1973-03-15 28 1 1 SENATE 455 0 1973-03-15 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. 455 miscellaneous 455 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Although I had thought that I would relieve honourable senators of the tedium of standing by allowing them to hold up their question papers in order to attract my attention at question time, as a result of yesterday's episode and my attention being drawn to several standing orders, I have decided that I will abandon any attempt to reform the procedure and I shall strictly enforce the Standing Orders. 455 Questions 455 455 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD - My question is directed to the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the Minister to the statements issued by the United States Government on 14th March, that it was using every means of communication to express concern to Hanoi about the heavy flow of troops and equipment into Laos, Cambodia and South Vietnam, and specifically that the confirmed movement of about 30,000 troops, 300 armoured vehicles and heavy artillery is expressly contrary to the Paris cease-fire pact. I ask him: Will the Australian Government also express its concern? Will it use its influence with Hanoi and the North Vietnamese Government? Will it withhold its proposed diplomatic representation in Hanoi so long as that Government acts contrary to its pledge not to send its troops into other countries? 455 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - As I understand it, this question is based on a Press report. I do not know the validity of this. I shall make some inquiries and let the honourable senator have an answer. 455 455 K69 0 0 SIM, John Senator SIM - My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the Government's opposition to the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons based on principle? If so, why does not the Government apply the same principle to China as to France and be prepared to take the same legal action against China as has been threatened against France? Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that the reason the Government cannot take legal action against China is that we are not discernibly affected? I leave aside the validity of that argument for a moment. Does he agree that many of Australia's friends are affected by China's testing of nuclear weapons and deserve support, or is it a case, as suggested in a newspaper editorial, of let them fry with Chou En-Iai? 455 1L5 ALP 1 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - The Australian Government is opposed to nuclear testing. It has indicated that it will join the relevant conventions which are against the spread of nuclear weapons. The question of Australia's opposition to nuclear testing is one of principle. Already I have indicated that there are some differences, on a scientific basis, as to relative adverse effects. As to such differences as there may be in legal relations, I think it would be convenient if the matter were given some consideration. I will refer it to the appropriate Ministers. 455 455 KRG 0 0 LILLICO, Alexander Senator LILLICO - I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade whether he has noted reports that primary production in New Zealand is so prosperous that it has been described in some Press comment, including today's Press, as a bonanza, and that astronomical returns are quoted for some commodities. Will the Minister look closely at the deprivations to this country per medium of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement with a view to curtailing damage to the local market of Australian producers? Will the Minister treat this matter as urgent and expedite a reply to the question which I placed on the notice paper yesterday? Will the Minister ascertain the origin of the peas distributed by Rosella Foods Pty Ltd under the brand name 'Surprise'? What percentage of the Rosella company is Australian owned? 455 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - All of us in this place are aware of Senator Lillico's interest in this matter, an interest which he has shown on numerous occasions in the past. I have not seen the Press report to which he refers nor am I aware that there is a bonanza situation in primary production in New Zealand. If there is, I think it would be fair to say that there is a similar situation in this country. If there is a bonanza situation in New Zealand I might point out to Senator Lillico that one of the reasons for it would be the initiative displayed by New Zealand in having, as I understand it, over 40 representatives around the world promoting New Zealand butter. The benefits of that initiative are being felt very strongly by New Zealand producers. I will refer the other question relating to the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement to the appropriate Minister for his comment. 456 456 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator MULVIHILL - I direct a question to the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Could the Minister give any indication of just what the position is concerning the naturalised Australian who is at present facing a capital charge in the Supreme Court of South Africa? 456 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I do not know what the latest position is. I will try to find out and let the honourable senator know. 456 456 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Does he know that last year the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in its 10-year review put on record the fact that individual incomes derived from primary industry had decreased since 1963 by 33 per cent in contrast with the increase over the same period in average weekly earnings throughout Australia of 83 per cent? Does the Minister seriously, sensibly wish us to accept him as being a Minister of responsibility when he says that the primary industries in that relative economy are enjoying a bonanza? 456 ISW ALP 0 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - I should have thought that Senator Wright would have listened more carefully to what I said in answering the context of the question I was asked by Senator Lillico. Senator Lillico's question referred to the present situation in New Zealand and my answer referred to the present situation in Australia - not the situation that existed in the last 10 years. I add for the honourable senator's information that the report to which he referred does not concern the income, which I understand will this year be in total something like $370m more than it was last year. It was in that context that I made the statement. I should also point out to him that if he were to read that report further he would find that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that the average income of those in rural industry in Australia is higher than that of other Australians. 456 456 JXM 0 0 NEGUS, Sydney Senator NEGUS - I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. My question refers to the recent tragic loss of life in a nightclub in Brisbane. I preface it by expressing my amazement that any licensing court should issue instructions that windows should be not only sealed to contain excessive noise but also permanently rivetted up. I ask: Does the Minister know that the purpose of windows in any building is not only to provide light but also to provide circulating air, which is most necessary in a smoky atmosphere as in a nightclub? Does he know that the provision of such windows is a condition laid down by the health authorities in any State and that plans will not be passed unless such windows are to be provided? Does the Minister know that a further condition in any phase of public entertainment is that an alternate fire escape door leading to a separate and independent exit has to be provided and kept free of obstruction at all times and that such a door is accepted only if it opens outwards and is fitted with a special quick release catch - the positioning of the fire door being away from the front door and normally at the rear of a building? Does he not agree that if excessive noise is issuing from any public entertainment premises orders should be issued to reduce the noise rather than seal the windows and that it is the duty of the licensing court to ensure that all windows and fire escape doors are working freely and correctly at all times to comply with health department and fire department standard regulations? Will he ensure that inspectors are instructed to inspect all premises in the Australian Capital Territory where the public is entertained to ensure that the building regulations are being observed at all times? Will he ensure that such inspection is carried out immediately? Will he advise the licensing court that it must never issue instructions to seal any wndows in any place of public entertainment because, those following such instructions would be not only breaking the building bylaws but also jeopardising people's lives? Will he consider advising and enlightening all State licensing courts of the situation immediately to ensure that the Brisbane horror is not repeated anywhere in Australia? I ask that, because it is a known fact that most nightclubs are established in basements or shops and such premises are not and were never intended to be used as places of public entertainment. 457 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - The honourable senator asked first whether I was aware of the purpose of windows. I understand their purpose to be as described by the honourable senator, that is, to allow air and light to enter premises. Perhaps this question should have been addressed to you, Mr President, and that an investigation should be made of Parliament House to see what the position is here. The next question was on the subject of health. The honourable senator asked whether windows should be left open. I am personally in favour of their being open. However, 1 do not know what the attitude of various health departments would be in relation to premises which have air conditioning. It is my understanding that there is a requirement in the Australian Capital Territory for alternative fire escapes, but 1 am unable to comment on the situation in Brisbane where it is a matter for the State authorities. The honourable senator asked whether I agreed with certain propositions. In this part of the question he was asking for an opinion and I suggest, Mr President, that you would prevent me from expressing opinions. 457 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - The Minister must not express opinions but he may give information. 457 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I would be completely incompetent to decide whether the licensing court should do one thing or another. I suggest that up to this point not much of the question related to the Australian Capital Territory. I am sure that the licensing authorities in the Territory make inspections but, if not, I shall certainly convey that very sensible suggestion to the Minister who is responsible for that area. I shall ask him to look at the situation immediately. Nevertheless, I believe that regular inspections would be made. I believe that it would be a little dicey to begin instructing the licensing court in its functions. T assume that the body would be quite competent in matters of that kind. 457 JXM 0 0 NEGUS, Sydney Senator Negus - Obviously it is not. 457 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I do not think that can be assumed in relation to the Australian Capital Territory simply because something has happened in Brisbane. Nobody would argue about the tragedy that occurred in Brisbane. All honourable senators were appalled and shocked at what happened there. As to the honourable senator's suggestion that State licensing courts should be given directions, I shall refer that matter to the Minister to see whether some liaison can be established, but I doubt the power of the Commonwealth to instruct State licensing courts in what they should do. 457 457 DV4 0 0 WITHERS, Reg Senator WITHERS - I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation. I refer to a statement by the Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation concerning the investigation into a site for a second international airport in Sydney. I ask: Is it correct that the Commonwealth-State committee desires to review other sites as well as Richmond and Somers by? Will he advise whether representatives of the Department of the Environment and Conservation have been asked to join the joint CommonwealthState committee? If not, will the Department seek to do so to ensure that matters impinging on the environment are not disregarded? I ask finally: Can the Senate have an assurance from the Minister for the Environment and Conservation that he will strenuously oppose any move to place an airport in the national park south of Sydney, or at Duffy's Forest, which would encroach upon Kuring-Gat Park? 457 K6F ALP 1 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH - I have received information that more than Commonwealth and State considerations are involved in this question. Advice has been sought from a number of people as to the location of a second international airport in Sydney. No final decision has been made. Now that the Department of the Environment and Conservation has been established, all Federal projects will be subjected to an environmental impact study prior to Cabinet's approval for the work to be undertaken. 1 believe that a second airport involves more than Commonwealth activities. I assure the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that an environmental investigation will be made of any site recommended and that the report of the investigation will have a big influence on whether the site is accepted. I can give the honourable senator no assurance that a certain area will not be used. 458 458 CAK 0 0 RAE, Peter Senator RAE - I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that one or more reports have been received by the Government relating to the investigation of the suitability of the ship 'Straitsman' for the King Island shipping service, to the appropriate type of ship to provide for the service and to considerations relating to the viability of a shipping service to King Island? If so, will the Minister make those reports available to all interested persons, particularly the residents of King Island, by tabling them in this chamber? 458 K6F ALP 1 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH - I suggested to Senator Rae yesterday that he might ask a question today about King Island because I had a document which I thought would provide additional information. I now am in a position to provide that information. It follows my answers for some time to questions about the difficulty found in providing transport. The Australian National Line has been instructed to purchase the 'Straitsman'. I believe I said yesterday that the vessel would not be suitable and would not be engaged. It is to start the service to King Island when agreement has been reached on manning conditions, about which there was some trouble previously. The ANL has been asked to maintain separate accounts for the operation of this service because it is realised that it will not be a profitable one. When the 'King Islander' was in use the Government was subsidising the freight to the extent of $3.35 a ton and this cost approximately $150,000 a year. I can assure the honourable senator that the service will be operating in the future. 458 458 JXR 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and refer to a statement made last evening by the Minister for Defence announcing the Government's acceptance of the Fill aircraft, a statement in which he pointed the finger at the former Minister for Defence. Does the reference to cost in that statement refer to the project cost or the cost of the aircraft? Is there a basic cost for this aircraft? Is the increased cost referred to due to the escalation in the cost of labour and materials over the period of production of the aircraft, plus the incorporation into it of safety aspects and modifications? 458 K1Y ALP 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP - When this project was accepted in 1963 the estimated cost was $US125m. 458 JXR 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator Drake-Brockman - What was that for? 458 K1Y 0 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP - That was for the whole deal. When Mr Malcolm Fraser was Minister for Defence and when he discussed this matter with Mr Laird, he agreed to an escalation in the total project costs which included a number of factors. That escalation was from $US124.5m to an estimated $US300m. As the honourable senator now knows, the estimated cost as at today is calculated to be $US344m. What Mr Barnard points to - I support him - is the fact that the last Government unnecessarily tied this Government to an amount which ought to be reviewed. As honourable senators know, last night he said that he intends to try to review some of the cost. The Government has said that it will accept the aircraft. However it considers that the negotiations by the last Government were not conducted in the way in which we as a Labor Government would have conducted them. Consequently we are out to see to what extent there can be a new deal. I think that when Senator Drake-Brockman was Minister for Air the Royal Australian Air Force insisted upon certain safety standards being rigidly applied to its specifications. We support that point of view. I suggest that that insistence was obviously promoted by the wide demand in the Australian community, from honourable senators in this place and from honourable members in the other place to ensure that this aircraft was safe enough to carry out the job for which it was first designed. The whole matter boils down to this: The Cabinet and the Government have said that we will accept the aircraft; we have no alternative. We are not satisfied with the financial arrangements because we are in the position that although we have guarantees from the manufacturers of the aircraft that spares will continue to be made, we do not know yet what the price of those spares will be in the future. We feel that we can obtain sufficient spares but the fact is that the United States Government has already terminated plans for its production target. We are taking action to ensure that Australia gets whatever benefits it can out of what we declare are fairly loose arrangements made by the past Government. 459 Questions 459 1L5 ALP 1 0 MURPHY, Lionel Senator MURPHY - Questions which would be directed to me in respect of the portfolios which I hold or for which I am responsible in this place will be answered by the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Willesee. 459 Questions 459 459 8G4 0 0 DURACK, Peter Senator DURACK - My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. I refer to representations which have been made over a long time to the predecessor of the present Minister, Sir Alan Hulme, and to the Minister himself in support of the installation of a larger television transmitter at Esperance, Western Australia, when the seventh stage of television development takes place in that town. Is the Minister aware of such representations and of the concern felt by residents of the town and district that the transmitter, as planned, will not give an adequate coverage? In particular, has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a petition from residents of the town which was presented to his predecessor, Sir Alan Hulme? Has any change in policy occurred as a result of a public meeting on 22nd November 1972 at Esperance which was attended by a senior engineer from the Australian Broadcasting Control Board? 459 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - I have received representations as did the previous Postmaster-General, Sir Alan Hulme, from the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in . another place, Mr Collard, and also from Senator Durack. Senator Durack wrote to my colleague the Postmaster-General, I think towards the end of February. This letter was referred to me for attention; I acknowledged it last week. I have had inquiries made into the matter by the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I am advised that the commencement date for the building of the transmitter at or in the vicinity of Esperance will be, on present indications, June 1974. It is true that an officer of the Board visited Esperance in November last year and addressed a public meeting there. But since the visit to the area took place the Board has in fact approved changes in operating conditions for the Esperance station. These changes will result in the provision of a better service not only to Esperance but also to the population which lies east and west of the town. I understand that a petition was presented to Sir Alan Hulme although I have not seen it. But the Chairman of the Broadcasting Control Board assures me, notwithstanding a complaint that the honourable senator has received from the local chamber of commerce, that the residents of Esperance are satisfied that the provision of a higher powered station is not practical for technical reasons. There are possibilities of serving the developing areas 50 or 60 miles east of Esperance and places such as Salmon Gums which are along the microwave relay link connecting Norseman and Esperance. This matter is currently in the course of investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The honourable senator can be assured that, as soon as I have any further information for him, it will be relayed to him. 459 459 2U4 0 0 CARRICK, John Senator CARRICK - I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Does the Australian Government regard the monarchy as outmoded and irrelevant, as stated by Mr Whitlam in an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Commission television program Monday Conference'? 459 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I have no knowledge of what happened on an Australian Broadcasting Commission television program. If the honourable senator will leave the question with me I will make inquiries and give him an answer to it. 459 459 KQN 0 0 LAUCKE, Condor Senator LAUCKE - I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Has the Government determined the rate of interest which in future will be charged to farmers for moneys advanced under the rural reconstruction scheme? If so, what is the rate to be? 459 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - I am not at liberty to answer that question at this moment. I can only say that I hope there will be an announcement in the next few days on the details of the Government's proposals on both rural reconstruction and the fruit grower reconstruction scheme. 459 miscellaneous 459 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I call Senator Hannan. I remind honourable senators that I announced earlier, that I intend, to apply the Standing Orders when calling questions. The Standing Orders require me to call the senator who is first on his feet. I have given up the system of giving preference to anyone, including party leaders. 460 Questions 460 460 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of economic difficulties faced by Victorian potato growers and the general hostility shown on popular diet charts to the potato and the consequent percentage reduction in consumption? Has his attention been drawn to a calorie count published recently by an English researcher, which shows that the potato is a far less serious calorie offender than is commonly believed? Does the Minister know that this chart shows that a boiled potato weighing 31/2 oz contains 75 calories whereas a mutton chop of the same weight contains 629 calories? The chart lists a whole range of foods. I will not read the whole chart. 460 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I can assure the honourable senator that he will not be permitted to do so. 460 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - This is a serious inquiry and I do not want the frolic of honourable senators behind the Minister to detract from its serious nature. 460 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! The honourable senator will ask his question. 460 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - I ask the Minister whether he will investigate the chart published by this English researcher, which I will make available to him. Will he have the calorie chart checked for accuracy? If it is accurate, will he publicise the figures in the interests of national health and rural finance? 460 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - I have not seen the chart to which the honourable senator refers. Even assuming that the information is correct, I do not think there is very much that I or this Government can do about people's eating habits. We are aware that in all the so-called affluent nations there is a trend towards less starchy foods and foods containing fewer calories. However, I shall certainly have a look at the question which the honourable senator has raised. In the meantime I can only suggest that in his own interests he may as well go onto a diet of fish and chips. 460 460 2U4 0 0 CARRICK, John Senator CARRICK - My question is directed to the Special Minister of State as the Minister who todayis representing the Attorney-General. It relates to the Attorney-General's recent statement that he would seek the active help of various bodies including trade unions in the interests of crime detection and prevention. On that principle will the Minister urgently seek the help of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union regarding a series of recent and current incidents of alleged physical violence to persons and property at the Botany plant of Imperial Chemical Industries? 460 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - In the absence of Senator Murphy I must say that I have no knowledge of the matter which the honourable senator has raised. I ask him to put the question on notice and I shall ask Senator Murphy to get an answer for him. 460 460 KSN 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator MARRIOTT - Can the Minister representing the Minister for Transport inform the Senate whether, if problems associated with the ship 'Straitsman' are overcome and it is returned to the King Island service, that service will include the port of Stanley on Tasmania's north-west coast on which many thousands of dollars have been spent to enable it to provide correct facilities for servicing the Straitsman'? 460 K6F ALP 1 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH - It will be the right of the Australian National Line so to operate the ship as to make it a viable service. Whether the ship will call at the port of Stanley I do not know. I will try to get some information for the honourable senator. 460 460 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS - My question is directed to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister. I point out that a day or two ago I received a reply to a question to the effect that there would be no ban on visits by sporting bodies from Taiwan. Yesterday I received a reply from the Prime Minister which said that in the case of visits from Taiwan members of sporting bodies could come only as individuals and not as a team; secondly, that they must dissociate themselves from their own Government; thirdly, they could not call themselves a Taiwanese team; fourthly, they could not call themselves a team from China; and fifthly, they could not call themselves a Republic of China team. My question is: What is the difference between these conditions and a ban? 461 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, I seem to remember that yesterday the Special Minister of State answered an identical question. I recall Senator McManus having put a question like this. I think the honourable senator has rather stretched the answer to his question. I will repeat the answer once again, for about the fourth time I think to Senator McManus and the second or third time to others. The situation is that people can travel to and from Taiwan; trade people can go to and from Taiwan. But we recognise the People's Republic of China and therefore we do not accept people coming from Taiwan and claiming to represent the Government of China or putting themselves in an official position. 461 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McManus - They come as a sports team. That is not an official team. SenatorWILLESEE - If they come as a sports team, they cannot call themselves the representatives of a government of any particular country or use any of the names that we have suggested. That is the agreement and those are the rules that the Government has laid down. Obviously, Senator McManus does not agree with them but I am afraid that is the fact. 461 461 K8R 0 0 TOWNLEY, Michael Senator TOWNLEY - Is the Minister for Repatriation aware that ex-national service personnel who attend full-time study at public expense receive about $50 a week for 1 year, plus a certain amount for fees and books but that a part-time student receives only his fees and an allowance for books for 2 years? Does he agree that it appears that the full-time student gets much more public support than the part-time student? Will he examine the possibility of extending the number of years for which a part-time student may attend to his studies? 461 K1Y ALP 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP - One such case has been brought to my attention. As a result of the honourable senator's question, I will certainly investigate the matter to see to what extent the position may be improved. 461 461 KBY 0 0 YOUNG, Harold Senator YOUNG - I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. With the Government's encouragement of increased wheat production in this current season, is it a fact that wheat quotas will continue? If so, bearing in mind the Government's policy of greater Australian participation in industry and control of overseas companies, will he ascertain what percentage of the Australian wheat quota is allocated to overseas companies and Australian companies with overseas control in an endeavour to see whether the rights of Australian wheat growers are being fully protected? 461 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - The increase in the first advance was not taken with the thought in mind that it may be going into the areas which the honourable senator has suggested, but as an incentive to wheat growers to plant the maximum amount of wheat and therefore to maximise our crop. It could be true that some of the moneys being paid to wheat growers are going into the areas to which the honourable senator referred. But I would doubt whether sufficient information would be available to allow the Government to make any discrimination in a matter like this. Nevertheless, I will look at the matter referred to and let the honourable senator know whether there is any further information I can give him. 461 461 K8Y IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970 0 0 TURNBULL, Reginald Senator TURNBULL - I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation. Why does the Government still allow Qantas Airways Ltd to disregard the interests of travellers by its refusal to permit cheaper air fares by the system of advanced bookings on the most popular direct Sydney-London route whereas it allows this system for travellers to the United States of America? Will the Government insist on Qantas serving the interests of the public before the interests of the International Air Transport Association? 461 K6F ALP 1 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH - I shall take up the matter with the Minister. If any answer can be found to the question, I shall try to obtain it. I do not think there is a Government restriction on cheap fares. Although some problems have been involved Qantas has been trying to reduce air fares for the purpose of increasing the passenger load. I think that Qantas operations, including air fares, are matters for decision by the Qantas Board. But I will take up the matter with the Minister. If any restrictions are imposed by the Government I will try to find out the reason why. 462 462 KKD 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator JESSOP - Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence tell the Senate whether the Royal Australian Air Force shares the present Government's doubts concerning the effectiveness and value of the FI 1 1 aircraft? 462 K1Y ALP 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP - The statement by the Minister for Defence has been made after consultation with his advisers from the Royal Australian Air Force and the Department of Defence. That is the clear position. There is no question but that the Government, having assessed the position as I have explained to Senator Drake-Brockman, considers that its view now is the correct view. We are talking about the purchase of aircraft the value of which rose from $US125m to a bill which will exceed $US350m. In that circumstance. Mr Barnard has made the statement that he feels that, while we accept the aircraft, we should be in the market to make some arrangements having regard to the fact, as I have pointed out to Senator Drake-Brockman, that this aircraft will go out of the production line in the United States of America in about a decade. 462 462 2U4 0 0 CARRICK, John Senator CARRICK - My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Was the Minister correctly reported us saying last weekend that many agricultural marketing schemes were ineffective and that some price support schemes were virtually useless? If so, will the Minister identify the particular schemes which, in his view, fall into those categories? 462 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - The quotations by Senator Carrick from my speech last Saturday are not strictly accurate. I referred to inefficient marketing schemes and support measures of doubtful merit. Taking those 2 matters individually, yes, I would agree. I stand by the statement I made then. I believe that the marketing procedures which were adopted by the previous Government were inefficient, and I believe that improvements could have been effected by streamlining those operations. For example, I referred earlier, in answer to a question by Senator Lillico, to the degree to which the New Zealanders have been prepared to get out into the world markets and sell butter to the point where now they are increasing their production of butter. They have concentrated in the area of finding markets and to developing them. These are the sort of things which, I hope, this country will be doing under the new Government. As regards support schemes of doubtful merit, I believe that there have been instances of these also. I instance, for example, what has happened in the dairy industry over the last few years. In 1960 a committee of Inquiry recommended that the bounties on the dairy industry be phased out. This recommendation was not accepted by the previous Government. Ten years later in 1970 the Government was compelled to ask the dairy industry to look at a production control scheme, and after 3 years and the expenditure of $108m of public money in the form of bounties, a production control scheme has still not been presented in an acceptable form to the Australian Agricultural Council. At its meeting last February the Council had to reject that proposal because after 3 years the industry had not come up with plans acceptable to the Council. I think it is in the interest of the industry to consider seriously those plans before the next Agricultural Council meeting in July. 462 462 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Will he instance which product of the dairy industry is being overproduced in Australia at this moment? 462 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - As I indicated in the answer I gave to Senator Carrick, I was not talking about the situation at this moment. As Senator Webster well knows, I was looking at the overall trend which was recognised by the previous administration just as much as it is recognised by the present administration. It was for that reason the previous Government asked the dairy industry to look at a production control scheme. I think that is sufficient evidence of the need for that scheme to have been introduced by now. 462 462 RG4 0 0 GIETZELT, Arthur Senator GIETZELT - My question is directed to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask whether it is not a fact that Mr Whitlam, when Leader of the Opposition, asked the then Attorney-General, Mr Hughes, the following question, as reported on page 31 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 4th March 1970: Is it thought that Mr Burchett has broken any law of the Commonwealth? Alternatively, now that he is in Australia, is any investigation being undertaken lo ascertain whether he has broken any law of the Commonwealth? I also ask whether the Liberal Attorney-General, Mr Hughes, did not reply as follows- 1 do not propose to give any opinion as to whether Mr Burchett has broken any law of the Commonwealth. What I will say, however, is that I, as the principal law officer of the Crown, do not propose, as at present advised, to bring any charges against him..... 463 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - That is a fact. I would not have had this knowledge except that during the debate last night I was busily gathering all sorts of papers. From the papers I have now, what Senator Gietzelt has said is correct. 463 KKD 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator Jessop - Is it a Dorothy Dixer? 463 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - No. I have just explained that I had these papers last night. It would have been remiss of me if I had not. 463 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! I might add that it is not an uncommon practice in either the previous Administration and the present one. 463 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - Even if it was such a question I do not know what is wrong with that. If any honourable senator, whether from the Opposition side or this side, asks a question without notice I do not know how any Minister could be expected always to have the information. Senator Cotton was the most sensible Minister in the last Government. He said: Questions to Ministers whom I represent I will ask you to put on notice, and those directed to my own portfolio I will answer'. I think that was sensible. If anybody cares to give me prior notice of a question so that I can get information, that will be all right by me. If help is not wanted, that is OK by me. To return to Senator Gietzelt's question, I did obtain this information last night. The operative words of Mr Hughes, who was then Attorney-General, in his reply to the question asked by Mr Whitlam were: . . I, as the principal law officer of the Crown, do not propose ... to bring any charges against him in respect of . . . 463 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair - That does not mean that he did not do scabby things. 463 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I can answer the question, can I not? The honourable senator would know about scabbing. 463 463 K3O 0 0 BUTTFIELD, Nancy Senator Dame NANCY BUTTFIELD - My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that S40m is to be allocated for rural reconstruction? If we assume that mistakes have been made in the past with regard to rural reconstruction, will the Minister now assure the Senate that the money will not be spent on employing no-hopers and others from urban areas to lean on their shovels in rural areas supporting rural councils in the maintenance of their roads? 463 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - I did not criticise, nor even imply any criticism about, the previous administration of the rural reconstruction scheme. I want to make that point clear. It was said by the honourable senator who was a supporter of the previous Government. As I indicated earlier, this Government has considered the continuation of the scheme and a decision has been taken. However, I am not in a position to announce that decision until such time as the States are advised. The manner in which the moneys are used is not a. matter for the Commonwealth. The actual disbursement of the moneys is a matter for the various reconstruction boards in the States. The boards make the determination as to who is eligible to receive money for rural reconstruction. This is out of the hands of the Commonwealth which simply provides the finance. 463 463 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - Mr President,could I give some further information to Senator Mulvihill? I told him that I would seek further information for him. 463 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Is it in reply to a question previously asked? 463 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - Yes. I had the background to it but I sent out and obtained additional information. I take it that the man referred to is Mr Moumbaris. The facts are that Mr Moumbaris, an Australian citizen, was arrested in South Africa on 19th July 1972 but the Embassy was not made aware of his arrest until 14th November following the release of his wife, a French citizen, on 12th November. Following representations by the Embassy, consular access was granted on 16th November and Mr Moumbaris was interviewed in prison. With the Embassy's assistance, Mr Moumbaris obtained legal representation. Both consular and legal access have been freely granted and messages have been passed to his family in France. Mr Moumbaris was charged under the Terrorism Act on 10th January and he and his companions were remanded for trial in the Supreme Court on 14th March 1973. The Embassy is maintaining contact with Mr Moumbaris. That was the information available in early February. The information I have just received for Senator Mulvihill, according to a cable from Pretoria, is that Mr Moumbaris' trial began at 10 a.m. on 14th March. Following the preliminaries, including delivery of indictment, application was made by the defence to adjourn the trial until 19th March on the grounds of initial non-availability of defence counsel. This was done to gain extra time to complete a defence. The State raised no objection and the trial was adjourned. 464 464 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: What did the Minister intend the word bonanza' to indicate to the Senate when he claimed that primary industry in Australia is experiencing a bonanza? Did the Minister speak in a loose fashion or did he intend his words to be accepted by the Senate? Is he aware that there is no primary industry receiving individually high returns for its produce, if one takes the rise in the consumer price index over a period of 10 years and applies it to any one rural primary product, including wool and beef? Does the Minister agree with the statement of the Minister for Northern Development, Dr Patterson, yesterday that one of the first things that the new Government found out when it came into office was the very serious financial problems that existed in some sectors of primary industry? 464 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - To answer the last part of Senator Webster's question first, I would simply say that if Dr Patterson was correct it is a sad reflection on 23 years of LiberalCountry Party rule. But, to take the first part of the honourable senator's question, the term bonanza' was used initially by, I think, Senator Lillico. If the honourable senator were to check Hansard tomorrow he would find that I did not say that there is a bonanza; 1 said that it could be said that there is a bonanza in prices in Australia at the present time for our rural products. I can only go by the fact that wool prices, as we know, are at the highest they have been at for 21 years; the wool clip this year will be approximately 80 per cent higher than it was last year; meat prices are running at a record level and so is the volume of shipments. I think sugar prices could be said to be not at a record level but a very high level. Even butter prices are well above the average in the last 3 or 4 years. Dried fruits are running at a record level of over $500 a ton. I said earlier - I think I was correct in saying it - that the income from rural products this year will be to the order of $370m above what it was last year. I am not going to argue as to whether or not that represents bonanza conditions. But I do think it would suggest that conditions are reasonably good in the main for those people engaged in primary production at the present time. 464 464 2U4 0 0 CARRICK, John Senator CARRICK - My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. I ask: Does the Minister agree with the reported statement by Lord Hill, former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation, during his current Australian visit that an optimum balance of programs cannot be achieved by legislative compulsion? 464 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - I have seen a report of remarks that Lord Hill made on the radio program 'A.M.' yesterday morning. In addition I had the privilege and benefit of a very long discussion in my office on Monday of last week with the right honourable gentleman. One of the things that Lord Hill, who is the retiring Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation, had to say during his interview on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program 'A.M.' yesterday was that in the case of independent or commercial television in England there is a parent authority which enters into contracts with program-making companies and that there is a requirement on that parent authority to secure balance. I am given to understand - I am subject to correction - that that requirement is by way of legislation. Insofar as the policy of the Government is concerned, it is specifically written into the Australian Labor Party's policy that a fairness principle will be included in the legislation regulating radio and television so that opposing viewpoints will have a fair opportunity of expression. 1 point out to the honourable senator that this has been the practice in a number of other countries, including, of course, the United States of America under the auspices of the Federal Communications Commission. Admittedly there have been some difficulties in some areas of administering a principle of this kind, but 1 do not believe that the difficulties that might arise will involve a problem that is insoluble. The fact is, of course, that a balanced doctrine - for want of a better term I adopt the term used by the honourable senator - is embodied in the Broadcasting and Television Act insofar as it relates to political advertising during an election campaign. Also a principle of fairness or balance is written into some of the standards laid down under the Act by the Broadcasting Control Board. This applies particularly to standard No. 2 , which relates to news programs. It states that fairness should be ensured in the pictorial presentation of news. I might mention that other somewhat similar requirements of fairness or balance appear elsewhere in the Board's television program standards. 465 2U4 0 0 CARRICK, John Senator Carrick - My question was directed to the balance of entertainment, the balance of culture - not the balance of fairness. 465 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - I am sorry. I misunderstood the honourable senator's question. I should like to think that a balance could be achieved without legislation, but bearing in mind the history of television in this country to date and the paucity of programming in certain areas, such as children's programs, professional variety programs and educational programs, if it cannot be done in co-operation with the stations it will have to be done by way of legislative enactment. 465 miscellaneous 465 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - I notice that Senator Jessop was the first to rise to get the call for the next question. Before I call him I inform the Senate that it is my intention when the Senate resumes after next week to ask the leaders of all parties in the Senate to attend upon me in my room so that I may discuss with them the whole matter of question time and how the call shall be given. Yesterday there was an obvious demand by a substantial number of senators for the application of the Standing Orders. When I called on questions today I made it quite clear that it was my intention to apply the Standing Orders and that the first senator to rise would receive the call. I call Senator Jessop. 465 Questions 465 465 KKD 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator JESSOP - Can the Minister assisting the Prime Minister inform the Senate why the Prime Minister did not call a Premiers Conference in February as is customarily done? As the South Australian Labor Government is experiencing serious financial difficulty and faces a deficit of at least $15m, can the Minister say when the Prime Minister intends to call a meeting to discuss this particularly important matter affecting the Commonwealth and the States? 465 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - Unfortunately Senator Jessop, as always, has to throw something at the South Australian Government. I think I can say that whatever the difficulties or advantages of South Australia having that Government, it will be there for another 3 years; so the honourable senator had better become used to it. 465 KKD 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator Jessop - That is unfortunate. 465 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I remind the honourable senator that he has already asked his question. I know that he does not particularly like the democratic system, but he will just have to put up with it. 465 KKD 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator Jessop - Mr President, I rise to order. The Minister has cast doubts upon my integrity by saying that I place no importance on the democratic system. I ask him to withdraw that statement. 465 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Senator Jessopwill be aware that if he claims to have been misrepresented or that words used by the Minister are offensive to him he may ask the Minister to withdraw. I am sure that if the Minister considers that he has been offensive he will withdraw the remark. 465 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I have never said anything offensive to anybody while I have been in this place. The honourable senator contravened the Standing Orders by interjecting. If he wants to give it he should be prepared to take it. I mentioned the South Australian Government and said that it would be there for another 3 years, at which point the honourable senator said That is a pity', Bad luck', or some such thing. He was asking for a reply and I gave it to him. 466 KKD 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator Jessop - Again I rise to order. 1 suggest that the Minister is quite wrong in what he has just said. My objection is not to his reply to my interjection but to the doubts expressed about my credibility. The Minister said that I was against the democratic system. 466 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT - Order! There is no substance in the point of order. 466 KBC 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I will ask the Prime Minister to give some consideration to the honourable senator's question. 466 466 KQV CP; NCP from May 1975 0 0 LAWRIE, Alexander Senator LAWRIE - My question, addressed to the Minister for the Media, refers to reports that a 'Four Corners' team was not allowed to make a documentary film in Russia after the team arrived in Moscow. Did the 'Four Corners' team have any agreement with or permission from the Russian authorities before it left Australia? If this is the case, can the Minister say where the misunderstanding occurred which will prevent the Australian public viewing conditions as they exist in Russia? 466 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator Douglas McClelland - I understand that last year arrangements were negotiated between the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Soviet authorities for a 'Four Corners' team to enter the Soviet Union this year for the purpose of making certain film programs. During the course of a visit to the Soviet Union last year, one of the Assistant General Managers of the ABC, Mr Buttrose, who was there to arrange for certain Soviet artists to come to Australia, entered into arrangements for getting the 'Four Corners' team into the Soviet Union. I understand that the team arrived in Moscow last Thursday in accordance with an arrangement reached between the ABC and the Soviet authorities with the full knowledge of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs. It was an understanding on the part of the ABC that as part of the agreement the team would be allowed to take its own camera crew into the Soviet Union. When the crew reached Moscow the camera equipment was impounded and the leader of the team was told that he would have to pay for a Soviet camera crew for which the ABC would be charged, speaking from recollection, some Si 50 a day. The leader of the team got in touch with the Australian Embassy which in turn contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs. I understand that as a result of the negotiations between the ABC and the Department of Foreign Affairs, on the one hand, and the Soviet authorities on the other hand, the team has now left the .Soviet Union and has been dispatched by the ABC to Vienna where certain film programming will be conducted by the team. 466 466 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN - I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. Is it a fact that in September this year renewal of international trade talks under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will take place? Will the Government issue a brief statement on the operation of GATT so far as it affects Australia's current major trading partners? I believe that there are half a dozen countries with which trade relations are of major significance. Can the Minister say whether the question of the United States duty of 25ic per lb greasy wool could be taken up under these talks? The Minister will appreciate that that would be of great significance to our rural economy. I refer also to the current heavyweight trade tour about to visit Red China from Australia. In view of the fact that Taiwan's overseas trade is many millions of dollars greater than that of Red China, will the Minister extend the tickets and the time of this delegation so that it may inlude Taiwan in its endeavours? 466 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I shall have to obtain a reply in relation to the question about the meeting in relation to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It will be held towards the end of the year, I think in September. The honourable senator asks whether the Government will make a statement about the impact on our trading partners. I shall refer that to the appropriate Minister as I shall the question about the duty of 25ic per lb on greasy wool. I was asked yesterday about the trade mission to the People's Republic of China and I said I would pass the question on for consideration. But general guidelines have been laid down. The only connections with Taiwan will not be of an official nature. I think that will prevent the mission from going to Taiwan. Questions In the question asked of <me yesterday it was suggested that a visit to Japan be included. The same situation does not apply in relation to Japan so I will obtain an answer to that question. I think that when an answer comes back in relation to Taiwan - about which Senator Hannan specifically asked - we will find that the tour will not be extended because of the guidelines which the Government has laid down. The Government will not have official representation with Taiwan but individuals who want to travel there may do so. 467 467 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD My question is directed to the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It relates to his response to a question which I asked at the beginning of today's sitting. Does not his Department or his staff provide him with information for the purpose of answering questions without notice about major matters of news which appear in the morning Press and which relate to his sphere of ministerial responsibility? If not, in view of his inability to give answers to so many questions, will he ensure that in future he will be provided with this material? If he is provided with such material why was he not able to express an attitude about the Australian Government's position in relation to North Vietnamese troop movements in breach of the Paris cease-fire agreements? 467 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Order ! Honourable senators must know that when asking questions based on newspaper reports they are required to vouch for the accuracy of such reports. 467 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE That is precisely what I said. In answer to the first part of the honourable senator's question: Yes, I do receive briefings. I receive as much information as possible to try to anticipate what the questions of the day will be. I assume that my staff looks at the morning newspapers—somethin g I rarely do. I assume that they try to anticipate what will be of interest to nonourabie senators. But Senator Greenwood misrepresents the situation. There will always be a lot of questions which I certainly will not be able to answer in relation to those departments which I represent here. One such Department is Treasury. I do not think honourable senators expect me to answer qeustions on that- 467 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD Thi s is about foreign affairs 467 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE Le t me answer the question in my own way—i f the honourable senator does not mind. To suggest that we are not answering questions is quite false. 467 JXR 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator Drake-Brockman Oh! 467 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE T h e honourable senator should look through Hansard and find all the questions I have answered concerning foreign affairs. If there is any fairness at all in him he will do that. The question asked by Senator Greenwood was not one which I was unable to answer. I did comment on it. I told the honourable senator that I had no knowledge as to the truth of the newspaper report upon which it was based; that the Department had briefed me on the matter; and that the facts of the matter were not known to the Department. I did not add this other point, because the honourable senator did not ask about it: An international control commission is looking at the whole question of Indo- China. I would think that that would be the place to ask that investigations be made on matters such as this. I did answer the question asked by the honourable senator. I answered it by saying that he was basing it on a newspaper report and that I had no information about that report and I did not know whether it was accurate. The honourable senator asked also whether I was briefed by the Department. The answer I gave him was that I was. 467 467 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON I address a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I want to say 2 things as a preamble to my question. I thank the Minister for his gracious reference to me, but I think that on reflection he will agree that I was a little more obliging when answering questions concerned with the portfolios I represented than he might admit. I tried to adopt a policy of giving genuine information in answer to genuine questions, which is a proposition I recommend to the Minister and the Government. My question, which concerns the Treasury, is not based on a newspaper report. There have been newspaper reports on this matter, but I have waited for the official figures which I have now received and which I have had checked and vouched for. I ask the Minister: Do the Treasurer and the Government feel any concern or apprehension that since they took office early in December the Australian official reserve assets, which are necessary to underwrite the growth and trading position of this country, have, at current market rates at the end of February, declined by a total of $509m or 11 per cent, and that this decline appears to be continuing? Does his Government realise that these reserves declined by $568m in February alone and that if this rate were to continue we wouid have no reserves left in a little more than 7i months? Will he assure the Senate, of course by reference to the Treasurer—an d assure the Senate quickly—tha t the actions of his Government have not resulted in a situation in which the Australian dollar is overvalued, thus leading to a strong capital outflow trend? In view of this alarming rate of run-down in reserves, does he not feel that the time has come for his Government to adopt a less scornful attitude towards overseas people and firms wishing to invest in this country because of its past record of political stability and strong economic growth? 468 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE I am sorry if Senator Cotton thought that I was being in any way off-handed. I meant what I said as a genuine compliment. I thought he was very sensible, when he was appointed to the Ministry, in saying: 'It is just impossible to try to represent all these Ministers'. He was always very good at answering questions. I did not intend any offence at all. He has given me the advice that I should copy him. I will do exactly that; I will refer his question to the Treasurer. 468 468 CAK 0 0 RAE, Peter Senator RAE My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. 'When the Minister seeks from the Minister for Civil Aviation details of the cost of converting Hobart 'Airport for use by international flights as requested by me on Tuesday last, will he direct the Minister's attention to the work already undertaken by that Minister's Department upon the direction of Senator Cotton, the former .Minister for Civil Aviation in the 'Liberal-Country Party Government? Will he also ask the Minister for Civil Aviation to confirm that the Tasmanian Government supports the investigation sought by me? 468 K6F ALP 1 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH The answer is yes, 1 will ask the Minister. 468 468 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER M y question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. I refer to the development of the Albury-Wodonga decentralisation complex. Firstly, did the. Labor Government announce that there would be a freeze of the price of land in that area? Secondly, by what method did such freeze occur? 468 K6F ALP 1 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH A meeting of the Ministers representing the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales and Victoria was held on Friday, 9th March, for the purpose of establishing the machinery for the development and the administration of this proposed new area. Among the agreements reached was one that there should be some freezing of the land for the purposes of stopping exploitation and gains from the sale of the iand following the announcement of the proposal to build this particular city. Essentially the matter is one for the States, particularly the desirability of purchasing land for the future, building of cottages, especially rental cottages, to be available on leasehold tenure. That is the proposal, but it will necessitate either some appropriation or legislation by the State parliaments and possibly by the Commonwealth Parliament. 468 468 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER I direct a further question to the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. Is the Minister aware that in announcing proposals for the development of the Albury-Wodonga area and a possible price freeze when there was no capacity within either the Commonwealth Government or the State governments to freeze prices in any way this Labor Government took a most stupid step? Is the Minister aware that land prices in the area have increased by over 1000 per cent during the period from the Prime Minister's announcement to the present day? I can verify that figure in some instances. What action does the Federal Government intend to take following its very bold announcement that this decentralisation development would take place with land prices being frozen? 468 K6F ALP 1 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH I am sorry if I have led the honourable senator to gain the wrong impression. I tried to stress that this was a matter for the States. I see that my notes state that both the Victorian and the New South Wales Ministers agreed that legislation to implement the agreed land prices stabitisation policy would be introduced in their State parliaments as soon as possible. The Ministers said there was no doubt that the Albury and Wodonga local authorities must be prepared to carry on their existing responsibility and would face pressure for both redevelopment and new development for their town areas. The responsibility for the legislation is therefore that of the State governments and, while one could expect some escalation of prices by those who wanted to profit, prices will be pegged to a value determined as at a given time. I do not know why the honourable senator thinks that the Commonwealth and the States are going to buy the land at today's prices when their legislation could be made retrospective to 9th March, the date when they held their meeting. 469 469 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that today the Premier of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Minister for Transport are in Canberra for the purpose of a conference with the Federal Minister on the subject of King Island shipping. Having regard to my concern about the absolute sterility of the 'Straitsman', a ship especially built in Australia at a cost of $1,500,000 within the last 18 months which is still lying idle at the Port of Melbourne, and also having regard to the fact that none of the negotiations concerning that ship have been disclosed to the Senate, would the Minister inform me during the afternoon whether it would be convenient to admit me to a tripartite conference with the Ministers for 10 minutes to discuss that aspect of enabling shipping services to be resuscitated for King Island? 469 K6F ALP 1 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH The answer to the question is no. I think that the honourable senator has a cheek to ask it. 469 468 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. Is his Department providing opportunities for the engagement of graduate employees, either by employing graduate clerks or other specialists, especially at the lower levels of the Third Division Public Service classifications? If so, for how many graduates have places been created and how many of these places have been filled? 469 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND I can assure the honourable senator that at this stage, apart from my own ministerial staff and the permanent head of the Department and his immediate staff, no new appointments have been made by the Department of the Media. I know that advertisements were recently inserted in newspapers calling for applications for senior positions within the Department. Following the insertion of those advertisements, certain applications have been received but the positions remain unfilled. A number of positions have been recommended to be filled by Third Division officers, but these are in the nature of permanent appointments. As far as I am aware, no positions have been created at this stage requiring graduate employees. However, I shall make further inquiries and let the honourable senator know. 469 469 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it not acknowledged that it is the duty of any Minister of the Crown to receive and interview at his convenience an elected member of the (Parliament either individually or in conference if that is convenient? Is it not only a duty but also a courtesy for the Queen's ministers to acknowledge the people's representatives in this way? Therefore, is not the honourable senator impertinent in suggesting that I was cheeky in asking for access to the Minister? 469 K6F ALP 1 0 CAVANAGH, James Senator CAVANAGH I do not think that I was impertinent. The request was not that the honourable senator meet a Minister to present some problem but that he be permitted into a conference between the Australian Government and a Tasmanian Minister which is taking place today. This honourable senator wants to go in and override the representative of the State to put his view. The same position could apply in regard to Senator Turnbull or (Ron Davies, the honourable member for Braddon in another place, who has taken an active part in this matter. This is not an occasion to debate the merits of a shipping service. It is the occasion for 2 responsible ministers to see whether they can reach a solution to the question, not for interference for political gain by individuals. 470 470 KQN 0 0 LAUCKE, Condor Senator LAUCKE I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. Is it a fact that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has recommended that Australia use an ultra high frequency wave band for its frequency modulation transmissions? Does this mean that a whole new range of radio receivers will have to be built to receive Australian broadcasts and that this will involve a multi-million dollar outlay? Is it a fact that because Australian television stations already utilise most of the very high frequency band— I emphasise the word 'most'—the Australian Broadcasting Control Board voted against the use of this band for radio? Is the Minister giving further consideration to this decision, particularly in regard to the utilisation of the residual very high frequency band which now remains? 470 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND During last year the Australian Broadcasting Control Board recommended to the previous Government that a system of frequency modulation broadcasting be introduced into Australia and the Board's recommendation, which was accepted by the previous Government and is adhered to by this Government, is that the system should be introduced in 1976. At the present time the Board is in the process of working out technical arrangements regarding frequencies that will enable FM broadcasting to come to fruition at that time. However, it has been reported to me that the Postmaster-General's Department is contemplating the establishment of another Huxley committee, which was a committee established, I think, in the early 1960s to consider the aspect of frequencies. It is my own personal fear that if this committee is estab'ished without consultation with the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, frequency modulation broadcasting might have to be deferred because of the time involved in the committee's deliberations. Therefore I have written this day to the Postmaster-General urging him to give consideration to an early conference between him and me and oflScers of his Department and of my Department, so that the matter can be attended to at an early date. 470 470 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER My question, which is directed to the Minister for the Media, refers to the Minister's request to Australian television companies not to proceed to acquire films from overseas based agencies at this time. Does the Minister give any assurance to those companies which have complied with his request that they will not be disadvantaged in the acquisition of the most popularly rated overseas films by their negation of what may be considered normal commercial practice? 470 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND It is true to say that all commercial television stations and the Australian Broadcasting Commission have acceded to my suggestion— and I emphasis that word—tha t they should not dispatch purchasers to the United States of America at this time of the year in order to purchase programs that are intended to be shown in Australia at this time next year. I have suggested that the stations should defer their buying arrangements in the United States until September, October or November of this year when the pilots are made and are available to the stations for viewing. I should say that all of the networks have acquiesced in my suggestion. One or two of the commercial networks have indicated to me, though, that they intend sending people overseas some time in July or August for the purpose of previewing programs, although not necessarily purchasing programs, and I have indicated this to all stations and to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. 470 470 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN In asking a question of the Minister for the Media, I direct his mind to the question earlier as put to him by Senator Laucke. I ask the Minister: Does he realise that the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in regard to the introduction of frequency modulation broadcasting provides for 3 years for the establishment of standards? It goes on and allows another 3 years for the hearing of applications for licences and the introduction of the technological paraphernalia that is necessary for the transmission. In other words, does he realise that the time schedule for the introduction of frequency modulation is 6 years (not 3 years, and that is before we hear anything? Will the Minister use his best endeavours— I know he is particularly interested in this field—to persuade the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to re-examine that portion of its report where it said that it was not practicable to remove the one television channel from the VHF band. If the Minister can do that there will be a large number of advantages of which I am sure the Minister is aware. It is the internationally accepted band- 471 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Order ! The honourable senator is now giving information, and I ask him to ask his question. 471 KNU 0 0 HANNAN, George Senator HANNAN I s the Minister aware that there are thousands of receivers in Australia which are presently useless and which in 6 years will be useless, but which could be utilised at once if the Minister could arrange for the setting up of frequency modulation broadcasting in the VHF band? Will the Minister give his urgent attention to this matter? 470 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND I am aware of most of the details contained in the question asked by the honourable senator. The policy of the Government is to expedite the introduction of frequency modulation if this can be achieved technically. I have drawn this aspect of Government policy to the attention of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, and as a result a review of the existing situation is receiving consideration. 471 471 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD My question to the Special Minister of State and the Minister assisting the Minister for Foreign Affairs refers to a question asked of him earlier by Senator Gietzelt. I ask this question because the Minister said he had recently been reading references in Hansard to Mr Wilfred Burchett. Is it not a fact that the reason why Mr Hughes, as Attorney-General, stated that no prosecution would be launched against Mr Burchett was that at the time of the Korean War in respect of which the allegations were made by Australian prisoners of war against him, the provisions of the Australian Crimes Act had no extra-territorial operation and did not have until 1960? Is it not correct, therefore, to say that it was the state of the law and not any established, as distinct from presumed, innocence of Mr Burchett which precluded any inquiry by the courts into Mr Burchett's conduct? 471 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE Th e copy of Hansard which I have before me does not mention any of the things that Senator Greenwood has mentioned. He may have some other references that I do not know about. 471 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator GREENWOOD It is the Hansard of 5th March 1970. I thought you said you had read it. 471 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE No . I said I had read this one. I do not think it is fair to say either that Mr Hughes presumed any innocence. I do not know what was in his mind. That was the only information which I gave Senator Gietzelt, but if Senator Greenwood has further information and would like to let me have it I would appreciate it. 471 KMX 0 0 GREENWOOD, Ivor Senator Greenwood - It is the Hansard of 5th March 1970. I thought you said you had read it. 471 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE I did not say that and you know I did not say that. 471 miscellaneous 471 471 KBC Western Australia ALP Special Minister of State 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move, in respect of the reappointment of the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control: (1) That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon foreign ownership and control of Australian commerce, industries and resources and in particular to report upon— (a) The increasing alienation of the beneficial ownership of Australian resources to non-Australian interests; (b) Whether or not foreign ownership and control of Australian commerce, industries, land and resources is prejudicial to Australia's interests in all circumstances; (c) Whether in respect of any commerce, industry, land or resources foreign ownership or control is excessive; (d) The best method of mobilising Australian capital resources and attracting their commitment to national development; (e) The best method of reconciling the inflow of overseas capital for Australian development with the retention of Australian ownership and control; (f) The operation of exchange control restrictions which may prevent Australian investors from buying shares in companies registered overseas winch have a major beneficial interest in an Australian company; (g) The advantages and disadvantages of existing and potential foreign investment, with particular regard to export performance, commercial and industrial initiatives, and introduction of valuable skills and technology; (h) Whether the purpose for which foreign capital is sought or is made available should be a factor in determining its acceptability; And to recommend such legislation and administrative measures by the Commonwealth either alone or in co-operation with the states as wil) ensure such Australian ownership and control or Australian participation in the ownership and control of Australian commerce, industries, land and resources as will protect and advance the interests of Australia. (2) That the committee consist of the following senators: (a) Three to be nominated by the Leader of the Governnient; (b) Two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition; and (c) One to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. (3) That a quorum of the Committee shall be three. (4) That the committee elect as chairman one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government. The chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the commiitee to be the deputy-chairman of the committee. The member so appointed shall act as chairman of the committee at any time when the chairman is not present at a meeting of the committee. In the event of an equahty of voting the chairman, or the deputychairman when acting as chairman, shall have a casting vote. (5) That the committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such sub-committee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. The quorum of a sub-committee shall be 2 senators. (6) That the committee or any sub-committee shall have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, and to meet and transact business in private and public, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament. (7) That the committee shall be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. A daily Hansard shall be published of such proceedings of the committee or any sub-committee as take place in public. (8) That the committee shall be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and shall be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President. (9) That the committee shall have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken, and such recommendations as it may, deem fit and is expected to make regular reports as to the progress of the proceedings of the committee and any subcommittee and to present a final report as soon as possible. (10) That the committee have power to consider the minutes of evidence and records of the Select Committee on Foreign Ownership and Control appointed during the previous Parliament. (11) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. 472 personal explanation 472 KPA New South Wales 0 0 KANE, John Senator KANE Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of allegations, made during my absence last night, which I consider to be very damaging to me and, of course, false. 472 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Is leave granted? 472 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator Cant - No. 472 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Leave is not granted 472 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator Willesee - Mr President, this matter has been brought on suddenly. I had no knowledge that Senator Kane was going to ask for leave to make a statement in the form of a personal explanation. I assume it is going to be a brief statement. As he was not here last night, I suggest that the Senate give Senator Kane leave to make a short statement on the matter now. 472 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT I will again seek the guidance of the Senate. Is leave granted? 472 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator Cant - No. 472 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Leave is not granted Motion (by Senator Byrne) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Kane making a personal explanation. 472 KPA 0 0 KANE, John Senator KANE Last night I was a guest at a dinner given in honour of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, at Government House. The importance of the dinner is attested to by the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was a guest of honour and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) and yourself, Mr President, were guests at it. I happened to be there as the representative of the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair). During my absence from this chamber an allegation was consistently made and reiterated by supporters of the Government which was both false and, as I said earlier, exceedingly damaging to me personally. The allegation was that the only urgency about the procedural motion moved by my Leader, Senator Gair, concerning Wilfred Burchett was that there was to be a case against me in the New South Wales Supreme Court today concerning Mr Burchett. That is false. I claim that the person who made the allegation knew it was false. I say that because supporters of the Government claimed, as I read Hansard, that they were in touch with Mr Burchett's solicitors; therefore they would know it was false. There is no case up for mention in the New South Wales Supreme Court by Mr Burchett against me today. I repeat that my accusers last night must have known that to be so. There is a case against me—o r up for mention— toda y concerning an entirely different matter. It concerns a gentleman named Robertson who happens to be the editor of the communist newspaper 'Tribune'. I repeat that my accusers must have known that. The reason for the urgency of the motion was clear to all. Mr Burchett is due to be in New York on 8th April, where he is to be a guest speaker at an anniversary luncheon being run by the left wing newspaper 'National Guardian'. He therefore must leave Australia before the end of this month. The only way in which a Senate select committee could be certain of hearing Mr Burchett's testimony in defence of his own position would be for the committee to be operative before the end of this month. 473 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator Willesee - I hope the honourable senator does not mind my suggesting to him that he should stick to making a personal explanation and not open up the subject to debate. 472 KPA 0 0 KANE, John Senator KANE I have just about finished. All I want to say is that the statements were false. It was alleged that I was out of this House for an entirely different reason. I repeat that I had a good reason for being out of this House. I was honoured to be a guest at Government House last night as the representative of the 'Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair). Having said that, I feel that I am entitled to an apology from my detractors, but I shall leave it to their good judgment and good sense to determine whether they make an apology. 473 miscellaneous 473 KTA NEW SOUTH WALES ALP Minister for the Media 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND For the information of honourable senators I present a report on behalf of my colleague in another place, the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley), on the recommendations for the implementation and development of a program of bilingual education in schools in the Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. It is a report of an advisory group consisting of Dr B. H. Watts, Mr W. J. McGrath and Mr J. L. Tandy. 473 miscellaneous 473 KTA NEW SOUTH WALES ALP Minister for the Media 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND For the information of honourable senators I present on behalf of my colleague in another place, the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden), a list of homes subsidised under the Aged Persons Homes Act 1954-72 as at 31st December 1972. 473 miscellaneous 473 473 KTA NEW SOUTH WALES ALP Minister for the Media 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table of the Senate a progress report of the Immigration Advisory Council on a social patterns inquiry into the departure of settlers from Australia dated October 1972. I seek leave to make a statement thereon. 473 10000 0 0 DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The DEPUTY PRESIDENT I s leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. 473 KTA ALP 0 0 MCCLELLAND, Douglas Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND In tabling this report I wish to express the Government's appreciation to the distinguished members of the Council's Committee on Social Patterns which is carrying out the inquiry. Its members are: Professor Zubrzycki, Head of the Department of Sociology at the Australian National University, who is the Chairman of the Committee; Miss Green, Chairman of the Australian Council of Social Service; Mr Hawke, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; Sir Arthur Lee, President of the Returned Services League; Mr Lippmann, Chairman of the Migrant Welfare Committee of the Australian Council on Social Service; Air Marshal Sir John McCauley, President of the Good Neighbour Council of New South Wales; Mr McRae, President of the National Youth Council; Mr Nicholas, Executive Officer of the Australian Woolgrowers' and Graziers' Council; Mrs Reader, representing the National Council of Women; and Dr Alan Richardson, Reader in Psychology at the University of Western Australia. The Committee was also most fortunate in having available to it as its consulant Dr Charles Price. Professorial Fellow in Demography of the Australian National University. The report was presented to the previous Minister for Immigration towards the end of the last Parliament. It has not been published pending presentation to Parliament. Though the Committee has yet to complete its inquiries, I believe that its findings to date are already of such importance that they warrant the closest consideration. The Committee estimates that the rate of settler loss in Australia lies between 21 per cent and 24 per cent. This estimate is related to arrival and departure movements over the 6 years to 30th June 1972. In denning the level of settler departures, the Committee adopted the concept of settler loss as providing the most meaningful indicator of the proportion of migrants who leave Australia permanently. This concept takes into account various factors which are not covered by a simple measure of departures, including those who return to Australia as second-time migrants and those who enter as visitors and obtain a change of status. The Committee found that there are many factors influencing departure, some of which may relate to the general economic and social structure not only in the receiving country but also in the principal source countries. Others are of a personal nature and relate to the particular needs of individual migrants. Some return because of unforeseen events in the country of origin, such as illness in the family. Others leave because of difficulties encountered in Australia. In addition to coming to certain interim conclusions in relation to the recommendations of the previous inquiry, the Committee has been concerned to suggest remedial action where new factors leading to departure can be readily identified. It has arranged for a number of studies to provide it with evidence about the importance of individual reasons for departure. The Immigration Advisory Council will be making its final report after these researches into the causes of settler departures have been completed. This, I understand, is likely to be in July this year. The report recommends that there should be 'a positive and continuing campaign to inculcate in the present and future generations a feeling of national pride in the achievements of Australians of many national origins in ail fields of human endeavour'. It points out that 'those who arrive in this country as settlers would then be encouraged in even greater numbers to remain to share in the nation's destiny'. The Minister for Immigration fully supports these remarks and emphasises that only when we have fully accepted all migrants into the Australian family, as citizens with equal ranking in all respects, will this desirable goal be achieved. To the extent that the departure rate can be reduced by improved selection procedures and through greater attention to the settlement problems of migrants, no effort will be spared by this Government. A number of initiatives have already been taken and others are being developed. We take even this preliminary report as a challenge to end the settler loss. We have taken action to develop fundamental improvements in the procedures for migrant selection and counselling; emergency interpreter services; citizenship centres; and special programs for migrant children in schools. The Department of Immigration is already taking action on the progress report. I am sure that honourable senators, like myself and the Minister in another place, will await with interest the Committee's final report. 1 commend the report to honourable senators. 474 JTT SOUTH AUSTRALIA 0 0 DAVIDSON, Gordon Senator DAVIDSON by leave— I note with appreciation the statement by the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland), on behalf of the Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby), in the Senate this afternoon that the Government is sparing no effort to end what the subcommittee called the settler loss—the departure of migrants from Australia. I want to acknowledge generally the statement on the report which the Minister just tabled. I do so with very real personal interest because it has been my privilege to be Chairman of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council during the course of the inquiry which has been made the subject of this interim report which refers, as the Minister said, to the rate of departure of migrants. The inquiry was specifically carried out by a sub-committee of the Council. I thank the Minister for his generous and well-placed references to the people concerned. Honourable senators, when they read Hansard, will note the distinguished membership of the sub-committee and the important areas of our general life from which they come—socia l welfare, the Good Neighbour Council, trade unions, youth organisations, returned services, and so on. I can tell the Senate from personal experience and observation of the dedication of these 10 people. I am sure the Parliament is grateful to them and many other citizens for the services they render to the Parliament and to the country. The report is part of a continuing concern which the Advisory Council has had about the reasons for the departure of migrants. One of my earliest duties as Chairman of the Council was to speak in this Senate about the report which the Minister mentioned and which was brought in in 1967. That report provided some recommendations which were implemented by the previous Government. I invite honourable senators to study the report tabled this afternoon. It indicates that many of the problems today have some similarity with earlier problems. I refer mostly to the personal problems of homesickness, cultural differences and loneliness. These, of course, are still with us. However there are other problems and circumstances relating to employment, accommodation, the urgent matter of lack of knowledge of English and programs of social service benefits. All of these have occurred at varying intensities and are related to the changing circumstances of the pattern of life in this country. The situation is a complex one and the subcommittee, headed by its most diligent and efficient chairman, Professor George Zubrzycki, will continue its inquiries following the tabling of this interim report today. The sub-committee pointed out that the problems being faced in Australia are experienced currently by other migrant receiving countries. As I think all honourable senators know there is a general trend towards mobility throughout the world. Indeed, the modern migrant may well be described as the intercontinental migrant. Probably this intercontinental migrant is no different from the great majority of citizens everywhere and, in particular, the Australian born citizen, because I believe there is an increasing desire for people—especiall y those with various qualifications—t o move from country to country. Mr President, as you are well aware this situation has been assisted by the availability of low cost air travel. I think it is important to say to the Senate that a review of the departure patterns from migrant receiving countries will show fhat Australia's experience with departing settlers compares very favourably with the current departure patterns elsewhere. The committee has carried out an extensive examination of this matter. It has taken many factors into account and it believes that the present rate of settler loss is not in itself a matter of undue concern. I think it should be pointed out that migrants who spend only a few years in Australia make a considerable contribution to our national development. But although the Committee feels that there is no undue concern it is ready to point out that we should not encourage complacency about settler departures. After all, Australia is involved in large scale immigration and it is a very important factor of our life. The Committee emphasises that in relation to settler loss it has been able to establish that four-fifths of the migrants remain permanently in Australia. That is an achievement of some considerable merit. I refer briefly now to the role of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council. This Council does not deal with immigration programs. Its terms of reference broadly relate to the wellbeing of the migrants who are already here and to their integration into the Australian society. I take the liberty of drawing the distinction between integration and assimilation. We are anxious that the settlers who come here should want to stay here. Programs of education, social welfare, personal training, language opportunities and others were set up by the previous administration. These have been extended by the present Government and we commend the Minister for his concern. I hope that the Minister and his Department will build upon the pattern of specialist officers and counselling services and, in particular, the recognition of the migrant's qualifications. I most earnestly commend to him the Committee on Overseas Professional Qualifications. In a period when there is a greater sophistication in both the professional and technical fields there is an urgent need for attention to be given to this most complicated area. From personal experience and personal association and in a very personal way I wish the sub-committee well. I wish the Advisory Council well in its further inquiries. We await with a great deal of interest the day when the new Chairman of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, Senator Mulvihill, presents to the Minister the final report of this sub-committee. 476 Questions 476 476 KBC Western Australia ALP Special Minister of State 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table a statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) relating to a national rehabilitation and compensation scheme inquiry. I ask for leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. 476 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - What is the general nature of the statement? 476 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE Senator Rae has a copy of it and he is going to speak to it. 476 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT I s leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The statement read as follows)— Honourable members will already be aware of some of the preliminary steps that have been taken by the Government to fulfil our undertaking to establish a national compensation scheme for Australia. I now wish to inform the House that the National Rehabilitation and Compensation Scheme Inquiry has been set up to advise the Government on an appropriate scheme for Australia. The terms of reference for the inquiry are: To inquire into and report on the scope and form of, and the manner of instituting and administering, a national rehabilitation and compensation scheme appropriate to Australia, and which in principle the Australian Government has decided to establish, for the purpose of rehabilitating and compensating every person who at any time or in any place suffers a personal injury (including pre-natal injury) and whether the injury be sustained on the road, at work, in the home, in the school or elsewhere or is an industrial disease with particular reference to: (a) the circumstances in which an injury should be covered; (b) the application of the scheme where death results from the injury: (c) the nature and extent of the benefits that should be provided; (d) how the scheme should be financed; (e) the relationship between benefits under the scheme and other social service benefits; (f) whether rights under the scheme should be in substitution for all or any rights now existing; (g) the encouragement of precautions against accident; (h) the provision of rehabilitation faciUties; and (i) the manner of administering the scheme. The Committee of Inquiry is under the chairmanship of the Hon. Mr Justice Woodhouse, D.S.C., a distinguished judge of the New Zealand Supreme Court who was Chairman of the New Zealand iRoyal Commission on Personal Injury in 1967. The other members of the committee are the Hon. Mr Justice Meares, Chairman of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, who was the Chairman of the Expert Group on Road Safety which reported to the former Minister for Shipping and Transport in September 1972, a member of the New South Wales Consultative Committee on Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation, and Professor Patrick Atiyah, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the Australian National University and a distinguished author of works in this field of the law. I have informed the members of the inquiry that the Attorney-General and I shall be happy to arrange for officers of Australian Government departments to be made available to serve and assist the Committee. We shall do all we can to secure the services or advice of other persons whom the Committee wishes to engage. I take this opportunity of publicly thanking, on behalf of my Government, the New Zealand Government and the State Government of New 'South Wales for their gracious acts in releasing the two eminent judges from their other duties in order that they might undertake this most important inquiry. I am also grateful to Sir John Crawford, C.B.E., Vice-chancellor of the Australian National University, for agreeing to the participation by Professor Atiyah. These moves towards the eventual introduction of a national rehabilitation and compensation scheme in Australia for personal injuries marks a significant step forward in a field where hardship has been and is still being experienced in this country. Apart from this fact it gives me great personal satisfaction to see the first steps being taken towards the type of scheme which I first advocated more than a decade ago in this Parliament, during the debate on the estimates for the Attorney- General's Department in September 1959. 476 CAK Tasmania 0 0 RAE, Peter Senator RAE - I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I simply indicate that the Opposition wishes to have the opportunity to make some references to this very important matter. It is a matter of great importance to the whole of Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 477 JXR 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator Drake-Brockman Mr President, I do not know what is happening. I do not have a copy of that document, and I think it is only right that the leader of a party should have a copy. 476 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Senator Drake-Brockman, I shall inquire into the matter. As leader of a party, you are entitled to have a copy of a paper put on your desk. I will inquire why that did not happen. 477 miscellaneous 477 477 K1F Victoria 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator Poyser In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1972, I present the thirtyfifth general report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. I seek leave to make a short statement. 477 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT I know it is traditional to use the expression 'a short statement', but I would be grateful if the honourable senator would indicate to me how long a 'short statement' is. I would like to know whether it will take 5 minutes, 10 minutes or 15 minutes. 477 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator Poyser My statement is just 2 pages 477 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT I s leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. 477 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator Poyser With reference to the report, I would like to point out that there is a proposed amendment to section 18 (8.) of the Public Works Committee Act to raise the value of the mandatory limit of $750,000 to, say, $1.5m. It is a fact that over the last 5 years there has been a general increase in the number of references to the Committee and this trend is continuing in 1973 with a record total of 54 possible proposals listed. In the general report, paragraph 8 mentions that in 1972 the Committee met more frequently and examined more different proposals than in any previous year. The Committee was established originally for the purpose of ensuring that full and detailed information on major projects should be given to the Parliament which has to provide the funds necessary for public works. It has been constituted in order to ensure that taxpayers receive value for their money in the undertaking of works by the Department of Works on behalf of the client departments. The Public Works Committee is intended to be a watchdog over the major public works so far as their design and their general conception are concerned and has the responsibility to ensure that works are in the general public interest. The fixation of an upper limit of $1.5m is dependent upon the number of major projects on which the Government intends to be engaged and the relative amount of time available to the Committee to look at these projects. On the basis of the existing limit of $750,000, the Committee would have to average 6 projects a month. During the parliamentary sessions an average of only one week a month is available for inspections and hearings. The Committee will need to be occupied during the whole of the winter recess. The program is also dependent upon a steady receipt of proposals which, from past experience, is known to be difficult to maintain. It is doubtful whether the Committee would be able to carry out any more inspections and hearings than occurred during 1972 when the record of 35 proposals—1 7 more than in the previous year—wa s achieved. It is pointed out also that section 18(1.) of the Act provides that any public work may be referred to the Committee regardless of value. This eliminates the idea that the Committee would be precluded from reviewing the smaller projects. It may be noted that all works in excess of $40,000 are listed in the Civil Works Program circulated by the Minister for Works at the time of the presentation of the Budget. 477 JQR 0 0 COTTON, Bob Senator COTTON by leave— I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to make my remarks at a later date. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 477 special adjournment Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to: That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 27th March, unless sooner called together by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees. 477 miscellaneous 477 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Democratic Labor Party, the Leader of the Country Party and Senator Townley, notifying nominations to the legislative and general purpose standing committees as follows: Constitutional and Legal Affairs Senators Byrne, Durack, James McClelland, Wheeldon, Wright and Brown. Finance and Government Operations Senators Cotton, Devitt, Gietzelt, Guilfoyle, Lawrie and McAuliffe. Foreign Affairs and Defence Senators Drury, Carrick, Gietzelt, Maunsell, McManus, Sim, Wheeldon and Primmer. Health and Welfare Senators Sir Kenneth Anderson, Brown, Dame Nancy Buttfield, Donald Cameron, Fitzgerald and Townley. Industry and Trade Senators Lillico, McAuliffe, McLaren, Webster, Wilkinson and Young. Social Environment Senators Bonner, Davidson, Keeffe, Georges, Little and Mulvihill. Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to: That the senators as indicated by Mr President, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate, be appointed members of the legislative and general purpose standing committees, 478 miscellaneous Reference to Public Works Committee Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1972, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: Construction of Wellington Telephone Exchange at Perth, Western Australia. 478 miscellaneous Motion (by Senator Willesee) agreed to: That Government Business, orders of the day Nos 1 to 8, take precedence of all other business on the notice paper this day. 478 DV4 WESTERN AUSTRALIA Leader of the Opposition 0 0 WITHERS, Reg Senator WITHERS This may be an unusual way of doing things, but I now wish to move a motion which will have the effect of amending the motion just moved by Senator Willesee. Pursuant to the contingent notice I have on the notice paper I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Withers moving a motion relating to the order of business on the notice paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed: That Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, take precedence of all other business on the notice paper after 8 p.m. this day. 478 KBC Western Australia ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - As we are all aware, the Senate will not sit next week. Orders of the day Nos 1 to 8 - Government Business - are all Bills which I anticipate, as a result of discussion with Senator Withers, will not occupy a great deal of time. Nonetheless they are important. I understand that a group of repatriation Bills provide for a certain commencing date. Of the electoral Bills one, that relating to a reduction of the voting age, is of particular urgency. The electoral officer in Victoria has contacted the Chief Electoral Officer in Canberra and has pointed out that an election will be held in Victoria shortly and that he has fixed 21st March as the date for compilation of the Victorian roll. In other words, Victoria is doing the same as the Commonwealth, and in Victoria, as in most of the States there being I think one exception, there is a common roll. The reason for the Commonwealth being able to collaborate with Victoria if possible is obvious; if the Federal electoral legislation is passed and the Parliament reduces the voting age to 18, there will be an opportunity for them to get together and to make a common roll for everyone. The will of the Senate will of course prevail, but if it is possible to pass these Bills, it would assist the Government. Then we would come to the situation at 8 o'clock tonight at which time Senator Wright wishes to proceed with his motion for the disallowance of the divorce regulations. I have indicated to Senator Withers that we would take the adjournment of the debate at that stage as Senator Wright will have argued why the regulations should be disallowed and we would like an opportunity to examine his argument. Senator Withers understands that. The debate would be continued at some future time. 478 JXR Western Australia 0 0 DRAKE-BROCKMAN, Thomas Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - I agree with the proposal. 478 DV4 Western Australia 0 0 WITHERS, Reg Senator WITHERS - What Senator Willesee has said is in substance correct. I do not want to sound as though I am on a nit-picking expedition, but I point out that the repatriation Bills will be put through within minutes as it is well known that the official Opposition offers no real opposition to them. As to the motion proposed by Senator Wright, I think it ought to be known that whilst Senator Wright is sponsoring this motion the Opposition will not resist the Government's seeking the adjournment of the debate on it because it will be done at the specific request of the Government. I simply want to make that clear. I think the procedures will work out satisfactorily. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Gair) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Gair moving a motion relating to the order of business on the notice paper. Motton (by Senator Gair) proposed: That after the consideration of the business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 take precedence over all other business on the notice paper. 479 KBC Western Australia ALP Special Minister of State 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I did not take part in the discussion on this matter. As the Senate knows, Senator Murphy has been called away. As I understand the position, the effect of this action would be that if we take the adjournment of Senator Wright's motion Senator Gair would then want to proceed with Notice of Motion No. 1 which relates to the withdrawal of troops from South East Asia. Is that the situation? 479 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator Gair Yes . Senator Murphy indicated that that would be in order. 479 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE Since Senator Gair has discussed this with Senator Murphy, I accept his assurance that it is in order. Question resolved in the affirmative. 479 bill Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by Senator Willesee) read a first time. Second Reading 479 KBC Western Australia ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act to provide 2 additional exemptions from sales tax. Firstly, it will exempt contraceptives thus giving formal effect to the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 8th Decem- ber last year that the Government had decided that the sales tax on contraceptives would be removed as from that date. The exemption will accordingly have retrospective effect to 8th December 1972. Secondly, it will exempt certain goods used in the conversion of business and industrial equipment to the metric system. This exemption is being introduced following recommendations by the Metric Conversion Board for limited taxation concessions for the benefit of persons who are faced with the costs of converting items of plant and equipment to the metric system. Broadly, it will apply to parts and accessories used in converting existing items of business and industrial equipment to the metric system. Some industries have commenced the changeover to the new system and in recognition of this the tax exemption will apply to parts and accessories purchased on or after 1st July 1971. After the Bill has come into operation, persons who have already paid sales tax on metric conversion parts and accessories purchased on or after 1st July 1971 will be able to apply for refunds of the tax. A memorandum explaining the provisions of the Bill in detail is being circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Cotton) adjourned. 479 bill 479 Debate resumed from 13 March (vide page 360), on motion by Senator Bishop. That the Bill be now read a second time. 479 CAK Tasmania 0 0 RAE, Peter Senator RAE - Mr President, there are 4 Bills which are related to the Repatriation Bill 1973, which is Order of the day No. 1, and I would suggest to the Minister in charge of the Bill that we should have a cognate debate covering all 5 Bills which are listed as Orders of the day Nos 1 to 5. All the matters are related and the Opposition believes the measures could be taken together. 479 K1Y 0 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator Bishop I agree 479 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT The Chair will decide, with the concurrence of the Senate, whether the debate will be a cognate debate covering all 5 Bills. All 5 Bills will be debated together at the second reading stage but will be handled separately in Committee. 480 CAK 0 0 RAE, Peter Senator RAE Thank you, Mr President. The Opposition does not oppose any provision in these Bills. However, the Bills, relating as they do to repatriation benefits and allowances mainly for ex-servicemen but also for merchant seamen who served in time of war, are seen by the Opposition as desirable measures. They give effect to increases promised by the Australian Labor Party in the policy speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). The Opposition does not wish in any way to delay the debate nor to delay the introduction date; I make that quite clear. The Bills provide for some extensions one of which raises a point which I wish to have clarified for the benefit of people generally. It calls for an explanation from the Minister, and I will mention it now although in other circumstances it might have been regarded as more appropriate to be brought up at the Committee stage. It relates to the introduction of a provision for de facto wives as well as for ex-nuptial children. Ex-nuptial children were provided for previously to some extent. But now we have a situation which will no doubt be a matter of interest to many people: What happens in the event of an ex-serviceman who has a legal wife dependent upon him as well as a de facto wife who is dependent upon him? What will be the effect of these amendments to the legislation in relation to the rights of each of those persons? I would be grateful if the Minister, in due course, would give us the answer to that question. Generally, the position is that the Opposition is glad to see the recognition by the Government of the excellent state in which the economy was left for it to take over. Undoubtedly, sound economic policies must underlie all improvements in welfare payments, repatriation payments and the like. Unless the economy can stand it, it would be short-sighted for a government to be providing such benefits on a basis which would empty the coffers. So this legislation is an acknowledgment by the new Government that the sound economic policies of the past 23 years of the Liberal and Country Party governments have given it an opportunity to be able to make provisions such as this which follow other increases which have been made steadily by the preceding Government as quickly as the economy would stand them. Of course, I sound one note of warning: If a continuation of some of the indicated unsound economic policies under this new Government is to take place, the rights of pensioners—thos e entitled to benefits under the Repatriation Act and the other Bills with which we are dealing today—wil l be eroded by the effects of inflation. One hopes that the Government will adopt a responsible attitude to ensure that that erosion does not affect not only the pensioners but also the economy as a whole. I think that I can say proudly that it is as a result of the sound economic management of the past 23 years that the Government is able to introduce this legislation making available these increases which the Opposition supports. 480 K1Y South Australia ALP Minister for Repatriation 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP - in reply - I thank the honourable senator and the Opposition for giving the Repatriaition Bill 1973 a speedy passage. I do not agree with his remarks about the ability of the present Government being based on the previous Government's financial policies. We have clearly promised the ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen and their associations that we would carry out our policies. It is recognised that what we have done in this legislation will improve to a large extent the lot of those people and will introduce a fairly large slice of our promised program. The answer to Senator Rae's question is that a legal wife is classed as a dependant for war pension purposes under section 23 of the principal Act. Clause 4 of the Bill amends section 23 to provide that the term 'wife' shall include a dependent female. Therefore, subject to a dependent female satisfying the conditions of eligibility under clause 4 of the amending Bill, she may be paid a pension at the same time as the legal wife. The purpose of the amendment was to bring this legislation into line generally with workers compensation and the Social Services Act. Bill read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. 480 The Bill. 480 KAS Victoria 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - I wish to raise a query with the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Bishop) in relation to the Repatriation Act generally. It has been raised with me that the assurances given by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in his policy speech were on these lines: The basic compensation payments under the Repatriation Act would be given a fixed relationship to the Commonwealth minimum wage so that the special or totally and permanently incapacitated rate would equal the minimum wage; the general 100 per cent rate pension would equal 50 per cent of the minimum wage; and other pension rates and allowances would be adjusted proportionately. It has been raised with me that other pension rates and allowances have not been adjusted proportionately. Could the Minister indicate to the Senate the position in actual fact? Which are those pension rates and allowances which at this time have not been adjusted proportionately and what are the intentions of the Government in this matter? 481 K1Y South Australia ALP Minister for Repatriation 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP - The answer to the honourable senator's question is that our program for improvements to the Repatriation Act was not based on a time table. We thought that we would move towards fulfilling them in our first year of Government. But as the honourable senator can see, although we might have introduced these particular improvements at budget time, a number of them other than the pension matters, we have introduced quickly. So we intend to attend to outstanding matters progressively. The general totally and permanently incapacitated pension has been adjusted. In relation to the general rate pension, on this occasion we have made a first step towards achieving our policy. There are other matters of great priority that we are considering. For example, I am mindful of our undertaking to provide free hospitalisation for veterans of the Boer War and World War I. The honourable senator will remember these matters being ventilated on behalf of organisations during debates on repatriation matters in the old days. My attitude is that we should be moving towards doing that very quickly and other matters will receive priority according to what Cabinet and the Government considers appropriate. But we are very anxious to implement our policies. I say shortly that what we have done so far has been greatly welcomed by the ex-servicemen's organisations as the honourable senator knows. 481 KAS Victoria 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - I thank the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Bishop) for his comments. I acknowledge that the Government has done something very substantial in this legislation. Perhaps a little encouragement ought to be given to the Minister to make clear what he means in relation to these other matters. He has indicated to the Senate that the other pension rates and allowances will be adjusted proportionately. Will this be done during 1973? Can those who are interested in those rates and allowances expect that they will be adjusted within 2 years? May it be that they will be adjusted sometime within the life of this Government, or does the suggestion that has been made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) allow the Senate to understand that these improvements may not be introduced in the life of this Government? I think that there is reason for the Minister to make this clear. Knowing the Minister's great interest in this matter I can understand that he would wish these pension rates to be made applicable immediately. However, I think it is important that he tell the Senate whether the promise that was given by the Prime Minister means that this Government may run its full term before the improved benefits are introduced. 481 K1Y South Australia ALP Minister for Repatriation 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP - First, I will answer the honourable senator's question concerning the dependant pension rates. These rates have not been increased at this time. Currently the Cabinet Welfare Committee is examining this particular side of our program, and in doing so it has had to have regard for what ought to be done in the social security field. So I can assure the honourable senator that presently we are examining to what extent we can increase these rates and I would expect that that step would be taken at Budget time. In regard to the hospitalisation matters, I can only say that as the responsible Minister I will be making a submission on them as a matter of urgency. As far as we are able, we will carry out the main reforms in our repatriation policy within the life of this Parliament, but it might take longer than one term in government to make some of the adjustments set out in our policy. It will depend on the general economic factors. But I think the honourable senator would agree that given the short time we have been in office, we have granted very substantial increases in repatriation pensions, and I would hope that the Government will support me in implementing to the fullest possible extent the program which we promised. The next matters to be considered are those to which I have referred. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. 482 Bill (on motion by Senator Bishop) read a third time. 482 bill Second Reading Consideration resumed from 13 March (vide page 360), on motion by Senator Bishop: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. 482 bill Second Reading Consideration resumed from 13 March (vide page 360), on motion by Senator Bishop: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. 482 bill Second Reading Consideration resumed from 13 March (vide page 360), on motion by Senator Bishop: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. 482 bill Second Reading Consideration resumed from 13 March (vide page 362), on motion by Senator Cavanagh: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. 482 bill 482 Debate resumed from 14 March (vide page 449), on motion by Senator Willesee: That the Bill be now read a second time. 482 DV4 Western Australia 0 0 WITHERS, Reg Senator WITHERS - Last night Senator Willesee delivered the second reading speech on the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1973. I take it that we are now dealing with the Commonwealth Electoral Bill and the 2 associated Sills as one. If the Senate is agreeable I think that that is the more sensible approach. I am dealing with the Commonwealth Electoral Bill 1973, the Australian Capital Territory Representation Bill 1973 and the Northern Territory (Administration) Bill 1973 and by agreement with Senator Willesee I suggest that we have one debate on the second reading. In effect the Bills are about the same matter. Whilst the Opposition does not oppose the Bills one should make a few remarks. I do not know whether it was necessary for the Government when introducing the Bills to use such almost flamboyant language about it being an historic occasion and all the rest of it. When this matter was debated here last year I remarked at the time that I thought I was about the only person in the Senate or indeed in the Parliament who had received a vote at the age of 18 back in 1943. It is not really such an historic occasion to me. It is a long time ago since I got my vote at the age of 18 in 1943, some 30 years ago. I suppose the difference betweenthen and now was that the Government at that time thought I had really earned my vote and that I was not being given it as a gift. On the general merits of the Bills the Opposition does not take exception. However, one is somewhat intrigued by the passage in the second reading speech in which the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) said: The Bill before the Senate contains transitional provisions which are designed to exempt the 18, 19 and 20-year-olds from the compulsory enrolment provisions. . . . What intrigued me was that it was said that this period was considered necessary 'in order that appropriate publicity might be given to the entitlement of the newly enfranchised person'. We were led to believe in this place, during last year especially, that almost 100 per cent of the 18, 19 and 20-year-olds were demanding this right. The fact that the Government now has to indulge in a publicity campaign over some 3 months would rather indicate to me that the demand from this group possibly has been over-emphasised in this place. I do not take exception to the general proposition that persons of 18 should be treated the same as are persons of 21. We have had the situation in the Royal Family for the last 500 or 600 years where the King or Queen could become of age at the age of 18 and exercise all powers of the monarchy, so I suppose it is only right that at last the peasantry or the lower orders or non-royalty should reach equality with the Royal Family. My Party will give speedy passage to the Bill. Everybody has different views on what will be the ultimate electoral results. I think this will be a matter of conjecture forever because, after all, it is a secret vote and statements by people in the community, whether they be political scientists, pollsters, journalists or politicians, that 18-year-old voters always vote against the government in power or always vote this way or always vote that way is so much eyewash. It is a secret vote. I am happy that persons of this age will exercise their judgment responsibly. I believe that they do have an interest in politics and in what happens in this country, and that they will cast their votes according to their judgment of the political parties and the candidates at the time of the election. Therefore, the Opposition offers no opposition to the Commonwealth Electoral Bill or the 2 Bills that will follow. 483 KUD Victoria 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS - The Australian Democratic Labor Party will support the Bill. We made policy about 2 or 3 years ago at our Federal Conference in favour of votes for those of 18 years of age. The argument was put forward, and there is a good deal in it, that if people are old enough to be called up to fight for their country they are old enough to vote for their country. I think it can be said that this is one of those cases that lawyers refer to when they say that one should never ask a question unless one is sure what the answer will be. In this case all parties are asking the question and none is sure what the answer will be. 1 have heard some Australian Labor Party supporters contend that it will be a big advantage to their Party, but I understand that in some places where it has been tried it has not been found to have a very considerable effect upon the percentage of votes received. I still think that, whatever happens, elections will be won on policies and strategy rather than through a particular group that may happen to have the vote. There was a suggestion in some quarters in my Party that we should make the vote a voluntary affair for people between 18 and 21 years of age on the ground that some of those young people may not be sufficiently clued up to feel that they ought to cast a vote. It was felt that we should leave it to them to decide. But as no other Party has indicated any interest in that proposition we do not propose to put it forward. The Democratic Labor Party will support the Bill. 483 KAS Victoria 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - The Australian Country Party offers no objection to this Bill. In my State of Victoria we have debated on many occasions whether the Party should fall in line with the general proposal that appears to have been taken up on a worldwide basis that people under the age of 21 should be given the right to vote for their country's legislature. I have always accepted the view that people younger than 21 today have a greater capacity to learn and develop than did their counterparts of 20 years ago. The comment could be made that they now become more informed every year. This matter has been debated in the Senate on a number of occasions and various honourable senators have taken diverse views on it. It has always appeared to me to be something of an anomaly that the age of 18 should be settled upon as being an age at which the vote should be granted. I could well argue in line with the Prime Minister's very excellent statement that a youth or a lass at 17 in 1973 has all those qualities which the Labor Party or any Party which proposed the vote at 18 some 2 or 3 years ago said they would have. I refer the Senate to the second reading speech where it quotes the very excellent words of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) on 21st November 1968 when he was the Leader of the Opposition. Looking at some of those words I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that those factors which the Prime Minister mentioned should apply in 1973, certainly within the next 3 years will apply to people of a lesser age than 18 if one is to believe that this is the basis upon which we have granted the vote to 18-year-olds now. I think some of the words spoken by the Prime Minister are worth repeating. He said: By any standards men and women are as mature at 18 years now as they were at 21 only a generation ago. They are more mature intellectually, physically, socially and economically. The words used by the Prime Minister in that statement were appropriate. I again emphasise the fact that I believe that we are caught up in a world-wide trend to grant to people under the age of 21 years the right to vote. Anyone who examines the record of what is happening throughout the world in this respect will find that some countries are granting the right to vote to certain individuals of 19 years of age and 18 years of age. Indeed, some countries have gone so far as to grant it to some at the age of 16 years. Of course, those countries are very few in number. Victoria has given consideration to this proposition over a number of years. I think it adopted a sensible attitude. I do not think it would have been wise for that State to announce some years ago that it was going to grant the right to vote to people below 21 years of age if the Commonwealth Government would not follow the lead. One or two States have granted the right to vote to 18- year-olds. Considerable public expense would have been involved in the preparation of separate electoral rolls. As is noted in the second reading speech of the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) the franchise age in Victoria is to be lowered if a Bill which has been introduced in the lower house becomes law. I understand that Victoria has been waiting for the Commonwealth to pass the present legislation. It is on that basis that I and my Party acquiesce in the Government's move and will give speedy passage to this Bill. 484 KTZ South Australia 0 0 MCLAREN, Geoffrey Senator McLAREN - I rise for the purpose of making a few short comments on this Bill. I commend the Government for introducing the measure, which will give the 18-year-olds of Australia the right to vote in federal elections. I was very happy to note the change of attitude today by the members of the 3 Opposition parties who have spoken about and have now given their support to this measure. I vividly recall that on each of the last 9 sitting days of the Senate prior to the last federal election the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and present Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Murphy, moved for the suspension of the Standing Orders to enable him to bring forward a Bill to give 18-year- olds the right to vote at that election. The government parties of the day, supported by the Australian Democratic Labor Party, saw fit to deny 18-year-olds the right to vote at the last federal election. We now find those parties supporting this measure. I think I am speaking on behalf of the 18-year-olds throughout Australia when I say that I wish those parties had adopted the same attitude about 3 or 4 months ago, and so enabled the 18-year-olds to have a say in the present administration of the country. 484 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little You might have lost 484 KTZ 0 0 MCLAREN, Geoffrey Senator McLAREN Senator Little has just passed the remark that the Australian Labor Party might have lost the last election if that had been the case. I remind the honourable senator that 18-year-olds in South Australia were given the right last year to vote in South Australian State elections and they exercised that right last Saturday. I am not going to say that the Labor Party increased its vote because of that fact, but at least it held its vote. No-one is in a position to say what percentage of the 18-year-olds who voted in that election supported the Labor Party. At least they had the opportunity to vote. I wish to correct the comment made by Senator Webster that the States which did give 18-year-olds the right to vote involved their taxpayers in extra expense because of the printing of separate electoral rolls. That was not the case in South Australia. We have the one common electoral roll in South Australia. Although voluntary enrolment exists insofar as 18-year-olds are concerned, those who do enrol are obliged to vote. There was a dollar sign against the 18-year-olds on the roll. So no extra expense was incurred in that State. Perhaps the honourable senator thinks that may have been the case in Victoria, but it was not the case in South Australia, which is always very concerned about ensuring that it does not put its taxpayers to any unnecessary expense. 484 KUS 0 0 MILLINER, Bertie Senator Milliner - Were the rolls printed in Australia? 484 KTZ 0 0 MCLAREN, Geoffrey Senator McLAREN Yes , they were printed in Australia. The South Australian rolls are printed by a computer in Adelaide. I wish to commend also the Government of Western Australia which some years ago gave 18-year-olds the right to vote. I do not think it was a Labor Government: I think it was a Liberal Government. Just prior to the last federal election advertisements appeared in the provincial Press in my area of South Australia calling upon 18- year-olds to enrol, and Liberal Party candidates accepted the responsibility of assisting them to enrol. The Liberal Party members of the Commonwealth Parliament from South Australia could have given the 18-year-olds the right to vote simply by supporting legislation proposed by the Australian Labor Party. In South Australia, at least, the State members of the Liberal Party were at loggerheads with their federal counterparts. I do not want to hold up the passage of this Bill. I realise that the Victorian Government in its wisdom, wants to complete its electoral roll so that 18- year-olds in Victoria will have the right to vote. I have taken notice of Senator Willesee's statement that this legislation should receive a speedy passage through the Parliament. I wish to say once again that I am very happy to be a supporter of the Federal Government that has seen fit to bring this matter forward for consideration so soon after the last election. I support the Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate; report adopted. 485 Motion (by Senator Willesee) proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. 485 KRU Victoria 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator LITTLE - I wish to raise a point that crossed my mind during the course of Senator McLaren's contribution to the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill. It relates to the fact that a voluntary enrolment system applies in some States to people under the age of 21 years. That is a proposition which the Australian Democratic Labor Party had in mind. We think it is a rather sensible one because all 18-year-olds do not share the same maturity and some may not want to be enrolled. My query is: What would be the Commonwealth Government's attitude towards the administration of this legislation, which provides for compulsory enrolment, in those States where on a State basis the enrolment is voluntary? There could be some confusion among the young people, especially if they do not realise that on a Federal basis enrolment is compulsory and they are likely to be fined if their names are not placed on the electoral roll. I would like the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) to give the Senate some indication of what will be the Government's policy in regard to the administration of this legislation in so far as it affects those young people. 485 KTZ South Australia 0 0 MCLAREN, Geoffrey Senator McLAREN - I wish to clear up one thing which arose out of Senator Little's remarks concerning my comments about the situation in South Australia. I said that enrolment by 18-year- olds in South Australia was voluntary but that voting was compulsory once they enrolled. Senator Little would know that enrolment for State elections in South Australia is still voluntary, even if one is over the age of 21 years. Enrolment is not compulsory for State elections, but it is compulsory in Commonwealth elections. We in South Australia recognise that fact. I want to point out that the reason why enrolment for 18- year-olds in South Australia is voluntary is not because of the State Government's decision; it is because of a decison by the Legislative Council, which does not believe in compulsory enrolment or compulsory voting because of the extreme gerrymander that exists in that State so far as the Legislative Council franchise is concerned. The reason for this was very easy to see in the election for the Lower House on Saturday last. The Australian Labor Party was supported by 54 per cent of the electors and gained 26 seats in a House of 47 members. In the Legislative Council, where there is a voluntary vote under a gerrymandered system, the Labor Party now has 6 members. In the past it has had 4 members in a House of 20. It is the Legislative Council which has forced upon the young folk of South Australia and has always forced upon those over 21 years of age, a voluntary voting system. There is neither compulsory enrolment nor compulsory voting in the Legislative Council. Members of the Labor Party believe that people should make some effort to take part in decisions made by the Government. That is one reason why our policy is compulsory enrolment and compulsory voting - so that people will be obliged to exercise their rights. I mention these points for the benefit of Senator Little. 485 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little I thank the honourable senator for his explanation. However, I hope that the Minister will offer some explanation. 485 KBC WESTERN AUSTRALIA ALP Special Minister of State 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - in reply - The situation is that all States with the exception of South Australia have compulsory voting. South Australia does not have compulsion because of its historical background. The absence of compulsion applies not only to the 18 to 20-year-olds. In all other States voting is compulsory. If the Commonwealth were to provide for voluntary voting it would be inconsistent with what is required by most of the States. 486 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little Is the Minister suggesting that the Act should be altered? In what way will the Act be administered? I concede that the Bill will be passed in its present form. Will some attempt be made to fine every youngster of 18 years who does not enrol? This would cause great difficulty, particularly in South Australia. 486 KBC ALP 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE That will have to be decided by the electoral authorities. It is a matter which will call for a discretion to be exercised. As happens in some other areas, the mere fact that a person has committed a breach of an Act does not necessarily mean that he will be fined for doing so. He may have good reason for not complying with the Act. It crosses my mind that if we do not provide for compulsory enrolment we are saying that the 18 to 21-year-olds are not mature and have not the same ability as people who are over 21 years, that there is a need to make special provision for them. It is the Government's intention that they should be in the same situation as anybody else. If people in this age group are not compelled to enrol there will be requests from all sorts of people and all sorts of groups who feel that they should not be forced to enrol. 486 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little - I think it is usually conceded that the very elderly people should not be required to vote. 486 KBC ALP 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE I respect the honourable senator's view on that. Perhaps he is right. At the moment there is no exemption in the Act. 486 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little - Compulsory voting is sometimes an act of cruelty in the case of a very elderly person. 486 KBC ALP 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE That is the honourable senator's view, but that is not the law as it now stands. I appreciate the point that the honourable senator is making and I respect his view. For the reasons I have stated the Government proposes to adhere to the Bill as it stands. 486 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS by leave— I do not think the Minister of State (Senator Willesee) can say that in South Australia it will be left to the electoral authorities or someone else to decide whether people between the ages of 18 and 21 years shall vote. That is not good enough. The Senate is now legislating to give the franchise to 18- year-olds. I think the Senate is entitled to be told how the law will be administered in the case of an 18-year-old who does not enrol and consequently does not vote in a Federal election. 486 K3W 0 0 CANT, Hartley Senator Cant - Will that not be in breach of the law? 486 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS I would like the Minister to tell us what the position would be. The Minister has said that it would be a matter for the electoral authorities, but I should like to know how the law will stand with regard to those people. 486 KBC WESTERN AUSTRALIA ALP Special Minister of State 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE By leave—Th e situation is that the 18 to 21-yearolds will be in the same position as everybody else. The law will be that they must enrol and they must vote. If they do not enrol or do not vote they will be in exactly the same situation as anyone else in the community, and the electoral officer in the State will have a discretion in dealing with the situation. Senator McManus has been a politician for a long time. Surely after every election he has had people approaching him with reasons why he should approach the electoral office on their behalf so that they may be exempted. There has not been one election when this has not happened to me. 486 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McManus - I have never had one instance of that. 486 KBC ALP 0 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE Then the honourable senator cannot be very well known. Sometimes I have made representations on behalf of people who have approached me. At times they have been clearly in a situation where they should have been exempted from voting and I have put a case to the electoral office on their behalf. I have not heard of those cases again so I do not know whether I have been a good advocate or a bad one. Most cases that I have taken up have been perfectly obvious. The same situation will apply to those in the 18 to 21-year-old group. Those people are taking their place on the electoral roll with everybody else. They will have the same compulsions on them and they will be entitled to the same exemption if the electoral officer sees fit to grant an exemption. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. 487 bill Second Reading Consideration resumed from 14 March (vide page 450), on motion by Senator Willesee: That theBill be now read a second time Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. 487 bill 487 Debate resumed from 14 March (vide page 450), on motion by Senator Willesee: That the Bill be now read a second time 487 KRU Victoria 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator LITTLE - There are some circumstances in the Northern Territory in respect of Aborigines which put this Bill in a slightly different category. I should like the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) to explain whether the exemptions which apply now in the Northern Territory to the Aboriginal population and the provision for voluntary enrolment will apply also to people in the 18 to 21 -year-old group. 487 KBC Western Australia ALP Special Minister of State 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - in reply - The Aboriginal people of Australia were brought onto the electoral rolls only a comparatively short time ago. An all-party committee had examined the situation and made recommendations which were accepted by the Parliament. I do not propose to go into the reasons for that being done at that time. The one exemption in the electoral Acts applies to Aborigines. I am not able to foretell the future, but from the spirit of the Acts I should imagine, without wishing in any way to intrude on the responsibilities of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Bryant), that the Government would want to move towards a situation in which Aborigines do vote and, in due course, exercise the same rights and responsibilities as anybody else. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. 487 Questions 487 KBC Western Australia ALP Special Minister of State 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE - I move: That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 17. The situation is that we have already made an arrangement that the Notice of Motion in the name of Senator Wright will be brought on at 8 p.m. We have dealt already with my motion concerning Orders of the Day Nos 1 to 8 and if it suits the convenience of the Senate we will now go back to the Address-in- Reply debate which is Order of the Day No. 17. Question resolved in the affirmative. 487 Questions 487 Debate resumed from 8 March (vide page 301), on motionby Senator Primmer: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY: We. the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia in Parliament assembled desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. Upon which Senator Withers had moved by way of amendment: That the following words be added to the Address-in-Reply, viz: '. but the Senate is of the opinion and regrets that - The Government in its conduct of the nation's affairs has subordinated the security and welfare of the Australian people on whose behalf it should govern to the factional decisions of the Conference and Executive of the Australian Labor Party, in that: without regard to either economic or social consequences it intends to award Government contracts to employers who will comply with trade union policies; in defiance of its election policy, it attempted to introduce compulsory unionism for Commonwealth public servants; it has pursued and intends to pursue defence and foreign policies which are contrary to Australia's international treaty obligations and which ignore or reject long established bonds with traditional and trusted allies; and further the Senate views with alarm - economic decisions which take no account of their impact on the nation's exporters and their employees; and the Government's lack of action to curb runaway inflation'. 488 KAS Victoria 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER - I had spoken for some minutes on my Address-in-Reply speech when the House was adjourned one day last week. I am somewhat surprised to find that the Address-in-Reply debate has been resumed because it had not been planned to come on today. However, I recall that in my opening remarks I said that the address presented to us was far ranging and brought innovation to the Australian people. I congratulated the Labor Government on winning office in its own right, I understand for the first time in 35 years. 1 cautioned the policies and actions that the socialist Government had followed in the few months since it assumed office. Certainly from my political standpoint it appears that many things that have been done and said could be to the great disadvantage of this country. It appears to me that the anti-socialist government of the Liberal and Country Parties lost office mainly by acts of omission and not necessarily by acts of commission. Most people in the community will be anxious to see how we fare for a period under a socialist Government because they have not previously had experience of control in the Federal sphere b> a Labor government. One would expect to see quite considerable change, and that certainly has happened. The immediate reaction of the Labor Government was to demonstrate that it was possible in its opinion for 2 men to govern this country for a period of time. In my view that was a serious situation. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) was able to say that the actions that he and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Barnard) took were purely in line with the Labor Party's election promises and, as has been emphasised on many occasions, that the Labor Government had a mandate to take just those actions. Some of their statements were in my view most dangerous to the wellbeing of Australia. Undoubtedly I speak from an opposition camp to that in which the Labor Party finds itself at the moment. The statements that have been made by the Prime Minister and the actions taken by other Ministers have given me great concern. Perhaps those in the Government do not feel any concern for Australia's safety and security in these matters but to me the Government's attitude to existing allies such as America and Britain was not in the interest of this country. The Government took the attitude that it has taken on subsequent occasions of telling our great ally America that we did not trust it. We have been doing that regularly in the last weeks in relation to bases in Australia. Certainly one of the premises upon which any good friend and ally should work is that it should have complete trust in a friend. We have not demonstrated that to America and 1 would apologise to America, as I have done on the previous occasions I have spoken, for some of the statements which were made by Ministers of the Labor socialist Government. I do not believe that statements by Dr Cairns and other Ministers truly reflect the attitudes and wishes of the Australian public in general. Senator Murphyflurried across to Britain where I do not think he made a great friend for this country in attempting to say to Britain that he wanted a quick break in the ties that had existed. It seemed to me again to be one of the double standards which have been applied by Ministers when in Britain. Senator Murphy, as a Queen's Counsel, forgot to mention that he would be quite happy to have the title 'QC taken off the end of his name as he did not wish to have any relationship with the monarchy in future years. However, Senator Murphy was not so much concerned with that; he was concerned with a proposal to seek a break with Britain in regard to our legal structure. His comments in relation to the Crown are certanly not in line with my thinking and I do not agree with them. However, I say to the new Labor Government that I hope it will consider the actions it has taken perhaps in the flurry of the first two or three months in office because having been in Opposition for so long it may be forgiven for some of the hasty statements that have been made. The Government's flurry in attempting to embrace communist countries certainly has raised the eyebrows of many people in the community. I doubt whether it was necessary for us to throw Taiwan out of Australia in our hurry to embrace the People's Republic of China. Undoubtedly the time was coming when China would be recognised, whatever that word may mean - whether it is United Nations recognition or Australian recognition. The fact is that China has shown very little interest in Australia. I imagine that a country of such great size would have very little need to take great notice of a country of 13 million or 14 million people. Although China had not taken this interest, Australia took action to recognise that country. The Australian Government has also taken action to recognise East Germany. Further, it has made a quick recognition of North Vietnam and that action certainly demonstrated where the Labor Party had stood on this issue over the past years. This action by the Government has given me great concern. A report today asserts that some 30,000 troops and arms are flowing down from the north into South Vietnam. The Government has now recognised that there are 2 Vietnams, which is contrary to the statements made by Labor politicians when they were in Opposition for so many years. They said there was only one Vietnam. I hope that the Department of Foreign Affairs will verify quickly - I point out that there is a question on notice about this matter - whether there has been any violation by North Vietnam of the Paris peace agreement. I hope that the Australian Government, even though it apparently has some close relationship with the communists, will take appropriate action. We will see what happens when that comes forward. There are so many things about this Government's foreign policy that one can criticise. I could refer to the reply received from Indonesia, a country which for so many years had experienced infiltration by communists, to the suggestion by the Government of this small nation of Australia that there should be some pact within this area which should embrace Communist China. Our Prime Minister received a very quick answer from the appropriate officer in Indonesia. A similar thing happened when the Australian Government tried to influence Thailand to our way of thinking. It would appear to anyone who has viewed the situation that hasty statements were made about our foreign policy which perhaps do not accord with Australia's best interests. In my opinion our new foreign policy is a disaster for the reputation of Australia. It is disastrous that now we should be viewed as a country willing to throw away a very good and strong ally of very many years and quickly embrace a country with which we have not had relationships for a number of years. That will not be respected by our former friends, nor will we gain great reputation with those we now embrace. I sincerely hope that those who guide and direct the policies of this Labour Government will be inclined to moderate their views, if they are able to do so. I hope that they are not directed from outside the Party as has been the situation in past years. I implore them to take notice of the reputation of Australia and to understand what they are doing to this country when statements are made. The other important aspect for Australia following the election of this new Labor Government is the likely effect on our domestic financial policies. It must be acknowledged that there has been a 2.4 per cent or 2.7 per cent swing in the voting pattern in Australia, and this has placed an entirely new class of government in office. We must acknowledge that the people have given a mandate to this Government to carry out a number of determined policies. I hope that the Senate will show great responsibility in granting to the Labor Government the opportunity to carry out those policies for which it did achieve a mandate. I am afraid, however, that there are some things about which the Government is attempting to say that the people gave it a mandate. It will then be the responsibility of the Senate to act wisely and to restrict the Government's proposals. One such very important matter is the electoral system. This is an important matter for my Party, the Country Party, or for any Party which represents mainly the lesser developed areas of Australia. I imagine that my Party would be said to be more representative of the outer metropolitan and rural areas of Australia than it would be said to reflect the views of the inner metropolitan area. I sense that the aim of the Government at this time as revealed in the various Bills that it has introduced, is to ensure that it secures a Labor government in Australia for all time. Some of the proposals put forward by the Minister for Services and Property (Mr Daly) cannot be in the interests of the smaller States. It will be necessary for honourable senators representing States other than Victoria and New South Wales to look very closely at what the situation will be in the House of 'Representatives, the House which is said to reflect the more popular vote of the people of Australia. I hope that they will realise that the Government's claim that it is attempting to bring about what is popularly referred to as one vote, one value is untrue. The Government claims that it is attempting to provide for every person's vote to have the same weight, but the result will be that the domination of the whole Parliament will fall into the hands of New South Wales and Victoria. This is one of the greatest burdens that this Senate will have to shoulder. 490 KUS 0 0 MILLINER, Bertie Senator Milliner Ooh ! Ooh! 490 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER There is a silly senator on the Government side from Queensland buffing away to his friend. I do not doubt that he would be willing to sell out his State in the interests of attempting to gain benefit for the Labor Party throughout Australia. I suggest to him that he shouid consider what the loss will be to Queensland as a result of anyone supporting this principle which attempts to disregard what has existed in Australia since 1902 and to disregard the original electoral laws which were decided on in this place. The Labor Government is seeking to create a new image by breaking up Australia into a series of electorates containing a definite number of electors or constituents, 1 do not know which. That attempt will be made, and that is one of the most important matters with which this Parliament will have to deal. I certainly hope, that that proposal will be rejected in this Senate. This is a States house, and a States house it must remain so far as that issue is concerned. The Australian economy faces two 2 major issues at the present time. It is interesting to note that within 3 months of the Labor Party becoming the Government the unemployment position has improved considerably. That was posed as a very big problem and the Labor Party made great play of it when in opposition. It certainly gained great support in the community. We must congratulate somebody because the unemployment figure now is the lowest for many years. I hope that situation will continue. There are many aspects involved in considering this matter. I have had some experience in the business field and as an employer, and I feel that some shadows are cast on our community so far as the economic viability of business, and hence the employment capacity of business, is concerned. In its desire to bring benefits to the class of people which has been the mainstay of the Labor Party and to which, undoubtedly, it has a parochial interest—the labouring community— the Government must consider that there are bounds within which it can get benefits for employees without forcing an industry to reconsider the number of individuals that it can employ. In a growing society where jobs are required for school leavers and for others who perform menial tasks in the community, we cannot force up in extreme leaps the standard of wages or conditions and apply them to the average worker as this Government intends to do and has attempted to do. I foresee great problems if the Government forces a 35-hour week or 4 weeks annual leave on the community. The Government must consider the percentages that have to be calculated in the total payroll of any business. It is not possible to say that certain benefits must be given and to then demand that prices be held down. Over past years businesses have done remarkably well to put products on the market without great increases in prices. I know that it is good publicity for the Government to put forward that there are enormous increases in prices and that this is the fear of the whole community. I know that there are few Government supporters who have ever had the opportunity or responsibility of providing the payroll for a number of people. Those who have borne that responsibility might well understand the problems associated with providing not only the payroll but also holiday pay and sick leave. There are other things such as the 171 per cent loading on Christmas holiday pay. An industry with which I am connected has to face up to a 35- hour week and a 30 per cent increase in the leave that this Government will grant to an individual receiving a wage of perhaps $100 a week. This is an enormous burden for any small business to bear. It is an enormous burden for big business. No enormous burden is placed on a Federal Government which says that it will grant 4 weeks annual leave. I congratulate those who will benefit by gaining the extra week of leave. 1 should like to see the greatest possible benefits gained for each worker in our community. But I hope that the Government will have some sense and, at the end of a year or two, when it sees unemployment figures rising, it will not say that the maintenance of high employment levels is the responsibility of private industry and that private industry has not expanded its business activities at a rate commensurate with the increase in the number of persons seeking employment. Socialism can result very easily in more men going on to the Government payroll. The additional cost arising from this development ust be borne by others. Private employment is the whole basis of our community life and economy. I ask this Government to introduce into its considerations the base on which our community life is founded. I refer to the smail businessmen and the small employer who must be supported. I see great harm being caused by the general economic policies of this Government. Indeed, perhaps the greatest problem which has arisen for many areas of production in Australia—an d in what is the most important area of production—i s the attitude that has been adopted by this Government to the revaluation of the Australian dollar and to fluctuations in the value of our currency. 491 KTZ 0 0 MCLAREN, Geoffrey Senator McLaren - Does not the honourable senator agree with the Leader of his Party who, when he was addressing a meeting of small farmers 2 years ago, said: 'You have to get big or get out'? Has the honourable senator changed his mind? 491 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER There is only one head in this place that is getting big. I wish at times that its owner would get out, but he does not do so. I make a further comment on the subject of prices. Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia is one of the great Australian companies. I hold no brief for it. It is a large employer of labour. It was founded by an overseas organisation which has been represented in Australia for many years. A company such as ICI should be congratulated on its record in relation to the prices of its products. We should take note of what it has achieved. Anyone who reads the comments of the Chairman of ICI, Sir Archibald Glenn, which were published this week, will note that at page 6 of the printed copy of his address he states in relation to prices: We have been subject to some severe competition in recent years and our selling price index has fallen from 100 to 85 in the past 14 years. In contrast, the Australian retail selling price index rose from 100 to 150 in the same period. In spite of this, the company ha; a record of continuing profitable operation which few can match under some circumstances. I ask honourable senators to note that the price at which this company marketed the products that it manufactured decreased by 15 points. A study of movements in the retail selling price index revealed that prices had risen to 150 points possibly because of factors which were beyond the control of manufacturers. In spite of these fluctuations, this company was able to maintain profitability. I suggest to the Labor Government, with its socialist attitudes, that it should not overlook the need and the requirement for profitability in our manufacturing and producing sectors. If this need is overlooked, the result will be disastrous for Australia. I turn now to the effects of revaluation. My view is that the Australian Government will be forced into taking some action on the value of Australian currency in the not too distant future. The Government was quite bold in taking action initially to revalue the Australian dollar bv 7.05 per cent. That step was particularly bold. It had advantages for some. Indeed, it may have had great advantages for certain men at the head of large companies in the retail industry who, in the course of the last election campaign, came out in support of the Labor Party. But revaluation has brought great disadvantage to manv in manufacturing industry and primary industrv. The circumstances of recent currency movement have been queer. In respect of primary industries, the best prices have been secured on overseas markets with which Australia has dealt for many, many years. This has been particularly so in the case of the largest of our primary industries. No-one who attended recent national rural outlook conferences in his wisdom would have suggested that wool would ever gain the price that it has. I warn the wool industry that it needs to be particularly cautious of those who seek to corner the wool market. If in actual fact the wool market is being cornered and a high price is being gained at present for this product, I point out that the recent great depression suffered by the industry was, in my view, created through a lack of buyers and no competition in the industry. The wool industry should be most cautious. Although wool, which is a great product, has been more than a competitor for its synthetics rivals in recent years—the s has been because of its quality—grea t danger exists in the high prices obtaining at present. The Bank of New South Wales in its wisdom has stated that the revaluation was an overkill. The Bank of New South Wales is probably one of the greatest Australian banking institutions. Any honourable senator who has read its recent report will recall that it stated: ...the dramatic initiative by the newly elected Commonwealth Government in upvaluing the Australian dollar by 7.05 per cent before Christmas was overshadowed by the subsequent 110 per cent devaluation of the United States dollar in mid-February. Together with the earlier Smithsonian adjustment, the Australian dollar now stands 26.5 per cent higher in relation to the United States dollar than in December 1971. No country can afford a 26.7 per cent upvaluation in its currency. I realise the great problems that beset this Government as a result of the enormous fluctuations which are taking place in various world currencies in which we deal. The closest of attention to this problem by the Australian Government is required and a move to bring the Australian dollar into line with the other currencies with which we trade should not be long delayed. The Bank of New South Wales 'Review' went on to say how difficult the situation may be for exporters and others. It also said that manufacturers too will be exposed to severe import competition. The Government must acknowledge the importance of this matter. As a result of Australia's recent revaluation, new imports are entering our markets. Unless action is taken to provide protection to Australian industries, we will see the elimination of various sectors of our manufacturing industry. I say to the Labor Government that this will mean the elimination of jobs in our community. Some unions have instanced already to the Government the need for it to be particularly cautious in allowing into Australia a flood of goods such as those which have entered in the 'rag' trade and footwear trade. It must be wonderful to be a consumer and to be able to buy on the market these products which undercut Australia's own manufacturers. We will be unable to attain the situation where we wiil have a guaranteed minimum of $65 a week and all the great benefits of 4 weeks annual leave, holidays and whatever the retirement benefits may be, without having some consideration for the working conditions of the class of people with whom we are attempting to compete and whose products we are allowing on to the Australian market. We must be very cautious in relation to the import competition which will be applied as far as Australia is concerned. One is very pleased to be able to say that the health of our rural industries requires very little Government attention at the present time. Some of us who are associated with rural industries have been most surprised to hear the statements and attitudes of the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt). He has acknowledged that he comes to this field without great experience. That is not to his discredit. I have great respect for Senator Wriedt and I think he is a very fine person. But detracting from benefits which have been granted to support rural industries will not do the industries any good in relation to the investment which is required. Government support is needed by the labouring section of the community, the mining section and the manufacturing section. It is also needed by primary industry which is the greatest export income producing sector in this community. Primary industry certainly requires the greatest attention which this Government can give. Statements about the rural industries running through a bonanza and not requiring the support they had in the past, show a complete ignorance of the actual position. I hope that in the ensuing months the Minister is able to alert himself to the plight of the rural industries which has existed over many years due to the difficulty of obtaining overseas markets, the great competition which has existed and the lack of ability to obtain a fair and proper return for Australian produced goods. At the present time there is a unique situation on world markets. Whether this is likely to continue is something which the Minister for Overseas Trade (Dr J. F. Cairns) who undoubtedly is involved in our export interests will have to watch closely. If Australia starts to lose any of the benefits of its 50 per cent total export income, certainly this will be disastrous for those who are involved further down 'the line. A number of matters were brought forward in the Governor-General's Speech on which one would wish to speak. But in relation to rural industries I say to the Government: 'Be particularly cautious of what you see happening within your Party'. A Labor honourable senator from Victoria is in the chamber at the present time. I imagine that he is disturbed because the Labour rural conference in Victoria, which represents some 300 branches throughout the State, was able to muster only 21 people. That would be a disaster for any Party, I suggest. But there is reason for this. I say to the Labor Party: 'You are one of the great political parties in Australia. Do not take the proposed action which will deny rural people their proper representation and proper support in the forum of Government assistance. See that you take great interest in rural affairs. It is in my interest and in the Labor Party's interest that you do this'. I suggest that one factor should pull this Government up with a jolt in relation to the various policies which it has stated. I thank the Governor-General for his Speech and for the various aspects which he mentioned. I did not agree with his final statement when he said: My Government presents for your approval the most comprehensive program of legislation in the history of the Australian Parliament. That is a far cry from the facts. Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m. 493 Questions Motion for Disallowance of Rules 493 KBW Tasmania 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - I move: That the amendments of the Matrimonial Causes Rules, as contained in Statutory Rules 1973, No. 8, and made under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959- 1966, be disallowed. The question whether these rules should continue to operate or be disallowed is already overdue for decision. My colleagues and I hoped that the Senate would decide this question today. However, the Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, the author of the rules, has informed us that he is preoccupied today with 2 high national security questions requiring his decision. In deference to that view I, speaking only for myself but after arrangements have been made, will have no objection to the debate being adjourned at the conclusion of my speech on the understanding that the Senate, when it resumes on Tuesday, 27th March, will debate the matter and decide the matter that day. I would add that it may be sensible to interpret the wide range of representation of honourable senators who are associated with me in submitting the motion as indicating some confidence as to the fate of the rules on that date. To prevent dislocation and interruption of the proper administration of the divorce law, the Attorney-General might think it prudent to arrange the repeal of the rules and the submission of acceptable rules in the meantime. Having prefaced my remarks in that way, I now address myself to the substance of the motion. Mr Deputy President, I remind you and, through you, the Senate that the rules as they were previously - what I will call, for shorthand purposes and ease of understanding but without being disrespectful, the rules in existence before the Murphy rules - were brought in after this Federal Parliament had enacted as recently as 1959 a new divorce law giving expression to the view of this Parliament as to the proper provisions of divorce law. The rules that were promulgated to implement the procedures - although I agree that they were a little too verbose and unnecessarily complicated - were forged out by conference and consultation between the Attorney-General of the day and those who had to administer the rules. They therefore represented not one man's point of view as to the appropriate procedural rules but a combined Australian point of view of those experienced in the field. The next point is that the divorce Act itself definitely requires divorce relief to be granted only if it is proved that there has been matrimonial misconduct, such as adultery, cruelty, desertion and other things, or that there are certain breakdown circumstances such as separation for 5 years or insanity. But the basis upon which I have moved this motion - I hope my colleagues will associate themselves with me in this; we share a common purpose but, of course, I do not presume to speak for them - is that it is a cardinal rule of this Senate that it will not permit any Executive or Minister to enact rules that are inconsistent with the Act, either in their direct expression or in provisions which prevent the effective enforcement of the Act. This Senate has established a special role in the supervision of subordinate legislation. One of the cases in which a collision with our principles occurs is where rules are inconsistent with the Act. Another is where rules purport to give expression to a policy that is so substantial in its nature that it should be implemented by an Act of Parliament. Another is that a ministerial abolition of real individual rights by subordinate legislation without access to court supervision will not be permitted. The other principle upon which I state my case - I do so very firmly, for all my misdemeanours - is that the great majority of the Australian people believe that marriage is a fundamental security, not in any spiritual or theoretical sense but in a practical sense. It is a security to the parents and the children of the union. Unless the children can rely upon the proper security of marriage and unless each parent can rely upon a system to enforce the proper obligations of it, the basis of our community is weakened indeed. Any alteration of that situation, of course, is a matter that excites very great interest, even when it becomes a matter for debate on the floor of the chamber on the presentation of a Bill. Certainly the present situation is not to be undermined by a Minister at his desk, during a vacation, simply by putting his signature to a piece of paper, getting a colleague to recommend it, and going out to Government House and publishing it in the 'Gazette'. The relevance of these points is that on the day I gave notice of my motion Senator Murphy took the occasion, with that lack of inhibition which is so characteristic of him, to express his viewpoint. When answering a question asked by my colleague Senator Greenwood on 8th March Senator Murphy said, as reported at page 264 of Hansard: This view- He was referring to Senator Greenwood's view - is that the notion of the guilty husband and the innocent wife is something that belongs with the rest of the 19th century thinking of the honourable senator. In modern days the legislative provision under which a great number of divorces are granted is on the ground of separation. This does not involve any question of guilt. As to the other grounds, the common understanding is that it is absurd to talk about guilt and innocence in this way . . . It is apposite in relation to that remark to quote the views of an expert - they are expressed in language better than mine - who is not inimical to relaxation of divorce safeguards and who contributed a considered commentary to the 'Sydney Morning Herald' on Sth March. I refer to none other than Professor Sackville, Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales. He said: The problem is that the rules - He was referring to the Murphy rules- graft on to a 'fault' system of divorce a series of non-fault' amendments. These amendments are essentially inconsistent with the basic legislative framework established by the . . . Act. Senator Murphywas good enough to enable us to have his thoughts expressed in print. With the impulsiveness that one saw when other Ministers were contending for notoriety in the early days of the new government, one Minister bounded forward out of the flock and butted off these rules irrespective of anything that was in the Act. Apart altogether from any question of proprieties in the preservation of marriage, this Senate is not in the habit of permitting a Minister to undermine Acts of Parliament simply because he may have some individual notion that the Act is old fashioned and that the rules reflect a fault system which he attributes to the 19th century. I want to state, not only in terms which I hope will be interesting to the lawyers but in language that people use, 5 reasons why the rules should be disallowed. Firstly, when the rules abolish the requirements that a petititioner should state for the Court's information matters of collusion and condonation they are really contrary to the Act, because the Act specifically and clearly makes collusion and condonation absolute bars to divorce. No Court which ignored the provisions of the Act to that effect would be worth its salt, however vehemently Senator Murphy may think inquiry into them is not warranted. When he makes rules which absolve a petitioner from stating for the information of the Court whether or not there has been collusion or condonation, he is contributing to an embarrassment to the Court's judgment that really blocks the Court's performance of this duty. Secondly, when the rules abolish the provision that a petitioner should disclose adultery or cruelty or wilful desertion by the petitioner, he prevents the Court from having knowledge of something which, by the Act, the Court is required to take into consideration. If found to exist, the Court is bound to give its discretionary consideration to it and to decide whether in all the circumstances of the case, notwithstanding adultery, cruelty, or wilful desertion by the petitioner himself, the divorce should be granted. Any Court invested with that discretionary authority which proceeded as though it did not exist would be deserting its judicial duty. Senator Murphy makes great play of the fact that he has abolished what has come to be called the confession statement, in the interests of what he calls the dignity of man. I point out that the courts for a long time have permitted a petitioner, who is under an obligation of candour to the court as to any misdemeanour that may affect him matrimonially, to disclose adultery by putting it in a confession statement in a sealed envelope which is brought to the consideration of the judge but without mention in the court and without questioning by counsel. It follows from several judicial statements that have been made by judges that, if that procedure is denied to a petitioner, nonetheless the courts will not be relieved when they know from the petition that the petitioner asks them to exercise their discretion in his favour. This mere abolition of a confession statement has been said by the judges not to relieve them of the obligation to consider whether ornot the fact is proved, as the Chief Justice of South Australia, Dr Bray, said in February of this year. His Honor said: Despite the new rule about discretion statements, the allegation in the petition that the petitioner has committed adultery, or seeks the discretion of the court, notifies me of that fact and it is still my duty under Section 41 of the Act to inquire into the matter and see whether I should exercise my discretion or not. In such cases it will be for counsel to decide how the necessary information is to be put before me and I will not refuse to receive it in the form of a confession statement if that is desired. But other judges have said: 'I, having no longer a statement which can be called discreet, will be impelled by my duty to inquire into these undignified issues in open Court by embarrassing questions to the petitioner in the presence of whoever may be there'. The third proposition comes nearer home. One of the great things, one of the real improvements introduced by the Federal Act in 1959, was a provision that a decree for divorce should not be made absolute unless arrangements for the maintenance and custody of children were approved by the Court and the Court was satisfied of them. The Provision now makes it optional as to whether the petitioner, before the decree, should disclose the arrangements as to custody and maintenance of the children. I distinguish entirely for the purposes of my argument questions of property and maintenance of other people. But if the Court is to be disembarrassed by being left in ignorance about custody and maintenance of the children, it will be prevented from or handicapped in performing one of the supreme duties under the Act - that is, to be satisfield before dissolving the marriage that the arrangements as to the custody or maintenance of the children are proper. Fourthly, 1 doubt whether it is fully realised that the occasion was taken in framing these rules to promulgate a rule that in divorce proceedings no Court fees should be payable. In every jurisdiction of Australian Courts, even in petty sessions and bankruptcy jurisdiction - it has been the universal practice for Court fees to be payable as some contribution by litigants to the cost of the administration of justice. It has been reliably stated that in New South Wales alone the cost to the State Government of administering the divorce jurisdiction is $500,000 a year. Also, it has been reliably stated that the fees col lected in that State amount to $300,000 a year. Yet, we are seriously confronted with amendments to the Matrimonial Causes Rules from a Minister at his desk in Canberra that state that no court fees shall be payable thereby depriving the States of reimbursement of costs to which they are exposed by the exercise of this jurisdiction. Finally, for the purpose of my substantial statement of objection, I come to what is called 'legal costs'. Somebody in the Press gallery will say: 'Ah! Here are the rackets. We set black type for this.' Oh, I do sigh for perspective, proportion and understanding when it comes to the wages earned by doctors or lawyers. I for my part - I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues - would oppose to the nth degree a client or that client's adversary being exposed to excessive demands for professional fees. But ever since this jursidiction has operated the fees of every legal practitioner have been capable of being presented to the taxing master for assessment to see whether they were reasonable and justified in every detail. For Senator Murphy's benefit, I state that in 4 compartments or in 40 items of one bill the taxing master is unrestricted as to the detail to which he shall submit the legal fees. I mention that situation because it has prevailed in the legal profession for 100 years, in contrast to the position of medical men who have never had to submit to such a system. That situation, of course, is contemporarily a matter of great contention. I am not interested, except by way of preface, to state the situation to which I have referred because the part of this rule as to legal costs is one that I think should be headlined for our consideration for a week. We have this bland statement that no party to an undefended matrimonial cause shall be ordered to pay the costs of any other party in the cause. It is easy to slip into the idea of discussing this matter from the point of view of poverty-stricken people. This rule of Senator Murphy's applies to every grade of litigant in the matrimonial causes jurisdiction. It should be considered not in the terms of hardship but of justice. If 2 spouses each have property valued at $30,000 and the husband commits adultery and the wife is put to the cost of getting a divorce from him, in the name of God and justice, what principle, except arrogant irrationality, deprives the wife, the petitioner, of the right to recover the cost of that legal process against the husband who has committed adultery? Take the case, not of people owning property the value of which runs into thousands of dollars but of a husband and wife, wage earners, each with an income of $50 a week. The wife yields to a man who has an income of $10,000 a year. The husband proceeds with a divorce action. Today he would get his costs from the co-respondent. Senator Murphy would have the co-respondent go free. Why? Just because they were caught in circumstances in which no defence was available to deny the misdemeanour. It gives us an insight into the mind of the draftsman of these rules when we find that after providing that these things should occur, it is stated: . the Registrar shall bring to the attention of the Attorney-General any case of hardship. Is it thought that we would be bemused by the idea that the hoo-doo - the grace and favour - of a Minister is a sufficient substitute for a court's judgment as to whether costs should be payable? Ever since I have been a member of the Senate we have fought against the principle that a Minister should be the person to make a judgment as to individual rights. For the Attorney-General to use the excuse that he is the protector of victims of hardship is as bad as saying that corespondents should go free of the obligation to pay costs just because the case against them is so clear that it is undefended. There are, in addition to these matters, many technical objections to the rules, both from the legal and constitutional point of view. But I submit that I have advanced sufficient to make it imperative in the judgment of the Senate to disallow the rules. I offer 2 further comments. The disallowance of the rules will create some confusion, but the longer they are allowed to remain, the more the confusion will increase. The needless questions of legal doubt that will arise if the impetuous draftsmanship of these regulations is permitted to remain operative will create great cost, indecision and the injustice of untoward decisions. Finally, I say that the disallowance in no sense implies opposition to reasonable and well considered reform. Therefore, I ask the Senate to disallow Senator Murphy's amendments. Debate (on motion by Senator O'Byrne) adjourned. 496 Questions 496 KUD Victoria 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS - Notice of this motion was given by Senator Gair,but he has commissioned me as the spokesman on foreign affairs and defence for the Australian Democratic Labor Party to present the motion to the Senate. Therefore, I move: That the Senate condemns the announced proposal of the Government to withdraw Australian military units from Singapore. Such withdrawal will threaten the continued presence of Britain in South East Asia, imperil Australia's friendship with Malaysia and Singapore and destroy the confidence of Indonesia in Australia's interest in that country's security and integrity; ultimately it will imperil the prospects of a continued American presence in the region. These consequences pose a major threat to Australia's security in the uncertain decade which lies before this country. That, furthermore, the Senate condemns the acknowledgement by the Deputy Prime Minister that the policy of the Federal Government on this vital security question will be determined by, a body not responsible to the Federal Parliament - the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party. That the Senate unequivocally supports the retention of Australian defence units in Singapore. May I say for clarification purposes that when we refer to the announced proposal of the Government to withdraw Australian military units from Singapore, we refer principally to the decision to withdraw the battalion of fighting troops. Whether the other troops which are said to be engaged, by some in logistic work, and by others in espionage or similar work, are to be withdrawn, appears to be a matter of some doubt at the present time. There are strong divisions of opinion in the Government party on this question, and it appears from a statement of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Barnard) that the Labor Party proposes to allow the question to be resolved by the Federal Conference of the party at a later date. I believe that the Senate must debate this question because it is a matter which strongly affects our security. We must also determine where we stand because of the strongly differing opinions not only as between the Government and the Opposition but also in the ranks of the Government which, on this issue, appears to be divided into 2 warring sections. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and Mr Barnard, whilst saying that they will adhere to a promise given prior to the election that the Australian troops would be withdrawn, are interpreting that as suggesting that it is still legitimate for them, within the terms of their promise, to leave a number of troops, variously stated to be perhaps 600 or 700, in Singapore after the departure of the battalion. Then in opposition to that we have the strong statement by Mr Hartley and the Victorian socialist Left which is extremely powerful in that State. We have the strong statements by Mr Hartley and Mr Crawford who are members of the Australian Labor Party Federal Executive, to the effect that in their view the party is committed to the withdrawal of all troops from Singapore. We have the statement by Mr Barnard that while the matter is in doubt at the moment and he feels that the troops ought to be left there, if he is told by the Federal Conference to take them away he will obey its instructions. Therefore, 1 believe that in this position of uncertainty it is the duty of the Senate to express an opinion. Why are the Australian troops there? They are there, we are informed, as part of a Commonwealth force which contains British, Australian and New Zealand troops. They are there with the willing consent of the Government of Singapore which, as the body which provides housing and shelter for the troops, is most intimately concerned. We have this statement by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who some years ago was highly regarded by members of the Australian Labor Party, and is still highly regarded by large numbers of them and highly disregarded by others: I am quite happy with the modest forces of British, Australian and New Zealanders that we have in Singapore. They are effective for the purposes of maintaining stability in a relatively tranquil area behind Vietnam. It is interesting that Mr Lee Kuan Yew went on to say that he had no objection to the presence of Australian troops with their British and New Zealand comrades but he. would have every objection to the presence of Russian or United States troops in Singapore. He expressly stated that the reason why he approves of their presence is that he believes they are a stabilising factor in a very difficult area; he believes that they are a safeguard. Therefore, the position is that our troops are not in Singapore as part of some imperialistic process; they are there by invitation. They are regarded not only by Singapore but also by Malaysia and Indonesia - all of which would have been concerned if they objected to the presence of these troops - as a stabilising force and as a protection against the prospect of guerrilla subversion. 497 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator Mulvihill D o you say that Malaysia supports that, Senator? 496 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS Malaysi a stated originally that it supported it but, because of certain pressures, it has watered its point of view to a degree, and the most recent statement was to the effect that Malaysia was not particularly for or against. But it has stated no objection. I think that Senator Mulvihill will agree with me on that. So the position is that the countries most intimately concerned have no objection to the presence of Australian troops, and any suggestion that we are acting from the point of view of imperialism or colonialism is completely repudiated by the leaders of the countries in that area. The next thing that these countries say is that they believe that the presence of troops from what they regard as trustworthy countries like Britain, Australia and New Zealand is protection against the possibihty of being leaned on by great powers, and they name the Soviet Union and the United States. They also point out, as the leaders of our country have pointed out, that the presence of our troops there is a factor in a 5-power agreement— a kind of collective security agreement designed to ensure that this area, which so far is an example to the rest of Asia from the point of view of stability, remains an area where stability reigns. Therefore, our troops are in this area because they are wanted and because they are a factor against subversion and they are there as part of a treaty for the purpose of maintaining stability to which Britain and New Zealand have adhered. Their presence in this area enables the countries concerned to turn a deaf ear to the propositions which have been made to them, particularly by the Soviet Union, for a Soviet sponsored collective security organisation in that area. It enables these countries, too, to feel a sense of security against the prospect of being leaned on by Peking China. Our troops are in this area in circumstances where Indonesia, a country to whose views we must pay particular regard, adopts a benevolent attitude towards their presence and obviously feels that their being in the area is a factor for stability and therefore a factor for peace. Undoubtedly, these countries do not envisage that the troops will stay there permanently. They have stated that they all look forward to a period when their area may be constituted an area of neutrality. But pending the achievement of such a desirable circumstance, these countries say that they desire or do not object to the presence in the area of our troops. Having examined the situation in the light of their pre-election promise, Mr Whitlam and Mr Barnard have stated that while they intend to bring home the battalion of troops, they feel that it is in the interest of Australia to leave a number of troops—the number is uncertain, it could be 600 or 700—wh o are engaged, according to some in logistic work, and according to others in work of an espionage or communications nature. But at any rate, they feel that the troops should be there, Great Britain feels that the troops should be there, and New Zealand feels that the troops should be there. But New Zealand already indicated that if Australia goes, its troops will be removed also. They may have been removed already because there were suggestions that New Zealand intended to take action in any case. If we take our troops away the situation will be that Great Britain and New Zealand will feel called upon to revise their attitude, and I believe that would be bad for the stability of the area and bad for Australia. I would point out that whilst some people have expressed doubts as to whether the troops should stay there on the ground that there is a possibility of racial or other internal conflicts in the area of Singapore or Malaysia, the Australian Government has made it clear that its troops are not to be involved in conflicts of such a character. That has been made perfectly clear and it is understood by the countries involved in the area. I also believe that in those circumstances Australia ought to reconsider its decision. I would like to see the Government make a decision that it will leave the battalion troops there for at least a term of years to be agreed on with the countries in the area. At the very least I hope that Mr Barnard and Mr Whitlam will not succumb to the obvious threats being levelled at them from inside their own Party. I hope that they will say that they believe this to be a matter of security on which they, as the people who have the most knowledge, are entitled to judge and that they will stand firm on this question. As I said in another debate, this is one more of the occasions when a government realises the difference between the irresponsibility it can practice in opposition and the responsibility it has to adopt when it becomes a government. I want to say before I traverse in another direction that I am a believer that Mr Lee Kuan Yew is undoubtedly the most intelligent Asian leader at the present time and I am a believer that his policies, particularly in regard to South East Asia, are the kind of policies that we in Australia should support. At least it can be said that he has a foreign policy. 1 have heard doubts expressed as to whether governments of both characters in this country in recent years have had foreign policies. However, he has a foreign policy and I think it is desirable to spell it out. Firstly, he disagrees with those who say that the Americans should be excluded from Asia. He believes in some American presence in South East Asia and, of course, that is why he is the object of attack by Mr Hartley and the socialist Left. Secondly, he wants everything that that connotes and, in particular, he has supported the presence in his country of effective means of monitoring communications and certain types of weapons in Singapore itself. One of the most laughable statements that has ever been made was made when people suggested that the monitoring organisation in Singapore could have been there without the knowledge of the Singapore Government. Anybody who knows the situation would know that anything that happens in Singapore is firmly and strongly under Lee Kuan Yew's control. The third item in his foreign policy is that within the framework of his other over-riding objective he wants an Australian presence, because he believes that an Australian presence helps to keep a British presence in Singapore and while there is a British, Australian and New Zealand presence in Singapore he believes that there are possibilities that the United States will stay in the area of South East Asia. That at least is a foreign policy and he is carrying it out at the present time with success. We must appreciate, however, the difficulties which face both Mr Whitlam and Mr Barnard within their Party. In one of those leaks, to which we have become accustomed over 15 years, from the caucus of the Australian Labor Party where all the members are pledged as honourable men to secrecy, we were informed that an effort had been made to take action on this matter and it was only narrowly defeated, not so much on the numbers as on the lack of the required constitutional number for the purpose of having the matter discussed. To me it is a remarkable situation that in times and circumstances such as these, more than half the Party should disagree with its Leader on a matter of this nature. I wouid say that it reflects not so much the true feeling of many members of the Party; it reflects the degree to which they feel called upon to obey the dictates of the leftist section which, in my view, does not possess anywhere near the power it attempts to arrogate to itself but which, in a period of standoverism lasting a number of years has acquired a kind of dominance over the minds of many members of the Australian Labor Party who secretly disagree with it but are afraid to stand up and be counted on issues like this. We have heard it said by Mr Barnard that he will accept the opinion of the federal conference. One then arrives at a dilemma which has hag-ridden Labor leaders over the years. This was fought out in Great Britain some years ago when the socialist Left in the British Labour Party by intensive organisation at a conference got a narrow majority which called upon the British Labour Party to accept unilateral nuclear disarmament. The Leader at the time, Mr Gaitskell, said that such a policy would be fatal to the interests of Great Britain. He did not say to them: 'You have made this decision and I will accept it'. He said: '1 will fight this and I will beat it'. And he did fight it. He organised and put his case for the Labour Party at the next conference and that conference made a decision which ought to apply to Labor parties in other countries. The conference said that it was for the conference of the Party to determine and recommend policies but it must be left to the parliamentary party and the leaders to determine the appropriate circumstances in which to implement policies. In Great Britain, despite the strong differences between Right and Left, that is the principle on which they have operated ever since. The Australian Labor Party has suffered because since the split in the Party the Federal Executive and conference have arrogated to themselves powers of day to day supervision which were never envisaged by the pioneers and founders of the Party, and certainly did not exist until the split. I can remember in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s tbat few people would ever have heard the names of the president, the secretary and the controllers of the Party machine. The people who obviously dominated the Labor political scene and made the decisions were those elected by the people, the parliamentarians. However, since the split in the Labor movement the machine has adopted the attitude that it has a right of day to day control of the Party and there are sections of the Party saying to the leaders, to Mr Whitlam and Mr Barnard, who have examined a situation and determined that it is in the interests of this country, that they will roll them at the federal conference, that they propose to make the decisions for the Party, not those who were elected by the people on 2nd December. I hope that Mr Whitlam and Mr Barnard will adopt the same strong attitude as that adopted by Mr Gaitskell and which the British Labour Party confirmed. 1 believe, as was said in Britain, that the Conference has the right to lay down the guidelines for policy but that in the long run the decisions have to be made by the people who were told by the electors: 'We are putting our confidence in you and it is for you to make the decisions—no t people outside the Parliament'. It would be in the interests of the Labor Party if that were done, because one of the things that has told against it over the years lias been the gibe that it was dominated by faceless 'Tien. On the day that it is shown that the parliamentarians in the AustraJian Labor Party are the men wbo are making the decisions- 499 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator Mulvihill - How did we win the election on 2nd December? 499 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS Th e Australian Labor Party won the election on 2nd December because- 499 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator Poyser - The National Civic Council is your secret base. 499 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS I do not think Senator Poyser should mention the National Civic Council because I feel that by doing so he will embarrass a considerable number of members of his Party who were once members of it and who sit in the Labor Caucus— who even sit in the Cabinet. 499 KUS 0 0 MILLINER, Bertie Senator Milliner - Name them. 499 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS I am not a pimp. I am not a dobber-in. But I do not think Senator Poyser should mention the National Civic Council because it could be very embarrassing to them. Only the other day I saw in the 'Canberra Times' a photograph of a union leader from Queensland in North Viatnam kissing the head of the North Vitnamese Government and giving him a $25,000 cheque. Not so many years ago that gentleman was the President of the National Civic Council in Queensland. Therefore, Senator Poyser, should not embarrass the gentlemen who were associated with the organisation he mentioned. I think he ought to leave me alone when 1 am on the job. I wish to point out to honourable senators opposite that they are very unwise to interject when I am speaking on such matters as this because I know where the bodies are buried. I conclude by saying that it is instructive to look at the series of decisions that have been made by the Australian Labor Party during the 3 months in which it has been in office. What has the Government done up to date? It has accepted Peking's terms and conditions— term s and conditions which were not imposed on Japan or Canada—an d recognised China. It has agreed to withdraw from Vietnam even the advisory troops which were there only to assist and advise. Even the humanitarian teams which were there from Australia have been withdrawn on the instructions of the Government. The medical teams in Bien Hoa, which have done such a wonderful job assisting the ordinary Vietnamese people, have been ordered to come home. They are not allowed to stay there to minister to the victims of the Vietnam war. 500 K8Y IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970 0 0 TURNBULL, Reginald Senator TURNBULL - Who made them the victims? 499 KUD 0 0 MCMANUS, Francis Senator McMANUS The Government has abandoned similar forms of assistance to Cambodia. It has abandoned also the provision of humanitarian assistance to Cambodia. We have downgraded SEATO with the intention of abandoning it completely at the earliest possible moment. We have made bitter attacks on the United States of America; we have insulted France; and we have launched attacks upon a number of other countries. We have also abolished national service and, according to a statement by Professor O'Neill of the Australian National University, left the Australian Army in chaos. We have ended the provision of a program of naval instruction. I regret that Senator Turnbull should have interjected earlier. I have been informed that he went on television tonight and adopted a holier than thou attitude and said that the senators who interjected and performed last night had acted in a scandalous way. He said that in his opinion the senators were under the influence of drink. If Senator Turnbull feels that way about it, the least he can do is set an example by conducting himself in an orderly fashion. I conclude by saying that I hope that the parliamentarians in the Australian Labor Party will get behind Mr Whitlam and Mr Barnard and agree with them that there shall be at least some Australian presence in that area. I hope they will be true to the promises they made to the people when they said that they would worthily represent those who voted for them. I hope that they will not instead indicate that they take their instructions from a body outside the parliamentary Labor Party. 500 K1Y South Australia ALP Minister for Repatriation and Minister assisting the Minister for Defence 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP - I think "that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy in the proposition that Senator McManus has put forward tonight. This is the second occasion in a debate on bases and the troops in Singapore that he has told us about the constructive role that is being played by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Barnard) and applauded that role. Senator McManus has asked us to ensure that members of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party get behind Mr Whitlam and Mr Barnard and see that their moderate attitude is supported. 500 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little Yo u will have a job. You will not get behind them because they have their backs to the wall. 500 K1Y ALP 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP Her e we go again. Honourable senators opposite will not listen to what we on this side of the chamber have to say. While doing that, Senator McManus proposed and supported a proposition initially put forward by his Leader, Senator Gair, which, among other things, states: . . . furthermore, the Senate condemns that the policy of the Federal Government on this vital security question will be determined by a body not responsible to the Federal Parliament—the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party. On the one hand he says, 'Barnard is a great bloke. He can be relied upon. He is sincere and honest', and on the other he says, 'Barnard is also no good'. He says that the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party has acted as a determinant of the policies of the Government. That is hypocritical to me. If Senator McManus wants to introduce into this Parliament the idea that he supports a certain group within the Labor Party he should come out cleanly and say so. He should also give his reasons. But he should not introduce this sort of hypocrisy into the proceedings. Senator Gair's motion includes the following: That the Senate unequivocally supports the retention of Australian defence units ia Singapore. Senator McManus does not say: 'Look, we ought to rely upon our advisers'. He says that 'they' say tbis and 'they' say that and Lee Kuan Yew says this and the Malaysians say that, but there is no informed opinion behind his arguments. Instead he says that the Labor Government has made a lot of mistakes. He refers to the mistakes, as he sees them, in our quick recognition of communist China. The honourable senator talks about our getting out of Vietnam and then refuses to recognise that in all these moves the United States Government has been a party to what has happened and has agreed with the decisions that have been made. The honourable senator will not accept that position, yet everybody knows that an arrangement has been made in Vietnam between President Nixon and Dr Kissinger of the United States of America and Chou En-lai and Hanoi in relation to the Vietnam position. That is evident to everybody who reads a newspaper even if he does not study the matter in depth. Dr Kissinger for many months—i n fact almost years—ha s been doing the communication rounds in establishing what has now become a peace in Vietnam. Senator McManus tried to twist the facts to show that the Australian Government has failed to defend the South Vietnamese. He then tried to say that it would be all right if we supported the Americans. There has been a realistic trend on the part of the United States Government jn trying to estabJisb peace in Vietnam. The Australian Government has gone along with the United States Government on this matter. The Australian Government wants to see that the peace treaty works and, like President Nixon and Dr Kissinger, it has said that as soon as peace is perfect and established Australia will help to reconstruct both North Vietnam and South Vietnam. That is the practical reality of politics and foreign affairs throughout the world. The DLP does not see it that way because it still wants to fight the wars of yesteryear. As was mentioned yesterday, members of the DLP are still looking at the old struggles of the Spanish War and have forgotten that the Spanish Government now recognises East Germany and that Willy Brandt has become the saviour of Europe by making an arrangement to enable East Germany and West Germany to meet. Willy Brandt is the most outstanding politician in the world. Willy Brandt is a Labor man— a social democrat. He is the leader of a Party like the Labor Party and is the equivalent of Mr Whitlam in Australia. Willy Brandt has achieved in Europe the things which Mr Whitlam is trying to do here. We have the same outlook. The ALP has an Australian outlook. Having an Australian outlook we support the Prime Minister, and as members of the parliamentary Labor Party we will decide parliamentary tactics and we, with the help of our advisers in the fields of defence and foreign affairs will make the decisions. If Senator McManus believes that this is a good outlook to have, surely he would say that Mr Barnard is a good man. He should not then bring in the last stroke of the dagger by saying that the Labor Party will fail because it depends on the Federal Conference. Senator McManus and Opposition senators are trying to be divisive and to separate within the Labor Party people who have different shades of opinion. The Labor Party has always been a Party in which there have been different shades of opinion. When Senator McManus was a member of the Labor Party there were within the Party differences of political thought on domestic and foreign issues. That situation has not changed and it will never change because the ALP is a concensus party. The Australian Labor Party is like some of the political parties of Europe. It has taken its traditions from the British Labor movement and from the social democrat parties. Surely relationships between the Australian Labor Party and Lee Kuan Yew, who is a social democrat and a member of the Socialist International, are better than relations would be between the ALP and the DLP. Our relationships with Willy Brandt are better than our relationships with the DLP. We believe in an Australian outlook. For this reason, and having in mind that we in Australia should have a capacity to run our own country, a defence capacity and competence, the ALP has studied the position and considered to what extent our forces which are now overseas should be stationed within Australia or outside Australia. The Government, not only on its own account but also acting on expert advice, has decided that Australian troops in Singapore should be withdrawn. Senator Jessop is trying to say something. What is he talking about? He would not even know the area. I doubt that he knows what he is talking about when he mentions the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I remind the Senate of what I said earlier—tha t we have an Australian outlook. I am glad that Senator McManus has spoken about former leaders of the Labor Party. Is the tradition of the Labor Party any different now from what it was in the days when Curtin and Chifley ran the Labor Party? It is not. The Australian Labor Party is just as strongly Australian as it was then. In those days, as honourable senators will be aware, it was Curtin who decided to jack up on Churchill and the British Government, and both Chifley and Curtin said that an Australian competence had to be applied in running Australia. 502 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little - It was Chifley who put troops into the coal mines. 502 K1Y ALP 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP The honourable senator is trying to divert the argument. 502 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little - No, I am just putting in what you are leaving out. 502 K1Y ALP 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP In those earlier years Labor Prime Ministers always approached things from an Australia standpoint. We now have a Labor Government again and that Government has taken over the control of the Australian nation. The Government will run the country on Australian lines. Senator McManus has talked about day to day control as though Mick Young was breathing down the Prime Minister's neck. I ask anyone who knows those individuals: Is it more likely that Mick Young would be able to influence Mr Whitlam than the DLP would? 502 KRU 0 0 LITTLE, John Senator Little - What was he doing flying in the VIP aircraft with Whitlam? The Minister cannot see anything wrong with that, apparently. 502 K1Y ALP 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP But apparently Senator Little can. Are honourable senators aware of the influences which split the Australian Labor Party and which are now breathing down the neck of the DLP? Of course they are. We are all aware that some honourable senators opposite accept that these influences exist. Last night many Liberal members of the Opposition were surprised and disappointed at the action that was taken. Despite the coalition of groups that make up the Opposition, some honourable senators opposite were disappointed and did not want to follow the DLP which, I am glad to say, was defeated. I have mentioned that the ALP is a democratic party. In our Party there are shades of opinion, as everybody knows and accepts. I do not disguise the fact that there are these shades of difference. But there is no day to day control. Already we have heard statements by the Prime Minister on the subject, and both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Barnard) have been applauded by Senator McManus. We have a situation in which the honourable senator is saying that the Labor Government has two fine leaders whose policies are good, but in which he then goes on to ask whether we can trust the Labor Government to run the country. I suggest that the evidence is quite clear. The Prime Minister is in control in this country. There is no suggestion or possibility that somebody other than the Federal Labor Party will run this Government. Because the Labor Party is a democratic party, if a Federal Conference establishes a policy the Government must be guided to some extent by that policy and it will take note of it. But on no account would the government of the country be delegated to outside bodies. The honourable senator should know that because of what has happened already. What is the approach by members of the DLP in this situation? They rely on so-called Press leaks. They say that there are reports in the newspapers that the Labor Party Caucus wants to talk about foreign bases in Australia or the troops in Singapore. Why should the Caucus not want to talk about these things? Labor's policy on these subjects is well established and well known. The Government has come into this chamber and the other place and has stated its policy, and members of the ALP have supported their leaders in those policies. I suggest that what the DLP is doing is nothing more than hypocrisy. It is trying to increase whatever tensions it sees within the Labor Party. Of course the DLP will not support the Labor Party. Whatever members of the DLP say about the goodness of Chifley and Curtin, who are now dead, at the first opportunity they will make an arrangement with the Country Party or Liberal Party to undo the work that we have done. 503 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator Poyser - The DLP is leading the Liberal Party by the nose. 502 K1Y ALP 1 0 BISHOP, Reginald Senator BISHOP Unti l now the Liberal Party has been closely following whatever the DLP has proposed, but I suggest after last night that many members of the Liberal Party do not agree with what has been done. I hope that those members will consider seriously the sorts of associations that they have had with the DLP. In moving this motion Senator McManus' motives were not the best or the most constructive. He and other members of his Party are not concerned about defence. Rather, they are concerned about how they can attack the Labor Government. After all, the Labor Party has been elected as the Australian Government. The Opposition, and groups in the Opposition, small or large, ought to give the Labor Government a go and ought to support its policies where they are clear and identifiable. The motion, as I have pointed out, does not deal with the realities of the situation. Rather it implies that the whole security of Australia depends on our having a section of a battalion or a regiment. The charges that Senator McManus made about the differences between Australia and Britain and America are false. Our relationships with the United States of America and Great Britain are good. The British, of course, are well established in diplomacy. I do not think that anybody could outdate the British in assessing political situations and the British are with Australians in all the things that we want to do. If the Australian Government says that it wants to shift the entire battalion from Singapore, the British and the Americans will go along with us. We know that in order to assist other countries it is better to have efficiency and competence within this country where we have a great backup of industry and skills and an excellently trained army. What Senator McManus said about the Australian forces is not true. The Australian defence forces today are better than they have ever been. Of course, we rejected national service because it was the thing which divided the Australian population. As I have stated in answers to questions in this Parliament, one-third of our national servicemen have now decided to remain within the Army. Our recruitment to the Australian Army is satisfactory. We have taken initiatives in relation to the Air Force and the Army, and we have retained our shipbuilding competence for our defence. Our shipbuilding industry was running down under the old Government. Everybody knows that at the end of the year Australian shipyards building ships for the Navy for defence purposes did not have a job and many men were threatened with unemployment. As soon as we came to power Mr Barnard, the Minister for Defence, quickly said that there should be no retrenchment and asked the defence organisations to set up jobs for these people quickly. Our record in the aircraft industry is clear. We have sent a mission overseas to make arrangements to get a replacement for the Mirage, and we have told Australian aircraft manufacturers to get together and present a report to us by June. We have done this to ensure that the competence we have in this country is organised. For 20 years many people who are not Labor Party supporters have pointed to the failure of the old Government in letting this competence disappear. This is well known to everybody. Therefore why does Senator McManus say that the Australian Government has not discharged its policies relating to our defence capacity? Apart from all the things I have spoken about already, there is no question that there is a better spirit in the Australian Services today because of what we have done. We have increased the pay of servicemen. We will spend $63m on updating pay rates in all the Services. The proposals in the report on the defence forces retirement benefits scheme which was rejected by the McMahon Government will soon come into effect. In addition, we have set out a program under which consideration will be given to the extent to which accommodation and standards within the Services ought to be improved. The Government proposes also to appoint an ombudsman within the Services. AH these are practical things. They are ihings that can be considered and can be dealt with. The motion deals narrowly with Australian military units in Singapore. It does not deal with the total Australian contribution to ANZUK. It certainly ignores the total canvas of Australian policies. It ignores background and foreground and focuses on some minor military particle of the arrangements. We believe that there is a co-operative need, and we are pledged to meet that co-operative need under this arrangement. I want to quote what the Prime Minister said in this regard. He said: Pending neutralisation, we will honour the full terras of the 'Five Power Arrangements under which Auslralia agrees to provide Malaysia and Singapore with personnel, facilities and courses for training their forces and assistance in operational and technical matters and the supply of equipment. . . . The Five Power Arrangements do not require an Austrahan garrison in Singapore; the battalion and battery there will not be replaced when they complete their tour of duty. That platform was put to the people and we have a mandate to carry it out. May I remind honourable senators opposite that the former Government did not accept that there ought to be a permanent establishment in Singapore. Rather it considered it as a temporary arrangement. This Government is saying that within Australia there will be a defence competence and, as required, there will be arrangements for training Australian forces and those of our neighbours who have friendly relations with us and who, in this area, are developing new points of view. Those of us who read the newspapers and follow foreign affairs know well that the ideas of Malaysia about Butterworth, and the ideas of Lee Kuan Yew about the old need to establish British and Australian forces in Singapore, are changing. If countries believe that they have a neighbour like Australia which is competent and can be relied on to help train their own troops, and can be relied upon for support if there is ever a need for it, they will seek our co-operation. The Prime Minister has stated clearly that that is what we intend to do. In my opinion the present arrangements are satisfactory. The time is quickly approaching when Australia will withdraw all of its troops and this action will not be considered by the British or the Americans as a mistake or as a deterrent to them. Rather will it be a new arrangement based on the new concept of Australia having regard for its new national identity. There is no requirement for an Australian garrison or ground combat troops to be stationed forever in Singapore. This Government says that that should not be whereas the previous Government maintained that they should be there for some time. The forms of co-operation in which we intend to engage, and in which we are obliged to engage, are those set out in Annex 1 of our bilateral international agreement with Singapore. I intend to read that Annex to the Senate. It is headed 'Assistance by Australia to the Singapore Armed Forces'. The terms agreed to require Australia to provide certain things. The Annex states: The Government of Australia shall provide as may be agreed between the Government of Singapore and the Government of Australia and on such terms, including terms as to payment, as may be agreed: (a) personnel to assist in the staffing, administration and training of the Singapore Armed Forces; (b) facilities, including instructional courses abroad, for training members of the Singapore Armed Forces; (c) expert advice and assistance in operational and technical matters; (d) use of facilities for the purposes of this Note; and (e) assistance in the supply of equipment for the Singapore Armed Forces. We will assist in those matters. Senator McManus raised the question of the Australian battalion and battery and said that these comprise a ground combat force designed to provide ground combat capability. But we have to ask this question: Against whom will they be used? There is no identifiable force opposed at present to the country. Our relationships with other countries are good. As I said earlier, I suggest that our relationships, as a government formed by a social democratic Labor Party and headed by the present Prime Minister, are better than the relationships of the Liberal-Country Party coalition because all our members belong to the same Party. Of course there must be a better understanding. I remind the Senate that recently the Prime Minister of Australia visited New Zealand. Everybody knows the public reaction to that visit. There is perfect understanding between the Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Prime Minister of Australia. Only tonight we have had a dinner on the occasion of one of the first visits to Australia by a Labor Minister. He is the Labor Minister for Immigration from New Zealand. We expect that our relations with New Zealand will be better than they were under the last Government. What can we expect in relation to the British presence or the United States presence and their interests? I think it is stupid to say, as Senator McManus said, that because the conflict in Vietnam has closed down and because we have stopped national service we have failed to assist our friends. We are standing. It is not written and it is not known well explained, the Americans, the Russians and the Chinese obviously have an understanding. It is not written and it is not know but we know that the understanding is there. We know that for many years the Soviet Union and the United States have had an understanding about Europe. There has been a detente in relation to Germany. That understanding has been a good thing for the world. I suggest that in relation to South East Asia there are these unwritten understandings, so We have to give them a try. We are saying in relation to South East Asia generally that what we propose to do is not inconsistent with what the Americans or the British want to do. Rather we are clarifying in a more positive way what Australia might have wanted to do under a coalition government. We make no excuses for that. We are an Australian party. We are the biggest party in Australia. We certainly have a policy. We are not dictated to. A policy is made by the peopie who comprise the Labor Party. The Prime Minister has clearly stated on the mandate which he has been given by the people what our policies are. In relation to South East Asia and Singapore we expect that when we withdraw the troops our relationships with our neighbours will be no worse. They will be better because our neighbours will be able to better rely upon the Australian competence about which I told the Senate. I am pleased to say that in my short term in the Ministry in association with the Minister for Defence we have been able to bring about some more positive actions on the lines about which 1 have spoken. They are good things because they represent a greater strength within the Australian competence and a better back-up for the Australian Services. I suggest that the motion which has been put forward by the Australian Democratic Labor Party is like the proposition which it put forward in the Senate last night. It is largely a bit of political manoeuvring. It is partly a bit of hypocrisy. It should be rejected by any decent Australian and by any decent Liberal. I hope that the Senate will not support it because it would not be in the interests of Australia. It should be the role of the Senate to support the Government even though, in the Senate, it may not have the numbers. In circumstances where there are clear indications that the Government is putting forward to the Australian people policies for which it has a mandate— w e have a mandate for what I have spoken about— I suggest that the Senate should support the Government. 505 K69 Western Australia 0 0 SIM, John Senator SIM - I am not very concerned with paragraph 2 of the motion except to say that we are entitled to take note of the statements which have been made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Barnard), by Mr Hawke who warned the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) that he had to take note of the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party and by men such as Mr Hartley and Mr Crawford who are very prominent in the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party. 505 K1F 0 0 POYSER, Arthur Senator Poyser Her e we go again. 505 K69 0 0 SIM, John Senator SIM They are friends of the honourable senator. He should be quiet in this place because he might be forced to contradict Senator Bishop in a moment over what they have said. Let him stand up and be counted and not sit there chattering like a croaking cockatoo. I am not concerned that Senator Bishop has given us an assurance that the Government will govern in the national interest. I wiil accept that assurance and I will be interested to see whether the Government, if ordered by the Federal Conference of the Labor Party to withdraw all troops from Singapore, will obey the Federal conference. I think that will be a crunch situation. I accept the assurance of Senator Bishop that the Government will not. The only matter with which I am concerned is whether the Government, if it believes that the presence of some troops in Singapore—whateve r the number may be—i s in the national interest, will oppose any pressures from any source to act against the national interest. Having said that I leave the matter to the control of the Australian Labor Party. I do not think that is terribly germane to the first part of this motion. I wish I could believe that there was peace in Vietnam. I sincerely hope that there is. But obviously the United States Pentagon and President Nixon are becoming rather concerned at what they claim to be clear sightings of large numbers of North Vietnamese troops and armoured equipment moving down the Ho Chi Minh trail into Laos and towards South Vietnam. A warning has been issued that they fear there could be another outbreak of fighting when the wet season ends in some 6 weeks time. 506 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - I think that Mr Hartley has said that he hopes the North wins, has he not? 505 K69 0 0 SIM, John Senator SIM I do not want to be led onto another path at the moment. Senator Webster. I sincerely hope that this is not so. Also there is the continuing presence of some 13 divisions of regular North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam. As long as that situation remains I do not believe we can accept with complete confidence that peace in Vietnam is assured. Of course this raises all sorts of problems. But at the moment I shall deal specifically with Singapore and the Five Power Arrangements. The Prime Minister in his policy speech gave a complete assurance that Auslralia would honour its obligation under the Five Power Arrangements. We are entitled to accept with complete assurance that whatever happens the Prime Minister's policy speech will be adhered to. But I am afraid that since this Government has been in office its actions have undermined the credibility of the Government and of Australia in South East Asia. I will come to that in a moment. Whatever people may wish to believe. South East Asia is not secure. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking. No-one is more conscious of this than the countries of South East Asia. Thailand has been in the news a little bit lately. 1 shall say something about Thailand in a few moments. Malaysia is being subjected to communist subversion on its northern borders and this has been spreading. This is also happening in Sarawak. The Malaysian revolutionary radio in South China has been broadcasting continuously to Malaysia. The radio in China has been broadcasting messages urging the patriots of Thailand to fight against the lawful government of that country. We have had complaints by Thailand— I believe that these complaints can be well proved—tha t the insurgents in the north are being provided with material and moral support from North Vietnam. In this situation one cannot be certain that the stability of the area is assured—fa r from it. Indonesia is concerned, and no doubt the Prime Minister was told quite clearly when he was there, as I was told in the middle of December, by the Indonesians of their concern not only as to the dangers of instability in the region and of Australian policy but also as to the dangers within Indonesia itself. It may be that some peple wiU claim that the Indonesians over-reaction to the threat of Chinese communism. Nevertheless, the fear is there, ln 1965 they went through a traumatic experience and it is still fresh in their memories. There can be no doubt that the countries of South East Asia wish Australia to retain its forces in Singapore. There is no question of that. Mr Lee Kuan Yew— I pay great tribute to him despite what Senator Poyser's friend Mr Crawford had to say about him—wishe s the Australian forces to remain because he believes that they provide stability. The Malaysians wish them to remain. The Thais wish them to remain. Strangely enough, the Indonesians are now expressing publicly their wish that the Australian forces should remain and that the Five Power Arrangements should remain intact. It is interesting that thc Indonesians are now taking this altitude, because in the past they have been, to put it mildly, luke warm towards what they regarded as military pacts in the South East Asian region. They have now changed their point of view. One must wonder and question why they have changed it. Obviously they have changed it because they still fear for the stability of the region. I think this is important. I think it is important also— I started to say this before I was interrupted by one of my colleagues—tha t we be very careful that we do not start dismantling agreements until we have something better to take their place, something that gives the assurance of stability to the countries of Asia. If we start to dismantle the Five Power Agreements, and if we follow the attitude of the Governnient towards the South East Asia Treaty Organisation and start to dismantle that, there will be a vacuum because we have not been able to provide any alternative to take its place—a n alternative which gives an assurance not to us but to the countries of South East Asia which seek that assurance. Senator Bishop spoke of the Five Power Arrangements and questioned whether we believe that they should have a long term effect. Let me make it quite clear to Senator Bishop that I do not believe either that they should or that they will. I believe that the Five Power Arrangements will have a limited life, but so long as the countries of the region wish them to be maintained, because of our interest in maintaining the stability of the region and the confidence of the countries in the region, we have a clear responsibility to maintain them. If we do not do so, we not only destroy our credibility but also begin to destory the confidence of the people of the region. 507 KUS 0 0 MILLINER, Bertie Senator Milliner - That is your opinion. 507 K69 0 0 SIM, John Senator SIM It might be my opinion, but if the honourable senator has a different opinion he should prove it, because the opinion I express is the view of the people of the region. It is the view of Lee Kuan Yew, the social democrat and member of the Socialist International. He believes in that view. Lee Kuan Yew believes in the domino theory. He was asked whether he believed in the domino theory and he said: 'Yes'. Someone asked him why and he said: 'Because I am one of the dominoes'. It is all right for honourable senators opposite to express views here in Parliament House in Canberra, but if they were, as Mr Lee Kuan Yew believes he is one of the dominoes, they would have a slightly different attitude. 1 repeat that it is unwise for us to start dismantling defence arrangements until we have something to take their place, which we have not. Maybe we are starting to move towards something. I sincerely hope that we are. I hope that the Association of South East Asian Nations will prove to be stronger; but any one of us who at the moment has great faith that ASEAN can provide security and stability to the region is indeed an optimist, and a dangerous optimist. When the countries of South East Asia themselves feel secure and confident, we can have some confidence that the security of the region is likely to be maintained. At the moment they do not have that confidence. It is in our national interests that there should be security and stability in the South East Asian region. Nothing could be more tragic for Australia than to find grave internal problems arising in Indonesia. Nothing could be more tragic to Australia than to find Malaysia and Singapore under threat. There may be some bright people who will say: 'They are not under threat'. Senator Bishop tells us that we now have a new world in which there is some unwritten understanding between the Soviet Union and China and the United States of America and Japan and China. AH I can say is that, if one reads the Russian Press and the statements made by Russian leaders, one finds that Russia has no understanding with China because the Russians constantly are warning us against Chinese imperialism and the military threat from China. Maybe the Russians are wrong. Recently the Chinese made the most bitter attack on Russia that has been made for years. They accused the Russians of absorbing territory that rightly belonged to China and giving towns and cities Russian names. If we look at the Soviet Union's move into the Indian Ocean, its obvious growing interest in South East Asia and its obvious desire to maintain a strong influence in Hanoi, we find that this in part—an d in big part—i s a move to counter what it believes is a growing Chinese influence. Again people may argue about this and may state different views as to Russia's priorities. But I believe that most informed people on foreign affairs express the view that Russia is continuing to try to obtain more and more influence in the South East Asian region. Maybe it is doing so in its own national interest as a world power. Nevertheless, there is an element—an d a big element—o f fear of China and desire to contain China. I do not believe there is that understanding of which Senator Bishop speaks. Nor do the countries of South East Asia believe that China has yet changed its strategy and its tactics. There have been some faint noises from Peking to the effect that the Chinese are not as interested as they were in promoting insurgency. But Prince Sihanouk had something to say about this situation a little while ago. Tliere are all sorts of rumours as to the Australian Government's attitude towards Prince Sihanouk. A little while ago he made it clear that Mao Tse-tung's China has not changed its policy in relation to the promotion of insurgency. As late as 1971 the Chinese were considering sending volunteers into Cambodia. So, Indonesia is concerned about Chinese policy. Indonesia is concerned at the way in which Australia moved so quickly to recognise Peking, and is expressing that opinion. The other countries of South East Asia also are concerned because they believe it weakens their ability to bargain. I should like to read to the Senate an extract from an article written by a respected and well informed foreign correspondent, Mr Denis Warner, which was published in the 'Sydney Morning Herald' of Monday, 5th February of this year. Before any member of the Government starts to say anything about Mr Denis Warner, I remind them that I have heard him praised even by members of the Government when he said things that apparently suited them. In this article Mr Warner clearly proves the points which I am making—tha t there is this concern in South East Asia about China, that these, countries are still not satisfied and want far more proof before they will accept China's good intentions, and that they are concerned about the trend in Australia's policy. Mr Warner said: The Malaysians wanted more than Peking's suggestion that they should read into the diminished propaganda the assurances they sought. Apparently these were assurances which a Malaysian delegation to Peking did not get. The article went on: Because they felt that Australia's subsequent haste in recognising Peking made it more difficult for others to negotiate satisfactory terms for the establishment of diplomatic relations, some senior Malaysian ofncials have been extremely critical of Canberra. One used language that is stiU unprintable, even in this permissive age, in describing Australia's haste. Then he went on to say what I have said: The Indonesians, the Singaporeans and the Thais, who are in less of a hurry than Malaysia to come to terms with Peking, are also disturbed. So if we accept this—an d I believe we have to accept it; I believe it is a fact—w e find that the countries of South East Asia are still not convinced of Peking's intentions and are still not convinced that agreements such as the Five Power Arrangements and SEATO should not be maintained. I had hoped that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) would make a foreign policy statement before this, but he is being rather coy about it, no doubt for very good reasons. I had hoped that we would have an opportunity of debating foreign policy in depth. I support this motion for the reason that I believe it will be a grave mistake for Australia to withdraw its battalion from Singapore in view of the desire of the countries of South East Asia to retain that presence because of the obvious feeling of insecurity in the region and the feeling that they need to have there forces belonging to the Five Power Arrangements as an insurance and as a measure of stability. That is their view and I believe we should listen to it if we are to have a credible policy in Asia and any credibility in the region. I do not believe that our relations with Thailand are as good as Senator Willesee told me yesterday, having regard to Mr Whitlam's gaffe recently. 1 think it was an extraordinary statement that Mr Whitlam made. It could have been made only by a man with an almost incredible ego. He was severely rebuked by the Deputy Foreign Minister of Thailand. The argument that the presence of foreign troops in Thailand would lead to another Vietnam—o r could lead to another Vietnam, I think he said, to be fair to him; I think he qualified it—seem s to me to be naive beyond reason. What comes first—the chicken or the egg? Has the communist insurgency in northern Thailand, in southern areas of Thailand and in the north of Malaysia been caused by the presence of American troops in Thailand? I do not think that anybody could argue that. Is this insurgency likely to be increased because of the presence of American troops in Thailand? I do not think anybody can argue that. I would be interested to hear arguments in support of such a contention. The Thais want American forces in their country because they have a feeling of instability as a result of these communistsupported insurgents. That is why I cannot understand Mr Whitlam's statement. The Malaysians, with the exception of certain Air Force units, have no foreign troops in their country; yet they are suffering from an increased measure of insurgency. So I believe that the insurgency is still inspired. We can only hope that China has changed its mind and that it will gradually withdraw its support and encouragement from the insurgents. And when that day comes, I believe we shall have a very sound argument for withdrawing our troops and that the countries in the region would then wish us to withdraw our troops. So it depends on the policies of other countries. I conclude by saying that I find it difficult to accept the argument raised by Senator Bishop in his wide-ranging statement that our relations with the United States are as good as ever. 1 think the incredible, vulgar and crude attack on the President of the United States by some of the honourable senator's colleagues has done nothing for Australia's relationship with the United States. And I believe that the attack by Mr Hartley and the Victorian socialist left on Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the democratic socialist, and the statement that Singapore is not a democratic State, bave done nothing but harm to our image in the region. I can only hope that the Government has conveyed privately to Mr Lee Kuan Yew—i t did not make a public statement— a message that it completely dissociates itself from the statement which was made and which undoubtedly received wide publicity. It is on those grounds and those grounds only that I support the motion. I have some doubts as to the second part of the motion— I think it concerns a problem for the Labor Party—bu t I would certainly support the first part. 509 KBC Western Australia ALP Special Minister of State 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE -Senator Bishop,I think, has laid the foundation of the Australian Government's attitude to this question. We have heard a fair amount of loose talk. The more I look at the wild statements in the motion, the more I believe that they cannot possibly be backed by any debate or any facts that can be brought before the Senate. Since the advent of the Labor Government it has been made tremendously clear throughout the world that there has been a change in Australia's stance on foreign policy, and this has been welcomed throughout the world. The fact that we have moved from a military stance has been welcomed. When one considers the countries in our region that we are talking about one asks why, having regard to their size, geographic position and history, they would want any of their friends insisting on a completely military stance. That is the last thing they could possibly want. What has to be realised, and what is tremendously important, is that we have lost peace in this area on so many occasions that it will be a standing disgrace to the countries in the area if we ever lose it again. That is the tremendous challenge that faces not only Australia and New Zealand and the ASEAN countries but the countries outside the 2 blocs or sections that I have just mentioned. We lost peace in 1954, we lost a chance for peace again after the Korean war, and now we have this third opportunity which must not be lost. We lost peace twice in the field of military battle by insisting on the very things that the Democratic Labor Party and people like Senator Sim are insisting on tonight. That has led to failure. We are saying that it is time that another approach was made to this question. I do not think that either the DLP or those members of the Liberal Party whom I have heard speak on foreign affairs in the last 3 weeks realise the tremendous significance of the changes that have taken place in the world. They are still living in the cold war period when the 2 giants, the 2 super-powers, were glaring at each other across the globe. It was required of small nations and of middle sized nations to line up and be counted so that they were then on one side as the goodies or on the other side as the baddies. Thank heaven, that situation has changed. We. have a situation in our area in which we do not have to look over our shoulder at Russia, or the United States of America. We have this multi-polar situation involving countries like the People's Republic of China, Japan, Russia, the USA and England. They are creating a multi-polar situation which gives within the region much more flexibility for countries such as our own, the Asian countries and the smaller countries throughout the world. It gives these countries, particularly in the region we are talking about tonight, much more manoeuvreability and much more flexibility. The Indonesians summed it up by saying that national resiliance is needed. This means that each of these countries has to be put in a situation in which it can stand on its own feet and make its own arrangements or negotiations or in which these countries can combine and do these things which it had been impossible to do since the end of the last war. If you talk to the representatives of these people you find that they are trying to grab at the position with both hands. That is why we see a combination such as ASEAN that started off in a very tenuous situation. It has grown in confidence into a situation in which the countries talk together very much more freely and very much more boldly than I think even they dared to think about in the early stages of their formation. The countries themselves are now talking about moving into a situation in which this organisation can embrace more people. Already they are looking to the forward situation in which they can take in the IndoChinese states and possibly Burma. They are not waiting for the Khmer Republic to join them. Its people are still not in a position to be talking like this. But the countries to which I have referred are throwing their arms wide open to receive, other countries. The challenge in this area is not the challenge of a thousand or so troops in Singapore. The great challenge in this area is, firstly, stability and, ultimately, peace. I suppose that 'peace* is a word similar to love in that it can be used in many ways. But we cannot get away from the fact that if ever we lose the peace in sufficiently large quantities, as we have, done in 2 world wars, there will never be any chance of rising from the degradation into which the whole world will be thrown again. It is stated in the motion that we will ultimately destroy the confidence of America. What we are talking about is the withdrawal of some troops - not all troops - from Singapore, perhaps 800 or 1,000 troops will be involved. The number of American troops in South Vietnam alone was 500.000. Do honourable senators opposite think that the Americans will quiver and quake because we make these arrangements because a sovereign government made it clear before it was ever elected that this is exactly what it would do? It becomes almost laughable when we start vo think about the situation. What has happened under the previous Government and what has to be destroyed by this Government and by other governments that want to see peace in the world is the practice of drawing lines around the world and saying that a country on that side of the line is a baddie and a country on this side of the line is a goodie. We hear criticisms in the Senate day after day by way of questions because the Government has recognised the People's Republic of China and the Government of North Vietnam. The phrase we used to hear for years about the containment of China is the very sort of thing that causes war. Could any power in the world finally contain 700 million people on one land mass? The proposition was never a goer at any stage. It was able to take some credence during the cold war period. Of course the final situation is that the whole world has come to its senses. When the Democratic Labor Party tries to blow up the fact that we are to reduce the number of troops in Singapore, the matter becomes a laughable proposition. Let honourable senators ask themselves for one moment: Would the ASEAN countries such as Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia. Thailand and the Philippines want Australia to be emphasising a military stance? None of them are great powers. Most of them are very small powers. Indonesia, because of its situation, its numbers, its tremendous wealth and the resilience of its people probably one day will become a great power. But most of the people sitting in the Senate chamber tonight will not be here when that takes place. These countries are a combination of small powers. Why in the world would they want their friends to be emphasising a military stance? The very thing they fear is military action. They know perfectly well that if a world war were to break out and the great powers were to move on them they would be annihilated. See their actions are designed to create a detente in this area which will make such a development impossible. The Democratic Labor Party has said that withdrawing some of our troops will cause all the other countries in the world to collapse - that New Zealand, the United Kingdom and America will be affected. The fact is that Lord Carrington, after his trip to Australia, said in answer to a question in the British House of Commons that the Australians were going to withdraw some troops, that the British would maintain their level of troops and that New Zealand would do the same. This has not been some sort of action taken off the top of our head. Our intention to take this action has been clearly demonstrated to the world, not over the last 6 months but over the 3 years before we were elected as a government. After we were elected as a government, we kept these countries fully informed of what we were doing. Because of that, there is no worry or kerfuffle in Great Britain, America or New Zealand. The contents of this motion and the whole of the way in which the members of the Democratic Labor Party and the Liberal Party talk indicate that all our relationships with these countries are based on military might - as though we have a great military might. What military might have we compared to countries such as Russia, China, the United States of America and Great Britain? DLP senators speak as if this represents the whole of our relationship with these countries. The fact is that defence aid is being given and will continue to be given to these countries. We have a co-operative system operating with these people. We are giving them technical assistance. We are acting in advisory situations and carry out joint exercises. We give them logistic support. Above all, we give aid which is much more beneficial and which is one of the greatest things that we do because of the number of people who train in Australia. This hierarchy of people who have trained in Australia move through the whole of the public service and the business community of Asian countries. For years, we have had 1,000 students from Singapore in Australia. At the moment, we have 6.000 Malaysian students in Australia. If discussions are held with representatives of departments in these countries, it will be found that you do not have to go very far down the line until you strike somebody who has taken a degree in Australia. Generally, the person will have attended a university in Melbourne or Sydney and, probably more than any other place, the university in Perth because of its accessibility to these people. Our aid to Malaysia alone is worth $30m. In Indonesia, you do not have to travel very far before you find aid of the first magnitude being carried out efficiently. The whole of the telephone system in Indonesia has been updated over the last 12 months under the supervision of an Australian Post Office engineer. Work on the Bogor water supply scheme is under the charge of Australian engineers. We have put in the minimum support, letting the people in the country do the work. We give advice and the initial aid. Do not honourable senators think that this aid is more important than military aid? They should not talk about a military presence in such countries when the very thing they fear is military action. Twice Australian troops have marched away to the other side of the world to support Great Britain in times of war. There was never any question, either before World War 1 or in between the 2 world wars where the sympathies of Australia lay. But did Australia have 1,000 troops based on the Isle of Wight, on the Isle of Man or in the south of England? Did we demand that those troops should be there to show that we were true? What difference would it make in the event of an armed attack? At the time that the Liberal-Country Party Government sent troops to Singapore, we were told in answers to questions and in a statement made by Mr Gorton who was the Prime Minister at the time that they were not there to stand up to military aggression from outside. Certainly, they were not there to deal with any internal aggression that could be a nationalistic movement. This remains the $64 question: What the devil were they doing there, if this is the situation? The Five Power Arrangements do not require that we should have troops in these areas. What these countries want and what they will get is the number of troops to do those things about which we have talked. lt has been mentioned that we are going to throw these people into peril. What sort of peril is involved when we are talking about withdrawing merely a handful of troops? The whole military stance is one that ought to be reversed and it is one that these countries welcome our reversing. We heard criticism when in the very early days of this Government we stopped throwing military aid into South Vietnam and there was a great cry to heaven. We were sending military aid into an area which was saturated with military aid; the people in the area could not use any more of the aid. The previous Government was withdrawing troops from South Vietnam, saying that it was trying to wind the war down, but at the same time it was sending military aid to South Vietnam. This motion is in some ways analogous to that. The Democratic Labor Party says that it wants troops in this area. Why? In case there is going to be a world war in which we all will be involved? In case there is going to be some internal insurrection, which the troops would not engage in anyway, because that is the sort of thing in which other countries will not get involved in the future? We are building up relationships by providing aid. In one year 6,000 students from one country and 1,000 students from another, who had been studying in Australia, returned to their own countries as the greatest ambassadors which Australia could send into these areas. These are continuing and lasting things. Tonight Senator Sim said: 'I do not believe that the five power pact is going to be of any permanency'. Whatever one might say about Senator Sim, one cannot say really that he is such a great radical. He said that statements made by some people in Australia irrevocably destroy our relationships with other countries. I remember criticism being levelled about 2 Manchester Jews. I assure the Senate that that did not destroy any relationship between Great Britain and Australia: it did not destroy any relationship between Manchester and Australia, and it did not destroy anything between Israel and Australia. In fact, it turned out that they were not Jews anyway. Senator Sim refers to a statement made by somebody and says that it destroys our relationship with another country. He can say these things, but I assure him, in case he feels uneasy about it, that the statement he made did not worry Manchester, it did not worry Israel and it did not really worry Australia. If you get these things into perspective you can see just how ridiculous one can get. What does the Democratic Labor Party expect? Does it expect that because we have stationed troops in another country, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians the position can never be altered; that there have to be X troops stationed in Singapore; that there have to be so many Mirages stationed in Malaysia; and that this is the way it has got to remain forever? It is because of this cold war attitude and because of the implacable, old fashioned attitudes that are inherent in this motion tonight that you have your Vietnams and your Koreas. Surely we realise today that because of the atomic bomb the possibilities of such wars are thus far diminished. Having reached this situation, what is to happen next? Do we want to go on with all these old military postures? I have heard the previous Government sabre rattling at Russia - a country of 245 million people, with one of the great land masses in the world, and spending more on a percentage basis on its military commitments than any other country. Australia with a population of 13 million people and spending a very small proportion of its income on military commitments is rattling a sabre at these people. That was the problem with the previous Government which unfortunately was backed by the DLP. I say 'unfortunately' because it could have had a balancing influence on the government of the day but very obviously it is going the full way in the field of foreign policy in a cold war atmosphere. Why does the DLP adopt this attitude? As I say, it is just leading on, not moving one bit away from the former situation. If there is one place in the world where you ought to be able to feel the change it is the South East Asian area. This is why we have an interest in this area. This is why almost weekly since the advent of this Government topline people have been coming from all around the world to visit Australia. You name the country and they are coming from it to Australia. If the members of the DLP are going to be blind to the changes that have taken place in this area, they will do so at their own peril. Firstly, they do not realise that colonialism died in South East Asia following the war. Every one Df the countries about which we are talking, except Thailand, has been under foreign control at some time or another, and the scars of it are fading slowly. At long last the People's Republic of China is being recognised by the world. It is coming out of its cocoon, and it was largely that country's own fault for being in that position. Japan is now one of the great, aggressively commercial countries. At long last the Vietnam war has finished. We will have to pour tens of millions of dollars of aid not into building up any regime but into patching up the wounded, putting them into hospitals where many of them will remain for the rest of their lives. We have to overcome the effects of carpet bombing and give light shelter in order to keep these people away from the elements. Basically this is how we have to move on our own in the Indio-China area. The situation in the Indo-China area, as far as Australia is concerned, will be just that. We are not going to be concerned whether the type of government of the man who is lying in hospital is a communist government or a right wing government or whether it is going to be some form of a coalition government. The person is going to be a person. It he needs aid, then to the limited extent that Australia can give it, we will do so. The amount of our aid is not great when it is compared with the aid given by the great powers. But we are going to be in there doing our little bit in order to establish that as a wealthy country in this area we do care, not about the regimes but about the people and the things that we can do for them. Honourable senators opposite are talking tonight as though all of the Asian countries are standing back, glaring at us with hatred. The fact is that they are agreeing with everything we do. They are talking about a zone of peace, freedom and security. We have told them God bless them, that we are with them 100 per cent of the way in their desire to bring that about. We are doing it not by interfering with them but by saying: 'Here is a fairly wealthy country that is slightly different from you, but we are in your area and we are here to assist and see that this happens, because if you go back to your Koreas or your Vietnams you may never get another chance for peace in this area.' This is the third time around and it must not be allowed to fail. These are the aspirations of these countries and these are the aspirations that we are supporting. It has been said that Indonesia's confidence will be destroyed if we take some troops out of Singapore. Let us think about that for a moment. Indonesia is a country of 120 million people who are shying away even at this stage from military pacts and who at long last have moved cautiously into co-operation with their neighbours. It is said that if we take 800 or 1,000 troops out of Singapore and bring them back to Australia this will destroy the confidence of Indonesia in Australia. Why we waste time in debating things such as this just beats me. The fact is that, excepting New Guinea, Indonesia is receiving more aid from Australia than any other country to which we are sending aid. We are working with Indonesia on defence co-operation. We are giving that country economic and technical aid. At the end of Mr Whitlam's visit to Indonesia, the President of Indonesia thanked Mr Whitlam for the exchanges of ideas and stated that what Mr Whitlam was talking about in the area was the very thing that Indonesia wanted. Then they come back to America again because this is the emotional issue. This is the follow-up. The previous Government got itself into trouble time and again, ably aided and abetted by the Democratic Labor Party, because at no stage did it examine the field of foreign affairs to see what should be done. it looked at foreign affairs and said: How can we win votes within Australia?' That Government finished up being the laughing stock of the world. It was dragged into Vietnam because its great partner, America, decided that it should go in. There was no other reason. We could never get the reason, but it stood out like a sore thumb that that was the reason. It has been up to this Government to state clearly and concisely the things we stand for. The fact that we have said that racialism has no part in our foreign policy has brought us friends throughout the Asian and African countries that we have not known for 25 years. We have heard a lot of claptrap here tonight. The fact is that Senator Gair's motion can be dismissed as old-fashioned scaremongering based on a completely unreal view of what the situation is throughout the whole of South East Asia. The Opposition parties do not realise the changes that have taken place. I suppose a couple of generations of Australians have been brought up hearing, as I did when I was a child, about the British Fleet. I did not know what it meant, but if anything happened the British Fleet would be there. The fact is that the only time Britain did try to help us with its fleet was at a time when Britain herself was heavily over committed and she sent the 'Prince of Wales' and the 'Repulse' and they never fired a shot. This was the myth. 513 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster They did not have to, did they? 513 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE Mr Deputy President, you can see how difficult it is. Two ships went down in a completely normal nava] action as a result of fighter planes coming out in the normal formation and sinking them, and Senator Webster says that they did not have to fire a shot. That was their idea. They never fired one. This is not criticism of England. I give her full marks for bending over backwards to do what she did. I am saying that the whole of that era was a myth. We said that because there was a British fleet in those years and because we had a great power with us we had no worries. Then our eyes turned towards America, and we said that no matter what we did America would be there. There is no God given right to be able to look forward at what a military situation will be or to see whether we can depend on any of our friends. The fact today is that there is no longer a cold war. There is no longer a situation in which we are lined up and have to look at 2 countries. We have to look in this area at the power of the United States, the power of Great Britain, and ultimately the power of China, Japan and Russia. These are all great powers and it is of no use poking our tongue out at them and saying to them: 'If you do anything we wili rouse at you and send you a protest note or something.' These are the realities of the situation in which we live, and if we do not face up to the realities of the situation with respect to our neighbours and the world we will be left for dead. It is of no use the Opposition trying to draw in its mind the picture that it wants. The Government has been criticised because it recognised North Vietnam. We recognised North Vietnam becaase it is a reality. 513 KKD 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator Jessop - It is a communist country. 513 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster Wha t did Thailand say about Mr Whitlam? 513 KKD 0 0 JESSOP, Donald Senator Jessop - What did Mr Malik say. 513 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE I am getting several interjections from these great experts so can I have them one at a time? Let me deal with Senator Webster's interjection first. He said: 'What did Thailand say about Mr Whitlam?' Precisely nothing. We have not had one word of complaint from Thailand in any of the cables from Thailand which I read every day. That is the situation, but the honourable senator in his narrow way of trying to fight the whole of our foreign policy on the basis of softie article he read in an Australian newspaper reporting what was said in a Thai newspaper, says that that is what all the Thais think about Mr Whitlam. Believe me, there is no country in the world which will not let us know very quickly whether it likes something we do or dislikes something we do. There has been not one word of protest from Thailand about an article that appeared in 'Newsweek'. What was that situation? It was not a criticism of Thailand. Mr Whitlam was asked for an opinion dealing with the whole of the region and he expressed the worry that if troops stayed in Thailand we might create a Vietnam situation. 514 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - What did the Deputy Foreign Minister say about Mr Whitlam? 514 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE Th e one who was here the other day? Senator Webster refers to the Deputy Foreign Minister but I do not know which one he is talking about. There are several hundred of them in the world. 514 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - Of Thailand. 514 KBC ALP 1 0 WILLESEE, Don Senator WILLESEE Ther e has been, I repeat, no official complaint from Thailand about Mr Whitlam. That is the fact. I know it is not the fact which the honourable senator wants but what I am trying to get him to do is look at the facts and then to base foreign policy on them instead of trying to use smear tactics and doing things merely to get votes because that is where the previous Government made itself the laughing stock of the world. We get the old communist smear and the smearing of people merely because honourable senators opposite do not like the Government. We have had suggestions that We should not trade with communist countries but those who make those suggestions do not worry about the human situation. What we have here tonight, of course, is a political stunt and honourable senators opposite perfectly well know it. There is not one bit of analysis in what has been put here, not one bit of it. It is nonsense to say that Indonesia is worried because we are taking troops out of Singapore; that America is going to quake because while she takes half a million people out of Vietnam we are taking 800 out of Singapore; that America is terribly worried that the 800 will affect the half a million. There is nothing which ought to be debated on a higher level in this Parliament than the whole field of foreign policy. But the Opposition continually drags it down and refuses to face up to the situation. It moves motions like the one before us and wastes the time of the Senate because it bogs the Senate down, and does so in order that it can go out and say in the crummy little newspapers that will back it, that there was another victory and another blow to the Labor Party. In doing so it makes itself the laughing stock of the world. The Government was criticised, and honourable members opposite made a lot out of it, because we protested to America over the bombing. But there was not one word from honourable members opposite that the unamimous decision of the Canadian Parliament was exactly the same as ours. That decision was made in the Canadian Parliament because there are parliamentarians in Canada who are broad enough to look at the world situation and are not worried about doing some cheap political stunting as the Opposition is trying to do tonight. I have not bothered to read the motion aloud because it will be apparent to anybody who has a look at it that there is not one ounce of analysis in it. It is merely scaremongering. If honourable members opposite want to criticise on a high base something which the Government has done, I would be the first to debate it and the first to confess if there was some weakness in what we did because there is nothing we do in life which is perfect. There will always be rubs, and when we are dealing in this field of foreign affairs we are dealing in the most sensitive area that the whole of Government policy can bring about. In domestic policy we can do what we like. This situation has been likened to having a ship at sea where one can go where one likes—forward , back, drop anchor, stop and fish and do what one likes. But in the field of foreign policy, the ship is in a river which has a narrow channel, and there are other ships around and a bank on either side, and every time that the ship moves we are inclined to affect the others. If only we would remember that. Mr Deputy President, the Government Whip is telling me that I should wind up and I will be glad to do that. I merely repeat that the motion before us tonight is a repetition of the cold war thesis that the Government and the Democratic Labor Party have lived on for so long. There is no analysis in the motion of the situation. It is mere scaremongering: it is mere smearing: it is merely using foreign policy to do some little thing which the Opposition feels may win it one or two votes throughout Australia. Last night Senator Wheeldon put his finger right on it when he said: 'You are many years out of date. The stunt you tried last night will not pay off'. We live in a much more enlightened Australia and a much more enlightened world today. Such tactics will simply fail. 1 offer one word of advice to honourable senators opposite. They had better get down to being dinkum about things. They had better get down to having a look at what foreign policy is all about and stop using it for political stunting within Australia. 515 K3R Queensland 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE - -It is greatly to be regretted that the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) should have seen fit to claim that the very mild, very sane and very rational motion proposed by the Australian Democratic Labor Party is nothing more than a political stunt. There was only one of all his remarks with which I could agree, that is, that there are very few areas of discussion which occupy more of the time of this Parliament than the area of foreign affairs and defence. As honourable senators know, the Democratic Labor Party has always elevated these matters into the forefront of national consideration. We have taken our stand on them even at times when to do so was not popular. The Democratic Labor Party has often taken a stand on policies because they were embedded in principles, although they were politically unpopular and unrewarding. We make no excuse for our continued defence of the situation in relation to Australia's involvement in the countries to our north west and north east. That is a strong policy; it is a clear policy; it is a consistent policy; it is a policy which we have always projected. The point at issue in this debate, as Senator Willesee indicated, is: 'What is the attitude of the nations in South East Asia to the Australian presence in that area?' Senator Willesee says that they do not want us there and that to suggest they do is merely an outmoded approach to foreign policy - a sort of nineteenth century neo-colonialism. 1 had the opportunity to be in that area about 18 months ago with a parliamentary delegation. We visited Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore. Everywhere we went we had high level discussions. We had discussions with General Nasution, with Lee Kuan Yew, with Tun Ismail, and with Adam Malik in Indonesia. Honourable senators will realise that I do not attribute to any one of those persons anything I might now say, because to do so would be a breach of faith. I am going to give to the Senate the composite, as I assessed it, of the concern of the leaders of those countries in relation to the vulnerability of the area and the significance of the Australian presence. 515 KSY 0 0 MCAULIFFE, Ronald Senator McAuliffe Yo u once gave us a report on the elections over there and you were proved wrong. 515 K3R 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE That is completely untrue. I was proved completely and totally right. I will not be diverted in the few minutes at my disposal from putting my case. The parliamentary delegation spoke to all the leaders of those countries. It met the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Indonesian Parliament. Everywhere I went and had discussions during which I had the opportunity of asking questions I put the same question:- 'What is your attitude to the Australian presence in this area?' I came away with the firm conviction, on the evidence of the statements made lo me, that the Australian presence in Singapore and in the other areas is welcomed by al) those countries. What is the position in those countries? There is an instability in Malaysia because of the Malay-Chinese confrontation. Because there is an instability the Malaysians are vulnerable. It is said in Malaysia that if communism breaks through the Indo-Chinese peninsula it breaks through into Thailand. Chin Peng already has insurgents on the Thai-Malay border. If the insurgency breaks through the Thai-Malaysia border it is into Malaysia. 515 CJO 0 0 WHEELDON, John Senator Wheeldon - Oh! 515 K3R 0 0 BYRNE, Condon Senator BYRNE Senator Wheeldon says 'Oh!' as if that were some theory of my own. That is what I was told in those areas by the leaders of those nations. If insurgency breaks through into Malaysia it will move into Singapore. Indonesia has a similar problem. Because of the attempted coup there in 1965 there is still a political and social instability in the area. Indonesia has never known how far the communist penetration went, and is also vulnerable. Those nations all say: 'Australia's ptesence in our area is an identification of you; country with our welfare'. They plead: 'Give us time. We can hold back any threat to this area if we can strengthen our economy. If we can contain the threat at this moment, by our own strength and our own economic ability we will be able to contain any future threat. You are helping to buy us time because you are helping us to stabilise our economy'. That is the feature of the Australian presence there in their interests. We know the Australian presence has a great feature in our interests and a great significance from our point of view. But from their point of view it is absolutely inseparable from their continued stability and their ability to defend themselves in the future. To suggest, as Senator Willesee has suggested, that these people do not want us there is completely wrong. That has been completely denied by the statements made of the leaders of those countries and by their whole conduct and disposition towards the Australian presence in Singapore and Malaysia. For Senator Willesee to propound that proposition is to base a case on a totally false and indefensible premise, because the whole truth lies the other way. For those reasons the motion the Democratic Labor Party has brought forward is of very great importance and very great significance. It is time we had a definitive expression of opinion by the Senate on the subject. Therefore, I move: That the question be now put. Question put: The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) 28 24 Majority . . , . 4 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion (Senator McManus's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) 28 24 Majority . . . . 4 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. 516 adjournment 516 516 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Order ! It now being after 10.30 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment the Senate, I formally put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. 517 KBW Tasmania 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT - I find it imperative tonight to speak to the motion for the adjournment to draw the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) to the sad plight of the apple and pear industry in southern Tasmania, northern Tasmania and on the north west coast. The Australian Apple and Pear Board stated in its report for 1970-71 that there was little doubt that at the then rate of freight to Europe, all European trade was open to question. It said that the industry was therefore facing a most serious situation, which in realistic terms could involve the very survival of large sections of the industry. Although the stabilisation scheme that the Liberal-Country Party Government established enabled apple and pear growers, not only in Tasmania but in Australia generally, who shipped fruit on consignment to Europe to be paid $2.5m in 1971 and $3.1m in 1972, events have crowded in to create for the industry a handicap that must be taken into serious account. The first is that due to the revolution in shipping, freights in this industry have grown until now the effective freight rate is likely to be of the order of $3.7 a bushel. 517 KB9 0 0 WILKINSON, Lawrence Senator Wilkinson What we want is our own fruit ships. 517 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator WRIGHT Th e Government cannot even float the 'Straitsman' to run from Melbourne to King Island. To talk about your own line of ships to carry our fruit from Hobart to London is simply a cranky suggestion. On Sundays waterfront labour alone requiries SI .02 a case to take fruit from the shed on the wharf to the ship. It costs 60c a case in ordinary time to shift it a matter of 50 yards from the shed to the ship. That is one of the areas in which the Government has a responsibility to give the industry something to offset the increase in freight. The second thing arises partly out of that. In the last few weeks there has been a surcharge on all export industry from Hobart due to a rearrangement of the levy that provides for permanent waterside worker costs. This increases the cost of those levies per man hour of waterfront labour from 40c a man hour to 85c a man hour. I come now to the third point. The Government has made a most inadequate contribution to redress the damage it has done to the industry. By revaluing unilaterally, as it did in December, it imposed on the industry a cost of probably 60c to 65c per case, thus depriving the owners of that degree of overseas price. On a very moderate crop of 10,000 cases, this would involve the grower in a loss of $6,000. Yet the pitiful pronouncement of the Government was that it would make a contribution per orchard not in excess of $1,500. It is implicit in the statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry that that is on a social service scale, not a commercial scale. The idea of the Labor Government was to punish the grower who had a sizable crop forgetting, of course, that in this indusiry wherever there is an orchard producing a large crop there is a commensurate number of employees. When the Government is punishing that power it is punishing his employees as well. I wanted to bring those factors about this industry to the Minister tonight because, knowing that a conference of Ministers involved is to be held tomorrow week, they can be seriously brought into the Ministers' assessment at that meeting. I want to add that with the foresight that Sir John McEwen established in trade, realising the switch from the European market that was inevitable with the onset of the European Economic Community, we developed trade into the Pacific. That trade has expanded gradually and involves over a million cases through Singapore today. 1 believe that if we were to exert sufficient effort— I put this suggestion before my own Government while I was a Minister and I put it now in the same spirit of positive contribution to the present Government—w e could overcome the objections that Japan has to allowing access for our fruit. As honourable senators know, that is based upon the quarantine objection that, according to the Japanese, we have codlin moth in this country. I do not see why we should not have an equally powerful campaign to suppress codlin moth as we have undertaken against tuberculosis and brucellosis in cattle. I urge that suggestion to the Minister so that we can all take it up without trying to score points from each other on questions of politics. If we could only persuade Japan to accept our fruit we would have a northern hemisphere market in the season when our fruit is available for export shipping which, 1 believe, would take up the handicap of the loss of the English markei. I hope that together we can do something to rescue this really wonderful industry. 518 KRG Tasmania 0 0 LILLICO, Alexander Senator LILLICO - 1 think that for the first time I am transgressing on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate.and for that reason I think that Senator Mulvihill should remain and listen to me. I want to refer to a statement which appeared today in the Hobart 'Mercury'. Although I do not always agree with the man who made the statement I believe it is correct. He said that the apple industry in Tasmania had reached its moment of truth. An industry that is worth $15m to a small State like Tasmania with a population of 300,000 people is well worth preserving. It is the biggest primary industry we have in that State. It has been struggling for many years against the gravest financial difficulty and I believe that the Government's revaluation has just about put the cap on the whole financial aspect of the apple industry in Tasmania. I remember when New Zealand and the United Kingdom both devalued. The then Department of Trade and Industry estimated that that was the equivalent of a 20 per cent reduction in the Australian tariff. Such a view did the then Government take of the position that some primary industries were compensated on that account because of the intense competition and because of the difficulties experienced in exporting primary products to the United Kingdom. Now this currency change is working the other way. This Government has revalued and it has placed a burden on everything that ;s exported from this country. I believe that unless some concrete assistance is brought to bear on this industry it will be the last straw that breaks the camel's back. In the same newspaper in which Mr Brown, the secretary of the industry organisation, made these grim comments there appeared another statement which relates to a 25 per cent rise in the minimum basic wage. I am not arguing about that matter at all, but the statement went on to say that employers of men on the minimum wage will face a total extra wages bill of S200m a year. The newspaper article states: Federal Cabinet has decided that the Government will join with the ACTU in pressing for a 25 per cent increase in the minimum wage. The Government is favourable to that proposition and will join with the Australian Council of Trade Unions in pressing for it. This article continues: This would increase the minimum wage from the present average of SSI. 80 to $65 a week. I conclude by saying that nearly all of these costs, if not all of them, must be met ultimately from the pockets of the producers. This additional impost and all the other imposts on the community, if they are not met in a more generous manner than that detailed by Senator Wright, will spell the end of the apple industry in Australia. I often look around the Huon Valley and the. Tamar Valley at the closer settlement, the homesteads, the buildings and the people who have gathered there. As far as I know they are living happy lives. Imagine what would happen to those areas if anything drastic happened to this industry. The Government holds the purse strings for the whole Commonwealth. It apparently proposes to go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and press for a $200m a year increase in the wage bill. As far as the apple industry is concerned the Government should come to life and make the industry a viable proposition. 518 CAK Tasmania 0 0 RAE, Peter Senator RAE - I do not wish to delay the Senate for any length of time but I do wish to make it quite clear that as another Tasmanian senator I join Senator Wright and Senator Lillico in expressing concern at the situation of the apple and pear industry in Tasmania. I do not suggest that the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) is unconscious of the problem but I do suggest that perhaps he may have some problems in being able to ileal with the situation adequately when the approach of the Government to the management of the economy is that a pittance shall be meted out - as if it were a social welfare payment - to an industry which is struck down as a result of an economic decision of the Government. I do not challenge that decision which related to revaluation. But as a result of that decision this industry was entitled to real consideration. Instead of that we have the sort of approach which is a social welfare approach. Almost within a week or so of that decision a decision was made to give 4 weeks annual leave to all Commonwealth public servants. I do not wish to be taken as suggesting in any way that Commonwealth public servants are not entitled to be well treated within the community - but I emphasise within the community'. Everyone knows that the 4 weeks annual leave given to public servants in this way will spread throughout general employment. But will it spread to primary industry, to the small self-employed man who has been struggling for years in Tasmania to keep his orchard going? He would like to get to the stage where he had to work only 80 hours a week - this situation applies to a lot of the orchardists. He would like to get to the stage where he would be able to look forward to having annual holidays and actually pay for them. But the Government has not adopted an attitude which is related to fair compensation for the disability suffered as a result of its acting in the interests of the overall population in making a revaluation. Instead of adequately compensating those who suffer it adopts a social service approach. If one can show that one has filed a bankruptcy petition one gets a pittance out of the Government. The plight of the industry is such that I would imagine that Senators Devitt, Townley, Wriedt, Poke and O'Byrne would be prepared to join with the honourable senators who have already spoken tonight. I believe that this is a situation where the interests of a Slate are vitally concerned. The interests of a State, as represented by its honourable senators in this chamber, should be heard and should be met. I suggest that this is an occasion when those towns of the apple growing areas of Tasmania which honourable senators from Tasmania and many other honourable senators in this chamber know so well are under a threat of death. This could be overcome as a result of Government action but it will be brought to fruition as a result of Government inaction. Many things can be done. I shall not hold the Senate tonight. I simply express briefly the concern which I hold along with other Liberal senators from Tasmania. I am sure that the other senators from Tasmania - if they are to be heard - will urge the Minister, who fortunately is a Tasmanian and no doubt has the interests of this Tasmanian industry at heart, to take adequate steps to prevent the sort of situation mentioned by Senator Wright, Senator Lillico and myself, from happening to these towns and people. There are many small, self-employed people. Sometimes they employ a few other people on their orchards for at least part of the year. They are providing employment and an income for themselves. They are keeping the rural towns going. They are keeping going the fabric of a society which has developed over a century. Very soon unless something happens this will be going for good. 519 K1R Western Australia 0 0 PROWSE, Edgar Senator PROWSE - As a Western Australian I cannot allow this debate to go on without a contribution on behalf of my State. I would hate to have a situation in which it was thought that only Tasmania had an apple and pear industry. The concern which has been expressed by the honourable senators from Tasmania is equally a concern in Western Australia. The apple growing industry is a major part of the economy of the south west of Western Australia. All the difficulties which have been mentioned and perhaps some more are experienced by those growers. We are fighting additional costs such as shipping and handling. The cost of packing is eating into the return to the grower so that he is always last on the list. Everyone else seems to be protected. The grower receives what is left. 519 JUH 0 0 DEVITT, Donald Senator Devitt That is not a new situation. 519 K1R 0 0 PROWSE, Edgar Senator PROWSE It is not a new situation. Just a few minutes ago my attention was drawn to a statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) in a speech to the Victorian Australian Labor Party Rural Conference in which he said: It is staggering to find that many, primary producers who voted for the Country Party each election expect me to solve their long-standing problems overnight; problems I inherited from the Country Party. I do not know whether he inherited the problems from the Country Party. I know that he inherited a problem of a fair economic distribution of the returns obtained by the people in the fruit growing industry, particularly the apple and pear industry. The Minister did not inherit the problem imposed by the Labor Government decision to revalue the Australian dollar. The Australian Country Party, as he knows very well, fought that imposition upon the export industries plus the added imposts and other matters which have already been raised by my Tasmanian colleagues. These are going to put an impossible burden upon the apple and pear industry unless, because of some fortuitous circumstances, the world price rises sufficiently to enable the growers to bear the burden. I believe that the recent rise in the prices of primary products throughout the world is the inevitable result of a process by which primary producers have been forced to accept the tail end of what is being charged to the consumers. Everyone else in the community is able to secure his return and simply deduct it from the amount being paid for the primary product. There is an end to that process. That end results in a reduction of production so that the world suddenly finds itself without primary products. Unless we ensure that protection is given to the primary producers by means of legislation or by some other means which are not available in the ordinary economic processes, the situation will be aggravated and tbere will be real starvation in the world. Those who have smugly looked upon the people who are producing food as an inconsequential lot of hillbillies or the mugs of the economic scene will have a very rude awakening. When we read that Senator Wriedt has said 'We do not want the rural sector to become one vast sheltered region, soaking up scarce public funds that could be better spent on schools, hospitals and other vital community services that benefit both the country and city dweller', we can only think that he must have been reading the 'Australian Financial Review'. 520 JUH Tasmania 0 0 DEVITT, Donald Senator DEVITT - I very much regret that I was not aware - I do not blame anybody for this - that it was proposed to launch, at this late stage of the proceedings, a debate on an important question such as this. For reasons of which 1 am not aware at the moment, I was not informed of this proposal. As I say, I acknowledge that it is not necessary for an honourable senator to inform another honourable senator that he intends to speak about a particular matter in the adjournment debate, but surely one would expect that as a matter of common courtesy an honourable senator who rises in his place and challenges other honourable senators to respond - a taunt, as it were - would, in the normal course of events, have given some forewarning. I think the rules of a fair fight normally demand that one at least gives one's opponent some forewarning so that he does not have his hands in his pockets or something like that. 520 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster Yo u should know all about these problems without making excuses. 520 JUH 0 0 DEVITT, Donald Senator DEVITT Indeed I do, and that is what I intend to talk about. I will not say, as the Leader of the Country Party said in a similar situation some time ago, that people in difficulty in the rural industries should apply for social service benefits. I do not intend to say that and I do not think Senator Wriedt said that. I hope that he did not say it, because I think it is a studied insult to the people in the rural communities of Australia. Do not let us hear any nonsense about that. Senator Webster should check the record to see whether the Minister in the previous Government made some observations to the effect that people who got into difficulty in rural industries should apply for social service benefits. Do not let it be said that the Labor Party will descend to that level of debate. 520 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator Webster - They would get a handout The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Brown) - Order! Senator Webster, I have asked you on 3 occasions in the last 3 minutes to refrain from interjecting. I will ask you again to allow Senator Devitt to be heard without these constant interjections. 520 JUH 0 0 DEVITT, Donald Senator DEVITT Than k you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Perhaps I should modify the tone of my delivery, but I have been stung into responding to some of the observations which have been made by honourable senators. I heard some of them before I came into the chamber just by chance and some of them I have caught since I arrived in the chamber. One would think, to hear the observations of honourable senators who so far have expressed themselves on this matter, that suddenly as from 2nd December 1972 the rural industries of Australia have been plunged into a situation of economic difficulty. That is far from the case. I know this because I went through the situation myself. I actually experienced the situation under a Liberal-Country Party government and I know. I worked the hours which have been mentioned in this place. I certainly worked those hours and the returns were pretty small. But do not let us get carried away with the idea that this situation suddenly has arrived upon the appointment of the new Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt), a man who will turn out to be one of the best Ministers for Primary Industry that this country has had. This is already being acknowledged in rural sectors of the Australian economy. He has only just assumed this office and had had no experience whatsoever in it before. Do not let us get carried away with the idea that the problems exist only in the apple and pear industry and are related only to Tasmania. We have already had an acknowledgment from Senator Prowse that similar problems exist in Western Australia. I am not denying the right of honourable Senators from Tasmania to raise these matters, but some of my colleagues from Tasmania suddenly have developed a tremendous interest in the apple and pear industry. In a similar atmosphere to that which prevailed last night in relation to another matter I just make the simple observation, as a simple senator in this place, that the problems of this industry did not suddenly arise. They are of a very complex nature and solutions are not easy. I should think that the happiest man in this Senate would be a Minister for Primary Industry who had no problems in primary industry. To suggest that these suddenly have arisen because a member of this place has assumed the responsibility for that portfolio is absolute nonsense. We all know that, so let us acknowledge it. What is the situation in relation to other areas of primary industry? I have tried desperately since I have been a member of the Senate estimates committee which is looking into the problems of primary industry and a number of aspects of primary industry to find out—an d I will pursue this line in the future—wh y it is that we are not able to assess for more than 5 months ahead what the market position is likely to be in relation to various forms of primary industry. In the computer age, in an age of technology and in an age of highly developed science it is not possible to do this. I have questioned this. 1 have gone into it quite deeply. I have sought the advice and help of experts in the field. I find—an d they acknowledge this—tha t because of the complex nature of world markets, because of climatic conditions and because of demands here and there, of one kind or another, it is just not possible to assess markets in the future. Surely honourable senators must remember about 2 years ago the then Minister for Primary Industry saying to the dairy farmers of Australia: 'Look, this position is crazy. If you think this Government is going to go on subsidising the dairying industry in this way if it continues to develop in the way it is developing now, you have another think coming because the Government is not going to do it.' Remember what happened within a few short months. Overseas buyers were coming to Australia seeking further supplies of butter fat and further supplies of cheese with which to supply the markets of the world. It is not a new situation at all but is one that is being treated with great sensitivity by the present Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister has a great understanding of this problem. He wants to see this section of the economy put on a sound basis. I know Tasmania; I know it only too well. In fact, in my first speech in this place I spoke at great length on the problems of primary industry and related them fairly particularly to the situation as 1 knew it to exist, and as I had experienced it, in my own State of Tasmania. We have problems of marketing which are perhaps greater than those of some other States because we have a barrier which adds to our costs. 521 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - Do you think primary producers are having a bonanza? 521 JUH 0 0 DEVITT, Donald Senator DEVITT Senator Wright, you have had one go. Please let me have mine. I would have thought that you would do me the courtesy of letting me know you were going to launch this debate on the apple and pear industry, because I am just as interested in it as you are. Indeed, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am perhaps more interested than the honourable senator is because more people in Tasmania support my Party than the Party to which he belongs. Perhaps I have a greater regard for and a greater interest in this matter than the honourable senator has, if one comes down to the numbers of people who have voted for the parties. Let us acknowledge that a great part of the State of Tasmania was built initally on the pome fruits industry—the apple and pear industry. It is my fervent hope and wish that circumstances will arise that will assist this industry to continue its operations in the future so that those people who depend upon it will be able to maintain their existence. This industry faces a tremendously difficult problem. Anybody who has had any association whatsoever with primary industry will know that the growing of apples and pears is carried out on areas of, say, 30 to 40 acres. That would be a fairly substantial area. If we phase this industry with its high capitalisation—buildings , machinery, plant and all the rest—ou t of existence, can anybody suggest what a grower would do with 30 to 40 acres? This is the problem that arises when we try to rationalise the whole approach to this industry. It has been my view for a long while, and nobody has yet persuaded me to the contrary, that one of the problems about this industry has been the nature of the pursuit and establishment of markets. One realises that of 3,000 million in the world today 2,000 million are not getting enough to eat, and when one considers the quality of and the benefit to be derived from the produce of this area of primary industry in Australia, one would expect that a government conscious of its responsibilities would have pursued with far greater vigour than it did the markets of the world so that the people in those markets would have an opportunity to buy this fruit and so lift their standard of living. I think that the pursuit of markets so that our fruit can be sold competitively against the products of other countries and so that people in those areas may buy them and thus help sustain themselves is of great importance. We are confronted with the results of inaction on the part of the former Government. To argue that honourable senators on only one side of this chamber have a concern for the rural industries of Australia is a pretty specious argument, to say the least. We have a very great concern indeed for every section of the Australian community be they in the cities or in the rural areas and I believe this has been forcefully demonstrated not only in the national sense but also in the States. Revaluation has caused a great deal of concern, I know, not only to the primary industries in the production of foodstuffs but also in the mining industry. But does anybody in this chamber seriously suggest that revaluation was not very necessary. I think it was. I think the financial situation had reached the stage where fairly desperate action had to be taken. The Minister for Primary Industry, as I have observed in the 3 weeks of the current sitting, has consistently risen in his place and indicated that the Government, and particularly he himself as the Minister for Primary Industry, is prepared to listen to any reasonable argument to put industries on a proper economic basis following revaluation. He has in fact gone further than that and has invited sections of primary industry to make their representations to him. This question requires most sympathetic and sensitive treatment. As a Tasmanian I deplore the fact that the plight of this section of the rural economy of Tasmania has been used as a political argument when the whole question relates to the economics of the industry. So I say that we have to go beyond the present concept of the solution to the problems of these industries. They are great and vast problems. I hope that there is a future for the apple and pear industry. The production of apples in Tasmania is the major part of the production in Australia. I acknowledge that Western Australia and South Australia play a role in it. But considering the relatively small population of Tasmania, this industry in Tasmania comprises a far greater part of the total economy of that State than it does in the larger States of South Australia and Western Australia which also grow apples. Let us get away from the political considerations and let us get down to the economic considerations of the matter. 522 JYA Tasmania 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE - It is typical of the honourable senators who raised this matter without advising other honourable senators that they were raising the matter that they should try to take advantage of the misfortune of the Tasmanian orchardists to score a miserable political point. The point is that the orchardists have had 23 years of misgovernment at a Federal level. 522 KSN 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator Marriott An d in the State. Admit that. 522 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE Of course the honourable senator must know that the State is a mendicant State. One of the reasons why it is a mendicant State is that federally it was disadvantaged by the policy of the Federal Government. The sheer hypocrisy of Senator Wright, an former Minister of the Crown 522 KSN 0 0 MARRIOTT, John Senator Marriott - 1 take a point of order. Mr President, it is offensive to me to hear Senator O'Byrne refer to the hypocrisy of one of my colleagues. The word 'hypocrisy' is offensive. 523 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright Th e point having been taken, this word is known to be so notoriously unparliamentary that it should be quashed at once. I ask that it be withdrawn. 522 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE I withdraw it, Mr President, and say that I am not sure whether it is Jekyll or Hyde who has been taking charge, but it is one or the other. 523 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - 1 ask the impudent senator to withdraw that offensive statement. 523 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE Which one will I withdraw? 523 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Is that personally offensive to you, Senator? 523 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - You may judge it by your own standards, sir. 523 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Senator O'Byrne, Senator Wright does not like being described in that way. 523 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE I will ask the schizophrenic senator to listen to me for a little while. 523 10000 0 0 PRESIDENT, The The PRESIDENT Wil l you withdraw the reference to Jekyll and Hyde and then go on? 523 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE I will withdraw the Jekyll but he has a lot of hide at times. This is too serious a matter for interjections, Mr President. The whole point is that the industry, as we all admit, is very sick. It will gain no advantage whatever from the grandstanding we have seen tonight from both Senator Rae and Senator Wright. There is no doubt that this Government is genuinely trying to lift the industry out of the mire into which it has sunk over the last 20 years. 523 JUH 0 0 DEVITT, Donald Senator Devitt - And the whole of primary industry. 523 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE Fortunately , other sections of primary industry—b y circumstances, by design or by act of God, with improving seasons and prices—ar e seeing a little bit of daylight. We cannot claim all the credit for that, but we are very pleased to see a situation in which at last the wool industry is getting out of the doldrums, the wheat industry can now get on with the job of increasing the quotas and can see future markets, and so on through the whole spectrum of primary industry. But the apple and pear industry in Tasmania, no doubt, is depressed. The previous Government has to bear the full responsibility for this industry being in its present plight. It has known, since the closure of the Suez Canal and since the first indications that Great Britain was to enter the European Economic Community, that the industry would face this problem with its traditional European and United Kingdom markets. Also, the decision on revaluation, for which this Government has been blamed, was up for discussion well before 2nd December. We had the spectacle of the previous Prime Minister, Mr William McMahon, and the Leader of the Country Party, Mr Anthony, conducting unseemly arguments to such an extent that the newspapers reported that the Leader of the Country Party would resign if the Liberal Party policy on revaluation of the Australia dollar were carried out. Tonight we are witnessing 2 Liberal Party senators trying to contradict the very position that their previous leader took on this matter. Senator Wriedt has stated repeatedly in the Senate that the Government will do whatever it can to help the Industry. I would like to give some advice to Senator Wright and some of his Tasmanian colleagues. What the industry needs is organised marketing. I know very well that Senator Wright has tramped the country, to my knowledge, for 20 years, and probably longer than that, with his old deadbeat, worn out, conservative ideas about the freedom of private enterprise. He has treated the orchardists like mushrooms. He has kept them in the dark—an d honourable senators know the other things. These people have never been able to see daylight because the forwarding agents, the shipping agents and all the other people have been on their backs while their political leaders at the Federal level have kept them in the dark. The Labor Government has been in office for only 100 days, but honourable senators opposite have the temerity to blame the plight of this industry on us. 523 K8R 0 0 TOWNLEY, Michael Senator Townley - The Government has done a lot of other things fairly quickly. When will it do something about this? Just say when it will do something about it. 523 JYA 0 0 O'BYRNE, Justin Senator O'BYRNE The Minister for Primary Industry will reply to this debate. He has shown repeatedly his interest in the position of the Tasmanian orchardists. He realises that it is a very difficult situation which has been degenerating for a great number of years. The previous Government took the stand of introducing the tree-pull scheme is just the same way as it was responsible for the practical ibolition of the berry fruits industry. It allowed that magnificent, exclusively Tasmanian industry to go practically out of existence. It allowed one of our biggest fruit users, H. Jones and Co. Pty Ltd to slowly transfer its interests to South Africa where it was able to exploit the cheap labour and gain access to the European market in competition with Tasmanian fruit. But this is private enterprise and the whole set-up of the private entrepreneur. He does not care about orchardists; he cares about his profits. This company, which has been on the backs of the orchardists for so long, is repaying 99c in the dollar to its shareholders while the people who have been battling on for so long are in this plight. I draw attention to Senator Wright's reference to the workers in Tasmania. After 23 years, at long last they are starting to get their share of some of the prosperity evidenced in the reports and balance sheets of companies such as A. G. Webster and Woolgrowers Ltd, the Farmers and Graziers Cooperative Society Ltd and Henry Jones and Company. With the bonuses and profits that they are making, why should not all the employees get a reward for their year's work by getting 4 weeks annual leave? The type of attack that was made on the workers of Tasmania is reprehensible, to say the least. Rather than use the Senate as a forum for trying to make political capital, honourable senators opposite should be directing their minds and consciences back to the very poor efforts that they made during the many years when they had control of the Treasury bench and the machinery which could have helped these people instead of leaving them in the plight which they were in. They should not accuse us of being responsible for the position, in the short time that we have had to try to right the wrongs, and they should not say that we have failed. I believe that our policy will be of much greater advantage to the ochardists of Tasmania than was the policy of the previous Government. 524 ISW Tasmania ALP Minister for Primary Industry 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT - Senator Wright advised me of his intention to speak on this matter tonight, but I confess that I did not envisage that it would develop into this rather lengthy debate at this hour of the night. I thank particularly Senator Devitt and Senator O'Byrne because their comments have covered most of the points. I agree that what has been said tonight by Senator Wright. Senator Rae and perhaps to a lesser extent Senator Lillico, was nothing more than an attempt to make cheap political capital out of a difficult situation which was inherited by this Government. Listening to Senator Wright, one would imagine that the Government was on trial. For his information, in the 1971-72 year in Tasmania the negative net income for fruit growers was $900 for the industry. Was this the result of 23 years of Liberal government? Is this the reason why the Government or I should be on trial after 4 months? Does he imagine that I will solve this problem in that time? 524 K8R 0 0 TOWNLEY, Michael Senator Townley Ho w much time have we got? 524 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT Does Senator Townley imagine that by some act of melodrama I will come into the Senate and solve the problem? If that is the way that Senator Townley expects me to operate, I can assure him that I will not operate that way. I would much prefer to spend my time thinking my way carefully through this problem to see how I can overcome it. 1 will not do it and I will not try to do it in 5 minutes. This industry has had these problems for the past 10 years. I was in the industry. I know something about this aspect of primary industry, despite the fact that Senator Wright said earlier today that [ know nothing about primary industry. I am not particularly concerned about that. 524 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - I did not make such a statement. 524 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT You said that 1 knew nothing about primary industry. I am not concerned about that because I do not place much value on his judgment anyway. I had some experience of this industry. In the late 1950s when 1 left it, all the writing of what eventually happened was on the wall. I can distinctly remember discussing this problem with a man who was in the industry at the same time. He got out of it when I got out of it, for the same reason: Nothing was being done to provide for the eventualities which had to come—the shrinking markets, the increase in the proportion of shipping costs, and also the fact that at the national level guidance was not being given to that industry to enable it to compete on world markets which were becoming increasingly competitive. We were slipping behind countries such as South Africa and the Argentine in our marketing methods—the very point that Senator O'Byrne and Senator Devitt made. These are the areas in which the previous administration could have taken the initiative and given a guide to these people as to what they might have done. Instead, we have to witness the spectacle of Tasmanian senators using this as a means of, I suppose, some election value in an election year when both Senator Wright and Senator Rae come up for election. I just wish to repeat the fact that 1 am not going to make any hasty judgment on this question, i want to see a viable industry in Tasmania— I am sure we all do—bu t Tasmania has problems which are peculiar to the island. Senator Devitt made the point that because of the small holdings the alternatives open to these people are limited. We can only restructure the industry along sound lines, which means particularly balancing production against our marketing outlets. 525 KBW 0 0 WRIGHT, Reginald Senator Wright - You are relying on grubbing grants, are you? 525 ISW ALP 1 0 WRIEDT, Ken Senator WRIEDT Senator Wright's Government introduced the scheme, and I must differ with him again. I believe that this was a positive scheme which Senator Wright's Government introduced, as 1 said in answer to a question in this chamber about 2 weeks ago. These were the sorts of steps that had to be taken, and 1 am not arguing with that particular policy of the past. I do not want to continue for any length of time, but I want to make one or two observations about revaluation. Senator O'Byrne made the relevant point. The Australian Country Party did not want revaluation, despite the fact that all the expert knowledge that was available to the previous Government said: You should revalue the Australian dollar'. The Country Party, which was holding a gun at the head of the Liberal Party, said: 'You will not revalue the dollar because this is not in the interests of the country people, and therefore the country at large can be held to ransom'. We inherited the problem in relation to the value of the Australian dollar. I noticed that Senator Rae made the comment: ' I do not challenge the decision of the Government on revaluation'. 1 think he is quite right. This of course indicates the sort of incompatability that existed in the previous coalition Government, and I have no doubt that it still exists today in the opposition parties. I do not wish to pursue this matter any further than to say that I can assure Senator Wright, as the initiator of this debate, that I will do all I can to make the apple and pear industry in Tasmania a viable industry. I can assure him that there is in this Government as much or more concern for the social effects on that industry, should it collapse, than there was in the previous Government. Question resolved in the affirmative. 525 23:33:00 Senate adjourned at 11.33 p.m. till Tuesday, 27 March, at 3 p.m. 526 Questions The following answers to questions were circulated: 526 526 KKP 0 0 GAIR, Vincent Senator GAIR asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: What are the names, designations and salaries of all speech writers, public relations officers and press secretaries appointed by the Prime Minister and Ministers to their personal staffs. What were the previous positions held by the appointees. What other such positions have yet to be filled. Senator MURPHY-The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) The names, designations and salaries of the relevant persons on my own staff are listed below. Press Secretaries, Public Relations Officers, Speech Writers etc. Appointed by the Prime Minister Press Secretary - Mr Evan Williams - $12,175 $3,000 special allowance Public Relations Officer- Mr Eric Walsh- $9,715 Media Officer- Mr David White- -$9,338 Within the basic staff establishment I have approved for each Minister, there is provision for a Press Secretary. It is my intention to provide the Parliament with a statement showing the details of personal staff establishment of each Minister and of each Office-holder of the non-Government parties as soon as appointments to these positions have been completed. 526 526 K69 0 0 SIM, John Senator SIM asked the Minister represent ing the Prime Minister, upon notice: Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the Premier of Western Australia concerning the adverse effects which the present currency situation is having on that State's economy. Was the letter sent some 3 weeks ago; if so, has the Government yet considered the case presented by the Premier of Western Australia. When can the Premier of Western Australia expect the courtesy of a reply from the Prime Minister. Senator MURPHY-The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2) and (3) A telegram about the international currency situation from the Premier of Western Australia was received in my office on 16th February. In my absence overseas during the following week, the Acting Prime Minister replied to the Premier on 23rd February. 526 526 KVK 0 0 MULVIHILL, James Senator MULVIHILL asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice: Has Mr Joseph Trimboli of Belconnen Way, Page, Australian Capital Territory paid the fines imposed upon him under the Alsatian Dogs Ordinance. Is Mr Trimboli being kept under supervision to ensure that he does not ill-treat his dog in the future. Senator WILLESEE-The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. It is understood the dog has been destroyed. 526 526 KAS 0 0 WEBSTER, James Senator WEBSTER asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: Was the statement, made by the Prime Minister which made public details of the Australian intelligence base in Singapore, in accord with the Labor Government's announced intention of more open government; if so, consistent with that decision, does the Government intend to inform the Australian public and the world in general of all other Australian intelligence units throughout the world. Senator MURPHY-The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I refer the honourable senator to my statement in Parliament on 1 March (Hansard, House of Representatives, pages 129-130).