test. The practical application is the thing that confirms or reinforces his training. Yet just at that time he will be whipped off and, possibly, put into a completely new vocation for two years. I do not believe that that is a very efficient system at all. Another matter is exemption. This is not a matter of being prejudiced; but it strikes me as very inequitable that unnaturalised youngsters should not be called up whereas Australian born youngsters and naturalised youngsters - those who have accepted their responsibilities to this country - will go into the forces. In the meantime the Government will be carrying out a bigger and bigger immigration programme, bringing other people to Australia from overseas to take those youngsters' jobs while they are away. Interestingly enough, the penalty provided under this Bill for an employer not giving a conscripted soldier back his job is £100. It might well be worth the employer's while to pay £100 and to retain the person who has come in as a replacement. Things like that make this legislation very unpalatable. It would not be novel for unnaturalised persons to be obliged to play their part in defending the country, if this is the scheme that we must have. Of course, the Labour Party says absolutely that we must not have this scheme. In the United States of America unnaturalised youngsters are called up. I quote the following from the Sydney " Sun " of the 12th of this month - The U.S. Government's draft laws make no such distinction. Chief of the American Selection Service, Colonel Paul Akst, said in New York yesterday that any young men holding immigration visas had to register for military service as soon as they turned 18. Six months after registration, they were liable to be called up for national service, even though they were not American citizens, Col. Akst said. I have referred to some of the inequities of the scheme. But I go back to my main point that in a time of emergency- Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay). Order! The honorable member's time has expired. Mr. CHIPP (Higinbotham) [11.4].- The honorable member for Barton (Mr. Reynolds) has maintained the curious line of argument that the Opposition has presented in this debate. It is not only curious; it is also frustrating. As each Opposition speaker sits down, honorable members on this side of the House do not quite know what he has been talking about. The honorable member for Barton was not prepared to say to what extent danger exists to our north. He had £1 each way, as every speaker from the Opposition side has had. He said that if danger does not exist - he implied that it does not - we cannot expect men to serve on the present rates of pay. Then he said that if danger does exist men will serve out of patriotism. In answer to an interjection that I made, he said that when Labour was in office men served out of patriotism. He criticised the present Government for not setting a good example and encouraging men to enlist. Then, surprisingly, he used the words: *' You cannot expect men to do this filthy job for peanuts", or a phrase like that. The honorable member stands up and criticises the Government for not setting a good lead or a good example to the youth of Australia to enlist, and then, out of his own mouth, he calls it a filthy job. I wonder what the record of the Labour Government was in 1943. The basic wage then was about £6 a week. Today it is £15 a week, or 21 times greater. I served in the forces during the war and received the magnificent sum of 6s. a day under the Labour Government, if we multiply that amount by 24 - the rate of increase in the basic wage - we see that the private in the last war received the equivalent of five guineas a week, which is to be compared with the 16 guineas a week that the rawest recruit in the Army receives today. I wonder exactly what the honorable member for Barton was suggesting. I wish that some member of the Opposition would stand up and be honest enough to declare the Opposition's policy. For months now we have seen the Tight wing members of the Labour Party rising and saying to the Government: "You are not doing enough about defence ". Not long ago the honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin) made what I thought was a most sincere and excellent speech. He pointed out to honorable members the dangers that existed in Indonesia and Vietnam. Where is he tonight? What are his thoughts on this Bill? I shall be pleased and proud to vote for this Bill, and I shall be pleased and proud to vote against the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) in connection with the statement on defence made by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies). I realise that in doing so I am voting for an expenditure of £1,220 million over the next three years, which is £404 million more than the expenditure envisaged only 18 months ago in the May 1963 defence review. But the piece of legislation now before us does more than authorise the expenditure of money. It commits young Australians to service in places outside Australia, if necessary. I will vote for it because I believe in it and because I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of my electors also believe in it. No one can support this BDI lightheartedly. Everyone who supports it does so with a certain heaviness in his heart. As we on this side of the House support this Bill, we cannot fail to observe, with heavy hearts, the deterioration in the military and political situation to the north of Australia. We cannot be anything but dismayed at the fact that some human beings in that area are being refused the opportunity to live in peace and harmony, one with the other. We cannot be other than dismayed when we realise that this Bill and the defence statement will tax more heavily the human and physical resources of this growing nation. It is a great pity that, with the present position affecting, perhaps, our very survival, the Opposition and the Government cannot speak with one voice. I would have expected that in a case like this the duty of the Opposition would have been to agree in principle to an obvious truth and to argue on detail. Surely there are many areas for disagreement on detail in this Bill. The Opposition would have performed a service to the Parliament had it adopted that course. However, on this issue I have witnessed what I regard as the most bitter split between the Government parties and the Labour Party since I came into the Parliament four years ago. It is most difficult for any honorable member on this side of the chamber to debate this issue with Opposition members, so full of contradictions are their arguments. I suggest that any reasonable human being could not begin to understand these contradictions. The Leader of the Opposition has been saying for months that this country is defenceless. He says that, after almost 15 yeaTs of administration by a LiberalAustralian Country Party Government we have nothing with which to defend ourselves. He has said this time and time again. Is it not curious to argue out of one side of one's mouth that we have no defence and out of the other side to say that we must not build up the strength of the Army, because the situation does not warrant this? Another Opposition member said that voluntary enlistment would have solved the problem. But he was scrupulously careful, as every other Opposition speaker has been, not to put a figure on what honorable members opposite regard as being a suitable number of recruits. The Leader of the Opposition has described this Bill as scandalous and the scheme for which it provides as a lottery of death. He has said gleefully that the people of Australia are opposed to this measure. In fact, his staunch ally, Mr. R. W. Holt, who is President of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labour Party, has said that the nation will reject it soundly. The Leader of the Opposition, after having said with some glee that this is a scandalous measure and that everybody can see that it provides for a lottery of death, went on to say, in the next breath, with a piqued and wounded air: "The Prime Minister has done it again. This is just another election gimmick." He is piqued and wounded at the thought that the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) has plucked another election winner out of the air. What sort of reasoning is this from the leader of the political party in opposition, who is also pretender to the Prime Ministership, Sir? The Leader of the Opposition has accused the Prime Minister of many things in his time, but never, to my notice, has he thanked the right honorable gentleman for having handed him an election victory on his plate. The pretender to the throne, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam), began his speech on the defence statement last Thursday evening on a high note. He crticised the Prime Minister for having mentioned Communism, as if it were not decent any more to criticise Communists and Communism. He said - In the first quarter of an hour of his address he used the word " Communism " more often than President Sukarno used the word " neocolonialism " in an address on Independence Day . . . Are we to be admonished in this House by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or by any other member of the Australian Labour Party for talking about Communism? Is this not allowed any more? Has the Deputy Leader of the Opposition forgotten that it was the Communists who raped Tibet? Has he forgotten that it was the Communists who pillaged northern Indian villages just two years ago? Has he forgotten that Communists constitute the Pathet Lao, which is causing subversion in the midst of the peaceful people of Laos? Has he forgotten that Communists constitute the Vietcong, which has committed the most unspeakable atrocities in South Vietnam? Where does the Opposition stand on this issue, Sir? We have been disappointed with other Opposition speakers also. This applies particularly to the honorable member for Capricornia (Mr. Gray), who came into this place regarded by us as one of the white hopes of the Labour Party. He is a man with a distinguished war record and has been overseas. Ever since he came into this place, he has been urging the Government to step up its defence programme. In almost every speech he has made he has said: "You are not spending enough on defence". At one stage, he presented himself as an expert on Centurion tanks. He puts up a facade as one who is genuinely interested in defence, But what did he say in the debate on the defence review? Speaking of our strategic position, he said - The alternative is to put ourselves in a position in which we can defend this country if we have to do so. That is a fair enough statement. If we want to get at its meaning, we have to go a little further on to a point at which the honorable member answered an interjection with these words - The honorable member for Mallee is old enough to remember that so far as the United States of America is concerned it has gone to nobody's aid in any circumstances. That appears at page 2941 of "Hansard". That is a contemptible, disgusting and untrue accusation about the United States of America. Mr. Gray. - Name an instance in which the United States has gone to the aid of somebody else. Mr. CHIPP. - I shall name Korea for one and South Vietnam for another. In countless other places throughout the world the United States has gone to the aid of free people who are being oppressed by Communism. Let us take on its merits the original statement - The alternative is to put ourselves in a position in which we can defend this country if we have to do so. Here is the isolationist philosophy again. I do not blame the honorable member for favouring a policy of isolation. I do not agree with it, but he is entitled to his view. If he puts the view that this country should be in a position to defend itself with its own resources, why does he in the next breath oppose the building up of our Army at a time when we face an emergency? This is a kind of reasoning that I, with my simple mind, cannot understand. Then we come to the piece de resistance - the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), who read out, among other things, figures that he said indicated the number of prospective recruits for the Army rejected on educational grounds. He was trying to make the point that this Bill providing for national service training was not necessary and that we could have obtained the required number of recruits without it. He said that our educational standards were far too high and he read out figures that, according to him, indicated that 7 out of every 11 applicants were rejected on educational grounds. It is not unusual for the honorable member for Eden-Monaro to trifle with figures. What he did not say was that not all those rejected were rejected on educational grounds. The educational test is given before the medical test. However, we shall pass that by for the moment. The honorable member went on to say that the whole problem could be solved if the standards applied to prospective recruits were just a little less tough. A friend of mine recently had his son admitted to the Army. Mr. Stewart. - He was lucky to be able to get him in. Mr. CHIPP. - I note the honorable member's interjection. This young man was fairly bright, I admit, and he passed the educational test. After he had passed the educational test and the medical test, I had a chat to him and asked him about the educational standard demanded of recruits offering themselves. He was bright enough to remember a great deal of what had happened during the conduct of the educational test. I hope that I shall not dismay the Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) by disclosing state secrets. I wrote down at the time some of the questions in the test, which, according to the Minister, could be passed with reasonable certainty by a 10 year old child of about fourth grade standard. My informant told me that before the test began .an instructor gave the assembled recruits a few examples. He described roughly how the test would be conducted. He said: "I shall give you a question and the answer, to give you an example, and then you will be on your own". The example given was: "The dog ran to the man ". The question was: " What ran to the man? " The instructor gave the answer: " The dog ". After one or two of these examples, the actual test was given and no assistance was received from the instructor in answering the questions in the test. The prospective recruits were given the sentence: " The man has a cup ". The question was: " What has the man got? " These, according to my informant, were some of the questions that the recruits had to answer. There was also a different kind of test, of which my informant was good enough to give me some examples. I will not guarantee the accuracy of the figures, but this is the sort of test that is given. The question gives a series of numbers, such as 2, 4, 8, and then leaves two blanks. The examinee has to insert the next two figures. The honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart) had no difficulty in passing the first tests, but as soon as they get a little difficult, he fails. Another question - again I do not guarantee the accuracy of it - is " Wattle yellow, apple green, sky " and then there are four stars. Obviously, a four lettered word is required after " sky ". I do not want to make a farce of this, but I am glad that I took note of the questions. The Minister for the Army said today that this test was not too difficult for a ten-year old child to pass. Yet the honorable member for Eden-Monaro said that if we made the tests easier, all our problems of enlistment would be solved. I support the contention of the Minister for the Army that somebody who does not pass such a test - I presume SO per cent, is a pass - would be an administrative liability, a risk to his mates and a danger to the morale in the Army. I ask any reasonable Opposition member to disagree with that statement, if he can. The honorable member for Lang said that such a test was not set in the last war. Being an intelligent fellow and being an ex-serviceman of the last war, he would know better than anybody that war in 1964 would be a different cup of tea from war in 1939. If he cannot appreciate the difference, I am sorry for him and for his colleagues. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro went on to say that it is iniquitous to pass legislation - I took down his words - that "involves young Australians in areas in which Australia is not even a party ". His view is diametrically opposed to the view of Mr. Roger Hilsman, a most distinguished American diplomat, who until February of this year was Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs. Mr. Hilsman said categorically - From now until the end of time Australia lies in Asia. Does any honorable member opposite disagree with that statement? Mr. Duthie. - Of course that is true. Mr. CHIPP. - The honorable member for Wilmot says that it is true. He must disagree with the honorable member for Eden-Monaro who said that young Australians are committed to areas in which Australia is not even a party. Here is another form of reasoning which, unfortunately, I cannot comprehend. I wish I could, because then I could come to grips with it. This is another attitude of the Opposition that sickens me. Honorable members opposite are willing to allow American conscripts, young boys of 20 years of age, to travel 14,000 miles from home to fight in the stinking jungles of Vietnam for the security of Australia. But they have not the guts to stand up to the body politic and commit some of our young boys to defend our own shores. This to me is a sickening position and a disgusting argument. I am disappointed to come to the conclusion that there is a basic philosophical and even an ideological cleavage between the Australian Labour Party and honorable members on this side of the House on this question. Without any doubt, the Labour Party has the concept of a garrison defence of Australia. It has the concept of staying on our thousands of miles of coastline and of defending the country from some point on Australian soil. Let me state categorically the view of the Government and the view of members of both Parties on this side of the House. We will do all in our power to stop any war involving Australia from being fought on Australian soil. We would prefer every day to light wars on other than Australian soil. If this is the philosophy of members of the Labour Party, let them get up and say so. They should not hide behind the subterfuge, the camouflage and the facade of all the ridiculous arguments that they have put forward. Perhaps the most contemptible part of this whole exercise is that the Leader of the Opposition and members of his Party realise that there is a Senate election around the corner. They understand that, with the peculiar mysteries of proportional representation, in each of the six States four candidates will poll most of the votes, two Labour and two Government, and the fifth seat will go to either Party by a very small minority. Therefore, only a slight swing on some issue is needed to ensure that a Party will win an additional seat in any State. They also know that the Senate necessarily must be closely divided, so that if they can hold the hard core vote that the Labour Party has and swing over to their side one block of votes, perhaps they will have a chance of winning a fifth seat in several States. They see in the mothers of 20-year old boys a block vote that could put their candidate into the fifth seat. To me, there is ample evidence that this is the whole intention of their argument. To trifle with human lives and to trifle with the defence of the country is possibly the lowest act in politics. To try to create some emotion amongst the mothers of these boys - who on this side of the House does not sympathise with the mothers - the Leader of the Opposition has introduced the phrase " lottery of death ". If this phrase was not conjured up to do the very thing that I am alleging, why was it used? The whole concept of the Opposition's argument has a " peace in our time " ring. Never let us underestimate the gravity of the situation to our north. The Vietnam Government is not the strongest and the most stable in Asia. Some of us take some comfort in the fact that the United States of America has committed itself to the defence of this gallant country. American assistance in this area will count for nothing if the unstable Government there crumbles at any time. If South Vietnam falls, what then of Laos, Cambodia, Burma and Thailand? If Thailand is vulnerable, what then is the defensive capability of gallant and courageous Malaysia? Are we to be told by Opposition members that we as a Government are to wait until that situation arises before we take action? For my part, I say we should not wait and for this reason, as I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not only pleased but I am enormously proud to stand in my place tonight to say what I mean and to support this legislation. Mr. DUTHIE (Wilmot) [11.29].- The honorable member for Higinbotham (Mr. Chipp) said that there was an ideological conflict between the two Parties in this Parliament. That was the truest statement he made in his speech. Of course there is. That is why we are two different Parties. That is why I am a Labour man and he is a Liberal. That is why I will stay a Labour man and he will stay a Liberal. We know that we are definitely divided on many issues in this Parliament, and that is as it should be in a democracy. We are not yet a dictatorship, and I thank God that there are men who can speak their minds and who can still believe in freedom of thought and not in conscription. We oppose conscription because we are ideologically different from the Government Parties. We have a similar situation in respect of our attitude to education and many other things. That is how it will always be. The honorable member for Higinbotham tried to make out that the Australian Labour Party had no defence plan and that it believed in keeping all of our troops in Australia. I refer him to the policy which we presented at the last Federal Election. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking for the Labour Party, said in respect of the Army - We propose to increase the " front-line " strength of the Australian Regular Army by a total of 14,000 men. Mr. Deputy Speaker, am I speaking to myself? Are honorable members to be allowed to chat their heads off? Cannot we have some order in this place? Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. W. C. Haworth). - Order! There is too much audible conversation. Mr. Turnbull. - Get on with it. Mr. DUTHIE. - If the honorable member does not want to listen he can get out. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.- Order! The honorable member will address the Chair. Mr. DUTHIE. - All I ask is a fair go from the Chair. Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.- Order! The honorable member will not reflect on the Chair. Honorable members from his own side were also speaking. Mr. DUTHIE. - They were not speaking then, Sir; they were quiet. As I was saying, the Labour Party has a different defence policy from the Government, and this was outlined at the last election. I am quoting from our policy speech to prove how wrong the honorable member for Higinbotham was in trying to base half his argument on his claim that we had no defence policy. In respect of the Army, our leader said - We propose to increase the *' front-line " strength of the Australian Regular Army by a total of 14,000 men. We will establish three mobile groupings of 6,000 men each, one to be armoured, two to be mechanised; one will be established in Central Queensland, one in Western Australia and one in South Australia. We further propose to establish an additional brigade of 2,000 men, headquartered in northern New South Wales. These forces will be available for our own defence and to meet any commitments we might have to the United Nations and to fulfill any other treaty obligations now existing or to be negotiated in future. We will raise the strength of the Pacific Island Regiment in Papua-New Guinea from 700 to an ultimate 6,000 and re-establish the Torres Strait Regiment as part of the Papuan Battle Group. We will restore the C.M.F. to its proper role in Australia's defences. These additional commitments will obviously pose a recruitment problem. We propose, therefore, to review all service pay rates, to review retirement age limits and superannuation benefits for the permanent army, to make CM.F. allowances tax-free, and to provide a housing scheme for married personnel in the services. These are the very things that this Government has not yet done. Our policy speech continued - Australia can have genuinely strong and reliable defence only if we are strong industrially. Industry provides the real sinews of war in modern times. Yet the Menzies Government has allowed the shipbuilding and aircraft industries of Australia to run down, preferring to purchase its equipment abroad while Australian industries languish for want of orders. We will restore and expand both these great industries. The shipbuilding industry and the aircraft industry which made a name for Australia during the war years have been allowed to languish completely by this Government. In our policy speech, in respect of the Air Force, we undertook to obtain the best available replacement for the Canberra bomber and the best available temporary replacement. We stated - We will provide the radar control and reporting units promised by the Prime Minister in 1957, but still not available in Western Australia. We will station part of the proposed new bomber force in Western Australia as well as fighter, bomber, and reconnaissance aircraft in that State. For the Navy we were going to obtain a replacement modern aircraft carrier, by purchase or lease, for our aircraft carrier " Melbourne ", which will have to be in dry dock for almost two years and on which we will have to spend £10 million before it will be of any use to the Navy. The Government said that we are in grave danger of being invaded by Indonesia or some other country north of Australia, yet what has it done? We proposed' to establish a naval base in Western Australia and this would include a drydock. These policy promises still stand, and when a member rises, as did the honorable member for Higinbotham, and makes false statements about the Labour Party having no defence policy, this shows the depths to which Government supporters are prepared to go to bolster their conscription programme and their arguments for it. What did we say about fighting outside Australia? What did we say about Malaysia? In our policy speech the following appeared1 - We have welcomed the creation of Malaysia in the hope that a stable, viable state will be created from the four former British colonies which form Malaysia. Because of the new situation brought about by the emergence of Malaysia, the Labour Party will seek to negotiate a clear and public treaty to cover the continued presence of Australian troops there, setting out the rights and obligations of both parties. Pending the conclusion of such a treaty, any act of aggression against Malaysia wll be treated as a breach of the United Nations Charter and will be resisted accordingly. These are the facts from our policy speech, and they still stand. The wrong statements made like those made by honorable members opposite tonight and during the debate last week show how hard up this Government is for arguments to support its conscription proposal. It has said these things about a responsible Opposition. Later I will have more to say about the responsible Opposition when it was in government. Now let us have a look at the rejection, on educational grounds, of people applying to join the Army, because I want to make the point quite clearly that the volunteer system has not failed, but has been murdered by this Government and its officials. Does the Government want an Army of professors or university students to satisfy its requirements? The most astounding evidence which has emerged from the debate on defence is that the volunteer system for the Army has not failed but has been shamefully abused by Army selectors and by examination sheriffs around this country. The figures for last year speak louder than my words. I want to quote the exact figures to show what has happened. It is a scandalous story. One could almost think that somebody was engineering this and rejecting so many applicants for the Army to create an argument for the right honorable Sir Robert Menzies to come into this House and say that the volunteer system had failed. It could fail all right if it were deliberately made to fail at the educational qualification level. The Minister for the Army (Dr. Forbes) gave us some figures. Last year for all three Services 24,932 men volunteered. This was a magnificent total in a time of near-full employment. But 19,454 were rejected, and only 5,784 accepted, for the three Services. Of those rejected, 4,400 were rejected on educational grounds. These are astounding figures. Someone ought to be indicted for this. The rejection rate for the three Services was 79.1 per cent. Does the Government want an Army, Navy and Air Force, or does it not? Is it merely playing around with words? Is the Government sincere? Of course it is not. Mr. Fox. - Did a Labour Government set these standards? Mr. DUTHIE. - No. The Government has been in office for 15 years - 15 long, wretched years. Let us look at the Army, which is now under consideration. Last year 11,079 men enlisted in the Army. They were not dragged along by the coat collar. They were not kicked into the recruiting office, as they will be when this Bill becomes law. They came voluntarily. How many were accepted? A mere 2,839 were accepted. That represents a rejection rate of 72.7 per cent. That is a scandalous situation in any country at any time. Of 11,079 who volunteered for the Army, 8,240 were rejected. I think that there is a deliberate plan to reject men for the Army so as to create an argument for conscription because it is well known that certain men want conscription. They want to be able to push these boys around as though they are rowing boats. They want to give them numbers and put them into battalions without their having any say in the matter. The rejection rate - 79.1 per cent, for the three Services and 72.7 per cent, for the Army - is scandalous. It is obvious that the Government wants a lottery of death, to which my leader referred. The Government's proposed method of selecting conscripts is a hit-and-miss method. Of the men rejected, 4,000 were rejected because they did not reach the required education standard. That is a rejection rate on education grounds of 20 per cent. That rate is too high in a country that boasts of its education standards. If we were talking about America I could understand that rejection rate on educational grounds. What standards of education are required of these men? They are not applying for a position in a bank or to enter a teachers' college or a university. They are not seeking a medical post or a scientific appointment in a government department. A rejection rate of 20 per cent, on education grounds is an insult to our teachers and an indictment of the Government's policy of allowing education to run down in this country. Does the Army want university graduates? Last year 19,000 young men between the ages of 18 and 20 years were rejected for the Services. Their spirit was willing. Their decision to volunteer was highly commendable. Their loyalty was unquestioned. But they were told that the Government was very fussy and could not use them in the Services. They were told to go back to their jobs. What did the Government do to bring up to the required standard the 4,000 men who were rejected on education grounds? Nothing. It sent them home. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) made an important contribution the other night when he suggested how the Government could have lifted the standard of these boys and continued the volunteer system without introducing this wretched conscription. The Government could have educated these fellows over a period of six months. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made seven or eight constructive suggestions for improving the intake of recruits into the Army. One of those suggestions dealt with improved housing. We know that the Army is mechanised. We know that the use of technical aids is widespread in the Army, but this does not mean that we must have university graduates in the Army. The volunteer system has not failed; it has been murdered. The Government attempts to justify its call-up of the 20 year olds by saying that the volunteer system has failed; but its claim is false and a shabby insult to 19,000 young men who volunteered and who were told to go back to work because they were not good enough or not sufficiently good looking. Some were not even told why they were rejected. The conscription of 4,200 20 year olds in peacetime is simply playing to sensationalism, to fear, to exaggeration and to the gallery, which is filled with your powerful friends. That is why conscription has been introduced. If the Army had put those men rejected on education grounds through a six months' intensive training course they would be in the Army now. They would be serving and we would not have the issue of conscription before us. The Chiefs of Staff would have their requirements and conscription would be unnecessary. Certain people will be exempt from call-up. This is where the pressures will be brought to bear on us to get Bill Smith out because he is wanted to look after his widowed mother. Perhaps he should be exempt. He may be the son of invalid parents - the only income earner in the family. That kind of exemption would be justified, but these are not the men who will be exempt. University students will not be called up. So university enrolments will increase. The wealthier sections of the community will make sure now that their sons go to university. University accommodation is already inadequate. What will it be like now? Who will be exempt - the too clever or the too dull? The Old Testament tells us that when the Hebrews were under the yoke of the Pharaohs, the Pharaohs were determined to get rid of the young Hebrew children. So at the time of the Passover blood was sprinkled on the lintels of the doors of some Hebrew homes. Where the blood was sprinkled on the lintels of the doors the son in that family died. He was taken away and killed. Where the blood was not sprinkled the son lived. That is the principle that is to be applied to this system of conscription. Some will not be called up because there is no blood on the lintels; but where there is blood on the lintels the young men will be called up. It may be that only one in every 40 will be called up, but nevertheless this is important to the man concerned. This is an unnecessary and completely unjustified change of policy. It is some mother's son who will be called up. This is so unjust and so full of anomalies. What about the aliens? I do not like that term, because some New Australians are doing a mighty job. These people will not be called up and their sons will not be called up. This will mean fewer naturalisations in the next two or three years. Who can blame the immigrants for adopting that policy? We are seeking to encourage migrants to become naturalised but the Government's proposal will restrict naturalisation. Boys of 20 years of age are usually in the middle of their apprenticeship training. They will be conscripted. Their careers will be disrupted. The boy of 18 years, who was the recruit under the voluntary system, was only beginning his apprenticeship. He could be trained in the Army, as many young lads were. The national service trainees will serve in the Regular Army for two years. Will employers hold open a job for a young man who has been called up? Could they be forced to do so? No. Mr. Jess. - That is clear. Mr. DUTHIE. - Quite clear. How can an employer hold a job open for somebody for two years unless he is in a big way? This Government is forcing employers to hold a position open for two years. They will not do this. They will put someone else in the boy's place and when the boy returns after his two years service, perhaps overseas, he will find that his job has been taken. Mr. Clyde Cameron. - But does the honorable member think that employers will be as ruthless as that? Mr. DUTHIE. - I am sure that they will be so ruthless that they will not hold a job open. How can this Government force them to do it? Can it pass a law to force employers to keep a job open for a boy for two years - a vacant seat at a desk - when their business depends on having a full staff? I do not think employers will fall for that one, and I do not think that there is any law that can make them keep a job open, much as I would like to see such a law. Business is business and capitalism is capitalism, and they are both mighty ruthless. Who will take the jobs of those who will be called up for service? This is where the great anomaly will arise. This is one aspect of the scheme about which we are worried. Let me make it quite clear that this is not a national service scheme. It is a misnomer to call it a national service scheme. The Bill before us is not a normal national service training bill like the one we had in operation between 1951 and 1959. That scheme was based on a system of voluntary call-up of young men 18 years of age. They went into a separate camp. They had their own instructors. They went back to work after they finished their training and returned to camp later for a refresher course. Mr. Jess. - How was it a voluntary system? Mr. DUTHIE. - I am sorry, I meant to say that everyone 18 years of age was called up. There were no exemptions. At that time we agreed with that system because we believed that it was a case of all in or none in. After the scheme had been in operation for some time the Government decided to work on the basis of a birthday ballot, and that is where the scheme started to break down because the exemptions, influences and pressures came to light. The scheme finally collapsed in 1959. The scheme which we are now considering is nothing like that one. This is a conscription call-up just as one would expect if we were at war. But we are not at war and, in my opinion, we are not likely to be at war. The present proposal is to call up young men for overseas service. Untrained 20-year-olds will mingle with men who have been in the Regular Army for 10 or 12 years or more. Recently the Chiefs of Staff said that this will weaken the Army as a whole. Only three weeks ago the Minister for the Army made a very fine speech in Hobart in which he said, in effect, that the Government parties would not have conscription if you gave it to them. Today we heard the honorable member for Higinbotham become absolutely impassioned in favour of conscription. Only three weeks ago he would have been just as impassioned in his opposition to it because the Government was then opposed to it. The Chiefs of Staff were against conscription; the Minister for the Army was against conscription. But the Minister for the Army was put in a very embarrassing position. If ever a man was put over a barrel, that man was the Minister for the Army. Due to a sudden change of heart by someone behind the scenes, he was making a speech in Hobart condemning conscription almost at the same time as the Government was stating its changed policy. The Minister spoke today about flotsam and jetsam. He will hear about that for a long time too. My leader dealt with this aspect. He is recorded on page 2925 of " Hansard " in this way - The Minister for the Army added these dulcet words in his Hobart speech - "I hasten to emphasise that all this means that an Army composed entirely of long term volunteers is a better one than one based on a mixture of volunteers and conscripts ". Anyone with half a brain would agree with that. My leader went on to say - Yet the Minister for the Army now has the task of organising, for the first time in peacetime, an Army composed of volunteers and conscripts- Oil and water - and one, which for the first time in history, will comprise volunteers and conscripts in the same unit. The Leader of the Opposition then quoted the following extract from the Minister's speech in Hobart - We have not introduced conscription up to this point in time .because our military advisers have indicated in the clearest and most unmistakable terms that it is not the most effective way of creating the army we need to meet the situation we face. I stress that this is military advice. The reasons for rejecting conscription have nothing whatsoever to do with the political consequences of its introduction or its cost. He was convinced at that time - only three weeks ago, when he got a very good Press coverage in Hobart - that we would not have conscription. But it was introduced only a few hours later. What happened in the meantime? Suddenly the Prime Minister saw the armies of the aliens - Hannibal and all the others - marching down from the north on Australia. No doubt he said: "We must get the conscription issue on the plate immediately. We must do something dramatic because the people expect us to do something dramatic ". This is the dramatic thing that he did. He has proposed conscription for a mere 4,000 boys a year. For a mere 4,000 boys a year the whole principle has been reversed and the whole set-up has been turned over, the world has been turned upside down, one might say, and we have changed from a system of voluntary enlistment to a system of conscription. It is interesting to hear this Government talk about America and its support for America. Everything that America does is always right. America can do no wrong. But only a few years ago when John Curtin appealed to America to help us in our dire trouble he was castigated. He made his famous speech on 28th December 1941. The " Sydney Morning Herald " of the next day, 29th December, carried the headline: "Australia Looks to America. New Plan for Pacific Strategy." It then quoted the following extracts from Mr. Curtin's speech - Without any inhibitions of any kind I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. U.S.A. would be the keystone in a Pacific strategic plan. Nothing I have said means a weakening of Australian ties with the Empire. What were the reactions to Mr. Curtin's speech? The Honorable W. M. Hughes, Leader of the United Australia party, as it was then known, said - I believe it would be suicidal and a false and dangerous policy for Australia to regard Britain's support as being of less importance than that of the other great countries with which we are associated. The next day Mr. Curtin had to defend his loyalty in the Press. He stated - We intend to preserve Australia as part of the British Commonwealth . . . Therefore, our voice must be heard. Mr. Menzies, as he then was, criticised Mr. Curtin's decision in this way - Mr. Curtin has made a great blunder if he thinks that the tics between this country and G.eat Britain are merely traditional. Mr. Spender, who also has since received a knighthood, had this to say - It is deplorable that such a statement as Mr. Curtin's was ever made. He also called Mr. Curtin's action " an egregious blunder". Mr. Bruxner, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, said - Mr. Curtin's statement is one of the most unfortunate and damaging of the many somewhat wild statements made by our so-called leaders at this time . . . He is casting a brick at the old country . . . Australia is 100 per cent. British. Mr. Ernest A. Lawrence, Secretary of the Royal Society of St. George, almost had a heart attack. He was in such a state about it all that he called a special meeting of the society to consider the matter. Another citizen wrote to the editor of the " Sydney Morning Herald " and referred to this " gift to German and Japanese propaganda ". That was the kind of reaction to Mr. Curtin's call to America for help, but today the Prime Minister claims that everything America does is right. Mr. Jess. - The honorable member for Capricornia said that America has never helped anyone. Mr. DUTHIE. - He said that America does not help any country until it is attacked. I conclude by saying that today's newspapers report that the Methodist, Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches are completely opposed to the conscription bill. The Rev. Alan Walker- Mr. SPEAKER. - Order! The honorable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr. Turner) adjourned. SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT. Motion (by Mr. Chancy) agreed to - That the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. CRIMES (OVERSEAS) BILL 1964. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. 1964-11-16 3054 adjournment Motion (by Mr. Chaney) proposed - That the House do now adjourn. 3054 1V4 Yarra ALP 0 0 CAIRNS, Jim Dr J F Cairns .Mr. Speaker- Motion (by Mr. Aston) put - That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Sir John McLeay.) 56 39 Majority . . . . 17 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 12.7 a.m. (Tuesday). 3055 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions uponnotice were circulated - 3055 3055 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Minister- for Immigration, upon notice - Under what circumstances can inhabitants of each of Australia's overseas territories, including trust territories, migrate to Australia? 3055 KMB LP 1 0 OPPERMAN, Hubert Mr Opperman - The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - The eligibility for admission into Australia for residence of the inhabitants of Australia's overseas territories, including trust territories, is subject to Government policy appropriate to the circumstances. 3055 3055 JF7 0 0 BEAZLEY, Kim Mr Beazley y asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice - Did the Secretary of the Department of Immigration in a letter in 1961 regarding the attitude of the Government to the migration of Eurasians state that if an applicant of mixed descent appears to be fully European in upbringing, outlook, mode of dress and way of living, and appears to be predominantly European to the extent that he is unlikely to experience difficulty in being accepted as a European in Australia, then for immigration purposes he is accepted as a European? If so, is this still the attitude of the Government to this matter, and is appearance still considered one of the most important factors in reaching a decision on the entry of Eurasians? 3055 KMB LP 1 0 OPPERMAN, Hubert Mr Opperman - The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows - The conditions governing the admission of persons of mixed descent have been reviewed from time to time. Under the present policy, while the extent to which the applicant appears to be non-European is naturally a factor in assessing his general suitability for settlement (i.e. whether he is capable of ready integration into the Australian community), the decision, which is within the Minister's discretion, essentially depends rather on factors such as compassionate reasons (for example, close family relationship to someone already resident in Australia); the applicant's possession of knowledge, experience or qualifications useful to Australia; and his ability to make a contribution to Australia's progress. Taking these considerations into account, each case is determined on ils merits. Overseas Companies in Australia. (Question No. 651.) 3055 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice - On what occasions has his Department conducted surveys on the extent and nature of restrictions imposed by overseas principals on the rights of their Australian subsidiaries and affiliates to sell their products outside Australia? How many (a) agreements 'and (b) companies were found to be subject to such restrictions? To what areas were (a) sales limited or (b) exports forbidden by (i) American and (ii) British principals? To how many companies has he written In the effort to have the restrictions removed? In how many cases have the restrictions been thereafter removed? 3055 009MB CP 0 0 MCEWEN, John Mr McEwen - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - The Department collected information on these restrictions in 1958 and again in late 1961 and early 1962. Officers of the Department, in their day to day contact with industry are constantly adding to and updating this information. An analysis of the information collected in 1961 and 1962 showed that 1,100 agreements which restricted exports in one way or another had been entered into by some 700 Australian companies. Because of the variety of licensing and financial agreements which restrict exports it is not possible to aggregate or summarise details in this way. Export franchise arrangements between overseas companies and their Australian subsidiaries or licensees are a delicate and important matter. I and the Department of Trade and Industry have therefore found it often as effective to discuss these arrangements with the firms concerned as to enter into formal correspondence, and have written to or held discussions with some hundreds of firms. Because of the complexity of most export franchise arrangements, it is not possible to state precisely the actual number of cases in which restrictions have been removed. However, I can say that the representations which have been made have resulted in a large number of cases where franchise restrictions have been either completely removed or significantly reduced. 3055 3055 JP5 0 0 BENSON, Samuel Mr Benson n asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - Is it the practice to encourage Australian diplomats and their wives to learn the language of Asian countries? What are the details of incentives given by this Department to encourage diplomats to learn Asian languages by means of (a) the payment for language lessons or (b) the payment of allowances or other incentives to officers to (i) attain varying levels of proficiency and (ii) maintain their proficiency in these languages? Is he able to give similar details of incentives given to diplomats by the United Kingdom and the United States of America? How many officers of his Department undertake full time courses each year in (a) Japanese (b) Chinese (c) Vietnamese (d) Thai (e) Lao (0 Malay/Indonesian (g) Burmese (h) Cambodian and (i) Tagalog? What sum is spent each year by the Department in promoting the study of these languages? In regard to the languages listed in part (4), how many External Affairs officers (a) can speak the language at an elementary level (b) have a working knowledge of the language (i.e. the ability to read newspapers, albeit slowly, converse generally and understand the general trend of speeches and broadcasts) (c) have attained fluency (i.e the ability to conduct business in the language, understand speeches and radio broadcasts and write and check translations with certainty) and (d) have attained complete fluency (i.e., the ability to speak the language as well as the natives of the country)? How many of these officers are at present in the countries whose languages they speak? Is the present number of officers with ability to speak these languages adequate for his Department's needs? Are the incentives offered and the sums expended on this matter adequate? Is he able to say whether the present activities of his Department in promoting the study of Asian languages compare favourably with similar activities undertaken by comparable Departments in the United Kingdom and the United States of America? 3056 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The Acting Minister for External Affairs has supplied the following answers - Yes. In the Department's current language training programme, out of a total appropriation of some £15,000 over £5,000 has been allocated for expenditure on general Asian language training. The major portion of these funds will be spent on the training of diplomatic officers and their wives. The scale of incentives to learn languages is determined by the Public Service Board, and not by the Department; and the Public Service Board superintends the Department's decisions to assist particular officers to learn languages. Subject to this explanation of the authority in these matters, the answer to this part of the question is as follows - Payment of tuition fees is met by the Department in all cases where the language training is being undertaken at the Department's direction. When an officer himself suggests that he learn a language, tuition fees for him and his wife may be met if study of the language proposed is thought to be in the interests of the Department. Where an officer is engaged on full-time language training overseas, the whole cost of his tuition is met, his salary continues, and he receives the cost of living allowances and other like allowances normally payable to an Australian-based officer stationed in the particular country. Officers undergoing full-time courses in Australia, e.g., R.A.A.F. School of Languages, Point Cook, receive appropriate living allowances. Other incentives include the provision of time off for study and the payment of language proficiency allowances. (i) The payment of language proficiency allowances is dependent upon an officer's qualifying at an examination prescribed by the Public Service Board. Payment for proficiency in various Asian languages is made in most cases at two levels, Grade "B" (normal competency in the language) £100 per annum, and Grade "A" (complete fluency) £200 per annum, with the exception of Chinese and Japanese for which there is an additional lower level, Grade "C". The current rates of allowance for the oriental languages is £75 per annum (Grade "C"), £120 per annum (Grade " B ") and £250 per annum (Grade " A "). An allowance is payable in respect of only one language at a time and is payable only while the officer is stationed in a country where the language is in general use. When an officer in receipt of a proficiency allowance leaves the country in which that language is in general use, the allowance is reduced by 50%. Continued payment of this reduced allowance is subject to his passing a re-qualifying test at intervals of not more than two years. It is the policy of the Department to encourage officers to maintain their proficiency. Arrangements are made, where possible, for officers to have refresher tuition or to undergo intensive refresher courses, at the conclusion of which they may requalify for continued payment of allowances at the reduced rates. 3 (i) U.S.A.- The United States State Department has recently established a new incentive programme to improve the skills of Foreign Service personnel, particularly in difficult languages. It includes both salary incentives for junior officers entering the service and special incentives for officers already in the service undergoing training in difficult languages. If a junior Foreign Service Officer, on appointment to the service, can pass language proficiency tests at levels established by the U.S. Foreign Service Institute, he qualifies for payment of salary at rates higher than he would otherwise receive. If he qualifies for a " working knowledge " rating or better in a European language, his salary will be two steps ($400 a year) above the normal entry rate. If he qualifies at a similar level in an Asian language he will be paid a salary at four steps ($600 a year) above the normal entry rate. If he qualifies in more than one language, he may be paid as much as five steps ($800 a year) above the normal entry rate. Foreign Service Officers and career reserve officers who are assigned to intensive language training courses lasting sixteen weeks or more receive a salary increase of $200 a year. If, as a result of the course, they qualify at the "working knowledge " standard, the salary increase becomes $400 a year, provided the necessary test to determine the standard reached is held within 30 months of completing the course or during the officer's first home leave after the course is completed. Special promotion consideration is given to officers who qualify for foreign language proficiency. U.K.- The U.K. Foreign Service language allowances for major foreign languages are as follows (sterling currency) - Officers of the U.K. Foreign Service may be paid appropriate allowances for any number of languages in which they have qualified for proficiency. Although allowances are reduced to half rate when an officer leaves the country in which the language is in general use, continuation if that allowance is not subject to requalification until an officer has been absent from the coun- try for five years. Wives of U.K. personnel may be helped with the cost of language tuition when accompanying their husbands to posts abroad. The number of hours tuition is dependent on the status of the officers and is in most cases greater that the maximum number of hours paid on behalf of wives of officers of the Aus- ralian service, i.e. 40 hours. Allowances are also paid to U.K. personnel for the purchase of text books used in language training. Since the Public Service Board agreed, in December, 1962, to the Department of Externa] Affairs having an annual language training pro gramme, the following officers have undergone, or are currently undergoing, full-time courses in Asian languages referred to above: In the financial year 1962-63, when the annual language training programme was first introduced, about £2,600 was allocated for expenditure on training in Asian languages. However, because the programme did not begin to operate until the financial year was well advanced, less than half the appropriation was spent. In 1963-64, approximately £3,000 was spent. In the current financial year £5,000 has been allocated for expenditure on training in Asian languages. This does not include the cost of salaries and overseas allowances paid to full time language students. The cost of training a junior officer who is just completing three years full-time study of Chinese has been approximately £A.12,000. It would not be possible for an Australian to learn to speak one of the languages listed in part (4) as well as the natives of the relevant country unless he had spent a large part of his formative years in that country: but subject to this limitation, the particulars required are: The number of officers who have the ability to speak various Asian languages has not been adequate for the Department's needs. Although a small number of officers have been assigned to full-time language training courses for some years past, it was not until the Public Service Board, following upon representations by the Department, introduced the training scheme in December, 1962, that real progress began to be made. Within the framework of the annual programmes, there is provision for tuition in all thelanguages - not confined to Asian languages - for which the Department has a special need. The main obstacles to progress have been: the inability of the Department to recruit officers in sufficient numbers to permit the release of sufficient officers from normal departmental duties for full-time language training; the time taken to master a difficultlanguage. For example, it takes three years full-time study for an officer with an aptitude for languages to attain sufficient fluency in Chinese to pass an examination at the interpreter level. The financial incentives offered are decided by the Public Service Board and not the Government. Allowing for differences in staff numbers, there is no reason to believe that the promotion of the study of Asian languages by the Department of External Affairs compares unfavorably with Britain and the United States. Status of Forces Agreements. (Question No. 724.) 3058 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - With what countries has Australia concluded a Status of Forces Agreement concerning - (a) Australian Forces in those countries, or (b) the forces of those countries in Australia? 3058 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The Acting Minister for External Affairs has supplied the following answers to the honorable member's questions - Australia was a party to the Agreement of 19th February 1954, concerning the status of United Nations Forces in Japan (in which there was an Australian component); An Agreement concerning the status of United States Forces in Australia was concluded on 9th May 1963. Arrangements giving appropriate status to Australian servicemen abroad on short or long term missions are kept under close review, discussion and as necessary, negotiation. In the case of the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Malaysia, legislation in general similar to the Australian Defence (Visiting Forces) Act 1963 exists to govern the status of visiting servicemen in those countries. In Malaysia, our forces have the same status as other Commonwealth Forces in that country (see page 206 of Select Documents on International Affairs No. 1 of 1963, published by Department of External Affairs, a copy of which is in the Parliamentary Library). In Vietnam, the Government has ensured by technical bilateral arrangements that Australian servicemen are accorded by the Vietnamese Government a status equivalent to that accorded to servicemen of other friendly countries who are likewise serving there. In the case of Australian servicemen in the United States, the UnitedStates Government has been asked to extend to them the provision of its Friendly Foreign Forces Act 1944. A reciprocal status of forces agreement with the United States to be concluded at a future date is envisaged in the protocol to the Agreement of 9th May 1963, concerning the status of United States forces in Australia. 3058 3058 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - On what dates did the Government of South Vietnam address the appeals for assistance to non-S.E.A.T.O. as well as S.E.A.T.O. countries, to which the Minister referred in his reply to me on the 20th October ("Hansard", page 2130)? Did these appeals constitute the invitation to which the Prime Minister referred on the 13th August (" Hansard ", page 186)? On what dates did Australia decide to give assistance? 3058 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The Acting Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following replies - See answer to Question No. 392 on Notice Paper No. 33 printed in "Hansard" of the 20th October 1964 (pages 2131-2). As stated in the reply to Question No. 392 ("Hansard" of the 20th October 1964 page 2132), Australian aid to Vietnam has flowed from appeals from the Government of the Republic of Vietnam and from detailed consultations in pursuance of them which have taken place with that Government. Relevant dates are given in the reply to Question 392 (pages 2131-2 of "Hansard" of the 20th October 1964) and in the reply to Question No. 543 (page 2382-3 of "Hansard" of 27th October 1964). 3058 3058 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Acting Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - Which of the transport conventions to which Australia has not become a party (" Hansard ", 22nd October 1964, page 2305) were supported and which were opposed by Australia? What countries have become parties to them? Which of the conventions have entered into force, and when did each enter into force? What steps have been taken to prepare for Australia to become a party to any of the conventions? What steps have still to be taken before Australia becomes a party to each of the conventions, and when does he expect those steps to be taken? 3058 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The Acting Minister for External Affairs has furnished the replies set out in the following chart - 3064 3064 2V4 0 0 CAMERON, Clyde Mr Clyde Cameron n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - Is it a fact that, although express requests have been made to the Commonwealth Government by the Government of South Australia for additional air services to meet South Australia's requirements, the Commonwealth Government has, by administrative action, prevented this from being done? Has the Commonwealth Government, in this way, failed to implement its announced policy of fostering competitive air services and, as a result, has an airline subsidiary of Ansett Transport industries Ltd. been the chief beneficiary of the Commonwealth's action? 3064 KDT LP 1 0 FAIRBAIRN, David Mr Fairbairn - The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following information- The South Australian Government in 1956 and 1963 suggested to the Commonwealth that legislation might be enacted for a reference by it of " air transport " powers to the Commonwealth as a step towards enabling Trans-Australia Airlines to operate within that State. However, as it was the Commonwealth's view that intrastate airline services in South Australia were adequately provided by the existing operator, and the intrusion of a second airline would result in overall uneconomic operation for them both, there was no progress made on the suggestion. The Commonwealth met a request by the Government of South Australia in 1956 for the licensing of additional air services to Leigh Creek and is not aware of any other requests for additional air services. No. The Commonwealth's policy is to foster competitive services where they are economically justified but also to avoid the waste of uneconomic competition. South Australian air routes have not yet developed to the point of justifying competitive services. 3064 3064 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice - Did a conference of scrap copper exporters and buyers agree on a compromise price for copper scrap? When was this conference held? On what date were manufacturers advised of the results of this conference? Did manufacturers subsequently dispute the figures on which the conference based its decisions? What was the nature of their disagreement with the figures? What reply was made to the manufacturers? What departments, other than his Department attended the conference? Did these departments agree with the compromise reached at the conference? 3064 009MB CP 0 0 MCEWEN, John Mr McEwen - The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows - On 21st and 22nd May 1964, a conference was held in Canberra attended by some 40 representatives of industry (including copper producers, scrap merchants and users of copper and of scrap) together with representatives of the Departments of National Development, Customs and Excise, Supply, and Trade and Industry. At the conference there was a detailed discussion of the availability of copper scrap and copper alloy scrap in Australia and of the prices being paid for scrap by local and overseas buyers. No firm decisions were taken at the meeting - but it was agreed that it would be desirable for manufacturers and scrap merchants to agree on compromise prices for scrap and for discussions to be held direct between the users of scrap and the suppliers. Subsequent discussions took place, compromise prices were adopted and exports of scrap declined. Because manufacturers were present at the conference, there was no need to advise them of the results of the discussions. 3064 3064 KGH 0 0 HANSEN, Brendan Mr Hansen n asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice - Do tobacco manufacturers in Australia claim that the addition of a greater percentage of local leaf to their products would cause an increase in the price of tobacco and cigarettes to smokers? Has his attention been drawn to an official Australian report that 2,998,839 lb. of tobacco was imported from South Africa during 1962- 63 at an average price of 68. 7d. per lb. and another report by the United States Department of Agriculture that this sale to Australia Was made at an average price of 21.8 cents per lb.? If so, has he investigated this matter? If no investigation has yet been made will he undertake to make inquiries as to why there is such a considerable difference in the two reports? 3064 JLR CP 0 0 ADERMANN, Charles Mr Adermann - The answers to the honorable members questions are as follows - No. Under the present circumstances obtaining in the Australian tobacco industry manufacturers are not compelled to purchase and use Australian tobacco leaf but do so because there is an economic advantage deriving from its use. No. However, I have since seen the report by the United States Department of Agriculture in "Foreign Agriculture" to which the honorable member presumably refers. The price of 21.8 cents per lb. (equivalent to 23.3d. Australian) is obviously an error as the official South African publication "Foreign Trade Statistics" shows that exports to Australia in 1962 were made at an average of 46.2d. (Australian) per lb. The Commonwealth Statistician indicates that imports of unmanufactured tobacco from South Africa in 1962 averaged 76.0d. per lb. Insofar as the apparent discrepancy is concerned, I am advised that the 76d. per lb. shown by the Commonwealth Statistician represents the average value for duty and is not related to the selling or export price. Value for duty is assessed on the current domestic value in the country of export or the selling price to the purchaser whichever is the higher. See 2. above. See 2. above. 3065 3065 6U4 ALP 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Treasurer, upon notice - Has the Commonwealth Statistician made any progress in preparing statistics on productivity since the Treasurer's reply to me on 28th October 1963 ("Hansard", page 2364)? 3065 009MC LP 1 0 HOLT, Harold Mr Harold Holt - The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - The Commonwealth Statistician informs me that because of the inherent shortcomings of such measures and, to some extent because of data deficiencies, he does not envisage publishing an official statistical scries purporting to measure labour productivity. Work is continuing on expanding and improving the data available in production and other scries usually considered in studies of productivity. 3065 3065 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - Did the Public Service Board state in the preliminary statement which he tabled on 2nd October 1962, that its report for 1961-62 would be presented to Parliament later in the year? Did the Board state in the preliminary statements which he tabled on 11th September 1963, that its report for 1962-63 would be presented to Parliament later in the session? Does the Board intend to convey to him and to the Parliament in the opening paragraph of its report for 1963-64, which he tabled on 3rd September 1964, that it now declines to make a full statutory report for the two preceding years? 3065 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - Yes. Yes. .The Public Service Board has informed me as follows - The statements tabled in the House on 2nd October 1962, and on 11th September 1963, by the Prime Minister were presented by the Board as encompassing the information normally submitted in compliance with section 22 of the Public Service Act. The statements were designated "preliminary" because the Board had hoped to extend the normal reporting by the addition of a narrative confined to a discussion of those current issues likely to have a major impact on the organisation and development of the Public Service, e.g. the reviews of classification structures and pay levels stimulated by the Engineers Judgment of June 1961. In the event, the rapidly changing situation made this impracticable. The report tabled in the House on 3rd September 1964, includes the commentary the Board had hoped to develop in 1961-62 and 1962-63. It also illustrates the form and scope of reporting which the Board hopes to develop further in future years. The Board regrets the confusion which has arisen because of the delays in development of its plans to improve and extend its reporting. The Board has put in hand the action necessary to complete the record for 1961-62 and 1962-63. 3065 3065 2V4 0 0 CAMERON, Clyde Mr Clyde Cameron n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - What are the names, positions and salaries of Commonwealth employees who are in receipt of annual salaries of £2,750 or more? 3065 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - At 1st January 1964, the number of positions in the Commonwealth Service where the whole of the salary range exceeded £2,749 (Actual) was 4,679. Details for each Division of the Service at In addition there were 3,181 positions with salary ranges having the minimum below £2,749 (Actual) and the maximum above. Details of these positions at 1st January 1964, are as follows- Some of the occupants of these positions, who were at or near the top of their respective ranges, would also be receiving more than £2,749 (Actual) per annum. I realise I have not provided details of positions, salaries and names of occupants but, because of the numbers involved, this is not practicable. 3066 3066 JOO 0 0 BEATON, Noel Mr Beaton n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice - What amount was spent by the respective armed Services in advertising for recruits in the last financial year? How much was spent in respect of each service on (a) press,(b) radio and (c) television advertising? How much was spent on (a) press, (b) radio and (c) television advertising through the medium of country newspapers, radio stations and television channels? How much will be spent on (a) press, (b) radio and (c) television advertising in country areas in this financial year? 3066 KEN LP 1 0 FAIRHALL, Allen Mr Fairhall - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - The amounts spent by the Central Directorate of Recruiting for recruiting in 1963-64 were - Navy £187,000; Army £300,000; Air Force £1 14,000. The amounts spent on press, radio and television advertisements were - The amounts spent on provincial advertising were- Press £39,000; radio £8,000; television nil. It is not possible at this stage to give precise figures, but arrangements have been made to advertise on country television stations next year. In other respects expenditure will broadly follow the general pattern of the previous year. There are other amounts expended by the individual Services on leaflets, brochures, staging of exhibitions and displays, &c, but the principal expenditure is incurred by the Central Directorate of Recruiting. 3066 3066 JAG 0 0 CREAN, Frank Mr Crean n asked the Treasurer, upon notice - Does the Commonwealth Government itself directly or through the Reserve Bank have holdings of United States Treasury securities for the purposes of overseas reserves? If so, what have been the approximate holdings of such securities for each of the last several years? Is the interest received on such securities subject to United States federal withholding tax or any other form of United States taxation? If such funds as are held from time to time are not liable to United States taxation, under what provisions or agreement are they exempted? 3066 009MC LP 1 0 HOLT, Harold Mr Harold Holt - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - 1 and 2. Nearly all Australia's foreign exchange reserves are held by the Reserve Bank of Australia and its current holdings include a proportion of United States dollars invested in short term United States Treasury securities. The amounts so involved are not large in relation to the total; over recent years they have fluctuated between $50 million and $100 million. 3 and 4. The United States Internal Revenue Code provides an exemption from taxation for income derived by a "foreign central bank of issue" from United States Government obligations owned by the foreign central bank unless such obligations are held for, or used in connection with, the conduct of commercial banking functions or other commercial activities. The Reserve Bank qualifies for this exemption. 3066 3066 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice - On what dates, in what form and to what extent have the Italian and Netherlands Governments assisted in providing houses for migrants from their countries? Has the British Government or any other government offered or been asked to assist similarly? 3066 JTP LP 1 0 BURY, Leslie Mr Bury - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - Both an Italian semi-government body, the National Institute of Credit for Italian Labour Abroad (I.C.L.E.), and the Netherlands Government have lent money towards meeting the cost of housing Italian and Dutch immigrants respectively. A condition of these loans was that they were to be matched by loans from Australian sources. Australian banks have, in fact, supplied most of the matching loans. The funds available have been lent to migrants through building societies whose loans arc guaranteed by the appropriate State Government. The amounts received from abroad and the years in which they were received were as follows: - I understand that there have been approaches by representatives of Australian interests to British authorities and building societies to see whether these societies were in a position to lend to Australian building societies to assist in the financing of homes for British immigrants. So far these approaches have not been successful. Representatives in Australia of other governments have inquired about the methods of operation of the I.C.L.E. and the Netherlands loan schemes, but, as far as I am aware, no other similar schemes are in operation. 3067 3067 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice - What steps have been taken by the Commonwealth and each State to allow migrants to procure houses built (a) by State housing authorities and (b) through building societies with advances made pursuant to the Housing Agreement Act? 3067 JTP LP 1 0 BURY, Leslie Mr Bury - The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - The Commonwealth has no power to direct the States to provide houses for migrants. Each State decides its own policy in this field. In general, the conditions under which a migrant may apply to buy a dwelling built by a State housing authority are the same as those for an Australian citizen. However, in some States, migrants may have to delay submitting their applications in order to meet a special requirement of the housing authority. The Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia either have made, or have agreed to make, advances from Housing Agreement moneys to match, in part, special oversea loans for the housing of Italian and Dutch immigrants. The oversea funds, together with matching funds from Australian sources, are lent to migrants through building societies. The Commonwealth Savings Bank plays a prominent part in arranging such oversea loans and the matching funds. Many migrants become members of building societies, or form their own building society. Such societies are eligible to receive Housing Agreement funds allocated by the States. 3067 3067 K6T 0 0 COSTA, Dominic Mr Costa a asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - Is he able to say whether George's River near Sydney has been closed to swimming for three years because of sewage pollution and whether sewage effluent at Sydney metropolitan beaches is causing local government authorities great anxiety because of the hazards to health? If so, has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization undertaken any investigation or research with the object of finding a more hygienic method of sewage disposal than that of draining it into rivers or out to sea? 3067 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - The problem of the pollution of George's River and the Sydney metropolitan beaches is not a Commonwealth responsibility, being entirely a matter for the New South Wales authorities, and the Commonwealth Government has no knowledge of the matter. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has not undertaken any research on sewage disposal. This is a matter for the appropriate local authority, in this case, the Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board of Sydney. 3067 3067 K9M 0 0 JOHNSON, Leslie Mr L R Johnson son asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice - How many formal applications lodged under the provisions of the Homes Savings Grant Act have been unsuccessful? What are the five principal reasons for the rejection of applications? Has any dissection of the income of applicants under the Act been undertaken? If so, how many successful applicant couples had a combined weekly income in excess of (a) £20, (b) £25, (c) £35, (d) £45, (e) £55, (0 £65, (g) £75 and (h) £100? 3067 JTP LP 1 0 BURY, Leslie Mr Bury - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - Up to 6th November 1964, 6,888 applications for home savings grants had been finalised, of which 612 had been unsuccessful. The two main reasons why applicants were unsuccessful have been - the contract to buy or build the home was entered into, or construction of the home commenced, prior to 2nd December 1963; and the applicant had not saved for the required minimum period of three years. Other reasons why applications have been rejected include - the applicant had not resided in Australia for the required minimum period; the applicant failed to supply evidence of a contract in writing to buy or build a home; and the applicant did not have savings in an acceptable form. 3 and 4. No. The Act does not require applicants for the home savings grants to supply information regarding their incomes. Australian Expenditure on War in Korea. (Question No. 747.) 3068 EE4 0 0 UREN, Tom Mr Uren n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice - What was the total expenditure incurred by Australia through its participation in the Korean War? 3068 KEN LP 1 0 FAIRHALL, Allen Mr Fairhall - The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer: - The cost of Australia's participation in the Korean war and garrison duties, including the cost of supporting units and establishments in Japan, from the commencement of operations in June 1950, to May 1964 when the final settlement was made with the United States of America for services supplied during the war, was £47.763 million. This does not include normal pay and allowances for personnel who were members of the Australian permanent forces. Education in the Northern Territory. (Question No. 751.) 3068 JVB 0 0 MORTIMER, Jack Mr Mortimer r asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - Is a boarding allowance of £100 plus a travelling allowance paid by the Commonwealth in respect of Northern Territory children attending the St. Philip's boarding school at Alice Springs? Is it a fact that children from the farnorth of South Australia who attend this school do not receive a Commonwealth subsidy? Has his attention been drawn to the recent statement by the South Australian Minister of Education that it is financially impossible for that State to assist further these outback children? If so, will he give consideration to subsidising the allowances of the South Australian children attending this school so that there will be no differentiation between these children and their counterparts over the border? 3068 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows - . Yes, provided their homes are in the Northern Territory and arc more than ten miles from a suitable school, and provided they live away from their homes in order to attend school. This assistance from the Northern Territory Administration is confined to residents of the Northern Territory and, accordingly, children whose homes are in South Australia would not be eligible for these allowances. I am not aware of the recent statement made by the South Australian Minister of Education to which the honorable member refers. However, I understand that the South Australian Government does provide boarding allowances for children who have to live away from home to attend a secondary school. This is predominantly a State matter, and South Australia and all other States pay allowances to assist with the schooling of children living in remote areas. In the circumstances the Government could not agree to subsidise the allowances of South Australian children as the honorable member suggested. 3068 3068 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Minister for Housing, upon notice - What means test does each State housing authority apply in allocating houses (a) for sale and (b) for rental. 3068 JTP LP 1 0 BURY, Leslie Mr Bury - The following answers to the honorable member's question have been supplied by the respective State housing authorities - Although no specific means test is applied by the New South Wales Housing Commission to determine the eligibility of an applicant to buy or rent a dwelling, the Commission does have regard to the income and financial resources of an applicant and his family in deciding whether or not to register an application. An applicant to be eligible to buy a dwelling from the Victorian Housing Commission must not be in receipt of an income of more than £30 per week. Applicants to rent Commission dwellings must not be receiving more than £25 per week. These amounts refer to the income of the principal bread-winner. In addition the gross income of the applicant's family is also taken into consideration. Although no specific means test is applied to determine the eligibility of an applicant to buy or rent a dwelling from the Queensland Housing Commission, the Commission does have regard to the applicant's need for financial assistance. The South Australian Housing Trust does not apply any means test prior to accepting an application to buy or rent a house erected with funds provided under the 1956 and 1961 Housing Agreements. However, in allocating dwellings it bears in mind its general responsibility to provide housing for people of limited means. An applicant to buy or rent a dwelling from the State Housing Commission of Western Australia must not be in receipt of an income exceeding £23 7s.10d. per week in the metropolitan area, £2816s.8d. per week in country areas, or £38 9s. 3d. per week in the North-West. Although the Tasmanian Housing Department does not apply a specific means test to applicants who wish to buy or rent one of its dwellings, it will not allot a dwelling to a person who, it believes, can afford to buy or rent a house on the open market. 3069 3069 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - From what churchmen or church bodies has he received protests or other communications concerning the refusal of a visa to Archbishop Alexei? 3069 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - It is not customary to publish a list of the names of people who correspond wilh a Minister of the Crown, even on a public matter. I do not propose to depart from this practice. 3069 3069 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - Did he say on 27th October ("Hansard", page 23 IS) that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had gone on record that they could not recognise a government established by a unilateral declaration of independence on the part of South Rhodesia unless there was reason to believe that this represented the view of the people of Rhodesia? Did the Prime Ministers in fact state on 16th July that they noted with approval the statement already made by the British Government that it would not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence and that they made it clear that they would be unable to recognise any such declaration? Will he now make it clear that there is no qualification in his refusal to recognise a unilateral declaration of independence by the Rhodesian Government? 3069 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies - The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows - Yes. 3069 3069 KGH 0 0 HANSEN, Brendan Mr Hansen n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - Is the Minister able to say whether road transport hauliers, operating without permit through Canberra, have been fined recently for breaches of the State Transport Act? If so, has he considered the recently commenced operations of Airlines of New South Wales between New South Wales and Canberra in the light of such breaches of the State Act? Will he make a statement in connection with the matters? 3069 KDT LP 1 0 FAIRBAIRN, David Mr Fairbairn - The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following information - I have not considered the operations of Airlines of New South Wales between the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales in the light of any cases involving road hauliers, because these airline operations are licensed under Commonwealth law. I do not wish to make any statement on the subject because the High Court is currently dealing with a matter which is somewhat related. Universities: Fees. 3069 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies . - When I replied on 20th November to question on notice No. 447, in which the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) sought information of Australian universities under 11 headings, I stated that the Universities had been asked for information on part 11 of his question which was concerned with increases in fees this year, and that when their replies had been received I would advise the honorable gentleman. The following information from the universities ha: now come to hand - General increases in fees were made by the Universities of New England, Western Australia, and Tasmania. There were small increases in fees for undergraduate tuition at the University of Queensland, while the University of Melbourne made changes in certain minor fees and in the fees for second year agricultural science. The University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, University of Adelaide, Monash University and the Australian National University did not increase fees this year. South Vietnam. 3069 N76 LP 1 0 MENZIES, Robert Sir Robert Menzies . - On 23rd September the honorable member for Herbert (Mr. Harding) asked me a question without notice requesting that Australian servicemen serving in South Vietnam be allowed to accept foreign decorations. The honorable member also asked whether the Australian Government intended to issue a campaign medal for service in South Vietnam. In accordance with well established principles, bravery and acts of gallantry by members of the Australian forces are recognised by awards bestowed by Her Majesty The Queen. These principles preclude the acceptance of foreign awards and decorations for such service. The issue of a medal in recognition of service by Australian personnel in South Vietnam is receiving consideration by the Government. 3070 3070 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Treasurer, upon notice - What estimated (a) loss or (b) gain would now be caused to Consolidated Revenue by each of the recommendations made by the Ligertwood Committee on Taxation in June 1961? 3070 009MC LP 1 0 HOLT, Harold Mr Harold Holt - The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - Many of the recommendations made by the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation were adopted in the 1961-62 and 1963-64 Budgets and estimates of their revenue effects were set out in statements accompanying the respective Budget speeches. The Committee's recommendation for the repeal of the clearance provisions relating to persons leaving Australia was implemented in 1962 and following detailed consideration of the Committee's recommendations in relation to companies, leases, trusts and partnerships, superannuation funds and alienation of income, amendments to the income tax law have passed all stages in this House and in the Senate. Because of the nature of the proposals contained in those Bills it is not possible to make precise estimates of their effect on the revenue. Details of recommendations not yet dealt with by the Parliament and their estimated annual revenue effects arc set out in the following table: - The optional simplified return form in use in the United States of America is the form used by taxpayers who claim the standard deduction to cover concessional deductions, other than for dependants, instead of claiming on the basis of actual expenditure. The standard deduction is expressed as a percentage of income with a prescribed maximum. The cost to revenue of introducing standard deductions would depend on the percentage of income allowed as the standard deduction and the maximum amount allowable before claims must be made on the basis of actual expenditure. The Committee also made recommendations in relation to assessments, objections and appeals, registration of tax agents, penal provisions and prosecutions, and miscellaneous matters which have not yet been finally dealt with. Those recommendations, if implemented, would have little or no effect on revenue but in some cases would involve additional administrative costs. 3070 3070 6U4 0 0 WHITLAM, Gough Mr Whitlam m asked the Treasurer, upon notice - What is the estimated cost to the mint of recent increases in copper prices? 3070 009MC LP 1 0 HOLT, Harold Mr Harold Holt - The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows - In normal circumstances, purchases of copper for minting purposes are made from local suppliers at world producer price which, for some time prior to 18th August 1964, was equivalent to £320 a ton. However, during periods when copper is in short supply, the price paid is the London Metal Exchange mean spot price on the date of despatch from store. Shortages in domestic copper supplies occurred towards the middle of 1964 and, between 24th June and 18th August, purchases of copper totalling approximately 212 tons were made at prices ranging up to £460 lis. 8d. a ton, thereby involving the payment of £12,350 more than would have been paid at the world producer price of £320 a ton. From 19th August the world producer price has been the equivalent of £340 a ton, and the cost of copper supplied for minting purposes has ranged up to £655 14s. 9d. a ton. Between 19th August and 29th October, 342 tons were purchased at prices involving payments of £55,643 in excess of the amounts which would have been paid had the world producer price of £340 a ton applied. A purchase of copper for minting purposes effected on 29th October was made after the establishment of the copper surcharge pool operated by the major copper fabricators. The Commonwealth, along with other purchasers, has lodged a claim on the pool for payment of the difference between the pool price of £396 a ton (i.e. the world producer price of £340 a ton plus a surcharge of £56 a ton) and the London Metal Exchange price in respect of that purchase. The claim involves the requested repayment of £10,376 to the Commonweal^. Banking. 3071 009MC LP 1 0 HOLT, Harold Mr Harold Holt t. - On 1st October the honorable member for Cowper (Mr. Robinson) asked me a question without notice in which he suggested that farmers in the Northern Rivers area of New South Wales were experiencing difficulty in obtaining bank finance for pasture improvement. I promised to make inquiries. On the general question of the financing of pasture improvement, it is evident from inquiries made by the Reserve Bank that the trading banks have co-operated in making finance available to assist in the introduction of new pastures, and the Bank has no reason to believe that the banks will not continue to assist. In the particular case of the Northern Rivers area of New South Wales, the Reserve Bank understands that banks operating in the area are well informed on and keenly interested in recent developments in pasture improvement there. The New South Wales Department of Agriculture conducted a bank managers' conference in Lismore in September last at which the bankers were given all the latest information on research findings and costs and returns. The Reserve Bank's advice is that the bankers were keenly interested and asked that there be continued liaison between the Department's workers and the banks. Bankers are now represented on the local Agricultural Research and Extension Committees. The Reserve Bank's Rural Liaison Service and Rural Credits Development Fund also have been closely associated with developments in pasture improvement. I am advised that the Rural Liaison Service proposes to conduct a bankers' conference in northern New South Wales next autumn at which prominence will be given to new pastures for the North Coast, with particular reference to costs and returns, credit requirements, possible changes in land values and other relevant factors. Even allowing for the interest the banks are taking in pasture improvement developments in the Northern Rivers area, there have no doubt been, and will continue to be, cases where applications for bank finance do not measure up to trading banking criteria. In this connection I should like to mention that the Commonwealth Development Bank is also active in the financing of pasture improvement. I am informed that the Development Bank has provided at least 42 borrowers in the Lismore-Murwillumbah area alone with finance for pasture improvement work and has also provided loan finance to commercial seed producers in that area. By way of indirect assistance, the Commonwealth Development Bank, with the Commonwealth Trading Bank, has been instrumental in having discussions promoted on a banker-farmer-extension worker basis with a view to spreading knowledge of problems and remedies. It is also relevant that, in the immediate future, one of the Development Bank's specialist rural staff will be stationed at Lismore. The Development Bank is, of course, required to be satisfied in considering applications that the finance is desirable but would not otherwise be available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. Subject to this statutory requirement, the Development Bank is, I am assured, prepared to give sympathetic consideration to applications from farmers for finance to undertake pasture establishment on their properties.