19700310_reps_27_hor66.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<hansard xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd" version="2.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
  <session.header>
    <date>1970-03-10</date>
    <parliament.no>27</parliament.no>
    <session.no>2</session.no>
    <period.no>1</period.no>
    <chamber>REPS</chamber>
    <page.no>197</page.no>
    <proof>0</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <day.start>1970-03-10</day.start>
      <para>
        <inline font-weight="bold">Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston)</inline>took the chair at 2.30 p.m . fid read prayers. </para>
    </business.start>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>KANGAROOS</title>
        <page.no>197</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Petition</title>
          <page.no>197</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>
          <inline font-weight="bold">Mr McIVOR</inline>presented from certain residents of the State of Victoria a petition showing that because of uncontrolled shooting for commercial purposes, the population of the red kangaroo, and other marsupials has fallen to a numerical level, which places their survival in jeopardy. None of the States in Australia has sufficient wardens to apprehend people who break the inadequate laws in existence. In such a vast country as Australia, only Commonwealth control over wildlife, complete cessation of commercialisation of the kangaroo, and uniform laws, can ensure the survival of our national emblem. It is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a scale, if no provision is made for the future. </para>
        <para>The petitioners pray that the export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in this matter. </para>
        <para>Petition received and read. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICE OF MOTION</title>
        <page.no>197</page.no>
        <type>notice of motion</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>197</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JTP</name.id>
            <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role>Treasurer</role>
            <in.gov>1</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BURY, Leslie</name>
            <name role="display">Mr BURY</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- 1 give notice that at the next sitting I will move: </para>
        </talk.start>
        <quote>
          <para>That in relation to the proceedings on any Sales Tax Bills so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent </para>
          <list type="loweralpha">
            <item label="(a)">
              <para>the presentation of the first readings of the Bills together, </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(b)">
              <para>one motion being moved and one question being put in regard to respectively the second readings, the Committee&#39;s report stages and the third readings of all the Bills together, and </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(c)">
              <para>the consideration of all the Bills as a whole together in a Committee of the Whole. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </quote>
        <para class="block">
          <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Speaker,</inline>I think I should let the House know that this is purely a procedural motion and that no immediate introduction of sales tax legislation is contemplated. As I shall explain more fully tomorrow, the motion will merely clear the way for the introduction, at any time, of Sales Tax Bills together. </para>
      </speech>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>197</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA: WOUNDING CHARGE</title>
          <page.no>197</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>197</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate>WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Minister for External Territories undoubtedly will have been disturbed by the facts disclosed in a trial in Rabaul 12 days ago in which a patrol officer was given a suspended 6 months sentence for unlawfully wounding a small boy and he and another patrol officer were acquitted on a charge of causing the boy grievous bodily harm while they were engaged in target practice with a pistol. He will note that it was not a case of accidental wounding, as the Attorney-General has stated. I ask: Was the pistol an official one issued to the patrol officer concerned and what levels and classifications of Administration employees are issued with pistols or are permitted to carry them? Have instructions been issued since this incident occurred last September to ensure that target practice does not take place in built up areas? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>197</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JOA</name.id>
              <electorate>MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for External Territories</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARNES, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BARNES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In answer to the honourable member&#39;s question I point out that this decision was taken by the court. On this I do not have any comment. I will look at the other matters which the honourable member raised and advise him later. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>197</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TAXATION</title>
          <page.no>197</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>197</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVM</name.id>
              <electorate>CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">STREET, Anthony</name>
              <name role="display">Mr STREET</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Treasurer a question. Could a more objective means be used to determine whether or not profitable share transactions are liable for income tax, rather than the present highly subjective method which attempts to assess the intentions of the person concerned? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>197</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JTP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BURY, Leslie</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BURY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I have spent some considerable time looking at this question and honourable members will have observed the statement on the subject issued over the weekend by the Commissioner of Taxation. It has been suggested in a number of quarters that there should be specific cut-off points and a capital gains tax imposed on any profits rather than to treat them as income. The present law has been in effect for over 40 years and the test is that if property, including shares, is bought for the purpose of re-sale at a profit and not for income or investment purposes, the profits gained thereby are assessed as taxable income. In practice this has caused very few of the difficulties which theoretically have been raised by members of the public and the Press. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I have looked at the suggestion that a capital gains tax should be substituted but the subject is complex. Other countries have imposed this system and sometimes the result has been an administrative headache out of all proportion to the results. 1 will continue to look at this problem. </para>
          <para>The best guidance that can be given to anyone in the community is to make a full revelation of his share transactions and indicate quite clearly which shares are intended for re-sale and profit and which shares are intended for investment purposes. In practice there has been very little trouble in the past out of the exercise of judgment in these matters. There is no real reason to think that there will be in the future. There is certainly not enough concern about the present system to introduce any hurried changes of the law. </para>
          <para>Those taxpayers who honestly state their position will in the normal course, naturally, have it accepted as is the case with other income tax returns. Where taxpayers are in any doubt they can apply for the advice of a senior tax official who will give such advice to them. No assessments will go out under this head which have not been examined by a senior taxation official and if any disputes should arise between the taxpayer and the Commissioner of Taxation the matter can be referred in the normal course to a tribunal. But so far my conclusion is that it would be unwise to legislate hurriedly just to clear up a difficulty which we Ho not expect in practice to arise. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>198</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN</title>
          <page.no>198</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>198</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KRK</name.id>
              <electorate>GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCIVOR, Hector</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McIVOR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Minister for Social Services whether it is true that in Victoria alone the number of names on the waiting list of State residential centres for mentally retarded children stands at approximately 1,433 and is growing by 100 or more per year? Would it be also true to say that plans for additional accommodation make provision for only 636 beds over the next 5 years? Does the Minister agree that this state of affairs represents a desperate situation to the parents of these unfortunate children and other members of their families and places a tremendous strain on the health of the parents caring for the retarded? Therefore, will he consider making available under the home health services such services as those of social workers, physiotherapists, teachers and speech therapists, and will he consider giving financial assistance to parents whose child requires these services? Finally, will he make available to the House the total number of those awaiting admission to residential centres throughout Australia? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>198</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>DB6</name.id>
              <electorate>MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Social Services</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WENTWORTH, William Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WENTWORTH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am not able to confirm the exact number of the cases to which the honourable member has referred, but I would not dispute the general correctness of the kind of picture that he has given. A survey of the whole of Australia in this regard is at present under consideration. But I would remind him, and f think the House would be glad to be reminded, that the Governmnent has given this matter a high priority and considers it a matter about which something deserves to be done. It was particularly noted in the Prime Minister&#39;s policy speech that legislation touching some part of the very deserving field to which the honourable member has drawn attention will be introduced. At the present moment such legislation is under consideration and I hope to be able to introduce it shortly. I would assert that the Government is doing something about the matter, and although I would not be so optimistic as to say that everything can be solved overnight the honourable member can be assured that this very real problem is right in the sights of the Government and something will be done about it in this House very shortly. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>198</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>MR WILFRED BURCHETT</title>
          <page.no>198</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>198</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KSB</name.id>
              <electorate>BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCLEAY, John Elden</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McLEAY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer to his statement in the House last Thursday night that no prosecution for offences of treachery or treason can be mounted against <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Burchett</inline> because there has been no formal declaration of war in Vietnam. I ask him whether, in view of the modern trend towards undeclared wars by subversion and terrorism - which is so obvious in Laos at the moment - the Crimes Act can be revised, possibly in consultation with the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">States, to ensure that such treachery can never be repeated and remain unpunished where Australians servicemen are involved? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>199</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>IIS</name.id>
              <electorate>BEROWRA, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Attorney-General</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HUGHES, Tom</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HUGHES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- A prosecution for the offence of treason under the Crimes Act does not depend upon the existence of a declared war; it does, however, depend upon there being an enemy proclaimed by a proclamation issued by the Governor-General. The question that the honourable gentleman has raised does involve a very general question of legislative policy. I am bound to say that the requirement as to the existence of a proclaimed enemy was introduced into the Crimes Act in 1960. There being a question of policy involved, all I can properly undertake to do is to take the matter into consideration and let the honourable member know in due course what my decision is. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>199</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>CORSAIR FIGHTER-BOMBER</title>
          <page.no>199</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>199</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JO8</name.id>
              <electorate>BASS, TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BARNARD, Lance</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BARNARD</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Has the Minister for Defence seen reports that a sales team from LTV Aerospace Corporation is in Australia? Is this organisation the manufacturer of the Corsair fighter-bomber? If so, has the delegation been invited to Australia by the Government to negotiate the replacement of the Fill by the Corsair? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>199</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>QS4</name.id>
              <electorate>WANNON, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FRASER, Malcolm</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Malcolm Fraser</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- This is apparently a pretty competitive business. My information about this matter comes from the same source as that of the honourable member. I read it in the newspapers also. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>199</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>INTEREST RATES</title>
          <page.no>199</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>199</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JLR</name.id>
              <electorate>FISHER, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ADERMANN, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ADERMANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Treasurer whether the increased rate of interest of one half of 1% imposed by the Governor of the Reserve Bank applies to advances made by the Rural Credits Department of the Bank to producers against the delivery of their crops? Was not the Rural Credits Department created and designed to meet the need to make such advances, not to swell the profits of the Bank, but at a rate that would be as low as possible and just sufficient to meet the costs of the Bank in that Department? Seeing that such an impost is a direct tax upon the already overburdened producers, is the Government allowing the Governor to take over some of its taxing rights, or will the Treasurer assure me that this tax will not be imposed? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>199</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JTP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BURY, Leslie</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BURY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I understand that the new interest rates will not apply to advances by the Rural Credits Department for the very important matters which it finances, very largely on behalf of the nation. The statement by the Reserve Bank about increasing interest rates is of great significance to the whole economy. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>199</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>BV8</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CALWELL, Arthur</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Calwell</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- And you approved of it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>199</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JTP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BURY, Leslie</name>
                <name role="display">Mr BURY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The right honourable member for Melbourne always knows everything about everything. Even when he sat on the Opposition front bench he used to mumble the answers to all the questions he had asked. The economy, as is widely recognised, and certainly by the Reserve Bank and by responsible authority generally, is in an overheated condition. The purpose of the upward movement of interest rates is, above all, to serve as a signal to all elements of the economy but particularly to dampen down the demand for bank finance. Within this general increase the privileged position which has applied for some time to rural producers and exporters will continue to apply. In other words they will be charged lower rates. As the right honourable member will recollect, this was negotiated by the Government and the Reserve Bank with the trading banks some years ago. Unfortunately, the rural sector is not sharing the general prosperity which is now pretty universal elsewhere. Therefore the Government is somewhat concerned about the effect that any absolute rise in interest rates, even though applied generally, will have on rural producers. I shall be having conversations with the Governor of the Reserve Bank about this problem very shortly. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>199</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>NATURAL GAS</title>
          <page.no>199</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>199</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KID</name.id>
              <electorate>MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LUCHETTI, Anthony</name>
              <name role="display">Mr LUCHETTI</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the Minister for National Development to tell the House what action has been taken by the Government to plan the distribution of natural gas from the Bass Strait fields to New South Wales. Has the Government a pipeline policy? If so, has it indicated the route which the pipeline should traverse? Has any financial grant or subsidy been offered in connection with the pipeline construction? Does the Government intend to allow the distribution of this important source of energy to be determined by Esso-BHP without regard to broad national considerations? Finally, has the Government any plans for the distribution of natural gas from the Palm Valley-Mereenie fields in the Northern Territory? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>200</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KVR</name.id>
              <electorate>DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for National Development</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SWARTZ, Reginald</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SWARTZ</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The formulation of policy in relation to this matter really resides in the State governments of Victoria and New South Wales, although, of course, the Commonwealth has an overriding interest in the formulation of export policy, which is under its jurisdiction. Only a month or so ago we made an announcement on this aspect. The direction the pipeline will take when it is constructed and whether any spur lines will be added are matters to be decided by the two States and the companies that are directly involved. I understand from a public statement I read recently that the two State Ministers have conferred and I would expect that before too long some announcement will be made. The New South Wales Minister for Mines was present at a conference I attended last night and he intimated to me again, just as a matter of interest, that he expected to be in a position to make some announcement in conjunction with his colleague in Victoria in the near future. I should imagine that the answer to the first part of the question asked by the honourable member will be available from the two State Ministers. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The second part of the question related to subsidies. To date no request for a subsidy has been submitted to the Commonwealth by the States. When the direction of the pipeline and the requirement for spur lines are decided, if a request for assistance is made to the Commonwealth at some time in the future some consideration will be given to it. The third part of the question related to the Mereenie field, which is in the Northern Territory. At present some deposits of crude oil and gas have been located in this area, which is south west of Alice Springs, but no decision has yet been made regarding the exploitation of the field or the marketing of the product. I did have an interview with a deputation representing all the interests concerned only in the last couple of weeks. We discussed all aspects at length. Some further information is required for consideration by my Department and I understand that a further submission will be made within a matter of weeks. After the matter has been considered, and when a decision is made. I will certainly give the information to the House. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>200</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>EMPRESS OF AUSTRALIA</title>
          <page.no>200</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>200</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KU8</name.id>
              <electorate>DENISON, TASMANIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SOLOMON, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Dr SOLOMON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I address my question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. It has been alleged in Tasmania that the Australian National Line&#39;s ship &#39;Empress of Australia&#39; may be converted from a passenger-cargo carrier to an exclusively cargo vessel. Can the Minister state whether the Government has a possible solution to the industrial difficulties which could cause the complete loss of this vital link in Tasmania&#39;s tourist trade? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>200</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>5E4</name.id>
              <electorate>NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SINCLAIR, Ian</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SINCLAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Let me first of all assure the honourable member that there is no intention to convert the &#39;Empress of Australia&#39; from a passenger-cargo to a purely cargo carrier. But at the same time I would say that the whole operation of the Empress of Australia&#39; has necessarily been converted for the time being to the carriage of cargo only, entirely because of the irresponsible actions of the stewards on board the vessel. Since 7th March it has been necessary for the ship to operate only as a cargo carrier. However, it will immediately return to the carriage of passengers as soon as stewards are available to man the ship. One cannot but help draw a comparison between the number of stewards that are necessary under Australian manning conditions to operate this ship and the number who work on shore. I am told that the &#39;Empress of Australia&#39; carries a maximum of 250 passengers. Normally only some 200 would be on board. At times in the off season there might be as few as 50. In order to service anything from 50 to 250 passengers something like 51 stewards are required. Yet in a club such as the St George Leagues Club in Sydney, at which the mixed lounge caters for some 270 persons, only 13 stewards are employed. I am not sure what solution there is to this problem industrially and I can well understand the concern of the honourable member for Denison and the people of Tasmania over the continuation of this vital link between the mainland and their State. But I do believe that it might well be time for consideration to be given to the question of whether, perhaps, a contractor might come in and contract to provide the services for passengers, or whether there might not be some other way by which a reasonable level of service can be provided to the passengers so that the ship can return to what we believe is the normal and required task of servicing this island State. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>201</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>COLOUR TELEVISION</title>
          <page.no>201</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>201</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KYS</name.id>
              <electorate>BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">REYNOLDS, Leonard</name>
              <name role="display">Mr REYNOLDS</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I ask the PostmasterGeneral whether there is deep concern in the television and associated electronic industries concerning the Government&#39;s very indefinite proposals regarding the timing of the introduction of colour television in Australia. Does the industry regard the promised  18  months notice as quite inadequate for the necessary re-equipping and training of staff that will be involved? Can the Minister now satisfy, even in some tentative way, the interests of investors, manufacturers and the viewing public by naming an approximate date when this amenity will be introduced, or must they all remain in the dark for some further indefinite period? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>201</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KIF</name.id>
              <electorate>PETRIE, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Postmaster-General</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HULME, Alan</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HULME</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- There may be some concern in certain areas of the television industry about the lack of an announcement as to when colour television might be introduced. I do not think this concern is justified because at the time I indicated to the Parliament and to the public that  18  months notice would be given. I also said that it was necessary for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to be in touch with industry - and I speak of industry in the broadest possible terms - about technical requirements and standard requirements. The Board only recently received answers to a very lengthy questionnaire. It will process these answers and in due course will make a recommendation or a report to me. Then I shall submit that report to the Government. Having regard to the requirements of technical and other standards it would be impossible at the present time to make any statement or determination as to a date for the introduction of colour television. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Speaker,</inline> 1 do not believe that  18  months is too short a period. It has not been represented to me by the television stations or by the industry that  18  months from the time when the announcement is made is too short a period for them to be prepared for colour television. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>201</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>PARAPLEGIC GAMES</title>
          <page.no>201</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>201</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K9L</name.id>
              <electorate>CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GARLAND, Ransley</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GARLAND</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I understand that he has received from Western Australia a request for financial assistance from the Australian Paraplegic Council to assist in sending a team to the Third Commonwealth Paraplegic Games in Edinburgh this year. Can the Prime Minister inform me when he expects to make a decision? If he has already made a decision, what was the result of it? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>201</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate>HIGGINS, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Prime Minister</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GORTON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr Speaker,</inline>this matter has been brought up from time to time by the association concerned. I recently gave personal consideration to it. It has been decided that we will make a grant of  $5,000  to the Paraplegic Association to enable it to send a team of paraplegics to Edinburgh to take part in the Paraplegic Games associated with the Commonwealth Games. It is proposed that this grant will be available to the Association every  2  years - it will not cover the full cost but it will assist - when these Games take place, or at such intervals as they do take place. I hope, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Speaker,</inline> that this will be seen as further action by the Government to assist those in our midst who are handicapped. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>201</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>RESERVE BANK</title>
          <page.no>201</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>201</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JAG</name.id>
              <electorate>MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CREAN, Frank</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CREAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I note that he says that he will have future talks with the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I ask him specifically: First, did he have discussions with the Governor of the Reserve Bank prior to the recent increase in interest rates? Secondly, does he in general support the increases in interest rates? Thirdly, what positive, even specific, benefits, internal and external, does he believe will flow from the increase in interest rates? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>201</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JTP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BURY, Leslie</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BURY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am in pretty close and, fairly continuous contact with the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Our discussions roam over a pretty wide field. I would not point to anything specific, nor could I be expected to deal with the exact subject of conversation from time to time. I certainly do support the increase in interest rates which the Reserve Bank has jus&#39; <inline font-style="italic">wnnounced.</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The increase in bank advances over the last 7 months has been <inline font-style="italic">2i</inline> times to 3 times as much as in the corresponding period last financial year. The demand for money is extremely strong. 1 would expect this rise in interest rates to weaken the demand. But, above all, I would expect this increase to serve as a general signal and warning to the whole business and financial community that we are straining our resources and that it is not possibLe to extract a quart from a pint pot. This is its main purpose. Certainly, it will have the effect of dampening down some new activity at a time when the economy cannot stand it. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>202</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>MEAT EXPORTS</title>
          <page.no>202</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>202</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5O</name.id>
              <electorate>MARANOA, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CORBETT, James</name>
              <name role="display">Mr CORBETT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Can the Minister for Primary Industry advise the House whether the Australian Meat Board obtains sufficient information of the quantities of meat being exported to the United States of America early enough to ensure, through the diversification scheme, that supplies of meat to that market are regulated evenly throughout the year? Can the Minister give an assurance that checks will be kept on actual and proposed shipments so that southern Queensland crop  fatteners  of cattle will not be disadvantaged? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>202</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>BU4</name.id>
              <electorate>RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for Primary Industry</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ANTHONY, Doug</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ANTHONY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Over the past 2 years, the American prices for manufacturing types of meat particularly have been so buoyant that, to avoid oversupplying the market there and having to curtail exports during part of the year, the Australian Meat Board recommended the diversification scheme. This recommendation was supported by the Government. The diversification scheme sought to regulate the supply of meat and also to give encouragement to exporters to look for other markets. Unfortunately, we are still in the experimental stages of making this regulation work successfully. Last year, we had the unfortunate circumstances of having to curtail exports about August, which did have its repercussions, particularly in the electorate that the honourable member represents where cattle are fattened towards the end of the year and if producers cannot get the same sales in America at that time the tendency is for the price to be depressed. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>However, the Australian Meat Board has announced this year that the ratio between exports to the United States market and non-United States markets will be tighter because, on the present indications, if we allowed exports to run freely we would need to cut them off early. Futhermore, the Meat Board is improving its statistical information from both the producers and the exporters so that it has a better indication of what the supply of meat is that will be coming forward and is likely to be exported. </para>
          <para>Thirdly, every exporter will have to inform the Meat Board, on a monthly basis, as to the amount of meat that is going to the American market. If this proposed export represents a debt against the diversification ratio, the exporter will not be allowed to export it. Further, 1 wish to inform the honourable member that, as from 1st June of this year, no exporter will be allowed to export to the United States market without the approval of the Australian Meat Board for each shipment. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>202</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>HEALTH SCHEME</title>
          <page.no>202</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>202</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JP8</name.id>
              <electorate>PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BERINSON, Joe</name>
              <name role="display">Mr BERINSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- 1 address a question lo the Minister for Health. Further to the assurance in his ministerial statement last week that he &#39;confidently looks forward to the general co-operation of medical practitioners&#39;, 1 ask the Minister: What was the basis of his confidence last week? Does he still have this confidence now that he is aware of the initial reaction by doctors to his statement? Finally, in the event that the co-operation of the medical profession is not forthcoming, is it the Minister&#39;s intention to implement recommendation IS of the report of the Nimmo Committee on Health Insurance, which allows for the exclusion of doctors from the scheme under given circumstances; and what other action is the Minister considering to cover this situation? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>202</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KFH</name.id>
              <electorate>BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Health</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FORBES, Alexander</name>
              <name role="display">Dr FORBES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Answering the last part of the honourable gentleman&#39;s question first, in my statement to the House last week I indicated the Government&#39;s view that at this stage it did not intend to implement the proposal of the Nimmo Committee relating to a participating doctors&#39; scheme at this time. I said that the Government would watch very closely the degree of co-operation by the profession in the common fee system. At this stage I do not propose to go any further than what I said in that statement, which was a considered statement. I presume that the honourable gentleman based his question on a statement made yesterday after a meeting in Adelaide of the Australian Medical Association. It is clear from the statement, which I have seen, that the AMA proposes certain variations from the suggestions which it had previously submitted and which have been incorporated in the Government&#39;s health benefits plan. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the Government&#39;s first concern and responsibility in health are to the patient. In furtherance of that objective, and bearing in mind particularly what the AMA said about differential rates of benefits for specialist services, the Government believes that people who need the services of specialists should not be at a disadvantage financially beyond the limits of the benefits proposals already announced, that is that nobody would have to pay more than $5 for a service by a doctor who charges the common fee. But if within the ambit of the Government&#39;s clear intention the AMA now wishes to put forward modified proposals I will be very glad to discuss them with the Association. I need hardly say that it is still the Government&#39;s intention to proceed with its proposal to introduce as early as possible during the current sitting legislation to reconstruct the medical benefits scheme. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>203</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>WATERFRONT STOPPAGES</title>
          <page.no>203</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>203</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JWI</name.id>
              <electorate>HENTY, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FOX, Edmund</name>
              <name role="display">Mr FOX</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Will the Minister for Labour and National Service say whether 24-hour stop work meetings are to be held on the waterfront tomorrow in Sydney, Brisbane, Hobart and Fremantle? Are the meetings likely to extend into general stoppages of work? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>203</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>DQF</name.id>
              <electorate>BRUCE, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Labour and National Service</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SNEDDEN, Billy</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SNEDDEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Official stop work meetings are to be held tomorrow in Sydney, Brisbane, Hobart and Fremantle. I fear that those four official stop work meetings will be extended into 24-hour stoppages. The Waterside Workers Federation of Australia has claims before the national conference of parties interested in the stevedoring industry. Those claims were made orally for the first time on 4th February this year. On 1 1th February the claims were put in writing and the employers, who are fellow members of the conference, asked for documentation to support the claims. On 4th March the conference met and discussed the claims for the first time. The next meeting of the conference is scheduled for 20th March, when, presumably, the claims will be revived for further discussion. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I am informed that last week the Federal Council of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia met in Sydney and there passed a resolution, the tenor of which I believe to be a recommendation that there be an all-port national stoppage commencing on 21st March to pursue these claims, and further that when the stoppage occurs on 21st March there not be another meeting of the Waterside Workers Federation branches in each of those ports until 25th March; which means that there will be a 5-day all-port stoppage throughout Australia. The meetings tomorrow, I believe, will be held in order to consider the Federal Council&#39;s resolution. I am bound to say that I deprecate the possibility that there will be stoppages of this magnitude - with their obvious harm to Australian industry, commerce and the general welfare of the people - while claims are before the national conference, which has the support of all parties including the Waterside Workers Federation and the employers. </para>
          <para>I am unable to say, naturally enough, what will be the attitude of the employers to these claims but it is significant that the proposed strike action is scheduled to be held the very day after the next meeting of the national conference, which no doubt has been selected in order to exert/some pressure for the granting of the claims. The final point I would make in this factual statement is that 25th March, when the proposed strike, if it be held, would end would leave just one working day before the Easter break. I have no doubt that the importance and the significance of that point would not escape the honourable member or any member of the House who has any experience in this area. I can only say that I do deprecate very greatly the possibility of this direct action in this manner at a time when claims are before the national conference, which has the support of all parties including the Waterside Workers Federation. In anticipation of this matter arising I did write a letter on, 1 think, 26th February to the  President  of the Australian Council of Trade Unions drawing his attention to the way in which things were shaping and asking him to use all the power he possesses to ensure that wiser counsel will prevail in the Waterside Workers Federation. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>204</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMPANIES ORDINANCE</title>
          <page.no>204</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>204</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WHITLAM</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The Attorney-General will have noted that Murphyores Holdings Ltd has turned in another loss- of $420,253 over the 28 weeks to 14th January following a loss of $747,136 for the financial year ended 30th June last. As this company is registered in the Australian Capital Territory where the Commonwealth Attorney-General has direct responsibility over companies, has the honourable gentleman ordered an inquiry into the company&#39;s affairs under the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Companies Ordinance? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>204</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>IIS</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HUGHES, Tom</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HUGHES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- 1 have read the newspaper article to which the honourable gentleman refers. I think the article was published this morning. In answer to the honourable gentleman&#39;s specific question I say no, I have not yet ordered an inquiry and I have not yet had time to take the matter under my consideration. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>204</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>AUSTRALIAN COMMUNIST PARTY</title>
          <page.no>204</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>204</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KJG</name.id>
              <electorate>MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">IRWIN, Leslie</name>
              <name role="display">Mr IRWIN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- ls the Minister for Labour and National Service aware that the Communist Party in Australia is savagely divided into two factions, the Aarons faction and the Clancy faction? fs he also aware that the struggle for power will be decided at the Party&#39;s conference at Easter time and that in the meantime each faction is trying to prove that it is more militant than the other? Are Communist union leaders calling strikes wherever possible to prove their militancy and are hundreds of thousands of Australian workers having their traditional loyalties imposed upon in what is only a Communist faction fight? Does the Government propose to do anything to expose the tactics of the Communists and to warn Australian workers that they are being used as dupes? ls the Minister also aware of a considerable backlash of opinion among the workers against strikes? Can the Government assist the officers of the genuine unions. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>204</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>DQF</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SNEDDEN, Billy</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SNEDDEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am aware that there is a faction fight in the Communist Party of Australia. In many ways it parallels the faction fight that we have seen so often in &#39; the Australian Labor Party. It is true that Communists occupy positions in the trade union movement of Australia - significant offices very often. The method by which they come to these offices is by applying themselves assiduously to the affairs of a union. They do this for the reason that they can attain positions of power and influence. Having attained the positions they then apply themselves, again assiduously, to the affairs of the union to hold their offices. Having obtained and held their offices they then not merely pursue the industrial interests of the unions but also use their positions of power and influence to pursue their political or disruptive policies. What the Government has done is lo provide, in the conciliation and arbitration legislation, provisions for secret ballots or for members of unions to require an election for offices of unions. There are a number of provisions in the Act, unfortunately not used as frequently as they ought to be. Apart from the legislation, I can only say, as I have already said today, that I draw the attention of good trade unionists in Australia to the way in which they are so often misused by these people whom they have elected to office believing they would serve their interests but who, in fact, are serving their own political interests. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>204</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>TORRES STRAIT WATERS</title>
          <page.no>204</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>204</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KGH</name.id>
              <electorate>WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HANSEN, Brendan</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HANSEN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I address a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Was a Torres Strait pilot in charge of the Oceanic Grandeur&#39; when it had a collision with a submerged object? What recent hydrographic surveys have been carried out in Torres Strait? What vessels are available to carry out such surveys? Because of the extensive use of this passage by larger and deeper draft tankers and bulk ore carriers, can early action be taken to ensure that charts of Torres Strait are kept up to date? </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>204</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>5E4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>CP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">SINCLAIR, Ian</name>
              <name role="display">Mr SINCLAIR</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I am informed that a Torres Strait pilot was on board the Oceanic Grandeur&#39; at the time of her striking a submerged body. Indeed, I am told that he is one of the most proficient of the pilots who operate in the Torres Strait area. Apparently only recently the Queensland and Torres Strait Pilots Service agreed to handle vessels of increased draught through the Strait, the increase being from 37 feet 6 inches to 39 feet. The Royal Australian Navy hydrographer has advised that a detailed check by the survey vessel Paluma&#39; has disclosed that the depth at the point the vessel struck, which is shown on the charts as 37 feet, is actually 34 feet. Arrangements, consequently, are being made by my Department suitably to mark this obstruction. It is obvious that as a result of the very marked tides and the difficulty in charting accurately the depths of water in this passage there may well be some improvements to navigational aids and to charting of the area consequential upon the grounding of the &#39;Oceanic Grandeur&#39;. I have asked an officer of my Department to investigate the circumstances of the grounding. When his report is available and when I am in a position to ascertain accurately what additional measures, if any, are needed to be taken, particularly with regard to the cartage of oil in laden tankers through the passage, I will either take action or, if need be, make a statement to the House upon it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ABORIGINAL AGED PERSONS HOMES TRUST</title>
        <page.no>205</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ministerial Statement</title>
          <page.no>205</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>205</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>DB6</name.id>
              <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for Social Services</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WENTWORTH, William Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr WENTWORTH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- by leave - The House will recall that on 26th September I announced the Government&#39;s intention to set up an Aboriginal Aged Persons Homes Trust. The necessary formalities have now been completed, and I now lay on the table a copy of the trust deed. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Under the Aged Persons Homes Act, the Government contributes S2 for every Si subscribed from non-governmental sources for the provision of non-profit homes for aged persons. Aboriginals are eligible for this on the same basis as anybody else, but they may not always have the same ability to provide or attract their one-third of the cost. This Trust is designed to fill the gap- </para>
          <para>The Trust is set up to receive gifts of money from the public, and to use these gifts for the payment of the one-third contribution on behalf of Aboriginals who take the benefit of the Act. The Government will provide the other two-thirds. </para>
          <para>I am delighted to confirm that three very distinguished persons have consented to act as trustees. They are:  His  Grace the Primate of Australia, Archbishop P. N. W. Strong, C.M.G.,  His  Eminence Cardinal <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Norman</inline> Gilroy, Archbishop of Sydney and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr B.</inline> B. Callaghan, C.B.E., the Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. These three trustees will have a board of advice consisting of six Aboriginal members, namely, <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs Eileen</inline> Lester of New South Wales, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr James</inline> Berg of Victoria, <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs Kath</inline> Walker of Queensland, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr N.</inline> T. Bonner of Queensland, <inline font-weight="bold">Mrs Maude</inline> Tongerie of South Australia and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr George</inline> Harwood of Western Australia. I would like to express my appreciation for the willingness of these prominent people to act. It is to be hoped that an Aboriginal from the Northern Territory will shortly join the board. </para>
          <para>The deed sets out the objects of the Trust as follows: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The object of the charity is to solicit and receive gifts of money from members of the public and, in accordance with the provisions of this deed, to distribute them for any or all of the following purposes: </para>
            <list type="loweralpha">
              <item label="(a)">
                <para>to eligible organisations towards the cost of approved homes to be used wholly or mainly for persons of the Aboriginal race; </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(b)">
                <para>to provide donations for persons of the Aboriginal race; or </para>
              </item>
              <item label="(c)">
                <para>such other similar charitable purposes for the Aboriginal race as the Minister from time to time approves.&#39; </para>
              </item>
            </list>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I should like to make it clear that the funds can be used either to provide any necessary donation for an Aboriginal who has been accepted for entrance into a normal aged persons home or alternatively for the setting up of aged persons homes devoted wholly or mainly to persons of Aboriginal origin. Naturally the decision will depend upon existing circumstances: What well may be the best practice for Sydney or Melbourne may be inappropriate for northern Queensland. The great objective is to make Aboriginals comfortable and secure in their old age, and in this their own preference and established ways of life must be considered. We would not want old people to be unsettled and unhappy in surroundings to which they are unaccustomed. The trust deed provides: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The Trustees shall distribute the moneys received for the charity in accordance with this Deed. In deciding the manner and amounts in which (he funds of the charity are to be distributed, the Trustees shall have regard to the recommendations of the Board. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This means, in effect, that the day to day decisions as to how the money is to be spent will be made on the recommendations of the Aboriginal Board. This expresses our principle of involving Aboriginals to the greatest possible extent in the decisions affecting Aboriginal life. The income of the Trust will be exempt from taxation, and there will be no stamp duty in the Australian Capital Territory. The Office of Aboriginal Affairs will provide the necessary office service to the Trust free of charge. In consequence, virtually all moneys received as donations will be devoted to providing housing for Aged Aboriginals, and every $1 donated will be matched by 2 Government dollars, so that each $1 given will provide $3 worth of accommodation. The scope of the Trust will be determined by public donations. There are many people who say they want to do something practical to help Aboriginals. Here is their chance. Donations are deductible for income tax purposes, and should be sent to: </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal Aged Persons Trust Account,</title>
          <page.no>206</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Commonwealth Savings Bank,</title>
          <page.no>206</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Civic Square,</title>
          <page.no>206</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CANBERRA. ACT</title>
        <page.no>206</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para class="block">I would like to impress that address for donations on the House and the public. The Account is now open, and I trust that the Press will give the Trust wide publicity. Receipts for all donations - which, as I have said, are deductions for income tax purposes - will be sent out in the normal way. Aboriginals have a long and honourable tradition of respect for their elders and their needs. We want to provide homes for these people, under conditions as nearly as possible of their own choosing, where they will not be cut off from their families and friends. I have every confidence that this Trust will get full Aboriginal support and that other Australians will also give it their blessing in the most practical way. I present the statement together with a copy of the trust deed and I move: </para>
      <quote>
        <para>That the House take note of the papers. </para>
      </quote>
      <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Beazley)</inline> adjourned. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE</title>
        <page.no>206</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>General Report</title>
          <page.no>206</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>206</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>009MM</name.id>
              <electorate>Wakefield</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KELLY, Bert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr KELLY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the Thirty- </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second General Report</title>
          <page.no>206</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">Ordered that the report be printed. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>LOAN (AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD) BILL 1970</title>
        <page.no>206</page.no>
        <type>bill</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Second Reading</title>
          <page.no>206</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Debate resumed from 4 March (vide page 79), on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Bury:</inline></para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the Bill be now read a second time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>206</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KXV</name.id>
              <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
              <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The principal purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth to meet its obligations, under the provisions of the Wheat Stabilisation Act, as guarantor of loans made through the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia to the Australian Wheat Board. These loans, of course, have been made as first advance payments to cover particular expenses. Because the Bill is restricted in its scope it is not therefore possible to debate the principal problems of the wheat industry. It is not possible to have a look at some of the remedies which may afford a practicable solution to these problems. It is therefore necessary to confine one&#39;s remarks to the purpose of the Bill. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Under the Wheat Stabilisation Acts, as they have been implemented right from the first Act at the end of the last War, there has been provision for the Commonwealth Government to be the guarantor of loans made available to the Wheat Board through the Reserve Bank, in the event of the wheat industry not being able to repay those moneys to the Reserve Bank by the specified time, which is 31st March of a particular year. Under the charter of the Reserve Bank these types of loans cannot be extended over the period of 1 2 months. Therefore it is quite clear that the Reserve Bank has no alternative but to lend the money to the industry. It is only right that the Government, which has forced the Bank to lend money to the industry with no say in the matter, should act as guarantor. This is what has happened. </para>
          <para>For the first time in 20 years this issue has arisen. The wheat industry is unable to repay the total advances for the 1968-69 season, for the first time since stabilisation has been enacted. The key to the problem lies in the Treasurer&#39;s second reading speech in which he says that the Board&#39;s income from sales of wheat will be insufficient to enable it to repay the borrowings in full by the due date. The sales of wheat for the 1968-69 season have been insufficient to repay the loan. Therefore the Government comes in as a guarantor. It is important that we should look at the cause of this problem, because confronting the Parliament today is a Bill upon which we have to vote to allow the Act to be enforced and for the Commonwealth to become the guarantor. But the same provision may apply this time next year or the following year within the provisions of the Wheat Stabilisation Act. </para>
          <para>Honourable members may ask: Why are we in this position today? It is obvious that there has been considerable bungling and a lack of leadership. It is obvious that the Government has failed to warn the wheat growers, the public and the taxpayers in sufficient time of the crisis that has arisen. At least 5 years ago the Treasury gave a warning that we were heading for trouble in the wheat industry. The Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony)</inline> stated in answer to a question last week that anybody who has been associated with the expansion that has taken place in the wheat industry in the last 5 years must be well aware thai wheat growers were heading for very serious trouble unless they expanded their market outlets. In other words, this knowledge was available, but because it was not passed on to the wheat industry and to the people of Australia we have reached the present position. The Minister gave an estimate with respect to the 1968-69 wheat harvest of deliveries of 435 million bushels which involved the Reserve Bank covering the first advance and expenses of S509m. That estimate was sadly wrong. As we know, the actual deliveries were in excess of 500 million bushels, and the loan from the Reserve Bank to the growers had to be increased. Provision was made for a loan of up to S634m, which is very big money. </para>
          <para>It was obvious to everybody, to the industry and to the Government, that last year there would be large sums of money unrepaid in respect of the 1968-69 harvest. The Government then made another advance of $440m. Looking at it in perspective now, in March 1970, we see a total of $440m as the first advance for last year&#39;s crop and approximately $250m in unsold wheat or the equivalent still on hand. This amounts to a loan of from $650m to $700m having been made. The disturbing thing of which Parliament must take note is the very serious economic problem of the consequence of making large advances to anyone when that money has been spent and the product for which it has been advanced has not been sold. This is the very serious problem with which we are faced now and with which we will be faced this time next year. In anybody&#39;s logic it is wrong economically to provide large loans or finance for anything that is difficult. The money has been spent but the wheat which it represents has not been sold. There will be no further advances from the 1968 pool until approximately 1971 because under this legislation - and it is right - first priority must be given to the repayment of the guarantee. </para>
          <para>The third stage in the game was reached with the foreshadowing by the Minister for Primary Industry of a further advance. For the reduced quota of 318 million bushels a further loan has been foreshadowed of $407m. So we have a drawing right of up to S634m - I think the actual figure drawn was $600m- followed by $440m and followed now, at the end of the year, by $407m. This is very big loan money considering that it is being injected into the economy and that large proportions of the wheat are unsaleable. </para>
          <para>These are the problems which we have to face. Under the legislation as it is here today the Opposition takes the view that it has no alternative whatsoever but to support the Bill, because the principle it embodies is written in the Wheat Stabilisation Act, which the Opposition believes in, and it is the whole essence of orderly marketing, which again the Opposition believes in. The Opposition gives warning that if this state of affairs arises next year very serious consideration must be given to it. The Government has now been warned about what can happen by being a guarantor for large proportions of wheat that cannot be sold at this point of time. This is an important point. I made it very clear why the Opposition supports the guarantee under the provisions of the Wheat Stabilisation Act. This Parliament has no alternative but to support it because the Reserve Bank has to make this loan within the province of section 57. That does not mean that this commits the Government and the people of Australia to guaranteeing loans all the time, depending on government or industry decisions. This is the crux of the problem. </para>
          <para class="block">In the cold business world, would the Reserve Bank give a blank cheque for advances up to $634m, then when $250m of this was still outstanding give another $440m and, without knowing what would happen, another $407m at the end of the year? That is the very dangerous situation in which we could find ourselves. Very large amounts of money are involved. </para>
          <para>As I said before, we have no alternative to accepting the Bill. If the Parliament refused to allow the Government to be a guarantor there would be chaos in the industry. Wheat growers throughout Australia would become bankrupt. They would have to mortgage their farms to repay the loan if the Bank exercised its right to foreclose. Businesses in small and large wheat towns would become bankrupt. The point is that we have no alternative to going along with the Bill at this time. The criticism that the Opposition levies at the Government is that it did not face up to its responsibilities at least S years ago when the Treasury publicly, together with international agencies, warned that the wheat industry was heading for a crisis. This view was reinforced by the Minister for Primary Industry last Tuesday when he admitted that anybody who knew of the expansion in the industry would realise that we will have to face a very serious problem. Plans should have been made when the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill was introduced into the Parliament 2 years ago to solve the problem, but it was not until April of last year that any official statement was made about the crisis in the wheat industry. Up to that time the growers had been increasing production. </para>
          <para>The burning question that confronts the Parliament is this: How much of last season&#39;s crop will have to be guaranteed as unsaleable wheat at March of next year? The next question is: How much of next season&#39;s crop, for which $407m is being provided will be unsaleable? We must give very serious consideration to these questions. What will happen in the future? Because of the terms of the Bill we cannot explore such matters now. We can make only passing references to the major problems of the wheat industry. However, as we are dealing with the repayment of the loan, it is relevant to discuss the action taken by the Government to reduce production. Reduced production, of course, will mean a lowering of the total amount of the first advance payments and the indebtedness of the Commonwealth as guarantor. The Government has used the quota system. This in my opinion and in the opinion of thinking people is not only unjust but is also inequitable. A grower&#39;s average quota will be reduced by 20% or 30%. This will lead to an inefficient use of resources. However, I cannot delve into that matter now. It will also penalise the small grower, and we are very concerned about this. A person may have been an efficient grower for years, producing, say, 10,000 bushels. A reduction in his quota will place him in a very serious financial position. This is all relevant to the repayment of the loan. It is quite inequitable for the same percentage reduction to be applied to the large wheat grower with, say 100,000 bushels and to the person growing, say, 7,000 bushels. There is no economic justice in this and no justice in terms of logic, equity or the efficient use of resources. </para>
          <para>One assertion, which has been repeated time and time again, is erroneous and I want to clear it up. It is said that the wheat grower is being heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. I am not speaking of the future; this claim may well be true in the future. A reduction of 1 cent in the minimum price under the International Grains Arrangement will, over the 5-year period, mean that the taxpayers will have to pay SI Om to meet the guaranteed figure under the stabilisation scheme. A reduction of 20% will make the figure S200m, and this is very big money. That is the problem which worries me. The Minister for Primary Industry has admitted in speeches he has made that big money could be involved in the future, depending on the price under the International Grains Arrangement. Up to this time it has been unfair to say that the wheat grower has been subsidised. The latest official figures contained in a survey made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics show quite clearly that in the 3 years of the survey, the actual subsidy averaged only S3 22 a farm. This works out at approximately 3i cent&#34;! n bushel. That is the amount of the subsidy according to the official figures of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. </para>
          <para>Let us look at the income position for wheat growers after the Second World War. These are not my figures; they are the figures of agricultural economists, such as <inline font-weight="bold">Mr D.</inline> H. McKay, formerly Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. They show that the wheat industry is in credit up to the present by about $400m. Even taking into account the amount that the taxpayers have had to pay, the wheat industry is still on the credit side. This should always be kept in mind when people criticise the wheat industry. The reason for this is that in the post-war years the world price of wheat was considerably higher than the domestic price. The position then was the reverse of the position today. If wheal producers had been able to sell all their wheat at the world price they would have been very much better off than they were. The difference has been calculated as about $400m to the credit of the wheat industry. </para>
          <para>This debate is limited and it is not possible to discuss at length the problems of the wheat industry. I understand from the programme of legislation that we will be able to do this later when we debate a Bill dealing with wheat stabilisation. The Bill now before us is confined to finance. The Opposition supports the Bill because it has no alternative. This is the first time for 20 years that provisions such as these have been implemented. This is because section 57 of the Reserve Bank Act limits such loans as these to 1 2 months. We give notice that this position will not necessarily apply at this time next year. Large sums of money are involved and the Government must act, in the interests of the economy, to put its house in order within the next 12 months. The figures are astronomical. The outstanding <inline font-style="italic">amount</inline> is <inline font-style="italic">$250m.</inline> In addition the first advance is $440m and then on top of that will be $407m at the end of the year. The amounts depend on the Government&#39;s ability to sell the excess wheat. </para>
          <para>The best advice I can get, and it seems to be the best advice that the Government can get, is that there is no bright light ahead for the sale of wheat on the international market. The very large importing countries are becoming more and more self sufficient, due to government policies and technology, and we are in fact faced with a very real problem, not only because of the direct effect on the wheat industry but because of the indirect effect on the wool industry. There is one thing we must always remember: If we allow a stabilisation price for the wheat industry this has a very direct consequence on the wool industry. I say that because the majority of wheat produced in Australia is produced in rotation or in conjunction with wool. So the two industries are complementary or supplementary. </para>
          <para>With that warning about the dangers of making advances and of guaranteeing advances for a commodity which we have not sold - it will be a long time, up to 15 months according to what the Treasurer said, before that wheat will be sold - and with the snowballing effects of last season and this season, we are heading for a very serious problem so far as the finances of the wheat industry are concerned. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>209</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWR</name.id>
              <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TURNER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr Speaker,</inline>I have risen to take part in this debate to put one small point, though not an insignificant one, in direct relationship to the Bill before the House, though not relating to the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill which will be dealt with later. 1 am constrained to make some comments upon the speech of the honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson).</inline> He is a virtuoso in the art of walking the political tightrope.  His  speech reminded me very much of Satan reproving sin. What warning did the honourable member give about the difficulties of the wheat industry? He said that 5 years ago these difficulties were visible. Now, I suspect that if in fact the honourable member had said anything significant at that time he would have quoted it today. T do not know because I am not an expert in this field. I have more wool growers than wheat growers in the Bradfield electorate. But the honourable member said nothing and T take it that his warnings were not loud and clear 5 years ago or in the intervening period. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The honourable member for Dawson has not been a model of financial rectitude in regard to the rural industries and rural interests. If I remember rightly he was a great champion of the Ord River scheme which is costing, if it is ever completed - I trust it never will be completed - about. SI 00m. He made no objections then about the waste of large money, a phrase which he used in connection with the present Bill. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>210</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>NH4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KEATING, Paul</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Keating</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It was not his responsibility. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>210</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr TURNER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It was not his responsibility but he has been reproving the Government and saying that it did not do these things. If the honourable member had produced evidence that he had seen them he would have shown the superior wisdom of the Labor Party. That wisdom was not shown. Nevertheless he was quite prepared to make a little political capital out of the present Bill, although the Opposition pro- poses to support it. For example, theonourable member for Dawson said that it will take some time to dispose of the 1968-69 crop and that therefore wheat growers will get no further payment until 1971. That is jolly good stuff. One can always make a little bit of capital out of this kind of situation. So he wobbled over to the other side of the tightrope. He said that the reduction in the quota that small farmers may sell will be very distressing to them. Again he can make a little bit of political capital out of this. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Then - and now you can see the crocodile through the tears - he said that he is a little bit concerned about the taxpayers. Usually the honourable member is not at all concerned about the taxpayers. I think he would glory in the fact if more could be spent on the rural industries at the expense of the taxpayers and he would support such a proposal to the nth degree. Therefore I say that honourable members can see the crocodile through the tears. But then, in contradictory fashion, he went on and said that after all the taxpayers would not have to pay very much, only 3c a bushel. I have not been able to do the arithmetic involved but I suspect that it would be not a small sum of money but a large sum of money. The honourable member for Dawson referred to the fact that the wheat industry is in credit owing to the situation that followed World War II. He did not mention, of course, that that situation was entirely due to a Labor government which began a policy of stabilisation at the very time when wheat could have been sold very profitably. It was the then Labor Government which prevented it from being so sold. </para>
          <para>I do not want to bother any longer with the honourable member for Dawson because I did not rise to deal with him. I rose because I want to ma.ke a small point directly relevant to the Bill before the House. What is this Bill all about? The Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury),</inline> in introducing it, said in his second reading speech: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth to meet its obligations under  a  Commonwealth guarantee of repayment of certain borrowings by the Australian Wheat Board from the Reserve Bank of Australia, in respect of wheat from the 1968-69 crop. To assist in the marketing of that crop, arrangements were made for the Board to borrow up to $624m from the Rural Credits Department of the Bank. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">At what rates did the Australian Wheat Board borrow from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia and have those rates been increased since? I direct my question to the Minister for the Interior <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Nixon),</inline> who is sitting at the table. Decorative though the Minister is, he has a function to perform - that is why he sits at the table. I want to know from him - if he does not know, perhaps he can find out from one of the officers of the relevant department - what are the interest rates charged by the Rural Credits Department of the Bank for borrowings of this kind? The Minister does not answer. No doubt he will find out for me. Has the amount been increased in common with other rates of interest that have been increased quite recently? I do not expect the Minister to carry this information in his head and I will continue while he is ascertaining the actual figure. </para>
          <para>My understanding, at any rate, is that it is a very concessional rate when compared with what other traders have to pay if they have to borrow for this kind of purpose - that is, to carry them over until their product is sold. They have to borrow at a much higher rate of interest. Therefore the wheat industry is receiving a further concession apart from the subsidy which the honourable member for Dawson so airily dismissed. I do not know whether it has been increased recently or whether that concession has been carried further inasmuch as the wheat industry is perhaps the only borrower which does not have its rates increased. The Treasurer, in his second reading speech, went on to say: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>This will mean that, for the first time since the wheat stabilisation scheme was introduced over 20 years ago, the Commonwealth will be called upon under the guarantee. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This should be a warning light if for the first time for 20 years the guarantee becomes an actuality and the taxpayer has to come good on the guarantee, quite apart from the concessional rate of interest available to the wheat industry. The Treasurer went on to state: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The Board currently expects that its indebtedness to the Bank . . . as at 31st March 1970 will be in the vicinity of $250m . . . that recoupment of this amount from subsequent sales of wheat . . . will take over IS mouths. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Now this, as the honourable member for Dawson said - and I entirely agree with him - is large money and this should make us look carefully at what is happening in the wheat industry. This Bill provides that &#39;the loan to the Wheat Board may be made available on such terms and conditions as the Treasurer <inline font-style="italic">determines&#39;.</inline> The Treasurer went on to say: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>It is intended that the rate of interest . . . will be the same as the rate charged for Government guaranteed loans by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank on the date the loan is made. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">In other words the wheat industry will be no worse off by reason of the fact that the taxpayer comes to the rescue than it would have been had it not had to borrow beyond the powers of the Rural Credits Department of the Bank. It will not be disadvantaged in any way. Usually, in financial affairs, when a borrower is not able to repay at the due time he finds that he is in effect punished by having to pay a higher rate of interest as a warning that this kind of thing cannot continue indefinitely. But that is not so in the case of the wheat industry. That is what this Bill is all about. But the real point I rose to make is this: If you have something like a $250m increase in demand - money put into the pockets of people who can spend it, into the pockets of wheat growers - and there is no corresponding increase in the goods available to be purchased, you have an inflationary situation of no mean order when you consider the magnitude of the sums involved. </para>
          <para>Now, true, this will be repaid no doubt, as the Minister suggests, over a period of 18 months. The amount will be diminishing over that period, but we start with a very large sum of money. If the wheat had been sold overseas, credits would have been available to Australia overseas. It would have been possible for goods to be brought into Australia purchased with those overseas funds. In other words, the money put into the pockets of the wheat growers would have been matched by an increased supply of goods by way of imports purchased with the proceeds of the sale of wheat overseas. But, if the wheat is not sold overseas, if there are no credits in our account there, if we cannot import these goods, we have a highly inflationary situation because we have increased demands through the pockets of wheat growers but we have not increased the supply of goods. lt may be that mineral exports are important, lt may be that <inline font-style="italic">we do</inline> not have a balance of payments problem at this moment although there may be some strains developing. But the situation is one that should not go unchallenged. It is something that ought to be pointed out. This House and responsible people in the country ought to take note of the fact that this situation is one that cannot continue indefinitely. There are many other reasons why the present position should not continue. 1 have confined myself to one matter, to one factor only - a factor that is directly relevant to this Bill. </para>
          <para>How has the situation come about? I. merely want to mention this in passing. The average harvest of the last 3 years was 428 million bushels, exceeding the average harvest of the first 3 years of the 1960s by more than 50%. Federal legislation made wheat growing practically inflation proof, which must have had a vital influence on the selection of land used by a practical farmer. The honourable member for Dawson has referred to this. He would know all about it. Did he issue all these warnings when he knew these things as he knows them so well? He has remained silent. One of the main reasons for the declining world wheat trade - from 2,300 million bushels in 1955-56 to 1,700 million bushels in 1968-69 and possible further decline to 1,500 million bushels in 1969-70 - was the remarkable success of the &#39;green revolution&#39; in many food deficient countries, such as India and Pakistan. High yielding varieties of wheat, rice, maize and millet have dramatically increased the food supply in many countries, and Pakistan has even become an exporter of wheat. India is confidently expecting to be self sufficient in wheat by 1972. New Zealand, one of Australia&#39;s time honoured customers, has become a competitor of Australia on the Asian market, although in a very minor way. The world wheat situation of the 1970s will be very different from that of the 1960s. Maybe the taxpayer will never be repaid. Maybe the wheat growers will be happy in 1970 in spite of what the honourable member for Dawson says, and it will be for the taxpayers to carry the baby. Who knows? </para>
          <para>World wheat stocks have been increasing since 1965-66 from 1,300 million bushels to about 2,250 million bushels in mid 1969. This is the world&#39;s stock of unsold wheat. This means that the world carryover is much larger than all the wheat entering international trade in a whole year. What is needed, of course, is not for me to say in debating this Bill. I am merely drawing attention to the disastrous situation in the wheat industry, a matter on which the Opposition had nothing to say in a practical and constructive way. The Opposition has sought simply to extract all the political capital it might out of the situation. But we cannot go on any longer. I have merely taken the opportunity, in debating this Bill, to point out one of the unfortunate aspects directly relevant to the Bill now before the House, namely, the inflationary pressures that it increases upon the Australian economy. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>212</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>8V4</name.id>
              <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GRASSBY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr Deputy Speaker,</inline>I was sorry to hear the honourable member for Bradfield <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Turner)</inline> oppose this .measure at least in words if not in the vote on the mistaken grounds that in his mind it is some kind of act of charity. I must go on record as saying that neither the problems of the wheat industry nor its importance to the nation have been understood by the honourable member. The honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson)</inline> has simply supported the case for a national forward planning in agriculture. I accept the criticism, if that is what he meant it to be, of the honourable member for Bradfield that the responsibility - I think, the blame was what he had in mind - for wheat stabilisation lay with the previous administration. Presumably from what he said, he would not have had any part of it nor supported it at the time.  His  query on interest was more to the point and I will comment on that at a later stage. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The need for this Bill lies in legislation that was first enacted a half a century ago. It seems to me that it is well out of date with present day circumstances and requirements. I refer to the rural advances provisions of the Reserve Bank Act which, in 1922, first stipulated that all money advances to marketing boards must be repaid within 1 year. As the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> indicated in his second reading speech, this legislation is needed to ensure that Government commitments to the wheat industry in relation to the 1963-69 crop are met. I would commend to the Treasurer for his consideration - and I hope that the Minister for the Interior <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Nixon)</inline> who is at the table will take the suggestion to him - that an amendment might be made to the Reserve Bank Act in relation to advances to marketing boards. The Act might be amended to read, perhaps, &#39;at the discretion of the Minister&#39; or &#39;at the discretion of the Governor-General in Council&#39;, so that in fact the old section requiring 12-monthly repayments would be scrapped. It would give time for large pools to clear and for accounts to be properly processed. </para>
          <para>I am glad that the Treasurer mentioned in his second reading speech that this would bc the first time since stabilisation was introduced more than 20 years ago that the Commonwealth has been called upon under the guarantee. In the current wheat debate across the nation the danger exists of the view being accepted that the wheat industry has been some kind of liability and that wheat growers have been literally reaping a bonanza that has kept them in great comfort. The facts of the matter need to be known and appreciated. The wheat industry under the stabilisation scheme has played a major role in national development. It has led to the effective occupation and utilisation of lands that were once held to be beyond the bounds of closer settlement. The industry has contributed on the balance, on my calculations anyway, of probably $300m to maintain stable prices at home and to keep the constituents of the honourable member for Bradfield at least with some semblance of price stability. I might mention that if today the housewife in the city pays more for bread and the wheat grower receives less, this is hardly the responsibility of the wheat grower. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>213</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFG</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRIFFITHS, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Griffiths</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Perhaps it is the wool grower. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>213</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>8V4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GRASSBY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I think the honourable member for Bradfield might ask wherein lies this spread of cost between the producer and the consumer. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>213</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Turnbull</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- In the wage structure of course. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>213</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>8V4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GRASSBY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honourable member for Mallee says: &#39;In the wage structure of course&#39;. It might be Interesting for the honourable member for Mallee to know that economists retained by primary producers organisations give 25% as the figure for wages in relation to overall cost of production. So, wages are not the only component that need to be looked at. There are a great many other things to be looked at, and I commend to him a study of those too particularly in relation to supporting services. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>It is often forgotten that, in the interests of stabilisation - and, of course, this is a comment that I make in relation to that $300m - growers sold dear abroad because the marketing opportunities were there but cheap at home and for a significant period. This was done without complaint and on the clear understanding that if there were marketing difficulties at any time the Government would be true not only to the letter but also to the spirit of the contract with the industry. It is as well to recall that it is not so long ago that growers were being urged to produce more wheat. It is not so long ago that wheat from Canada was imported into New South Wales. The unique situation that the Treasurer refers to in his second reading speech should not be a signal for panic or for a call to abandon the support of the wheat industry, which seems to be accepted in the remarks for the honourable member for Bradfield. In the whole of my life I cannot recall a situation such as existed in the 1969-70 season where all the great wheat producing nations across the world had a good season. They all came in well together. This is a unique situation. It may well be that with improvements in technology the danger of famine or glut in the future will be different from what it is today. It may well be that we are more likely to have a glut than a famine, but this is conjecture at this stage. After all, we have not learned to control the seasons or the weather. So the situation will change and it could change quite dramatically. It is for this reason that there is a firm and clear responsibility to make adjustments to continue stabilisation. These adjustments have been acknowledged as being demanded by the unique situation which we now face. It should also be clearly understood that wheat is one of the main props of the Australian economy. It has not only contributed to export income in a major way but also has helped to ward off disasters in Asia when famine has threatened. Today it is helping to support a wide range of services, such as State railways. </para>
          <para>The main purpose of the Bill is to authorise the Commonwealth to borrow up to $300m in order to make a loan to the Australian Wheat Board. Let us be clear on this point: lt is a loan and it will have to be repaid. The money goes firstly to the Board and then to the growers. It will be spread throughout the community. There is no question of this money constituting a handout or charity; this loan represents no more than a meeting of proper contractual obligations. It might be remembered that one-quarter of this money will find its way into the accounts of the State railways, not into the pockets of wheat growers. I was interested in the statement by the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> in his second reading speech that he will now fix the terms and conditions of the loan. He has served notice of his intention to charge the rate of interest charged for government guaranteed loans by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank on the date the loan is made. I would submit that the Treasurer is planning to lend with one hand and take away with the other. This matter was raised directly with the Treasurer earlier today. He was asked whether he would use the increased interest rate that is to apply generally in order to levy a new tax on wheat growers. The Treasurer admitted that the general prosperity which he claimed was universal was not at present being enjoyed by the rural sector. He also said that he had had talks with the Governor of the Reserve Bank on the matter of bank interest, but he could have linked up his remarks this afternoon with what he said in his second reading speech because he had already served notice that the current conditions laid down by the Rural Credits Department in relation to government guaranteed loans would apply. </para>
          <para>Since this Government took office in 1949 the rate of interest on these loans has increased from 3J% to 5%. Honourable members will be interested to know that in relation to the 1968-69 pool growers will face interest of $2Sm or Se a bushel on the 515 million bushels received. On another occasion when the wheat industry was in serious trouble Prime Minister Chifley reduced the rate of interest from 4% to <inline font-style="italic">3i%</inline> in order to help growers. In view of the need to inject confidence and collateral into the countryside I ask the Treasurer to consider reducing the interest rate. He has an excellent precedent for doing so, set by a great Prime Minister. </para>
          <para>The Bill is made necessary by an outdated provision of the Reserve Bank Act. No country would operate on the basis that all the wheat would be received, sold and paid for in 1 year. To suggest that such a system be followed is totally unrealistic. The whole situation should be re-examined. The interest charged at present has a bearing on the burden being carried by wheat growers - a burden of high costs, inefficiency of supporting services and unrealistic government decisions relating to the cost of money. I urge the Minister for the Interior, who is at the table, to direct the attention of the Treasurer to these vital matters and to assure him of the support which the honourable member for Dawson has enunciated for the proposition before us - that the Government honour its contractual obligations to an industry which has contributed so much to national development and fiscal stability. As regards the criticism that nothing constructive has been done in the way of forward planning I would stress the need for a clear and definite national agricultural policy. There is a need to recognise that the basic decisions relating to wheat are, have always been and will be in the future, government decisions. </para>
          <para>The problems referred to by the honourable member for Dawson are problems of national planning. They are not really the preserve of the growers, and they cannot be. The growers do not make these basic decisions. They do not set in motion the procedures for the treaties which form the basis of our export sales. They do not set the terms of export credit. They do not enter into international agreements which are the basis for so much of our activity in this industry. Only the Government can decide the needs of the home market. Only the Government can decide how much wheat should be held in strategic storage at home, if we have it. Only the Government can decide how much wheat is needed as a weapon of stability in South East Asia. These are surely matters for government decision. Such decisions cannot be delegated to somebody else because only the Government has the resources and the responsibility to make these decisions. The Government has the basic responsibility for setting clear national guidelines for primary producers. The present and future problems of the countryside are related to what has so far been the abdication of leadership and responsibility in this sphere of national planning for agriculture. These were the matters raised by the honourable member for Dawson. These are matters which must surely be of concern to all of us. If the Government abdicates leadership and responsibility then the problems of not only the wheat industry but the entire agricultural sector will be multiplied. I urge the Government to honour to a greater extent the spirit and the letter of its contractual obligations. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>214</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWP</name.id>
              <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In his second reading speech the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> said: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Commonwealth to meet its obligations under a Commonwealth guarantee of repayment of certain borrowings by the Australian Wheat Board from the Reserve Bank of Australia in respect of wheat from the 1968-69 crop. To assist in the marketing of that crop arrangements were made for the Board to borrow up to $624m from the Rural Credits Department of the Bank. The date for final repayment is 31st March 1970, approximately 12 months after the drawings were made, in order to comply with section 57 of the Reserve Bank Act which requires that loans of the type made to the Board shall not be for more than 1 year. </para>
            <para>The Board&#39;s income from sales of wheat will be  insufficient  to enable it to repay the borrowings in full by the due date ... It is proposed that the Commonwealth lend to the Board sufficient funds to enable it to discharge its debt to the Bank. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Three honourable members have participated so far in the debate. The first  speaker  this afternoon was the honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson).</inline> I do not think much wheat is grown in his electorate. The next  speaker  was the honourable member for Bradfield <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr- Turner).</inline> Certainly no wheat is grown in his electorate. The third  speaker  was the honourable member for Riverina <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Grassby).</inline> A lot of wheat is grown in his electorate, which is separated from the electorate of Mallee by the Murray River. I always maintain that the Murray River should not divide us but should unite us. Today we have heard three points of view. Very few members of the Labor Party in this place represent wheat growing areas. Honourable members opposite who do represent wheat growing areas could be counted on the fingers of one hand. The majority of honourable members opposite represent metropolitan areas. I do not want to start a fight by comparing the merits of primary industry with the merits of secondary industry, but the fact remains that members of Parliament do their best for the people who elect them. If they fail in this duty they do not as a rule stay very long in Parliament. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Those members of Parliament who represent metropolitan electorates seek continually to reduce the cost of foodstuffs while those who represent country electorates, such as the fine band of Country Party members in this place, are ever striving to improve the conditions of those engaged in primary industry - the lifeblood of this Commonwealth. </para>
          <para>This debate has been very interesting. First of all, the honourable member for Dawson said that someone should have told the wheat growers about the situation. Then I come straight away, if I may, to the honourable member for Riverina. He said that this is a unique situation. According to what the honourable member for Dawson said it is not unique. He did not say so, but if one did not know one would think that he had foreseen all of this. But the honourable member for Bradfield soon cut him down to size and asked him why he had not said something about it if he had foreseen it. The honourable member for Riverina said that this is a unique situation and he said, I think, that not for 20 years have all the wheat growing nations in the world had a surplus of wheat at one time. Of course, this is practical and it is right. He also said - I have not written it down but I will vouch for it and Hansard will support me - that conditions can change very quickly. We know this and the Labor Party should know it. The only trouble is that there are a lot of new members here and only those people who were in the Parliament at the time know that towards the end of the last war one could only grow a certain amount of wheat. A man at Sea Lake could grow 200 acres but he grew 250 acres, some self-sown. He asked could he strip the self-sown wheat and was told that he could not. He asked if he could strip it and keep it for the pigs and he was told that he could provided that he left 50 acres of his original crop standing. That is how things were then. </para>
          <para>That is not really the point I want to make. The point I want to make is that within 12 months after that - this supports what the honourable member for Riverina said - the Australian public wanted more wheat and it had to be imported. When it was imported it brought in a lot of the weeds and rubbish that have grown into the wheat crops over recent years and have given wheat growers so much trouble. These things are really happening. I think it was the honourable member for Bradfield who said that if the wheat had been sold overseas goods would have been brought into this country. But what is the good of talking about what would have happened if the wheat had been sold overseas? The wheat has not been sold. The money is owing to the bank and is due on the 30th of this month. Therefore this Bill has to be passed. Any advocacy of the lowering of the interest rate can be made in this House at the appropriate time and every honourable member knows this full well. Two honourable members mentioned the Wheat Stabilisation Act and said - this is subject not to correction but to interpretation, because people listening outside may not quite understand - that this is the first time the Government has been called upon under the guarantee. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>215</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>8V4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Grassby</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Treasurer said that. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>215</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
                <name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Whoever said it, it has been mentioned by two honourable members in this debate today. It could easily mislead people who are not as well informed about stabilisation as honourable members should be and make them believe that under the Government&#39;s guaranteed price scheme for wheat the Government had never been called upon to pay. The Australian Labor Party introduced the Wheat Stabilisation Act but, of course, now one would not recognise it because it has been improved so much. Although this scheme was brought down when the Labor Party was in office it was not very pleasing to primary producers because the Labor Party lost all the wheat seats in the 1949 elections. So as far as this scheme is concerned Labor did not pay any guarantee under the Wheat Stabilisation Act but since 1960 an amount of about $150m has been supplied by the Government to make up the stabilisation guarantee; I am subject to correction on that figure. I am only saying this so that people both inside and outside this House who are not well informed on the subject will not believe the statement that this is the first time the guarantee has been called upon - mistaking the guarantee to repay the bank for the guarantee under the Wheat Stabilisation Act. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>This Bill is very important because, after alt, the wheat industry is most important. The honourable member for Dawson has complained bitterly and he said that this cannot go on. I cannot quote exactly, but I remember that in a newspaper article I read that <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Phil</inline> Meehan who at the present time is the  Chairman  of the Grains Division of the Victorian Farmers Union had said: &#39;We are delighted with the Government at this stage for telling us that $1.10 a bushel will be paid for the wheat from the next harvest. This will give wheat growers the opportunity to put their own house in order. This will enable them to grow a certain amount of wheat and perhaps a small surplus, because one cannot always tell how many bags one will get to the acre. It is really good that this should be known.&#39; But, from what the honourable member for Dawson said, it is very doubtful if a first payment would be made at all next year if Labor was in office. Then he asked: &#39;What about the next year?&#39; Well, what about the next year? Surely this country must support the primary producers. It is all right to have a lot of nickel and other types of mining going on, but when it is all said and done it is the primary producer who forms the very backbone of this country. It has been said, metaphorically speaking, that if we burnt down the cities they would be rebuilt as if by magic but if we burn down the farms the grass will grow in the streets of every city of this Commonwealth. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>216</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFG</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRIFFITHS, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Griffiths</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Tell us what the Country Party is going to do to help. You have not told us a thing yet. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>216</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
                <name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honourable member who is interjecting - I never overlook an interjection - knows that this debate is very restricted and if I went on to deal with the wheat industry and the way 1 can see- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!</inline>1 would remind the honourable member for Shortland that interjections are out of order and I would remind the honourable member for Mallee that his response to the interjection was also out of order, not having any relationship whatsoever to the Bill. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>216</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
                <name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- All I can do is to sympathise with the honourable member for Shortland. We are both out of order. This Bill is really like a machinery Bill. It is not actually a machinery Bill but it is near enough to it. Of course, the Country Party has more members to speak on this Bill but let me sum up what has been said by the three speakers so far. First of all, the honourable member for Dawson deplored the fact that this money is to be made available to assist wheat growers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>216</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Patterson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Rubbish. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>216</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
                <name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honourable member for Dawson says &#39;rubbish&#39;. Honourable members should read Hansard and see what he says. He said that this cannot go on, that this cannot happen. He said that we should have advised the wheat growers of the situation. Less than 12 months ago the Wheat Stabilisation Bill was before this House and when one or two adjustments were made to it the Labor Party was up in arms. Now members of the Labor Party are saying that stabilisation has encouraged people to grow wheat. Anyway, what the honourable member for Dawson said  -  I never deal with personalities; 1 deal only with policies - showed very clearly that if he was in the office for which he is the shadow Minister, that is, if he was Minister for Primary Industry, the wheat growers would have to look out. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The honourable member for Bradfield generally speaks against money being made available to primary industry. He has said before that no money should be spent on great irrigation projects unless they are going to pay straight away. He says that unless these projects pay straight away they should not be implemented. Of course, these things grow. The money has to be spent first. As far as the Country Party is concerned, members of it know the potential of primary industry all the time. Of course, we may have one or two brief periods when things are not loo good. The honourable member for Riverina was actually caught between two fires on the subject; but he had to disagree with a member of his own Party.  His  colleague represents an area which grows no wheat and he represents the electorate of Riverina, but he put forward the best case he could and I support him on some of the points he made. I just want to say to other honourable members who represent city interests that a Bill like this is of paramount importance to this country. The financing of primary industry is absolutely important to the future of this country because we have to depend for our present stability and our future progress on the man on the land. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>217</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>GH4</name.id>
              <electorate>Gwydir</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">HUNT, Ralph</name>
              <name role="display">Mr HUNT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I support the Bill and in so doing commend the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony)</inline> for the way in which they have worked with the Australian wheat industry during what has been a very difficult time. I am pleased to note that the honourable member for Riverina <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Grassby)</inline> has seen the light, because for many months he has been running around his electorate and the countryside condemning the Commonwealth Government for its failure to meet the needs of the wheat industry. I was glad to hear him say today that he supported the Bill because in it the Government was honouring its obligations to the Australian wheat industry. What a change of heart! In the few days that he has been here he has at last recognised that the Government has at heart the interests of the wheat industry - the interests of the small wheat growers as well as the large wheat growers. I have already told them that and they obviously believed me because I was returned from one of the biggest wheat growing electorates of New South Wales. I happen to be a wheat grower myself and am proud to be one. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I was pleased to hear from the honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson)</inline> what one would regard as a reasonable and strangely responsible speech about the problems of the wheat industry. He did, of course, as the honourable member for Bradfield <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Turner)</inline> said, shed a crocodile tear or two in saying that he was sad to see that the loan money had to go to the industry in the present circumstances. The wheat industry has always been faced with an unpredictable world market situation. It is hard to simply adjust a formula to produce a tailored quantity of wheat to meet the world market. Seasonal conditions have always been a big factor not only in Australia but throughout the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and have tended to throw world trade out of balance. In this respect in the mid-1960s the world wheat trade situation looked promising. </para>
          <para>The honourable member for Dawson spoke of the application of quotas in Australia. As he well knows, the application of quotas to individual growers is a State government responsibility and not the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. Our responsibility, as was agreed upon with the wheat industry, was to guarantee the industry $440m for a crop of 357 million bushels. We undertook to guarantee this financial responsibility and at the same time we asked the States to work out, in their own way, a formula to apply to individual growers. Of course, there have been some anomalies in the application of quotas to individual wheat growers but in New South Wales, for instance, the Minister for Agriculture has set up an industry advisory panel under the chairmanship of a wheat industry leader to try to iron out some of the anomalies that have come to light as a result of the experience of the last 12 months. I pay a tribute to the wheat industry leaders who have had to meet a very serious problem of overproduction. They have had to try to put the brakes on production. </para>
          <para>The problem is basically one of world wide overproduction which has developed rapidly. During the years 1965 to 1968 Australia&#39;s export of wheat averaged 71% of production but in 1969 this dropped to 43%. The problems of the Australian wheat industry thus have to be viewed in a global context. As I said earlier, the position in the mid-1960s was one of no serious trade difficulties. There were low levels of world wheat stocks and shortages of supply in some countries. In the Northern Hemisphere there were crop failures in some countries, principally in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China, but today the situation is vastly different. The Soviet Union, which was a big importer of wheat is now an exporter. We have seen vastly reduced aid requirements in India, and Pakistan has developed from an importer of wheat to an exporter as a result of the green revolution that has taken place there. We have seen large build-ups of stocks in Canada and in the United States of America reaching almost record proportions. We have seen higher production in some of the eastern European countries. All of these factors have tended to increase carryovers of world stocks. Tn 1963-64 world stocks totalled 50 million metric tons. In the following year they were approximately 42 million metric tons. They were the same in 1965-66. In 1966-67 they had dropped to about 29.5 million metric tons. Then stocks started to rise slowly again until in 1969-70 they amounted to 54 million metric tons. In this period there has been a decline in world trade in wheat. This is what the wheat problem is all about. It is not what this Government has done on its own to create a situation. As a wheat grower I can say that wheat growers are getting sick and tired of hearing that we are to blame for this situation. At various times Australian wheat growers have had to try to increase their production to meet world requirements and suddenly there has been a slump in world trade. This is the situation in which they have been landed. </para>
          <para>In one respect I agree with the honourable member for Dawson who referred to the processes of diversification. The wheat grower faces the problem of determining what other form of production he will adopt. The wool industry, which is Australia&#39;s biggest industry, is in serious trouble and until we can resolve the problems of that industry, particularly the price problem, it will be difficult to get a balance back into wheat production without the use of a delivery quota system. Once again 1 commend the Government for the understanding way in which it has treated the whole question of wheat overproduction in Australia and I agree with the honourable member for Riverina who said that the Government has honoured its obligations to the wheat industry through this Bill. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>218</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KLJ</name.id>
              <electorate>Moore</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAISEY, Donald</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MAISEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I do not propose to occupy the whole of the time available to me in discussing this Bill which authorises the borrowing of moneys by the Commonwealth and the issuing of those moneys for certain purposes in relation to the Australian Wheat Board. On the notice paper there is another Bill for an Act to amend the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act. I want to say at the outset that I believe it is a great pity indeed that these two Bills are not being debated together because they deal with a problem at the base of which is one single factor. The single factor at the base of the problem with which these two Bills propose to deal is that Australia today is producing more wheat than it can find a market for at profitable prices. This is the basic fact that we are trying to deal with in the Bill before us and which we will be endeavouring to deal with when we discuss the other Bill on the notice paper. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Firstly, I would like to refer to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson).</inline> I listened with great interest to his remarks. As the spokesman for the Opposition on matters appertaining to primary industry the honourable member always makes a valuable and considered contribution to any debate. During the course of his remarks the honourable member referred to several sums of money in the form of overdrafts that will be the responsibility of the Australian Wheat Board and through that body the Australian wheat industry during the years to come. I am quite certain that those who listened to the additions of the various sums of money by the honourable member could not help but come to the conclusion that he was speaking about a projected indebtedness position of the Australian Wheat Board of the order of Si, 000m. I want to make the point that this, of course, is an exaggeration of any contingent indebtedness of the Board or the industry at this time, because what was not mentioned was the fact that long before these final overdrafts are raised and distributed amongst the industry growers in the form of first advance payments, sales overseas and within Australia will have liquidated quite a large amount of the earlier first advances.. </para>
          <para>I think that in dealing with this problem, as in dealing with other problems of the wheat industry at present, far too much talk centres on the question of the wheat involved and far too little consideration is given to the fact that we are really talking about people and not about wheat. We are talking about people, about men women and children, about families living in rural towns and directly concerned with the profitability or otherwise, with the economic viability or otherwise, of this great industry which has sustained Australia for so many years. </para>
          <para>We must remember that we are also talking about several different categories of growers. When we talk about the wheat industry today we talk about a vast number of growers - the majority of growers - who are genuine growers of wheat, who grow wheat for a living and whose livelihood and the livelihood of many generations before them has been dependent on the wheat industry. But we also have today another set of growers in this industry who can only be described purely and simply as speculators. Many of these growers never live in the rural areas. They live in the cities and provide finance, for the production of wheat on a purely speculative basis with no long term stake in the industry. Without a doubt they are ready to leave the industry the very moment that they can find something more profitable to which to turn their funds. </para>
          <para>In any discussion of the industry problems today, any attempt to deal with this problem in an across the board manner without making any differentiation between the methods that have to be adopted to take care of the traditional family growers, as distinct from the speculator, can be full of disaster not only for the family grower but also far all the people in the rural towns who are dependent on these people to sustain them and the businesses and services that they provide for the farming industry. </para>
          <para class="block">I agree entirely with the honourable member for Dawson that we have no alternative other than to support the Bills. It is true, of course, that this Bill should have been debated with the other Bill; they deal with the same problem. </para>
          <para>During this debate I have heard quite a lot of discussion about the tremendously responsible attitude that has been shown by the industrial organisations in offering and proffering advice to the Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony)</inline> and the Government in handling this problem. I want to say, as a man who for 13 years was a prominent member of these industrial organisations, that I for one do not hold that view. I believe that the industrial organisations must take a tremendous amount of blame for the position in which the industry finds itself today. I want to go further and state in the most categorical terms that I believe the present Minister for Primary Industry and his counterparts in the States must share equally a large amount of blame for the problems and the difficulties in which the industry presently finds itself because the Ministers, both Federal and State, although holding the authority - the legislative power, the constitutional power - to take effective action to deal with this problem, did not exercise that power but preferred to say to the industrial organisation: &#39;You have a look at this problem. You tell us the answer to it and we will endeavour to sort the problem out along the lines of the solution you provide&#39;. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>219</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Turnbull</name>
              </talker>
              <para>-  What action do you refer to? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>219</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KLJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MAISEY, Donald</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MAISEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honourable member wants to know what action I refer to. Let us go back to 1968. In that year the previous stabilisation plan expired. The base price of that plan was 14s 3d a bushel. The cost of production and the base price of that plan was progressively increased until it had reached, I think from memory, about 16s 8d or 16s 5d a bushel by the time it expired in 1968. As was the customary practice, the Government invited the industry to join with it in discussions about the next 5-year stabilisation plan. The industry approached the Government and in the course of their initial discussions submitted proposals to the Government in respect of- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>220</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KIH</name.id>
              <electorate>LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LUCOCK, Philip</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Moore that the subject matter he is debating at the moment in response to the interjection of the honourable member for Mallee is more relevant to the wheat stabilisation legislation which will be presented to the House at a later stage. In relation to the Bill before the House, I have allowed certain examples to be given by honourable members in order to illustrate a point that they have desired to make. The danger here is that an illustration develops and becomes actually an honourable member&#39;s second reading speech. I would think, as I said, that the comments being made at the moment by the honourable member for Moore could be made more profitably in the debate on the Bill dealing with wheat stabilisation, which will be discussed later in this House. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>220</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KLJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MAISEY, Donald</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MAISEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Thank you, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Deputy Speaker.</inline> What I was doing, of course, was illustrating the position that has given rise to a situation where we now have wheat being produced in quantities far beyond our ability to market; and a major contributing factor to that position, f think, has been the price structure behind the industry. With very great respect to you, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, the</inline> honourable members for Bradfield <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Turner),</inline> Dawson, Riverina <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Grassby)</inline> and indeed all the previous speakers have made reference to the price structure. We are dealing basically with a Bill to provide money to take up an undischarged overdraft in respect of a first advance payment which is essentially a part of the industry&#39;s price structure. Therefore, if we are to discuss this Bill in depth it is obvious that we must look at the price structure because the problem here is a problem basically found in the price structure. I am talking about the price structure of the industry and the proposals put forward by the Australian Wheat Growers Federation for a cost of production formula when the present stabilisation plan was under discussion at a Government level. Its formula gave a cost of production or base price in excess of $2 a bushel. 1 believe that that was a completely irresponsible approach to the problem of this industry and resulted in a compromise on a home consumption price of 185c a bushel. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Raising the base price under the International Grains Agreement to an unrealistically high level when there were great world surplus stocks undoubtedly gave rise to the situation where wheat stopped moving onto the world markets as freely as it should and gave rise to the situation whereby the Australian Wheat Board has failed to liquidate its overdraft in the requisite time. If this is not the fundamental issue of the legislation presently before this House I would like to know what is. This is the crux of the whole problem. When Australia is in such a position as it is in today it cannot demand of the world an artificially high price for a commodity that it produces when that commodity is in surplus production all over the world. To attempt to solve the problems of the wheat industry by artificially raising the price of wheat within Australia and for export to offset the undoubted inflationary pressures in Australia is completely unreal. It just cannot be done without causing problems not only in the wheat industry but in the wool industry and in all the other primary industries. These are the basic problems. 1 listened to the honourable member for Bradfield discuss in a most critical manner the help that the Government has given in the form of price support and financial arrangements enabling first advances to bc paid to the wheat industry. I did not hear, and I have never heard, the honourable member discuss to what extent these problems are contributed to and aggravated by the very high tariff protection which is given to secondary industry and which, in association with arbitration court decisions, creates the inflated and artificial environment in which the wheat growers and other primary producers must purchase their commodities in order to meet their financial obligations and to live with the same dignity as other Australians. These are the basic problems of the Bill that we are dealing with. </para>
          <para>The honourable member for Riverina talked about selling the year&#39;s crop and repaying the advance made on that crop within the same year. This is not the real issue of the problem. The problem is that we have not sold sufficient wheat to repay the amount of money that has been made available in the form of first advances on the 1968-69 crop. Rarely have we sold the whole of 1 year&#39;s production of wheat in the year in which it was grown, but we have on most occasions been successful in selling sufficient wheat to liquidate the first advance. This is the first occasion on which we have not managed to do this. This is the present problem. The honourable member for Gwydir referred to the distribution of quotas amongst the States. Although I accept that the distribution of the quotas within the States is the constitutional responsibility of the States and not the Commonwealth, the national quota from which the State quotas are derived is the responsibility of the Commonwealth. It is when we come to a division of this national quota that we project into the States the problems which they are presently trying to solve. I accept that the distribution of the quota within a State is the responsibility of that State. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>221</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIH</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr</name>
                <name role="display">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I remind the honourable member for Moore of my earlier remarks. The honourable member for Gwydir did mention the quota, but strictly speaking it has no relevance to this Bill. 1 allowed the honourable member for Gwydir to mention the quota merely as an illustration. The honourable member for Moore has now made a comment upon the remarks that were made by the honourable member for Gwydir and it is possible that the debate would develop into a general debate on quotas if the honourable member continued in that strain. This Bill has a narrow compass; it relates to the borrowing of moneys by the Australian Wheat Board from the Reserve Bank for the 1968-69 wheat crop and the authorisation of this Parliament for the repayment of that loan. I would not like in any way to limit the debate to too great a degree, but if I allow honourable members to go too wide of the Bill we could go into a general debate on the problems of the wheat industry and even finish up debating the situation of all primary producers. I suggest that the honourable member for Moore has made sufficient comment on the remarks made by the honourable member for Gwydir and that he might now make his remarks relevant to the Bill itself. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>221</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KLJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MAISEY, Donald</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MAISEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Thank you for your caution. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Deputy Speaker.</inline> We are discussing, as you so rightly pointed out, </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">Bill enabling the Government to take over that part of the overdraft of the Australian Wheat Board occasioned by the as yet undischarged first advance payments which are required to be discharged under the terms and conditions under which the money was borrowed from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank. The point I am making is that the distribution of this first advance money amongst the States is by means of quotas. Therefore, the overdraft which is being shifted from one form to another is in fact the essence of a Bill dealing with moneys that have been distributed amongst the States on the basis of quotas. Last year the national quota amounted to 357 million bushels. This was the average of the deliveries to the Australian Wheat Board for the 5 years from 1963 to 1968, rounded ofl to the next million bushels. This in turn was divided up amongst the States in the first instance, in proportion to their contribution to this 5-year average delivery quota and then reduced in some States by a certain amount so that wheat from one Stale could bc added to the wheat of another State, which in effect meant that you were not adding bushels of wheat to a Stale&#39;s figure but adding $1.10 a bushel to the first advance payment made to that State. That is an essential part of the legislation we are talking about. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)I</inline>would suggest to the honourable member for Moore that the details which he is relating at this stage are outside the relevance of the Bill before the House. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>221</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KLJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MAISEY, Donald</name>
                <name role="display">Mr MAISEY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>
                <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr Deputy Speaker,</inline>out of courtesy to you I will acknowledge the points you are making and reserve the rest of my remarks for the debate on the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a second time. </para>
          <para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. </para>
          <para class="block">In Committee </para>
          <para>The Bill. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>221</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KXV</name.id>
              <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
              <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr</inline>
            </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">
            <inline font-weight="bold">Chairman,</inline>in dealing with the Bill there are certain questions which still remain unanswered. One of the most important questions that has remained unanswered concerns the rate of interest. The Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> in his second reading speech- </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>222</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KET</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KING, Robert</name>
                <name role="display">Mr King</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We heard that this afternoon at question time. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>222</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- What is the answer? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>222</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KET</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KING, Robert</name>
                <name role="display">Mr King</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is 5%. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>222</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- He did not say that at all. He said that there would be no change. It is important to know what is the specific rate of interest apart from the preferential rate of interest under the rural credits scheme. The Treasurer said that the rate charged will be the same as the rate charged for Government guaranteed loans by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve iBank on the date the loan is made. I assume that means on the date the loan is made by the Rural Credits Department <inline font-style="italic">to</inline> the Australian Wheat Board. What the Opposition wants to know is: What is the specific rate of interest? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>222</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>009OD</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">NIXON, Peter</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Nixon</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is 5%. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>222</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The Minister for the Interior will have his chance to tell us a little more. Under what conditions will it be a diminishing balance? Does this also apply to a particular rate as distinct from a preferential rate of interest - which is characteristic of many loans - as administered by the Rural Credits Department? This is important to the wheat growers all over Australia, because if one takes this 5% - in terms of the total amount - which is supposed to be available, one finds that this is a pretty big figure. It is a figure which is again being loaded on to the wheat producer by the Government. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I am surprised that the honourable member for Mallee <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Turnbull)</inline> is not here. It might seem strange to him that there are wheat growers in my electorate. Perhaps he has never heard of the central highlands where the best wheat in Australia is produced, with a protein content of above 14% on the average - when it rains, of course. It is very important for all of us to know just what are the terms and conditions. I ask the Minister for the Interior, who is at the table: Why does the Treasurer not spell it out? I might say that I agree with a lot of the statements made by the honourable member for Moore <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Maisey).</inline> The Minister for the Interior is here on what is considered to be and what is represented as being a very important Bill with respect to the wheat industry. I would like to express the concern of the Opposition and, I hope, the concern of other honourable members at the contempt which has been shown for this Parliament when, on an important financial Bill involving S300m, the Minister for the Interior is the responsible Minister to answer the questions or debate the issue on behalf of the Treasurer. All we heard was the Treasurer reading like a parrot something prepared for him by Treasury officials. If the Treasurer was doing the job correctly and had the wheat industry at heart he would be here in this Parliament debating and justifying the actions of the Government. 1 have no personal criticism of the Minister for the Interior and I do not want him to misunderstand me in that respect. The Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony)</inline> should have been here. I hope that in the future when the Government is debating important legislation in the second reading stage and in Committee, the responsible Minister will be sitting at the table. The absence of the Treasurer shows the contempt  if  the Liberal Party for the wheat growers ox Australia. </para>
          <para>I ask the Minister for the Interior to elicit, on behalf of the Treasurer, the terms and conditions as determined by the Treasurer. The word &#39;conditions&#39; means something. It does not just mean terms, but includes the rate of interest. There is no need to bother about the fine print of the Bill. Every wheat grower wants to know what are the terms and conditions. This is not just a Reserve Bank loan; it is the guarantee of the Government under the terms and conditions laid down by the Treasurer. Surely we are entitled to know the specific terms and conditions, by way of an attachment or schedule if necessary. It is no good a Minister getting up and saying it is 5%. I want to know what are the terms and, more importantly, what are the conditions for the wheat grower and the Australian Wheat Board. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>222</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWP</name.id>
              <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Turnbull</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I want to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented. I have been in this House since 2.30 o&#39;clock and I went out for 3 minutes. I had to go out. The honourable member for Dawson straight away used the paltry tactics of trying to take advantage of me by saying: The honourable member for Mallee is not in the House.&#39; I have seen more of this House in the past 24 years than any other man. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>223</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KDV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">JONES, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Charles Jones</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I take a point of order. Is the honourable member for Mallee entitled to debate the matter. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett)</inline> -No. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>223</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>009OD</name.id>
              <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for the Interior</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NIXON, Peter</name>
              <name role="display">Mr NIXON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The first thing I want to do is explain to the honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson)</inline> just what goes on in the House. He does not seem to be aware of. it. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer is my colleague, the Minister for Immigration <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Lynch),</inline> who has been sitting in the House. He has not been sitting at the table simply because I was working away, as I do in the House, studiously attending to my departmental business. The Minister Assisting the Treasurer has been here right throughout the debate, taking a great deal of interest in what the honourable member for Dawson has had to say. I thought that the honourable member for Dawson would have been aware that the Minister for Immigration is also the Minister Assisting the Treasurer. He has taken a great deal of note of what the honourable member had to say and particularly the reference to the fact that next year the Australian Labor Party may take a different view entirely of the validity of the Bill. This means that, as we expected, the farmers are very unlikely to receive the assistance from the Labor Party that they have received from the Government. I just want to draw that matter to the attention of the Committee in passing. As to the terms and conditions, I will leave it to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, who has the full authority of the Treasurer, to answer that question himself. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>223</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KLJ</name.id>
              <electorate>Moore</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAISEY, Donald</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MAISEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I would like to add something to the remarks of the honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson),</inline> in his plea that before this measure is finally disposed of, some firm assurance will be given that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer will outline to the Committee what are the terms and conditions of repayment and the interest rate in respect of this loan. The proposal is in effect to take over from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank, a department of the Reserve Bank which was very wisely created for the purpose of providing funds at rates of interest below normal, for the purpose of financing commodity boards. We are now taking this undischarged overdraft of the Australian wheat industry out of that very favourable institution and borrowing money on terms and conditions of which we are not aware and which are to apply to an industry which today is as near to a depressed condition as it is possible for that industry to be. Certainly, in a financial sense, it is at its lowest ebb since the early 1930s. 1 agree with the honourable member for Dawson that the Parliament must know what the terms and conditions of repayment are and what interest rate is to be charged on this money. If it does not it will not be acting responsibly towards the industry that so desperately needs help, understanding and interest at this time. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>223</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>8V4</name.id>
              <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GRASSBY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am very pleased at the support that has been given to the suggestion I made during the second reading debate that this part of the Bill should be re-examined. Clause 4 (2.) clearly states: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Moneys borrowed under this Act may be made available, on such terms and conditions as the Treasurer determines . . . </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> is not here to answer our questions. 1 welcome the assurance that someone will come in and will deal with this matter specifically. As the honourable member for Moore <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Maisey)</inline> said, we are taking money from a fund which, incidentally, was created from the profits of the Commonwealth Bank. Taxpayers&#39; money is not involved in the fund at this stage, the fund was established from profits. We are taking money from that fund and we will engage in a book entry exercise that has not been explained to the Parliament. Quite frankly I believe that this is a most important part of the measure and should be studied in detail and in depth by the Committee. </para>
          <para>I pointed out earlier that a sum of $25m is involved for 1968-69 alone, lt was said by the previous Minister that this could well be used as a tax on a struggling industry. I think the term was well chosen and we should give serious attention to this aspect. If the explanation is not satisfactory we may have to amend clause 4. It is as simple as that. It is not satisfactory to bring in a Bill dealing with $300m of loan funds and not to have clearly spelled out exactly where the money is going, the source from which additional funds will be drawn and the terms and conditions that will apply to the loan. This is a most serious matter and I am very pleased that all the honourable members who have spoken so far in Committee are unanimous in seeking details so that we can determine our attitude to this clause. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>224</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KIM</name.id>
              <electorate>Minister for Immigration and Minister assisting the Treasurer</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister Assisting the Treasurer</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">LYNCH, Phillip</name>
              <name role="display">Mr LYNCH</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I want to make a couple of points about questions that have been asked by honourable members. The first point I want to stress is that the criticism of my colleague, the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury),</inline> for his absence from the chamber this afternoon is quite unfair. He is at present engaged on quite important matters. I have been sitting here during the whole of the debate, with the exception of a few moments when I was outside the chamber, and I have been noting the points that have been raised by honourable members. I will refer them to the Treasurer when he is available. Two points that emerged during the latter part of the debate related to the interest rate. I advise honourable members that the interest rate at present is 5% on Government guaranteed loans from the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank. Of course, I make no prediction about any forward development. The question of the conditions of the loan was also raised. I am informed that the Australian Wheat Board will apply the net proceeds of the export sales of the wheat remaining in the 1968-69 pool to the repayment of the Commonwealth loan and that the Board will make fortnightly payments to the Commonwealth. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>224</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KXV</name.id>
              <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
              <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I am amazed at the statement of the Minister for Immigration <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Lynch).</inline> This matter must be cleared up now. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>224</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Turnbull</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honourable member should ask for leave to speak again. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>224</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I do not have to ask for leave. The honourable member does not know the rules of debate. He is eating away as though he were in a cafe. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett)</inline> - Order! The honourable member for Dawson will address the chair. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>224</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- One point that has to be cleared up is the rate of interest. The Minister said that the rate of interest at present is 5%. He added: &#39;I make no pre-, diction about the forward developments of the rate of interest*. I was under the distinct impression that the rate of interest as laid down by the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> in his second reading speech would not be altered. The words of the Treasurer were: </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>It is intended- </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Intended&#39; means something in the future:  that the rate of interest on the loan by the Commonwealth will be the same- </para>
          <para class="block">That is, <inline font-style="italic">5%:</inline> as the rate charged for Government guaranteed loans by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank on the date the loan is made. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>224</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JSY</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BUCHANAN, Alexander</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Buchanan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- That is clear enough. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>224</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Of course it is. It is 5%. But the Minister said that he makes no prediction as to what it may be in the future. Why does the Minister not say that it will be 5%? That is what we want to know. Will it be 5% or will it not be 5% in the future? This is the important point and 1 think there is only one answer to the question. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>224</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JSY</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">BUCHANAN, Alexander</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Buchanan</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- This is a phoney act about nothing. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>224</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- You usually do not know what goes on here. If you did you would not comment. This is a simple question. If it is 5% now, will it continue to be 5% for the remainder of the term of the loan? It is not satisfactory to have the Treasurer say that it will be the same and to have the Minister assisting him say that it is the same now but he will not make a prediction as to the rate of interest in the future. It is important that the Treasurer answer this simple question. Having heard the answer given by the Treasurer to the right honourable member for Fisher <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Adermann),</inline> it was my understanding that the rate of interest would not change. Although the wheat industry was not specifically mentioned, the answer could be interpreted as relating to the wheat industry. The rate of interest is of tremendous importance in calculating the overall figure. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para class="block">I repeat the specific question to the Minister assisting the Treasurer. It is: Will the rate of interest of 5% remain unchanged for the duration of the loan? </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>225</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KB8</name.id>
              <electorate>Angas</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GILES, Geoffrey</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GILES</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson)</inline> is making an awful fuss about nothing. There is no doubt in my mind that the rate of interest has already been set for the current term of the loan. 1 presume, therefore, that what the honourable member is saying is that he does not want the Government to look at this aspect in the future if conditions alter and interest rates fall. The whole situation of the wheat industry might alter. I do not see that the honourable member has any reason to suppose that there should be a setting of the conditions for the future. For all he knows the situation of the wheat industry might well require that interest rates be lowered. Why does he want the Government to commit itself for the future on this aspect? It should be obvious to all honourable members that the conditions on which interest rates are based may alter. No one would deny that. No one would deny that the state of the industry might change for the better or for the worse and there is no reason to suppose that at the time of those changes governors of banks should not review interest rates. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I cannot quite understand why the honourable member is kicking up a fuss about such an infantile matter at present. The conditions of the loan are set. 1 cannot understand why he wants to know now what governments of the future may or may not think about interest rates. I would ask the Committee to take little notice of this request for forecasting, for crystal ball gazing, about the interest rate. This is not necessarily a matter that the industry should worry about at present. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>225</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>8V4</name.id>
              <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GRASSBY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr Chairman,</inline>1 think the importance of the statement made by the Minister for Immigration and Minister assisting the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Lynch)</inline> has been completely overlooked. As a matter of fact the statement came as something of a bombshell. Let us be quite clear about this. The Minister said that the present rate of interest is 5%. He would make no prediction as to what it should be in the future. The honourable member for Angas <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Giles) said that this situation is quite satisfactory and that it covers what we are discussing today. It is not satisfactory. I refer the Committee to the second reading speech made by the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> in which he stated, very definitely:  lt is intended that the rate of interest on the loan by the Commonwealth will be the same as the rate charged for Government guaranteed loans by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank on the date the loan is made. </para>
          <para class="block">This means that it could be changed at any time. Of course it can be changed. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>225</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KLJ</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MAISEY, Donald</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Maisey</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is subject to Loan Council approval. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>225</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>8V4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
                <name role="display">Mr GRASSBY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- It is subject to Loan Council approval, as the honourable member for Moore properly points out. This is a most serious matter because there is no guarantee now that the 5% rate in fact wiM be applied. I raised this matter, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Chairman,</inline> during the second reading debate, in relation to having a look at reduction of the rate of interest because it was costing the industry, and the growers, $25m. I do not think that this is a small matter as has been suggested; I think that $25m is a tremendous amount of money to an industry which is depressed at this moment. If there is to be a variation in the terms then it is going to be an increasingly serious matter. It could well be that what we are seeing now is the Treasurer imposing a new tax. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The importance of this mutter goes beyond this particular piece of legislation. Let us be quite clear about that point. The reference made by the Minister assisting the Treasurer was a reference to the guaranteed loans of the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia, so it goes beyond this legislation; in fact it goes to the far wider sphere of the operations of the fund which was set up, after all, to utilise the profits of the Commonwealth Bank for the purposes of rural development. That is why the fund was set up. That was the decision of this Parliament and I hope it was unanimous at the time. </para>
          <para>Now we come to a situation where, for Government purposes, the Government is saying that it may charge somebody an additional amount of interest on Government money to be used for Government purposes, for Government trading and in the interests of the national income. That is the whole crux of this question. The demand at this stage by the majority of the members of the Committee who have spoken is for the Minister assisting the Treasurer to clear up this question because it is a matter of importance going beyond this loan - it is a matter that touches on the whole ramifications of the rural credits development fund operations. We should know now whether the rate of interest for this loan is to be 5%. Is consideration now being given not to a decrease in the interest rate such as I pleaded for, because of the depressed state of the industry, but in fact an increase? This has to be known. Surely to goodness the Government should bring a measure into the national Parliament and say: &#39;We have not made up our minds as to the terms and conditions&#39;. That is what the Government is saying. That is neither good housekeeping nor common sense. </para>
          <para>I suggest that the Minister assisting the Treasurer apply himself to the query that has been raised both as to the specific point and the general ground. If he does not clear this up now it will cause grave concern to a whole range of industries at a time when they are already in trouble. The bombshell - and that is what the Minister has brought forward - should now be contained. I hope the Minister will take the fuse out of it and say that instead of considering an increase the Government will go back to the precedent created by a Prime Minister of bygone years, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Chifley,</inline> and say that in relation to this matter at this time it will consider a reduction, because after all the money that is being made available is for Government purposes, for Government trading, and for the interest and income of the nation as a whole. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Chairman,</inline> this is an important question and I think the Minister should reply clearly and definitely without equivocation to the question posed to him and to the Committee this afternoon. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>226</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>009OD</name.id>
              <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
              <party>CP</party>
              <role>Minister for the Interior</role>
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">NIXON, Peter</name>
              <name role="display">Mr NIXON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr Chairman,</inline>I cannot help but be struck by one factor in this debate. I heard the honourable member for Riverina <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Grassby)</inline> make the claim that he raised this question in the House and that he was the first to do so. In fact he was not the first member to raise the ques tion in this House today. 1 know the honourable member likes to strut the stage but the question was first raised by his colleague, his leader in this debate, the honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson).</inline> It is all very nice for the honourable member for Riverina to claim credit for first raising something. I know the honourable member would like to share the credit but it was first raised by the honourable member for Dawson. I am just getting this matter in proper perspective. The honourable member for Riverina was not first. Let us be accurate about this. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>As my colleague, the Minister for Immigration and Minister assisting the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Lynch)</inline> has pointed out, the fact is that the interest rate is 5%. The Minister went on to say that he was unable - and I certainly am unable - to forecast or to project, or to tie down the Reserve Bank of Australia in any shape or fashion. It is not practicable so to do. What we propose to do is to refer this matter to the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> and get him to clarify the situation in his own words. I trust that that will satisfy the honourable member for Dawson and other honourable members who are worried about this question. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>226</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWP</name.id>
              <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I want to say, in the most kindly way, that I cannot understand how, even in the wildest flights of imagination, the honourable member for Moore <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Maisey)</inline> could blame the Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony)</inline> for causing the present problems facing wheat growers. I cannot understand that point of view. If the honourable member for Moore wanted to blame the Federal Government he could do so, but why pick out the Minister for Primary Industry? I say this for the simple reason that Cabinet makes the decisions. I believe that fair play is bonny play. It is the Cabinet that makes the decisions. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>226</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFG</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRIFFITHS, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Griffiths</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- But it is his department. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>226</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNBULL, Winton</name>
                <name role="display">Mr TURNBULL</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Of course it is the Minister&#39;s department. But after all, we must take a wider view. I say very definitely that Cabinet must take the decisions. When speaking in the second reading debate I mentioned the announcement made some fortnight ago about the payment of $1.10 in respect of the quota portion of the next wheat harvest. To roy knowledge such an announcement has never previously been made until November, just before the harvest, and therefore it is of great value to wheat growers. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>227</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6V4</name.id>
              <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DALY, Fred</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DALY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- 1 want to say a few words about the Bill and particularly the comments of the honourable member for Mallee <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Turnbull).</inline> This Bill relates to the wheat industry and on questions relating to wheat the honourable member for Mallee is a man who displays some remarkable changes of front. I listened to his comments a moment ago about the Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony).</inline> At this time last year he described the Minister as a messenger boy of whom nobody took notice. Today the honourable member has been telling us that the Minister, who last year he described as a messenger boy, is the be-all and end-all of the scheme designed to save the Government from its failure in the field of wheat stabilisation and wheat marketing. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Also, rarely have 1 heard such a bitter attack on a colleague as that launched by the honourable member for Mallee against the honourable member for Moore <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Maisey)</inline> who, when all is said and done, is the most knowledgeable man on the Country Party side in respect of wheat. The honourable member for Moore is one who saw the value of the argument advanced by the honourable members for Riverina <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Grassby)</inline> and Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson)</inline> in regard to the question of interest. The matter of interest cannot be so flippantly dismissed as the honourable member for Angas <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Giles),</inline> the  Deputy  Whip of the Liberal Party, dismissed it a few moments ago. The question of the rate of interest is extremely vital. Even the Minister for the Interior <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Nixon)</inline> will not give an assurance that the interest rate will not rise again and again and there will be no terms within the scope of the legislation to cover the full extent of the interest. The matter was raised by the honourable member for Moore who is, as I said, very knowledgeable in this field. Those honourable members on the Government side who seek to cast aside this important aspect of the Bill are just begging the question. </para>
          <para>Let us face the facts. The Country Party has put the wheat growers into a hell of a mess. It has been supported by the Liberal </para>
          <para class="block">Party. Now, by means which the honourable member for Moore condemned in this Parliament, any means at all, it is trying to prove that it is saving the farmers. The Government is getting wheat growers further into the mire, as it were, because at one time when we should not have been growing the great quantities of wheat that were being grown, the Minister for Primary Industry, whom the honourable member for Mallee described as a messenger boy, told people in the wheat growing areas to grow more wheat. </para>
          <para>Tonight, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Deputy Chairman,</inline> I do not wish to say more, except to place on record again the machinations of the honourable member for Mallee. When he sat on the Opposition side of this Parliament and the Australian Labor Party was the Government, the honourable member always was against schemes to assist wheat growers and wool growers simply because the Australian Labor Party suggested them. Now that he is sitting on the other side of the fence, the honourable member is doing everything that he said he would not do when he was on this side of the Committee simply because he has changed places with us. lt grieves me at times to hear his bitter attacks on members of his own Party such as the Minister for Primary Industry. It grieves me to see him trying to bolster up a scheme by an attack on one of his own colleagues in such a bitter way today. The questions that we have raised concerning the matter of interest cannot be discarded in the way in which the honourable member for Maltee, the  Deputy  Whip of the Liberal Party, the honourable member lor Angas and the Minister for Immigration <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Lynch)</inline> have attempted to do. Let us have the facts. Let us not have any more hypocrisy in regard to this matter. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>227</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KLJ</name.id>
              <electorate>Moore</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MAISEY, Donald</name>
              <name role="display">Mr MAISEY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I wish to add some further comment following the remarks of my colleague, the honourable member for Mallee <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Turnbull).</inline> I wish to repeat that I believe, and believe most emphatically, that the present problems confronting the Australian wheat industry which have necessitated the introduction of the Bill that we are discussing presently in Committee have been brought about by the price structure given the wheat industry under the last stabilisation scheme, without a doubt. This scheme has not only lifted the price of wheat beyond the level at which it would sell readily within Australia but also created one of the greatest black markets of all time in the history of the industry and indeed created the greatest problem in meeting the competition of our overseas rivals in our export markets. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>This scheme also lifted the price structure of the wheat industry and attempted, by inference, to lift the returns from wheat to such a point where every primary producer grew wheat to the exclusion of every other product. This occurred in many areas of Australia where the natural environmental production was wool and coarse grains rather than wheat. This is basically our problem. This problem was brought about by the misjudgment and mishandling of this matter by the Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony)</inline> and the industrial organisations. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>228</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KET</name.id>
              <electorate>Wimmera</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KING, Robert</name>
              <name role="display">Mr KING</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-  I cannot let go unchallenged the statement made by the honourable member for Moore <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Maisey)</inline> to the effect that the present chaos is the result of and was caused by the recent introduction of the wheat stabilisation plan. I draw attention to a few facts and figures in relation to harvests since the stabilisation plan was re-negotiated. In the year 1966-67 the wheat harvest was approximately 438 million bushels. In the subsequent year, it was approximately 538 million bushels. At that stage, a harvest of 438 million bushels was the record. It cannot be said that the stabilisation plan was responsible actually for the increase in production in that year. The sales of wheat within Australia are a very, very small percentage of the total world harvest. Consequently, irrespective of what the price may be, it would affect only that portion that is sold within Australia. If honourable members consider the amount of wheat that has been consumed in the form of flour in the year 1968-69 they will see that 44.5 million bushels was used and that 9.8 million bushels went for stock feed. This was out of a harvest of approximately 500 million bushels. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>So I cannot go along with, nor can I let go unchallenged, the statement made by the honourable member for Moore to the effect that it was a decision of the Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony)</inline> that was responsible for this chaotic position. I believe that the Minister has done a magnificent job in trying to sort out the problem that has been brought about by the international situation and not by what has taken place inside Australia. If the Committee looks at the world&#39;s production figures as they were presented by the honourable member for Gwydir <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Hunt)</inline> earlier this afternoon, it will see that the amount of wheat grown in Australia is small in comparison with what has been grown in other countries; and then, of course, the Committee will appreciate that, no matter what we do, we cannot increase or decrease the overall amount grown throughout the world. </para>
          <para>As far as I am concerned, the Minister for Primary Industry has done everything possible to assist the wheat industry. When it comes to putting the bl&#39;ame on him, I say that this has always been thrown on the Minister by the Opposition whereas, in actual fact, all the suggestions regarding the quotas that we hear so much about were first made as recommendations by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. That is a wheat body which is the spokesman for the wheat industry. This was not by the Minister at all- </para>
          <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett)</inline> - Order! I ask the honourable member for Wimmera to confine his remarks a little more closely to the actual subject matter of the Bill. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>228</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KET</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">KING, Robert</name>
                <name role="display">Mr KING</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Deputy Chairman,</inline> I have said all that I wanted to say. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>228</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>JLR</name.id>
              <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">ADERMANN, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr ADERMANN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Sir, I</inline>have come to the conclusion that you have been a very tolerant  Deputy Chairman  in allowing honourable members to have in Committee a second second reading debate. All I wish to say is concerned with the rate of interest. This is a pertinent question. I think that it is quite definite. In his second reading speech, the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> said: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>The Bill provides that the loan to the Board may be made available on such terms and conditions as the Treasurer determines. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">He went on to say - and this is quite definite:  lt is intended that the rate of interest on the loan by the Commonwealth will be the same as the rate charged for Government guaranteed loans by the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank on the date the loan is made. </para>
          <para class="block">The Minister for Immigration <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Lynch),</inline> who is also the Minister assisting the Treasurer, has said that the interest rate today is <inline font-style="italic">5%.</inline> The loan is subject to one condition only. No power exists for alteration. The Treasurer has no right to alter the rate of interest, I take it, anyhow, after a loan is made. It is intended that the rate of interest that will apply is the rate of interest that exists on the day when the loan is made. This is definite; otherwise this Committee is being let down. I do not think that this is the intention of the Treasurer. He has made it quite definite. </para>
          <para>The only condition to which a loan is subject is that it must have the approval of the Australian Loan Council. Six State ministers are concerned in this matter. The Governments of which those ministers are members have become parties to the wheat stablisation scheme. Obviously, they will accept these loans because they are responsible, as the Commonwealth is responsible, for this scheme. It is a joint stabilisation scheme. I do not see any ambiguity as to the matter of interest. If the rate of interest is 5% today, and we pass the Bill on that basis, we expect the rate of interest to be 5% at the time the loan is made and to remain <inline font-style="italic">5%</inline> for the term of the loan. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>229</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWR</name.id>
              <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TURNER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Sir, I</inline>feel that I should say a word on this question about the rate of interest and on what the Treasurer may or may not be able to say about it. This matter to me is plain. It appears from the second reading speech of the Treasurer on this Bill that the loan will have to be made on 31st March 1970. That is the date when the Rural Credits Department would expect the indebtedness to it to be discharged. It is for this reason that the Government must come to the rescue by providing the money to repay the Rural Credits Department. Therefore, we are in this position. Today is 10th March. On 31st March the loan will be made. The Treasurer has said quite specifically that the rate of interest for this advance will be the rate that is prevailing at the date when the loan is made. That is 31st March, in 3 weeks time. It is conceivable that the rate could increase. Rates generally could increase in the interval. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>229</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KFG</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRIFFITHS, Charles</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Griffiths</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- They have just increased. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>229</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr TURNER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes. There may be no intention to do this. In that case you may ask why the Treasurer should not inform us. There is a good reason why he should not. If he did so he would be giving notice to every borrower that rates generally will not increase before 31st March. No responsible Treasurer can do this. He cannot give notice in advance that no rates will increase between now and 31st March, although there may be no intention whatever that they shall. Let us understand the responsibilities of the Treasurer. I do not known the position, because I speak merely from a general knowledge of the way the finances of this country are handled, but I say that this is a fiddling point that has been taken up by the Opposition. It has tried to seize upon some stick with which to beat the Government, well knowing, because I have told it, why the Treasurer&#39;s hands are tied; why his tongue is tied at this time. Exploit the situation with all the greed to which you appeal. Exploit it if you will, but let it be known that you are merely exploiting a man who has a responsibility not to speak at this point of time. Let it be known that in your cowardly way you are exploiting the Minister, who has a responsibility in this matter. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>229</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>8V4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Grassby</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I rise to order. I take personal offence in being described as a coward in any shape or form by the honourable member for Bradfield and I ask him to withdraw the remark and to apologise. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>The  DEPUTY CHAIRMAN-  Order! I ask the honourable member for Bradfield to withdraw. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>229</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Turner</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I did not refer to anybody in particular. I said that the Opposition has been cowardly. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN- I take it that the- </para>
          <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Nixon)</inline> proposed: </para>
          <quote>
            <para class="block">That the  question  be now put. </para>
          </quote>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>229</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Patterson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Deputy Chairman,</inline> you gave a ruling- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>230</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Patterson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, you</inline> gave a ruling before the-- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! The motion has been proposed That the question be now put&#39;. Will those who are of that opinion say &#39;Aye&#39;? </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>230</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>CV4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">JACOBI, Ralph</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Jacobi</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Was a point of order taken? Was it sustained? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Order! I take it that the motion is agreed to. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>230</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Patterson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- No. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <para>The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Is a division required? </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>230</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KXV</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Patterson</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Yes. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
        </speech>
        <division>
          <division.header>
            <time.stamp />
            <para>The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman - Mr J. M. Hallett)</para>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>64</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>57</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
            </noes>
          </division.data>
          <para>Majority . . 7 </para>
          <para>AYES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="966131197003103_33_1_1_A.jpg" />
          </para>
          <para>NOES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="966131197003103_33_1_2_N.jpg" />
          </para>
          <division.result>
            <para>Question so resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          </division.result>
        </division>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>230</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KXV</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
              <name role="display">Dr Patterson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>-I rise to order. Before the Division the honourable member for Bradfield <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Turner)</inline> pointed with his finger and addressed his remarks directly to the honourable member for Riverina <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Grassby).</inline> He stated that the honourable member for Riverina had acted in a cowardly fashion.  His  action clearly implied that the honourable member for Riverina was a coward. Nothing can be further from the truth and nothing is more unparliamentary than this. The honourable member for Riverina asked you, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, to</inline> ask for a withdrawal. You did that and the honourable member for Bradfield refused on the ground that he did not say it to the honourable member for Riverina. I ask you, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir. to</inline> require the honourable member for Bradfield to withdraw the statement. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>230</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Turner</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I rise to speak to the point of order that has been raised and to which the honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson)</inline> has addressed himself. I said that the Opposition-- </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>230</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>8V4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Grassby</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- You did not. You said that I was a coward. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>230</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Turner</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I did not. I am sure the transcript will show that I made no mention of the honourable member for Riverina <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Grassby).</inline> If I did mention the honourable member for Riverina by name I certainly withdraw and apologise, but I have no recollection of having so done. My recolection is that I saidthe Opposition&#39;. More than one member of the Opposition made this point; the honourable member for Dawson did. One cannot libel a class of people. If the cap fits-- </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>231</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>8V4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Grassby</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Deputy Chairman--</inline></para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>231</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Turner</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- One can only libel a specific person. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett)</inline> - Order! I ask the honourable member for Bradfield, the honourable member for Riverina and the honourable member for Mallee to be seated. I did ask the the honourable member for Bradfield previously to withdraw his remark. I now ask him in the best interests and traditions of this Parliament to withdraw those remarks. </para>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>231</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWR</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Turner</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- If a tradition of this Parliament is that you withdraw a remark you did not make then I agree to withdraw it. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <para>Bill agreed to. </para>
        <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett)</inline> - The question now is: </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That I report  the  Bill without amendment. </para>
        </quote>
        <interjection>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>231</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KXV</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
              <name role="display">Dr Patterson</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- In view of the fact that the Minister Assisting the Treasurer has undertaken to give this Parliament an answer and has not given an answer I move: </para>
          </talk.start>
        </interjection>
        <motion>
          <para>That progress be reported. </para>
        </motion>
        <para>The <inline font-weight="bold">DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Hallett)</inline> - The Bill has already been passed and agreed to. </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="966131197003103_34_2_1_A.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para>Question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
        <para>Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Third Reading</title>
          <page.no>231</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Snedden)</inline> - by leave - proposed: </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the Bill be now read a third time. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>231</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>8V4</name.id>
              <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GRASSBY, Al</name>
              <name role="display">Mr GRASSBY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- During the second reading stage of this Bill important matters were raised. These matters were also dealt with during the Committee stage. They remain unresolved and the questions that were put by a majority of the speakers during the Committee stage have not yet been answered. I suggest at this third reading stage that with the Treasurer <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Bury)</inline> present he should take the opportunity to do as he should have done during the debate on the second reading and clear up a matter of great importance in relation to interest rates and the financing of primary industries. I suggest that this is as good a time as any to do it. This does not in fact, under the Standing Orders, encompass any of the ground that has been covered before because the questions have been clearly put and remain unanswered in relation to interest rates. The opportunity is here now for the Treasurer to deal with what is an important matter relative to this measure now brought to the third reading stage. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>231</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KXV</name.id>
              <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PATTERSON, Rex</name>
              <name role="display">Dr PATTERSON</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- We have now witnessed-- </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Snedden)</inline> put: </para>
          <para>That  the question be now put. </para>
        </speech>
        <division>
          <division.header>
            <time.stamp />
            <para>The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock)</para>
          </division.header>
          <division.data>
            <ayes>
              <num.votes>64</num.votes>
              <title>AYES</title>
            </ayes>
            <noes>
              <num.votes>57</num.votes>
              <title>NOES</title>
            </noes>
          </division.data>
          <para>Majority . .  . . 7 </para>
          <para>AYES</para>
          <para>NOES</para>
          <para class="block">
            <graphic href="966131197003103_35_2_2_N.jpg" />
          </para>
          <division.result>
            <para class="block">Question so resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          </division.result>
          <para class="block">Original question resolved in the affirmative. </para>
          <para>Bill read a third time. </para>
          <para>Sitting suspended from 6.2 to 8 p.m. </para>
        </division>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>DEFENCE</title>
        <page.no>232</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ministerial Statement</title>
          <page.no>232</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>232</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>QS4</name.id>
              <electorate>WANNON, VICTORIA</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">FRASER, Malcolm</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Malcolm Fraser</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- by leave - I propose in the course of my remarks to provide a broad view of our defence policy and the considerations that have contributed to it. 1 shall refer to the Government&#39;s defence objectives and to our planning arrangements which support them; to the capacity of our armed forces and to our proposals to increase that capacity. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I will set the Services&#39; capability against the roles we have assigned them. I shall also mention the organisational changes which are still continuing in the defence structure which, I believe, are important in helping the Government to come to decisions in defence matters. Some of what I say will not be new but I feel it would be useful if the House could have as full a view as possible of our approach to defence policy. </para>
          <para>Defence policies and the decisions we take to give effect to them must have meaning not only for the immediate present; they must also fit the situation that we assess will face us in the future. This task is not easy. There is a dynamic in the policies, the economic and the social changes of the countries of our region. The rapidity of technological and scientific development introduces yet another dimension. Yet if we are to take the right decisions, we must have a defence organisation which is equipped to analyse all the facts, and perceive as best it may what lies ahead. </para>
          <para>My colleague, the Minister for External Affairs <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr McMahon),</inline> will, in the course of this session, be giving the House a survey of the international situation and of Australia&#39;s external policies. I shall confine myself to describing in brief terms the strategic setting against which the Government has made certain decisions and in the context of which we are elaborating our defence policies. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>STRATEGIC SETTING</title>
        <page.no>232</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>The world wars of this century had their  roots in political conflict in Europe: 1945 heralded the end of European dominance. In the time since then the two themes of overriding importance in world affairs have been the pre-eminence of the continental superpowers in North America and Eurasia and the dramatic end of European colonial rule over much of the rest of the world. In 1945, apart from New Zealand, there were three sovereign states within 5,000 miles of Australia. Today there are seven times that number in the same distance. </para>
      <para>In retrospect we can discern the distinctive characteristics of the last 25 years. We need now to recognise that we are entering a new era. Since 1945, we have had a longer period of what is imprecisely called peace than prevailed between the two world wars. A generation which neither created nor experienced the last Great War has matured in, or in spite of, its aftermath. In what are still called the &#39;newly independent&#39; countries, the first fully post-colonial generation already has emerged. Many nations, whose policies and roles are important to us and interact with our own, are now in a process of transition and reappraisal. </para>
      <para>In Indonesia - our nearest neighbour and not so long ago a cause of concern to us - remarkable changes have been worked in favour of moderation and national rehabilitation. A large part of the world - certainly our part of the world - cannot but be interested in the way the new generation of Indonesian leaders further shape their country&#39;s future. </para>
      <para>In mainland China, the so-called cultural revolution was intended to mobilise the new generation in support of Mao Tse-tung&#39;s extreme radical and nationalistic policies. The cultural revolution was conceived in ideology: Its purpose was to perpetuate the revolutionary spirit of early Communism. Its immediate results are difficult to ascertain, let alone assess. But you cannot turn inside out a society so large, and on average so young, as the Chinese, without there being many consequences within, if not beyond, the borders of China. The Chinese have been taught to see themselves as the sole repository of the true Communist doctrine and practice. China is developing a nuclear capability. She continues to give encouragement and support to revolutionary movements in neighbouring countries. She has border disputes with India. She maintains pressure on Burma. She is engaged in building roads in northern Laos that could facilitate activities directed against Thailand. How much her border arguments and ideological disputes with Russia will affect the future history of Asia it is impossible yet to predict. </para>
      <para>Japan is now the world&#39;s third industrial power. Japan&#39;s defence forces are of no mean dimension and there is currently a programme to expand them. It is unlikely that the Japan of the coming decades - an economic giant confident in its technological sophistication and advanced standards of living - will have the same outlook as the Japan of the 1950s and 1960s. Indeed there is already wide agreement, including among the Japanese themselves, that some kind of break with the postwar era is developing. Japan in the 1970s and 1980s will have great opportunities to play a progressive and constructive part in Asia. She has a substantial interest in the stability of the area because much of her trade, upon which her industrial growth and high living standards depend, originates in the South East Asian region or is funnelled through its narrow seas. </para>
      <para>For 25 years the United States of America has carried the main burden of defence of the free world. Today it is a matter of public record that a re-appraisal is taking place of the manner in which American commitments might be discharged in the future. That re-appraisal focuses largely on Asia. The Nixon doctrine, first enunciated at Guam, is full of meaning for the countries to our north and to us. American help will be more readily forthcoming to those countries that help themselves; insurgency situations are expected to be contained - better still, prevented from developing - without United States combat manpower. It is to be expected that there will be some contraction of total United States forces and installations. However, the Americans have proclaimed that they will stand by their treaty obligations. Two of these are of major concern to us - ANZUS and SEATO. </para>
      <para>Turning to the Soviet Union, her Far East fleet is growing and honourable members will be aware of the increasing Russian interest in the Indian and Pacific Oceans and in the South East Asian region. Likewise she has sought to expand the scope of her diplomatic and trade relations with South East Asian and other nations touching the Indian Ocean. She has placed great emphasis on the development of a worldwide maritime capability, both merchant and naval, which are closely co-ordinated. We have recently had demonstrations of this capability, close to our shores. We have noted her ability to maintain groups of vessels at sea for unusually long periods. This extension of Soviet maritime interest, particularly in the Indian Ocean, is not something we can afford to be disinterested in. I have already said Australia cannot confront the Soviet Union, but we must take account of her Indian Ocean activities in our defence policies and planning. </para>
      <para>I refer now to Great Britain. The United Kingdom has been searching for a new kind of role. Economic problems and what she regards as the necessity of her future, are leading her to Europe and the Common Market.  Her  present intention is not to maintain forces in her areas of traditional responsibility in Singapore and Malaysia. Nevertheless, her economic and commercial interests in this region are widespread. She intends to demonstrate her capacity to transport forces to Malaysia and Singapore quickly and she has undertaken to train and exercise in the area after 1971.  Her  present plans to have no forces permanently based in Malaysia-Singapore, and particularly no naval forces, add to the significance that we must attach to the increasing Russian activities in the Indian Ocean. </para>
      <para>India, on the northern shores of the Indian Ocean, maintains one of the world&#39;s largest armies and some significant air and naval power backed by a growing economy. India strives to create a productive system which will provide one-seventh of the human race with better living standards. In the next 10 years the Indian population will almost certainly exceed 700 million. Australian interests cannot fail to be affected by India&#39;s success or failure in solving its problems with its neighbours and in building on the foundations of a great independent democracy. </para>
      <para>What total situation will emerge from all of this we cannot foresee. Clearly, forces working around the world are going to affect South East Asia and Australia. While we must not fear change, and indeed social change is necessary in many countries, it would be foolish to act as if we had assumed that the overall thrust of future events will automatically enhance our security. We must note that of the seven major countries mentioned, Indonesia is our closest neighbour. Changing policies of the others are certain to have a cumulative impact on the region of our strategic interest. </para>
      <para>In addition, our region of particular concern has its own problems of divisions between and within states. There is, of course, promise in countries which are marching boldly towards a better future for their citizens. At the same time, ethnic religious and political tensions and the pressure of rising populations, not matched by economic and social development, must cause concern. </para>
      <para>Another point has to be made. The very nature of war has changed. We now have to contend with a variety of politico-military situations. These include subversion, confrontation, guerilla wars, &#39;revolutionary warfare&#39; and other limited conventional operations short of a &#39;declared&#39; war. Propaganda is an important weapon in these situations. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>OUR BASIC APPROACH TO DEFENCE POLICY</title>
        <page.no>234</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Against the strategic background I have sketched, 2 basic approaches were available to us. We, on the periphery of the region, might have sought to avoid its uncertainties and imponderables. Some might have taken the view that our grow ing wealth, our high productivity, our advanced technology and our geographical advantages, equipped us to take care of ourselves except against nuclear attack or a large-scale invasion, and that no additional effort was required. This is a strange, odd, concept. It smacks of Australia being in the region but not of it; of Australia passively waiting to be overtaken by events, lt would be an attempt to have all the advantages at no risk. This surely is not the way to a viable meaningful community of friendly nations devoted to economic growth and development in an environment of stability and security. </para>
      <para>The Australian Government has consistently engaged itself in political policies and in trade, financial and developmental aid activities which are designed to make an effective Austraiian contribution to the economic growth and political stability of the region to which we belong. It would be irrational for us to pursue these policy objectives while at the same time refusing to contribute to military security and to creating an environment of confidence which is indispensible for. countries embarking on long range developmental plans. </para>
      <para>If a policy of isolating ourselves ever made any sense, which I deny, the Nixon doctrine to which I have alluded makes it a complete nonsense. Considered from the narrowest military ground a policy with isolation as its central concept would pose one inescapable question: How long could we stand aloof in armed - or unarmed - detachment from our environment? One can only guess - probably a decade - perhaps a generation. There might be comfort in that for us - less for our next generation perhaps. For you do not make South East Asia or the Indian Ocean disappear by turning your back on them. The region of South East Asia and the surrounding Pacific and Indian Ocean waters comprise our environment: We are as well a part of the environment of the other nations in our region. If that environment is going to change we want to be able to play a meaningful part in the changes - not work out a relationship after the region had been transformed by processes with which we were not associated and of which we had accumulated little knowledge or experience. </para>
      <para>Of course we and other countries hope that by diplomacy and policies of aid we will reduce and ultimately eliminate threats to the region so that we may all devote our energies to improving the standard of life of our people. Military isolation on Australia&#39;s part would obstruct this objective. Military co-operation is designed to establish security so that the governments concerned can work for their own people without hindrance. </para>
      <para>We reject the concept of detachment. We accept the risks and opportunities of involvement, within the limits of the Prime Minister&#39;s statement of 25th February last year, because we believe isolation would lead to greater risks both for the region and for Australia. We do not believe there is any security in isolation. We believe there will be no permanent security for any of the small countries of the region until there is permanent security for all. This being the case, within our resources our military capability must be geared for deployment in the region of which Australia is a part when in our judgment we conclude that this is demanded by our concept of regional security as well as for the obvious purpose of meeting possible threats to Australian territory. This is the only proper conclusion, to which an analysis of our basic situation should lead us. </para>
      <para>It should be noted also any other course would involve the denial of our treaty obligations. It would mean the elimination of our South East Asia Treaty Organisation associations. It would be incompatible with ANZUS which some tend to suggest wrongly is a treaty of one way obligation. ANZUS does not mean merely that other people should prepare themselves to defend Australia&#39;s interests. A policy based in isolation would have meant a different response from the one we gave the Malaysian and Singaporean requests that Australia continue to maintain forces in their countries. For the future it would mean standing aside from other forms of regional co-operation in defence. If anyone imagines that we could effectively maintain a broad ranging cooperation with the region but without forces capable of fulfilling a regional role then I can only say that such a policy would earn no response from our friends in the area. Politically it would lack credibility. In purely military terms, it would be impracticable. </para>
      <para class="block">To be fully effective a regional policy at present requires deployment of forces in the area. </para>
      <para>The decision the Government has taken concerning involvement in South East Asia and the maintenance of a force from our three Services in Singapore/ Malaysia might appear superficially to represent little change from previous policy. But I hope I have said enough about the changing strategic setting to demonstrate that, if our decision is one for continuing involvement, it is also one for involvement in a new set of circumstances. So far as the region of South East Asia is concerned, the withdrawal of Britain as a power with major forces permanently stationed in the region is irreversible: The United States is re-appraising the nature of its involvement: Soviet political and strategic policies impinge progressively upon the region: A changing Japan must feel its interests in security and stability affected by developments in the region: While China continues in a position of self-imposed isolation and of intransigence towards all noncompliant regimes in its vicinity. </para>
      <para>It is against this background of change that we are moving from a situation in which we have been supporting commitments of major powers, to a position of partnership with other regional countries which must now accept greater responsibility for their own defence. The familiar forces which have influenced international events for the past 20 years are changing in directions which we cannot yet fully foresee. We are developing defence policies designed to serve us into the 1980s in a situation where we are faced with formidable uncertainties about the world in which we will be living. It follows that Australia will be required to show initiative and flexibility in the execution of her defence policies. At the same time our commitments must be related at all times to our capabilities and it must be clearly understood that there are limits on both. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE</title>
        <page.no>235</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>I want to refer in more detail to our relationship with Malaysia and Singapore. Since the early 1950s Australia has had a tradition of co-operation with, and of assistance to, these countries. We provided military help at the time of Communist emergency; we provided help during confrontation; and now when the British have announced a decision no longer to station forces in the region, we have said that, providing the two governments continue to desire our presence, we will maintain forces in the Malaysia/ Singapore area after 1971. </para>
      <para>This commitment should be judged against the spirit of co-operation and assistance that has prevailed over a great number of years. Governments nowadays do not sign blank cheques saying automatically that if something happens their troops will march. Our friends in Malaysia and Singapore will judge us by the pattern of past relationships. The past could give them no cause for doubt or hesitation as to where Australia would stand. They understand fully that decisions about the actual commitment of our troops at any particular time, and in any particular situation, must be just as much the prerogative of the Australian Government, as would be decisions by them affecting their forces. </para>
      <para>The arrangements we are developing with these two countries both in the context of the Five Power arrangements, and separately, are well known. There have been Five Power meetings in Kuala Lumpur and Canberra at ministerial level and at Kuala Lumpur at senior official level. As well, the many details involved, including those connected with the proposed new air defence system, are being worked out in four advisory groups dealing with naval, army, air and joint service matters. </para>
      <para>In a variety of ways we have done much 10 strengthen the defence capability of Malaysia and Singapore; the Sabres for Malaysia is a well known example. Discussions continue with the Malaysians about the co-location of Royal Malaysian Air Force units with ours at Butterworth and with the Singaporeans about the final location of our forces there now that their move from Terandak has been completed. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>VIETNAM</title>
        <page.no>236</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>The Governor-General&#39;s Speech reiterated the Australian and allied purpose in Vietnam to oppose aggression and to seek to establish the circumstances in which the citizens of South Vietnam can live under a government of their choice. The Governor-General&#39;s Speech went on: </para>
      <quote>
        <para>My Government is glad to note that the increasing capacity of the South Vietnamese to defend themselves has already permitted the withdrawal of some Allied Forces. Should the future situation permit a further substantial withdrawal of troops - beyond those announced by  President  Nixon on 16th December 1969 - then in consultation with the Government of the Republic of Vietnam and the Government of the United States, some Australian troops will be included, at some stage, in the numbers scheduled for such withdrawal. </para>
      </quote>
      <para class="block">My Department, the Department of the Army and others have been examining the situation closely so we will be in a position to discuss the matter with the Governments of South Vietnam, the United States and New Zealand. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEFENCE CAPABILITY</title>
        <page.no>236</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Our strategic situation coupled with our basic approach to regional defence leads to certain broad principles in developing our defence capability. They are: </para>
      <list type="loweralpha">
        <item label="(a)">
          <para>we seek the maximum of strategic flexibility; </para>
        </item>
        <item label="(b)">
          <para>we see Australian security as intimately tied in with regional security; </para>
        </item>
        <item label="(c)">
          <para>we wish our forces to be organised, equipped and trained so that they can be effectively employed in the region of which Australia is a part as well as for the direct defence of Australia; </para>
        </item>
        <item label="(d)">
          <para>we see our forces as not being too closely tailored to particular requirements but versatile and flexible and capable of rapid deployment over a wide range of situations; </para>
        </item>
        <item label="(e)">
          <para>we see our forces as being capable of a rapid response, with an offensive capability that would be an effective deterrent because it would enable us to reach out to an enemy; </para>
        </item>
        <item label="(f)">
          <para>we see a need for our forces to be more self contained, with a high degree of strategic and tactical mobility; </para>
        </item>
        <item label="(g)">
          <para>we believe our forces must have reasonable compatibility of weapons and equipment with those of the United States and New Zealand; </para>
        </item>
        <item label="(h)">
          <para>we see our forces requiring a sound infrastructure in Australia and its Territories, adequate to support the operations of our forces wherever they may be. </para>
        </item>
      </list>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>THE DEFENCE ORGANISATION</title>
        <page.no>237</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>The development of defence capability is a much more complicated procedure than was once the case; we need the professional military advice of our most senior officers; we need the best possible political and military intelligence; we need the best possible scientific and technical input; we need procedures for assessing our requirements for complicated equipments; we need to be able to question and probe effectively to make sure that the best possible solution to a particular military need is achieved. We need planning and preparations for the development of our forces based on joint concepts and plans to meet the various situations that may confront us. We need to ensure that each of the Services prepares for the same kind of conflicts, in the same places and in the same time scale. </para>
      <para>We must not be bound by tradition. If a matter has been pursued in a certain way that in itself is no argument for continuing in the old way. On the other hand, before tried and proven methods are abandoned, we must be sure that new ways and techniques will be better. Above all, change for its own sake is. to be avoided. </para>
      <para>The factors that we need to have in mind are twofold. Firstly, there are the likely circumstances for which we need to raise, train and equip forces. We have to project a view about this as far ahead as is sensibly possible. Secondly, there are the technological developments that are likely to bear on our choice of weapons systems. </para>
      <para>I propose now to deal with the organisational changes we have made to aid our decision making. </para>
      <para class="block">Joint Staff 1 want first to refer to the new Joint Staff arrangements established in the Department of Defence by my predecessor. The Joint Staff replaces most of the numerous committees which previously existed to which people were allocated by the individual Services. The Service members of the committees had a dual responsibility to the committee and to their Service chief. </para>
      <para>Now senior officers from each of the Services are seconded to the Defence Department generally for a 3-year period to work on the Joint Staff along with selected officers of the Departments of Defence and External Affairs with responsibility only for the Joint Staff function. By this means members see problems as defence, not individual Service, problems. At the same time each gains an insight into, and invaluable experience of, the totality of defence pfenning, which should later stand him in good stead in his own Service. </para>
      <para>The Joint Staff represents an integration within the Defence Department of the best Army, Navy and Air Force expertise. The Department also provides for the coordinated examination of military, political, scientific and economic factors. The Joint Staff provides more effective support for the Joint Planning Committee and the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Its work is essential to consideration by the Defence Committee, the Minister for Defence and, where appropriate, the Cabinet. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Intelligence Arrangements</title>
          <page.no>237</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Australia must have intelligence arrangements of the highest order to ensure the availability of the best political&#39;, strategic and tactical information relevant to our interests. </para>
        <para>The House is aware of the recent changes in our intelligence arrangements. We have amalgamated within the Defence Department, in a Joint Intelligence Organisation, the former Joint Intelligence Bureau with sections of the three Services Directorates of Intelligence. We have provided for the full participation of the Department of External Affairs. The purpose is to provide a unified environment for the quick and complete pooling of information and the consideration of the diverse factors that have to be weighed at the national or strategic level of assessment. Matters that must be considered include strategic, political, military, economic and scientific factors. Within this framework the former Joint Intelligence Committee has been replaced by a National Intelligence Committee at a higher level. It will include representatives from the Department of External Affairs as well as from the Joint Intelligence Organisation. It will be responsible for broad assessments and projections relevant to the planning of national security policy. I add that each of the Services remains responsible for meeting its own operational intelligence requirements. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Science Arrangements</title>
          <page.no>238</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>To provide the necessary scientific input, organisational changes have been made in my Department and the whole defence group. In the first place, there is now in the Defence Department an appropriate and active Defence Science Branch headed by a chief defence scientist. Through the Defence Research and Development Policy Committee, all scientific research in the Department of Defence and the three Services and the Department of Supply is co-ordinated. The number of scientific advisers seconded to the Services and the scope of their responsibilities have been increased. </para>
        <para>Considerable support continues to be provided by the Research and Development Establishments in the Department of Supply. These laboratories maintain a high level of scientific competence over a wide range of disciplines, and are able to provide direct scientific assistance in solving many problems which arise from time to time in defence activity. The resources and facilities at Weapons Research Establishment formally allocated to the development and support of the joint project operations at Woomera have progressively been reoriented to meet the needs of Australian defence. A new Central Studies Unit has been established in Supply to engage in operational research studies on behalf of the defence group of departments and the armed Services. Its role will complement the operational analysis activities being undertaken within Defence and Service departments and within other establishments of the Department of Supply. A number of project development tasks are in progress designed to provide solutions to specific local defence needs, and if successful some of these could lead to production of various items of defence equipment. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Policy and Analysis</title>
          <page.no>238</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>The policy and analysis sections of the Department have been greatly strengthened. A Policy Planning Branch has been estab lished to ensure that proper attention is given to the more fundamental and long range issues in the strategic field that impinge in our security. In addition, proposals for equipment and major works coming from the Services are submitted to the Department of Defence for examination. The critical task is to make sure that regardless of individual Service interest, the best &#39;defence&#39; solutions are found and the best allocation is made of those resources which are available to defence. </para>
        <para>To assist in this decision making, we have established another group within the Department whose task it is to examine proposals and possible alternatives, taking account of the benefits and costs of each. Provided that our military requirements will satisfactorily be met, a proposal that will contribute to our industrial or technological skills in Australia, or put broader, to our economic and national development, is more attractive than one that will not. Costs cover more than the price tag on prime equipment. So we require the identification and costing of all ancillaries - for example the cost of support facilities manpower, training and maintenance. The Services will adopt the same techniques. The procurement of defence equipment is so important that it is my firm belief that all techniques must be used and exploited to ensure that our military needs are most effectively and economically met. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Special Studies Branch</title>
          <page.no>238</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>A Special Studies Branch has been established in the Defence Department to examine aspects of the functions, organisation and activities of the defence group of departments so that we may achieve the most effective use of existing resources. Rationalisation or integration will not be pursued for their own sake; traditions have a value that should not be hastily discounted. But, if rationalisation or integration or co-location, or single-service management, or the standardisation of equipment, methods and procedures can achieve savings in manpower or in money without affecting efficiency, then those changes must be pursued. Within this context a number of studies are being undertaken. I shall refer to these later. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>DEFENCE AND INDUSTRY</title>
        <page.no>239</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>We recognise industry as the &#39;fourth arm of defence&#39;. With this in mind, we have promulgated guiding principles for the procurement of defence equipment. They aim to ensure that the scope for Australian production is considered in the early stages of a Service requirement. It is in the interests of our allies as well as our own that the Australian industrial base is sound, diversified and technologically competent. Much credit is due to my predecessor for being the first to enunciate the policy of offset arrangements. It remains to see that those arrangements work. A mission concerned with these matters recently visited the United States, led by <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Ian</inline> McLennan who is also  Chairman  of the Defence (Industrial) Committee. </para>
      <para>This Committee was established and the Business Board restructured to give my Department the best possible advice on the capability of Australian industry and the best means of harnessing Australian production to the defence effort. The businessmen members of this Committee and the Board have already, in their examination of some matters of major importance, contributed much. We look to their playing a vital role in the general&#39; development of Australia&#39;s defence capacity and in aiding us to get the greatest value for every defence dollar. In this context 1 should also note the general logistic arrangements that my predecessor concluded with New Zealand. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE</title>
        <page.no>239</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Within the new defence organisation we are looking at a number of long term problems. In these studies special emphasis has been given to joint service-civilian participation to make the best use of available knowledge, military experience and analytical ability. Where possible, our efforts are directed to ensure that defence and national development march together. This applies not only to our relationships with industry to which I have referred, but also to the infrastructure required for military purposes - for example, airfields and dockyards. Wherever we can, we aim to develop facilities which will equally serve civil and national development objectives. I refer now to a number of inquiries in process. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Army Establishment</title>
          <page.no>239</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>In recent years modern barrack accommodation has been built for 6 battalions. After Vietnam, additional accommodation will&#39; be required. There is a joint DefenceArmy examination of this matter. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Naval Dockyards</title>
          <page.no>239</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>We have under study the whole gamut of our requirements for naval dockyard facilities. Considering the withdrawal of the Royal Navy from the Indian Ocean, it is no longer wise to concentrate all naval support facilities in the eastern States. A major question concerns the facilities that we should provide in Cockburn Sound that might earlier have been considered for Sydney or Melbourne. </para>
        <para>Inter-relationship between Naval and Air Power </para>
        <para>There is the highly complex problem of the inter-relationship of naval and air power embracing the character and place of naval platform and land based aircraft. It is to be remembered that &#39;Melbourne&#39; has a life expectancy only until about 1980. So we have under study the whole complex of problems that relate to the place of carriers in our force structure. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Armed Forces of Papua and New Guinea</title>
          <page.no>239</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>We have under study the kinds of forces that ought to be developed in Papua and New Guinea to meet the needs of an emerging independent community. Whatever may lie in the future, we have a responsibility to ensure, as far as we may, that the forces in Papua and New Guinea will enable their future governments to meet their longer term defence needs. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manpower</title>
          <page.no>239</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>We are making a full examination of the total Service manpower problems including national service. In our full employment society, whatever other countries in their circumstances believe possible about fully volunteer forces, I see no likelihood that we will be able to sustain the forces required without national service in Australia. The purpose of this survey is not only to assess manpower requirements but also to ensure that we make the most effective use of available manpower, not only  for the regular forces, but also for the reserve and citizen forces which are a vital element in our total defence capability. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medical Services</title>
          <page.no>240</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>The examination of the scope for rationalisation of overall medical services of our armed forces including the military hospital facilities required and the use that might be made of the hospital and rehabilitation facilities provided by the Repatriation Commission is well advanced. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Procurement</title>
          <page.no>240</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>The organisations, functions and practices of the three Service departments and the Department of Supply in relation to procurement matters generally, both in Australia and overseas, are under study. The questions concern the degree to which the Department of Supply can be made responsible for defence procurement - an area where much has already been achieved - and the scope for extension of the single manager concept in respect of control of stores. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Flying Training</title>
          <page.no>240</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>An overall review of flying training for the three Services is in progress. In particular, consideration is being given to the possibility of establishing a joint Service helicopter training centre. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Service Communications</title>
          <page.no>240</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>The scope for rationalisation of Service communications is under review. These assume great importance because we have, in many ways, entered a new era in communications and if we are to march in harmony with the many exciting technological developments in this field in a coherent and economical way, a unified defence approach will be essential. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Standardisation of Inventories</title>
          <page.no>240</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>As a result of early studies, conversion of the inventories of defence equipment - some 1,300,000 items of supply - to a defence cataloguing system common to the three Services, and the Department of Supply and also to systems in the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries has made much progress. Considerable savings will result from reduced stock holdings, and by continual screening of apparently new items. </para>
        <para class="block">Organisation of the Army </para>
        <para>To conclude my remarks in this section, I might refer to the study which the Army, in agreement with my Department, is about to undertake of the present command structure and of the functions of the various branches at headquarters level. Our present structure, as is well known, is largely based on State boundaries; it is rooted in the past; it goes back to the circumstances of the first decade of this century. The examination will determine, for example, whether the geographic Army command structure should be maintained or whether other arrangements should be made. My Department will be associated with the Army&#39;s study to watch particularly for implications on our total defence organisation. The report could be of far reaching consequence, and I pay tribute to the Army&#39;s initiative in this area. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PERSONNEL</title>
        <page.no>240</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para class="block">Time will not permit me to say as much as I should like about the importance of personnel policies. Our economic and social circumstances are such that there is fierce competition for manpower. Defence is of the highest importance. Our Services require officers and men of the highest calibre. To obtain them, and retain them, we must have personnel policies in tune with our rapidly changing social attitudes and economic standards, in tune with the character of a democratic society in the latter part of the twentieth century. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tri-Service Academy</title>
          <page.no>240</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>I now have the report of the Committee headed by <inline font-weight="bold">Sir Leslie</inline> Martin which was appointed by my predecessor to develop a plan for the establishment of one armed forces academy which would provide education at the tertiary level for officer cadets of all three Services. This report is being processed by my Department and the Service departments and I am preparing a submission for Cabinet. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Services Staff College</title>
          <page.no>240</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>In January this year, the first course commenced at the Joint Service Wing of the Australian Services Staff College. The Wing is located in temporary premises in Canberra pending the eventual co-location in Canberra of the single Service wings of the College which, for the present, are located in separate Service establishments. The objective of the Joint Service Wing is, broadly speaking, to train selected officers from the Armed Services for joint Service staff and command appointments. Senior officers of the Public Service concerned with defence also attend the course. The 6 months&#39; course places emphasis upon joint Service planning and operations and the wider aspects of Australia&#39;s defence and foreign policies. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pay and Conditions of Service</title>
          <page.no>241</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>It is clear that matters relating to pay and other conditions of service cannot be divorced from the total stream of Services personnel administration, for example, such items as recruitment policies, duration of engagement, housing and so on. As I announced a few months ago, we have established a Pay and Conditions of Service Branch in my Department. A new high level Committee, the Defence (Conditions of Service) Committee, has assumed the functions previously discharged by the Treasury Finance Committee. This means that pay and conditions of service will, for the future, be considered by a Committee having equal status with the other top level committees of the higher defence machinery and within a defence environment. 1 want to mention two matters in particular which have an impact on servicemen. The first concerns housing. That much progress has been made in providing housing for our servicemen is quickly apparent. In 1964 we had some 11,000 houses for the Services. By the end of June next, we should have about 20,000 houses available. In addition, approximately another 1,000 will be under construction, or programmed for early commencement. In the meantime, of course, our forces have grown, but housing has more than kept pace with that expansion. 1 believe that no aspect of service life gives rise to more dissatisfaction than the lack of certainty about the availability of housing at a new posting. So we intend to improve the housing position. We will continue vigorously with the major housing programme and we will be looking to see whether there are other practicable methods of cutting down delays, where they do occur, in a married serviceman becoming eligible for a married quarter after posting. Associated with housing is the frequency of postings. Too frequent moves are particularly unsettling for families and for school aged children. While the Services are giving much attention to reducing the frequency of postings, I shall be looking for even better results. A solution is not necessarily as easy as it seems. Particularly am I thinking of the Army, so long as its obligations in Vietnam continue, which call for one-year tours of duty. </para>
        <para>These two matters are of great importance. I am sure that they bear directly on the high turnover of personnel the army and navy have been experiencing. That turnover, of course, requires an all too great diversion of personnel to training functions. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>PROGRAMMING</title>
        <page.no>241</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>My predecessor told the Parliament last year that the Government had decided to move from fixed 3-year defence programmes to what he described as a 5-year rolling programme. I think the latter concept is not yet clearly understood, especially because the word &#39;programme&#39; tends to indicate some immediately ascertainable series of items that are going to be purchased over any given period of 5 years. </para>
      <para>The fixed period programmes of the past tended to lead to an uneven development of defence policy. Put broadly, unless some new factor emerged, proposals not included in one period programme were postponed to the next. We have now chosen a 5-year span for planning purposes. This we see as a realistic period permitting us a reasonable assessment of international political trends while not being too short to allow for the long lead times involved in acquiring modern defence equipment. Here I should make the point that much time may elapse between the initial formulation of a Service requirement and the actual decision to acquire the equipment sought. </para>
      <para>Under the new concept the practice will be to review each year the future requirements of the Services over a forward period of 5 years against: </para>
      <para>Firstly, the current assessment of our strategic situation which itself attempts to look forward over a 10 year period; </para>
      <para>Secondly, consideration of the outlook for the capabilities and characteristics of the forces over the next 5 year period; </para>
      <para>Thirdly, against the progress being made with studies in the Services and my Department of the most effective means of providing such capabilities as are heeded; and </para>
      <para>Fourthly, against the technological developments in sight. </para>
      <para class="block">Normally under these arrangements, defence equipment proposals will come forward at Budget time. So there will be announced, each year, additional proposals whether for needed expansion or replacement purposes. There will not be one momentous announcement once every 5 years but an announcement every year, in the setting I have described. I might illustrate this. At the beginning of any S year period there may be a certain piece of equipment that is believed necessary for a particular Service. Research and development may not be sufficiently far advanced for firm decisions to be made, but in 18 months or 2 years we may be in a position to make such decisions. Under our new programming concept there will be no inhibitions about this. </para>
      <para>Thus, unlike the 3-year programme, the S-year forward look will provide a continuing ability to respond to the progressive emergence of new equipment and techniques and the progressive development of defence planning and policy. This new concept will not remove problems of selection. Indeed we will always have to be careful that we do not, at any given stage, make decisions about new projects, important though they may be, that because of their cost might shut out higher priority items which will not be ready for decision for 1, 2 ot 3 years. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>THE ROLES AND CAPABILITY OF OUR DEFENCE FORCES</title>
        <page.no>242</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>I have spoken about the changes in my Department to which I give full credit to my predecessor and the previous Secretary. I have indicated that these changes will be continuing; we are not in a strategic position. But organisation is nothing if it does not produce the desired results; that is, strong viable defence forces directed to meet the needs of Australia. I want to indicate in more precise terms the roles that we expect our defence forces to be able to fill, either in joint Service operations or on a single Service basis. I want to indicate in the broadest terms the present capacities of our forces and then I will tell the House how the decisions we have now made will add to that capacity. </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Force Roles</title>
          <page.no>242</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Earlier I mentioned the guiding principles for the development of Defence capability. We are committed to regional defence. We are committed to the maintenance, under present circumstances, of forces overseas. We are committed to the protection of the Australian mainland and Territories. In conjunction with our friends and allies we must contribute to the security of our trade routes and our lines of communication. These commitments require that we pay particular regard to the development of certain areas of our overall defence capability. While these point to certain roles for all three Services, they are better viewed in a functional setting because the roles of the individual Services are seldom exclusive; generally any function involves more than one Service. </para>
        <para>To start with, we need a greater maritime, capability in the waters around Australia, the Pacific and Indian Oceans and the seas to our north. This involves both the Navy and the Air Force. We need greater strategic and tactical mobility, the capability to move forces quickly with adequate logistic support, the capability to bring to bear maximum fire power. We need to be able to maintain forces that we deploy abroad. We need the capacity for emergency air lift of troops and reinforcements and for subsequent support by sea. We have made much progress in this area and the announcements that I will shortly make will add to it. It does not mean that this capability should be exclusively Service provided. It includes making provision for harnessing commercial transport, maritime and air, if ever the need arises. Next there is scope for increasing our offensive capability. </para>
        <para>I now come to the new decisions that the Government has made. The figures quoted represent for the most part the estimated capital cost of the projects. </para>
        <para class="block">
          <graphic href="966131197003103_46_0.jpg" />
        </para>
        <para class="block">The estimated total capital project costs of these various items is $ 165.9m. I recall that the estimated capital project cost of the major items announced by my predecessor last year was Si 40m. And let me add immediately that these figures do not include the ultimate cost of the facilities that may be developed at Cockburn Sound - merely the estimated cost of the first stage, the Causeway - or the full cost of designing the light destroyer, let alone any element of cost for the destroyers that may ultimately be ordered. </para>
        <para>I wish to indicate on a functional basis the importance of these decisions. Our maritime capability will be enhanced by the two additional Oberon class submarines and by the new naval communications station at Darwin. Our aim in pressing forward with the design studies for the new class of light destroyers, announced by my predecessor, is also to add to our maritime capability. </para>
        <para>Strategic mobility will be improved by the construction of a logistic cargo ship. This will be capable of carrying the Army&#39;s landing craft, vehicles, equipment and stores to areas of operation and of unloading them without recourse to developed ports. While this ship will be designed to serve the Army&#39;s needs, it will, when not required for defence purposes, be available for efficient commercial operation by the Australian National Line. It should be noted that the decision made last year to construct a fast combat support ship in Australia at a cost of $42m was also directly related to the improvement of our strategic mobility. </para>
        <para>Our tactical mobility, and at the same time fire power and battle-field surveillance of our forces, will be improved by the acquisition of 11 helicopter gunships and we will also buy 42 utility helicopters and 84 light helicopters which will provide for replacement of the existing equipment over its period of service and also add to the eventual strength. The final decision about the type of gunship should be made in April. The choice remains between the Huey Cobra and the armed Iroquois. There are two possibilities for the light observation helicopter. They are the Bell OH 58A and the Westland Sud SA341. There are no technical considerations which would bias the decision for their required military purposes. The final selection will be made on the basis of the best prospects for local manufacture, including commercial sales. It will be recalled that last year we decided to buy 12 medium lift helicopters and 8 heavy landing craft, directed to the same end - the improvement of our tactical mobility. </para>
        <para>Our offensive capability will be improved not only by the purchase of the 2 Oberon submarines which I have mentioned but also by the doubling of the Skyhawk strength of the RAN to 20 aircraft. This latter purchase is subject to the proviso that we can get early deliveries and therefore a high utilisation during the remaining life of HMAS &#39;Melbourne&#39;. I might add, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Speaker,</inline> that there is every indication that early delivery will be accomplished. </para>
        <para>To improve the general capability of the Army, Cabinet last year gave the Army permission to enter into commitments for capital equipment which would bring expenditure up to a level of $60m for the year 1970-71. Cabinet has now approved the Army entering into additional commitments up to the same level for the year 1971-72. These authorisations will enable the Army to take full advantage of forward ordering for long lead items. A great deal of Army equipment concerns very important but unspectacular items. In addition to the equipments I have specially mentioned, items now to be procured include additional armoured personnel carriers, trucks cargo t-ton and other load carrying vehicles, lightweight manpack radio sets and other communications equipment, engineering equipment, large quantities of ammunition of various calibres, tentage and shelters. These new authorisations will also enable more and better equipment to be made available to the Citizen Military Forces, which I regard as a matter of great importance. Procurement of new equipment planned to satisfy CMF needs includes increasingly items of operational standard such as personnel carriers of the type in use in Vietnam and manpack radio sets. </para>
        <para>The Government is also well aware that there are other requirements that must be met in future but on which decisions are not yet possible - in some cases because testing and evaluation have not yet proceeded far enough, in some cases because further research and development are necessary, in others because our studies are not far enough advanced. Vehicles, tanks, surface to air missiles for the Army are illustrations; maritime reconnaissance and strategic airlift aircraft for the RAAF are others. Further ahead are problems associated with the replacement of the Mirages. </para>
        <para>As we enter a new decade I believe it would be instructive to glance backward for a moment and see how far we have come since 1960. While I do not wish to weary the House with a detailed comparison of our forces today with those of 10 years ago, may I illustrate our progress including the impact of present decisions, again in functional1 terms. </para>
        <para>Our maritime capability has been built up by the addition of 3 guided missile destroyers, all of which have performed intensive service in Vietnam; 4 Oberon class submarines, thus restoring this versatile weapon system to an important place in the structure of the RAN; a major modernisation of HMAS &#39;Melbourne&#39; and its re-equipment with Tracker, Skyhawk and Wessex aircraft, the re-equipment of an RAAF Neptune squadron with Orion aircraft; 20 patrol boats essential for surveillance and control of coastal waters both of Australia and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea; and the replacement of Q&#39; class and Tribal class frigates with 6 River class destroyer escorts, the last of which will commission later this year. As well, our oceanographic and hydrographic capability, so necessary to successful maritime operations, is being developed with modern survey and hydrographic ships and an oceanographic research ship. The new Oberons and later the light destroyers will add further to maritime capability. </para>
        <para>Our strategic mobility has been enhanced by the conversion of the former carrier HMAS &#39;Sydney&#39; to a fast troop transport; the acquisition of a second squadron of Hercules transport aircraft; the addition of a fast fleet tanker, HMAS &#39;Supply&#39;, and the Australian built destroyer maintenance ship, HMAS &#39;Stalwart&#39;; and now the construction of a fast combat support ship approved last August; and the Army logistic ship, announced tonight. </para>
        <para>Great strides have been made in tactical mobility. In 1960 the Army was still&#39; operating much as it had in World War II. Now it is aided by 2 squadrons of Caribou short take off and landing aircraft, numbers of utility and light helicopters, a whole new range of armoured personnel carriers and related vehicles, and water craft of various kinds. The Army Aviation Corps has been established and is progressively expanding. Further purchases announced last year include medium lift helicopters and 8 landing craft heavy. The choice for the medium lift helicopter remains between the Boeing Vertol and Sikorsky. Tonight&#39;s announcement of additional observation helicopters, of 42 utility helicopters and of 11 helicopter gunships adds greatly to this capacity. </para>
        <para>While there has been increase in our offensive capabilities, there are, as the House, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Speaker,</inline> will1 be aware, yet unresolved problems concerning the strike aircraft. New equipment in service or on order includes 4 squadrons of Mirage aircraft, which are also effective in the ground support role, the Oberon class submarines which I have already mentioned, the Skyhawk aircraft embarked on HMAS &#39;Melbourne&#39;, and the fire support capabilities of the guided missile destroyers. Tonight&#39;s announcement of the decision to procure 2 more Oberons and 10 additional Skyhawks provides significant additions. </para>
        <para>Over the decade our general Army capability has been vastly improved, both by the introduction of national service and by the procurement of large quantities of modern and effective equipment. Today we have nine battle proved battalions and, in addition, three squadrons of highly trained SAS. Over the last 10 years the Army has in large measure been re-equipped. More modern howitzers, anti-tank weapons, mortars, machine guns and rifles and radio sets have been purchased in large numbers. Stocks of light, medium and heavy trucks have been greatly improved. The 2i-ton and 5-ton trucks have been designed and constructed in Australia and contracts have been let for the prototype of a 1-ton general purpose vehicle which will replace the i-ton truck over a period of years. More modern water transport vehicles and additional landing craft of various sizes have been obtained. One effect of the purchases made in recent years is to increase the range of modern weapons and equipment available to the CMF both during home training and particularly whilst in camp. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Manpower</title>
          <page.no>245</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>The manpower of the regular forces has been built up considerably over the last 10 years from 48,000 in January 1960 to 84,700 in January 1970. Of this total the Navy strength has grown from 10,600 to 17,400; the Army from 21,900 to 44,500 and the Royal Australian Air Force from 15,500 to 22,800. In the same 10-year period the Pacific Islands Regiment has increased from 600 to 2,500. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>245</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Much has been done to build up the infrastructure upon which the efficiency of our Services depends. The last decade has seen the greatest building programme for the Services in Australian history. Extensive Army establishments have been built at Swanbourne. Western Australia; Puckapunyal, Victoria; Holsworthy, Kapooka and Singleton in New South Wales; Enoggera and Townsville in Queensland; while barracks for the Pacific Islands Regiment have been completed at Port Moresby, Lae. Wewak and Goldie River. </para>
        <para>For the Navy, major refitting facilities for submarines, barracks, ammunition depot extensions and patrol craft facilities have been built in the Sydney area. Very large improvements have been carried out at the training centres at HMAS &#39;Leeuwin&#39; at Fremantle; HMAS &#39;Cerberus&#39; at Flinders and HMAS &#39;Nirimba&#39; at Schofields. Improvements have also been carried out to the dockyards at Garden Island, Cockatoo Island and Williamstown. </para>
        <para>Many millions of dollars also have been spent on the rehabilitation and development of Royal Australian Air Force bases throughout Australia. The modernisation and improvement to Department of Supply factories has continued. A new plant for the production of TNT is nearing completion at the Albion explosives factory. </para>
        <para>New works under construction or approved include the development of the RAAF airfield at Learmonth, the construction of the access causeway at Cockburn Sound in Western Australia, the establishment of the Army Aviation Centre at Oakey in Queensland, erection of a new clothing factory at Coburg in Victoria and construction of storage facilities for the Department of Supply at St Marys, New South Wales. Also in hand is the provision of personnel accommodation for the Royal Australian Navy at Nowra, whilst new Citizen Military Forces depots are programmed for Blacktown and Armidale in New South Wales, and Sunshine, Clayton and Oakleigh in Victoria. Other major works proposals are under consideration. </para>
        <para>Over the past 10 years, the Government has spent $4 13m on capital works and real estate procurement programmes for the Services and the Department of Supply and $56m on the provision of houses for servicemen under the Commonwealth/States Housing Agreement. In the current financial year additional amounts of $49m and $10m respectively will be spent. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>THE CITIZEN FORCES</title>
        <page.no>245</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>No statement of the character I am making would be complete without mention of our citizen forces. There has, I believe, been a tendency in recent years for the public to overlook the vital importance of the citizen forces to Australia&#39;s defence capacity and posture. In the case of the Citizen Military Force, factors tending to influence this have been the growth of the Regular Army, the introduction and development of the national service scheme, our involvement in the Vietnam war, and the publicity which all of them have had. </para>
      <para>Many people have come to think of the Regular Army supplemented by the national service scheme being all that we need for the Army to be able satisfactorily to fulfil its role. The success of our Army component in its role in Vietnam may itself engender such notions. This must be corrected. We must plan for many contingencies. Some require forces in excess of the sort of Regular Army we can foresee as being reasonably within our capacity as a nation to man, equip and maintain in peace. If our planning is to have credibility and substance, it must be backed up by realistic and practicable methods of providing follow-up forces for the Regular Army. </para>
      <para>So, in general, the role of the CMF is twofold - </para>
      <list type="decimal">
        <item label="(1)">
          <para>to provide back up forces for the Regular Army in times of defence emergency; </para>
        </item>
        <item label="(2)">
          <para>to provide for expansion in the event of mobilisation if that should ever again be upon us. </para>
        </item>
      </list>
      <para class="block">In spite of the operational requirements of the Regular Army the overall equipment position for the CMF is as good as, if not better than, it has ever been before. There are, however, some recognised deficiencies, particularly in Armour and Signals, which will be overcome. </para>
      <para>Good progress has been made in the provision of new training depots and the replacement of old style or temporary buildings for the Citizen Military Forces in all commands, and significant provision is being made in this field for the future. The new type depots are designed according to the functional needs of units under modern conditions of training. It is in the field of training that the greatest advances have been made. Far greater emphasis is now placed upon centralised rather than unit training for the production and subsequent promotion of officers, the training of noncommissioned officers and specialists, and the basic training of recruits. </para>
      <para>The present size and structure of the CMF provides a sound basis for future planning. Such matters as organisation, equipment and training will be examined along with similar features of the regular forces - for the regular and CMF components cannot be considered in isolation. </para>
      <para>If I had in my remarks devoted major attention to the CMF I would not like it thought that I am unmindful of the needs of the Naval Reserve and Citizen Air Force units. These also are being given attention. </para>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>CONCLUSION</title>
        <page.no>246</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>I believe it is important that the Mouse should know, that the Australian people should know, as much as can be, of what we are doing in the defence field. </para>
      <interjection>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>246</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>JSU</name.id>
            <electorate />
            <party />
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">BRYANT, Gordon</name>
            <name role="display">Mr Bryant</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- lt is too long. </para>
        </talk.start>
      </interjection>
      <speech>
        <talk.start>
          <talker>
            <page.no>246</page.no>
            <time.stamp />
            <name.id>QS4</name.id>
            <electorate>WANNON, VICTORIA</electorate>
            <party>LP</party>
            <role />
            <in.gov>0</in.gov>
            <first.speech>0</first.speech>
            <name role="metadata">FRASER, Malcolm</name>
            <name role="display">Mr Malcolm Fraser</name>
          </talker>
          <para>- If this statement is too long, the honourable member will know the reason for it. I have tried to depict the total picture but necessarily many of the matters have been mentioned only in the briefest terms. While 1 have mentioned in the broadest possible terms the kinds of roles our forces have to fulfil, and the functional areas calling for particular attention, the level of forces necessary for these tasks and the equipment provided for them have to be decided by the Government after weighing all considerations. The Services requirements are first subjected to the kind of examination I have outlined. But when these requirements have been reviewed, it falls to the Government of the day to decide the resources that can be devoted to defence. There are in our sort of society &#39;constraints&#39; on what can be done in any area. We have learned long ago that defence needs cannot be divorced from other community needs. No country can meet every possible defence contingency. So it falls to the Government, having weighed the best advice it can get from its military and civilian advisers, to judge the likely threats and the likely tasks that will fall to our forces at any one time. The Government has to judge what must be done to enable them to be discharged, and weigh the cost against the other demands that our community makes upon resources. </para>
        </talk.start>
        <para>There is no scope for complacency about what we must do to ensure the future security of Australia. I have indicated that in the circumstances of the British withdrawal from our North, and of American re-appraisal, Australia will be required to put forth a greater effort embodying greater independence. I envisage the capability of our forces being continuously improved in the years ahead. I do not suggest that we can afford to devote resources to defence, unmindful of Australia&#39;s needs in other areas. We must hope to establish circumstances by diplomacy, by policies of economic assistance, by policies of regional security, in which the countries of our region will be able to devote their full resources to improving the standard of life of their own people. </para>
        <para>While this must be and will remain our objective we will be naive to think that less will be required of us in the future. Any assessment of our circumstances points to the need for a greater effort. The shape and the structure of our forces at the present time have served Australia well. For the future they will provide a basis on which further development can take place. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Speaker,</inline> I present the following paper: </para>
      </speech>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence - Ministerial Statement, 10 March 1970</title>
          <page.no>247</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Snedden)</inline> proposed: </para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the House take note of the paper. </para>
        </quote>
        <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Barnard)</inline> adjourned. </para>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTION</title>
        <page.no>247</page.no>
        <type>Questions</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>GOVERNOR-GENERAL&#39;S SPEECH</title>
          <page.no>247</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <para class="block">Address-in-Reply </para>
        <para>Debate resumed from 5 March (vide page 178) on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Brown:</inline></para>
        <quote>
          <para>That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of  His Excellency  the Governor-General be agreed to: </para>
          <para class="block">May it please Your Excellency: </para>
          <para>We, the House of Representatives 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. </para>
        </quote>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>247</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KWR</name.id>
              <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
              <name role="display">Mr TURNER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr Speaker,</inline>the House is debating now the Address-in-Reply to the GovernorGeneral&#39;s Speech addressed to the Parliament last week. That Speech represented the Government&#39;s programme for the current session and it was followed by a speech from the Leader of the Opposition in this place <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Whitlam)</inline> in which he set out in effect the counter programme of the Opposition. 1 will not occupy a great deal of my time in adverting to the speech of the </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para class="block">Leader of the Opposition. But it is right that I should devote at least some part of my speech to comments upon what he said. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, the</inline>Leader of the Opposition set out the shining goals of the Opposition for the 1970s. He mounted his chariot of fire. He took out his bow of burning gold. He told us about the future that the Australian Labor Party had in store for this country. Now, one of the wheels of his chariot was missing. He said nothing really about the defence of this country. If this country is not defended and if there is no security, all the other shining goals are impossible of achievement. I do not propose to speak at great length on the question of defence or the lack of defence arrangements as put forward by the Leader of the Opposition because we have just had a defence statement from the Minister for Defence <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Malcolmn Fraser)</inline> and this will be debated next week. That will be the appropriate time to go into details on the matter of defence. So, I leave this for the time being, beyond pointing out that the chariot of fire that the Leader of the Opposition wheeled out has one of its wheels missing. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>247</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>AV4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">HURFORD, Chris</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Hurford</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- The honourable member will hear on Thursday night. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>247</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr TURNER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- We will all hear. Perhaps the honourable member for Adelaide will hear too. He might even learn. It may be that, on occasions, reeking tube and iron shard are more effective than the bow of burning gold. We will hear about that, as the honourable member says, next week. Even the Swedes and the Swiss know that no country that hopes to be neutral can simply say that it is not involved. The Swedes and the Swiss know that if a country is going to be neutral it must arm to the teeth. Nothing of this sort has been said by the Leader of the Opposition in trotting out his neutralist policy. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>I pass on from this. I will not deal with foreign affairs now because the Minister for External Affairs <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr McMahon)</inline> will be making a statement in the near future and the appropriate time to debate our alliances and arrangements in regard to foreign countries is in the debate on that statement. So, I pass on from the external field to the internal field. The Leader of the Opposition began with philosophy. 1 will not spend a great deal of time on these transcendental matters of philosophy, except to say this: The honourable gentleman said that the very keynote of the policy of the Opposition in internal affairs was equality. This is a splendid battle cry and a wonderful banner to wave aloft. But I think that the honourable member for Denison <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Solomon),</inline> in his maiden speech in this place last week, said some wise things on this matter. Equality, up to a point, is fine. I repeat &#39;up to a point&#39;. But, excellence also should have a place in this country. Without excellence on the part of some there can be no progress for the many. I think that was the burden of the speech by the honourable member for Denison. Henry Fords are as rare as great poets - even great philosophers. Without such people there can be no progress for the whole of society. If there are to be no prizes - and equality means no prizes - these people do not emerge and the whole community suffers as the result. Excellence is just as important as equality. </para>
          <para>So I say that up to a point equality is important. But if you reach the stage where everybody is reduced to the same level and there are no prizes for excellence, the whole community must suffer. We have produced no great poets - no Shakespeares or anybody of that kind. We have produced no Einsteins. You may say that those were people not concerned with material rewards; to be a great poet or a great mathematician was enough in itself. Yet I suspect that Einstein was very comfortable at Princeton notwithstanding. We should not be complacent about this matter of equality. Equality is fine up to a point but only up to a point. We have not produced a Plato or a Socrates. Perhaps some day we shall. I hope that we will not forever be a kind of hick republic, which I think is the beau ideal of the Leader of the Opposition. I pass from these transcendental matters of philosophy except to say that of course the great thing is not dead flat equality but some prizes. The honourable member for Denison made it clear that what we really sought was equality of opportunity. But then he pointed out that this is something no government can give. You cannot give to everybody the background of a home. Equality of opportunity is an impossibility; it cannot be provided. You provide it as far as you can. So even when you come to equality of opportunity, it is possible only up to a point. I shall return in another context to deal with these transcendental! matters of philosophy. </para>
          <para>I pass on to the great problems - firstly of primary industry, secondly of secondary industry and then to certain other very important matters. I take first primary industry. I believe that we now face a crisis in primary industry. Wool is no longer what it was. It is meeting serious competition from synthetics. Wheat is being grossly overproduced and there are difficulties in selling it. We have been selling butter at a loss for years. On the horizon is the possibility of Britain&#39;s entry into the European Economic Community, which would stilt further restrict our markets. This, as I say, is a crisis. What are we doing about it? We have had plenty of time to prepare - to re-organise. We have known that the Common Market would be highly detrimental to us. Have we met this situation? I do not believe we have. What is required is a complete restructuring and reorganisation of the industries involved so as to make them viable. The honourable member for Wakefield <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Kelly),</inline> who is nothing if not rational and courageous, has suggested the establishment of something parallel to the Tariff Board - a primary industries board whose task it would be to look into the primary industries and to consider how they should be re-organised and restructured to meet a completely new situation. If we blind our eyes to the situation we will be doing no service to those engaged in these industries. I would be generous about this. I would be glad to see funds made liberally available provided they are used for re-organisation and restructuring and are not provided merely as subsidies designed to continue to the production of things we cannot sell. I say no more on this aspect. The honourable member for Wakefield can say these things much better than I and with an authority that I do not possess. </para>
          <para>Let me pass on to the secondary industries. Here I include minerals. Although technically a primary industry, the minerals industry is a secondary industry in essentials because it involves a great deal of capital and machinery and all the other things with which we associate secondary industries. We throw out our chests and say how fortunate we are to have these minerals, and so we are. But does anybody think more of the Arabs because they happen to have oil under the desert sands? No. We could be proud if we were developing these things ourselves, but how much of the technical know-how is being provided by Australians? How much of the managerial ability required and how much of the things that really matter in this field are things about which we can boast? Very little indeed, I suggest. This is a matter for technical training of our geologists, geophysicist and others, and we are not doing it to the degree that is necessary. Above all it is a matter for managerial training. True, a committee has been set up to look into this matter. Every university in Australia wants to start a school of business management. We have fallen into the usual old muddle. Plainly a country as small as ours cannot hope to have more than one or two of something of the standard of the Harvard School of Business Administration. Well, the committee is a beginning. Many horses have already bolted out of the stable door, but never mind: we are starting, if late in the piece. 1 turn to research. Much has been done to aid research into secondary industry. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has busied itself producing a tropical cow - a cow that can be depastured, or whatever you do with cows, in Queensland and which can produce more butter that we cannot sell. It may have been better if the CSIRO had devoted its energies to secondary industry, particularly the minerals industry, because this is the great new industry we have, yet we are still living in the days of tropical cows. What is the position regarding overseas capital? The Government has spoken about some Industrial Development Corporation. I do not propose to say anything about this until I see the small print, but I cannot help believing that there may be other and better ways of doing what we wish to do - involve Australians more in the field of big business and not leave it to foreigners to exploit our country. This is a matter of means, not ends. I take it that we all are agreed about the ends, but until we see the small print we will not know about the means. </para>
          <para>I have spoken about external affairs and in a general way about primary industry and secondary industry. I turn now to possibly one of the most important aspects of government affairs in this country. I refer to Commonwealth and State financial relations - in the 1970s let us remember, not the 1900s. There is the Party aspect, and I would not intrude this upon the House but that it has an important bearing on national considerations - the safety and the future of this nation; nothing less. For this reason I refer to the domestic situation in the Liberal Party which, I regret to say, is conducting a fratricidal and suicidal war. I regret it not only for the sake of the Party but for the sake of the nation. It is impossible to ignore the attitude of the Labor Party on this matter. In the next few months a decision may be reached in respect of an agreement to extend over a period of 5 years, but it may be that at the end of 5 years a Labor government will be in office and so the whole pack of cards falls to the ground. The belief that the Liberal Party holds domestically the powers to settle this matter is plainly illusory. It may settle it for 5 years and that is all. Are we to settle it for 5 years and to be so foolish as to think this is a solution to the problem. Of course it is not. The agreement may not last for 5 years. The result of the domestic quarrel in the Liberal Party could be that the Opposition comes to power all the sooner. So it may not last even 5 years. This glorious summer may then turn into a winter of discontent. I think the words federalism&#39; and &#39;centralism&#39; are not merely a false antithesis but in addition to that are simply an obstacle to clear thinking. Throwing about slogans does not advance rationality in the slightest degree. There is no sacredness in our Constitution. The United States constitution was forged on the anvil of a war of independence and it was hammered into shape by new concepts of democracy. This was in 1776 and democracy was not very common in those days. Set out in that constitution as an ideal was the inalienable right of all men to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. </para>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>249</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>JTS</name.id>
                <electorate>LILLEY, QUEENSLAND</electorate>
                <party>LP</party>
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">CAIRNS, Kevin</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Kevin Cairns</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Hear, hear! </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>249</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KWR</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">TURNER, Henry</name>
                <name role="display">Mr TURNER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Well, they were grand words, but it was a new departure in 1776. This idea was summed up a little later in the immortal words of  President  Lincoln: &#39;Government of the people, by the people, for the people&#39;. Their Constitution was framed at a time when they were fighting a war of independence; framed at a time when they were beginning a new concept in democracy. There are words of fire in it and about it, but so far as we are concerned our independence was won at Yorktown by General Washington and in the House of Commons by Edmund Burke, because although his words were ignored at the time they were not forgotten. That is where our independence was won. Our Constitution is a pedestrian document, a concession by parochial politicians, not hammered out in the circumstances that distinguished the situation at the time of the framing of the American constitution. So there is nothing sacred about it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The greatest thing for which we must thank the founding fathers is that they were so shortsighted that it is possible to bend it to our purposes in the 1970s through taxing powers that have been used in a way they did not foresee. </para>
          <para>It is the irony of history that when our material strength is greater than it has ever been - and waxing - when minerals more precious than gold are being uncovered almost every day; when our population has doubled within my lifetime - which, one might say. is a long span but short in the eye of eternity; when new settlers are looking to this nation as their home, their own - they do not look back to England, the Netherlands, Germany or wherever; at this time when these people have played a prodigious part and one might think would have a great spirit of nationalism; when the British and Americans have retreated or are withdrawing from our Near North; when Communism, racialism and the awakening of Asia have added new perils to our situation; when we stand in lonely isolation with Portugal as one of the last two imperial powers - what would you expect? You would expect an awareness of our problems and our perils, a consciousness of the challenges and the opportunities ineluctably ours, an upsurge of vigour and determination, a sense of sturdy independence, the independence of a proud people facing the world and confronting their destiny, confident and serene - this is what you would expect. You would expect, in a word, that an erstwhile string of colonies would be bracing itself as a nation. </para>
          <para>But what do we find? No - and this is the irony of history. No putting off of childish things, no, but a backtracking to our beginning, a return to the past to a kind of neo-colonialism, to government by a hexarchy of hicks. </para>
          <para>But rhetoric is no substitute for reason. Let us get down to the essentials. Let us not be content with rhetoric, though it has its uses. The present situation is by no means all the fault of the States. The Commonwealth has contented itself with doling out funds on no other basis than that the amount is 3% or 5% or some other figure above the amount made available the year before. It has never seriously looked at the real needs irrespective of State and Commonwealth spheres of direct responsibility, nor has it established rational criteria for making specific grants under section 96 of the Constitution - hence things like the Ord scheme. </para>
          <para>There is only one valid principle to govern the allocation of government resources - Federal or State - and that is the satisfaction of the real requirements of the Australian people, from adequate defence to day nurseries. But no machinery exists to ascertain this. There is no State Bureau in Canberra. Premiers conferences have become a farce, none more so than the last, lt may be argued that since the deficiency in the allocation of government resources patently lies in the domain of such State services as transport, hospitals and educational institutions, priorities can be simply adjusted by handing out more Commonwealth revenues to the States in globo. But how much should be handed out to them? This question has not been answered; and can one be sure that in globo grants will in fact be applied by the States in the areas of greatest need? All the States have gerrymandered electorates and always have had whether they have been governed by Liberal or Labor governments. This is the mere truth. Their money tends to be spent - squandered, I would say - far too much and too often in purely political objectives, the winning or the holding of seats. This is how millions have been squandered by the States. </para>
          <para>I do not want to go into details, but the Copeton Dam is an example. The former member for Gwydir told us how they could grow pecan nuts there, and this was fine. Whether they could be sold was another question. There was no economic examination of the matter laid before this Parliament, but the State accepted money for the Copeton Dam although the Sydney beaches are being polluted with sewerage. </para>
          <para>Is there anything on record - if so, I would like it to be shown - that the New South Wales Government said: &#39;Forget about the Copeton Dam. Forget about pecan nuts or any other nuts. We want the money to cure pollution of our beaches.&#39; But has this been said? No, there is no political advantage in that. As to day nurseries in the inner suburbs of Sydney - the Government of New South Wales has never been interested in such a thing, perhaps - I do not know - because in the inner suburbs people tend to vote for the opposite Party, although the Labor Party was not very keen about it, either. So how do you explain it? No day nurseries, a clamant need, but money for pecan nuts. The polluted beaches? No, no money for them. </para>
          <para>Again, of course, we have the matter of the securities industry. There should quite obviously be a securities and exchange commission - a federal body - operating as successfully as the American one did that was set up by Franklin Roosevelt and that was presided over by somebody who ought to know all about it, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Joseph</inline> P. Kennedy, who made a fortune by knowing all the tricks and then became a poacher turned gamekeeper. That is what we want here. But were the States prepared to refer these powers to the Commonwealth? Of course they were not. We have 5 sets of officials - none of them like Joseph P. Kennedy - and 5 Acts of Parliament. They all have loopholes in them and it will take a year or two to block them up after the horses have fled. The Commonwealth, of course, has been equally at fault with its Ord scheme, its white house by the lake and all the rest. I am afraid I have not time to deal with all the matters that I would like to deal with. I suggest above all - and I have time only for this - that we need a committee of inquiry, as I have advocated in the Press, conducted by people like <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Lester</inline> Pearson, if he is available. <inline font-weight="bold">Sir John</inline> Crawford, if he is available, and some expert appointed by the States, but an expert. Such a group should go into this whole question of Federal-State relations so that the question is not debated behind closed doors by Premiers who then go off and tell various stories to the Press but so that the whole of the Australian people may know what the facts are, what the issues are, what the taxation powers are and what particular taxation powers are necessary for the control of the economy, and what is a fair principle for the division of taxation. In other words, what is the best way of achieving what we want to do. The people must be taken into the confidence of the Government. It is no longer practicable, no longer possible and no longer rational that a few politicians behind closed doors should say: &#39;This is the answer and all you have to do is to vote for it.&#39; </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>251</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>K5L</name.id>
              <electorate>SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">COPE, James</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Order! The honourable member&#39;s time has expired. I call the honourable member for Prospect. I remind the House that this is a maiden speech. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>251</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>SH4</name.id>
              <electorate>Prospect</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KLUGMAN, Dick</name>
              <name role="display">Dr KLUGMAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">- Mr Deputy Speaker,</inline>I understand that the Address-in-Reply debate is one of the few occasions when members can deliver their political credo without being restricted to any particular topic. It corresponds to what my psychiatric colleagues call group therapy. Nonetheless I should like to spend 2 or 3 minutes on the specific problems of the electorate I represent. Having recently taken my seat in this House it is nevertheless not necessary for me to make reference to any previous member for the division of Prospect, as this is a new division. It is a new division covering many of the outer western suburbs of Sydney and therefore suffering under all the disadvantages of lack of government interest and concern for Australia&#39;s urban problems. The reason for this is, of course, at least partly that the number of inhabitants in each subdivision in this electorate is very significantly higher than in the rural electorates from which the Government draws its majority. The net result of this is great under-representation of the area in the House where policies should be decided. May I quote the Leader of the Australian Labor Party <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Whitlam).</inline> He said: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Most Australians live in cities. Their specific needs as city dwellers are almost wholly ignored by our conservative opponents. No other national government in a federal or unitary system ignores  the specific needs of cities and their people as ours ignores them. No national government in any other federal system would claim, as ours does, that these problems are exclusively problems for the States. </para>
            <para>Differences in living standards amongst Australians are  inreasingly  those related to the provision of public services such as hospitals, schools, recreation facilities, public transport, roads and sewerage. Only governments can provide these services. Increasingly, lower standards are related not solely to family incomes but to the availability and quality of government services. In the provision of these there is, increasingly, discrimination against those living in new suburbs. </para>
            <para>The burden of new urban development and the provision of basic services in the suburbs fall more and more on those least able to pay. Local government gels its revenue from rates and charges. State governments get their revenue by indirect taxes and charges. All these indirect taxes are inherently unfair in their incidence. They fall most heavily on those with smaller incomes anil larger families. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I do not want to add anything more to this because I think it expresses our point of view - certainly my point of view - quite clearly. Before coming to the main part of my speech I should like to pay tribute to the outstanding leadership given to the Labor Party during the recent elections. This tribute is sincere as in our Party, unlike the Liberal Party, the power of patronage is absent. This is not intended as a reflection on the present Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Gorton).</inline> I would have voted for him if I had been offered the choice given the Liberal members following the last election. He does at least appear to be closer to the 1970s than his predecessors and competitors. I would place this Government&#39;s views somewhere near those of the 1956 Eisenhower Administration. </para>
          <para>Why did 1 choose to enter Federal politics? This is a question that has been asked of me repeatedly and which I asked myself repeatedly during the first week of the sittings. Why did I leave my young family for this semi-monastic part time existence? Why did I leave my profession - always quite well paid and now about to receive one of its greatest boosts in income? Basically I have always been a political animal concerned with the utmost preservation and extension of freedom. I arrived in this country in my early teens from Fascist Italy, at a time when Hitler was about to spread an even more totalitarian regime over nearly the whole of Europe. Amongst my earliest political memories are warnings from my parents not to reveal in school that we listened to the BBC news or Abyssinia and Spain or that they or their friends were highly critical or disrespectful of II Duce. </para>
          <para>Fascism in all its successful aggressive forms was defeated, but freedom is far from secure. There are obviously a number of reasons for this. One is the threat of another expansionist totalitarianism claimed to be Socialist or Communist by its supporters and some of its opponents. I would, of course, deny that it is anything but a complete perversion of these ideologies. As a reaction to this clear threat there has been, in many of the democracies, an excessive over-reaction. I bracket these so-called Communist and anti-Communist threats to our freedom together, as they have much in common and share the same lack of faith in human beings making a correct decision when given all the facts. </para>
          <para>The second and possibly more insidious threat to any effective enjoyment of our freedoms is an attempt on the part of many governments to disclose as little significant information as possible. This is illustrated in the case of this Government by the volumes of meaningless Press statements issued by most Ministers, all informing us of their decisions and the massive support for them, but never putting the objections raised before the decisions were made. Ti. in fact, no objections were ever raised inside the departments concerned, then the position is even worse and I would suggest that they use the method of a not excessively democratic organisation - the Roman Catholic Church during the last few centuries - and employ a devil&#39;s advocate. T would be happy to offer my services in such a capacity and it appears to me, as a newcomer, that there are some on the back benches opposite who would be prepared to act in this capacity if they were but given the chance. </para>
          <para>When somebody, for financial reasons or otherwise, tries to provide background material which Ministers consider unsuitable for public consumption, pressure is exerted to prevent publication. We saw an extreme case of this last year when Commonwealth Police raided the premises of Maxwell Newton Pty Ltd and the private home of the proprietor. Whilst the prosecutions failed, the Government&#39;s performance no doubt acted as a warning lo others. </para>
          <para class="block">I would say that in the last Parliament only the honourable member for Parkes <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Hughes),</inline> could see the silver lining in this black cloud of authoritarianism. As, I think, Alan Ramsay in the &#39;Australian&#39; predicted at the time, he was right. I congratulate him on his new position of Attorney-General and only hope that he has learned the correct lesson. </para>
          <para>Other examples of this fear by Ministers and, I suspect, their departments to prevent adverse information becoming available are illustrated by the refusal of a New Guinea entry permit to Professor Gluckman, a permit to visit Groote Eylandt to Professor Rose, numerous refusals to Australians to visit places in the Northern Territory and the system of D notices in the mass media. It is obvious that this fairly successful attempt to prevent informed discussion inside and outside Parliament assists the tendency towards government by regulation. </para>
          <para>But even when legislation is brought to this House for fairly informed debate there is no real provision for amendment. Still speaking as an observer from the outside, it appeared to me that almost every Bill&#39; is treated as a matter of confidence in the Government and it is extremely rare for amendments to be accepted following discussion in the Committee stages. May I urge the Government strongly to consider the establishment of parliamentary committees to hold hearings on almost every piece of proposed legislation before a Bill is presented to this House. Much of the legislation deals with matters where the views of interested experts - be they legal, economic, scientific and otherwise - would be of great help. </para>
          <para>In addition 1 would argue that in a pluralist society all the pressure groups with interests in a particular piece of proposed legislation are entitled to be he:rd when it counts, that is, before the final Bill is presented to Parliament. Refusal to set up such committees implies that all the experts are employed in the appropriate government department, an opinion unlikely to be held by the staunch defenders of the free enterprise system opposite. We have recently seen Committees of the Senate which have been forced on the Government, and the Nimmo Committee, set up by this Government with inadequate terms of reference, elicit some very interesting information. I certainly believe that it is better to discuss a question even without settling it, than to settle a question without discussing it. The United States example of congressional committees has always impressed me. In addition to the advantage 1 have mentioned earlier, namely that legislation would improve, I would argue that it would involve more people in politics and make many more feel that they can influence political decisions. This is essential if we are to have an active democracy viable enough to stand up against anti-democratic pressures. </para>
          <para>This brings me to a fairly large group of young people containing a large proportion of students and graduates who are loosely labelled as dissenters, radicals or new left. I am in sympathy with what I consider their general outlook on life; that is a society with the vision of freedom, of spontaneous co-operation and of men&#39;s conscious selfdetermination. One of my great disappointments is that many of them are unable to see that today this country, and for that matter even more so the United States, are to the &#39;left&#39; of the United Soviet Socialist Republics and of China as of today. Antiauthoritarianism, the right to dissent, the possibility of being able to change the governments, the general level of civil liberty are the issues which should be the main internal concern of the &#39;left*. </para>
          <para>Whilst it is easy to understand their fierce opposition to this government&#39;s war in Vietnam it is depressing that so many of them are prepared to argue that the North Vietnamese regime represents any of the values they hold dear in this country. I do, however, blame this Government, which has been in power for over 20 years, for not adapting our forms of government to the late twentieth century. For example, the lack of involvement of academics in government is deplorable. At present it appears to the students that on many issues all the experts are on their side, but that the Government ignores them completely. If we had Parliamentary committee hearings the conflicting views of academics would be heard, they would feel involved and many of the students who have the feeling, which is at least partly justified, that their only chance to influence policies is to demonstrate in the streets would see that there are other ways. At the same time I would certainly argue that the dissenting young are necessary to any healthy democracy and they perform a service to society by pointing out evil and injustice without necessarily offering alternatives. Much of what they say needs to be said and evokes certain echoes in anyone who has ever been angry over the stupidity of war, over a piece of blatant official or newspaper hypocrisy, over slums, over our treatment of Aboriginals or anyone who has ever felt alone in his views. </para>
          <para>The currently sitting Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse appears to be dealing with one of the issues, where many of the young dissenters feel governments and society in general are hypocritical. I refer to the heavy penalties prescribed for those smoking marihuana. Scientific evidence is fairly unanimous that marihuana is not a particularly dangerous substance, certainly less so than tobacco and alcohol. As a non-smoking teetotaller who does not use marihuana and disapproves of the  use  of all three substances, may I agree with them that society is extremely hypocritical on this issue. What society really docs is to try to enforce conformity. The </para>
          <para class="block">Objection  is not that they use a different kind of euphoria producing substance, but that  they  dress differently, cut their hair differently, are more open in their defiance of fundamentalist Christian sexual laws and are less concerned with the accumulation of consumer goods. </para>
          <para>May I express the hope that this Federal Parliament will give the lead to Australia in removing from the statute book laws dealing with crimes without victims. These include, to my mind, statutes dealing with homosexual offences, termination of pregnancy, censorship and prostitution. In passing, I noted today that the Crown Solicitor. <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Renfree,</inline> has put up a somewhat similar proposition. I understand that the Canadian Prime Minister, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Trudeau,</inline> is visiting Australia later this year. When paying tribute to him let us remember that it was he who said: T will not legislate regarding people&#39;s behaviour in their bedrooms&#39;. Whilst advocating what some call a permissive society, and I consider a civilised society, may I also urge the Government to accept the Labor Party&#39;s amendments on conscientious objection, even if it refuses to abolish conscription. May I quote from the United States Catholic Bishops&#39; pastoral letter on war approved at their national conference in November 1968 by 180 votes to 8 as it is clearly applicable to us. The letter states: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The present laws of this country (US), however, provide only for those whose reasons of conscience are grounded in a total rejection of the use of military force . . . but we consider that the time has come to urge that similar consideration be given to those whose reasons of conscience are more personal and specific. We therefore recommend a modification of the Selective Service Act making it possible, although not easy, for so-called selective conscientious objectors to refuse- without fear of imprisonment or loss of citizenship - to serve in wars which they consider unjust or in branches of service (e.g. the strategic nuclear forces) which would subject them to the performance of actions contrary to deeply held moral convictions about indiscriminate killing. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">To me it is a shocking indictment that men carrying out the principles laid down by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal are at present in Australian gaols. </para>
          <para>I hope that this House will have gathered from the foregoing that unlike the honourable member for Mitchell <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Irwin)</inline> I would not deny that it is my aim to be a member of a ginger group. That is quite easy, at this stage, when there are fifty-nine of us. I do, however, undertake to remain such a critic after the next election, if I am re-elected, when we move to the government benches and when the present Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister. I shall do my utmost to ensure that what he stated in the Max Poulter Memorial Lecture in 1968 will remain the new Labor Government&#39;s policy. My basic reason for belonging to the Australian Labor Party for 25 years and now being a member of this House are well expressed by this extract from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>When Labor&#39;s policies are applied, Australia will certainly be a richer country in the quality and equality of life. No democratic socialist, however, no member of the Australian Labor Party, could be content wilh a vision which merely envisaged the ever-growing production of goods, even if those goods were more equally shared. A rich society is just as likely to be a conservative society as a truly liberal one. The Great Society is not automatically the good society. The good society, the free society, will be judged on the place it allows and the values it places upon tolerance, originality, creativity, non-conformity and diversity. It is very much part of Labor&#39;s task  today to see rhat these values are not eroded hut are enshrined and enhanced in our society. We should view with alarm any developments which threaten traditional liberties. We need to resist measures which intrude upon the rights of the individual. </para>
            <para>When the police force of an Austraiian State or. may 1 add the ACT falls back upon organised brutality to coerce demonstrating students, there is more at stake than civil rights. </para>
            <para>When operatives of the security service obtain the right to listen in to telephone conversations, something over and above the individual&#39;s guarantee of privacy is lost. </para>
            <para>Trash, but not trash alone, will be the victim of censorship. </para>
            <para>We cannot ignore and we must oppose the racialists among us. We should not be blind to their motives and methods. </para>
            <para>The sort of government which Australia requires in the third third of the twentieth century is not government which lavishes ingenuity on measures designed to restrict what the individual may think, see, read or do. lt is rather a government which will apply itself to the search for ways in which to expand the limits of individual liberty and opportunity. And the dividend to be secured through such government is not in individual happiness alone, but in the development, well-being and security of society itself. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">J thank honourable members for their attention. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>255</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KIW</name.id>
              <electorate>Evans</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MACKAY, Malcolm</name>
              <name role="display">Dr MACKAY</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Until late in 1969 there was virtually a common or bi-partisan approach to Papua and New Guinea. Of course, there were some disagreements, but as was pointed out by visitors to the Territory recently there were largely broad areas of unanimity. Visiting delegations of members of the Papuan House of Assembly brought equal volumes of welcoming hear, hears from both sides of this House. All that has changed dramatically and I believe tragically. Why? Because the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Whitlam)</inline> went to New Guinea to raise his own political banner. The tragedy was greater because he was not wholly wrong in the statements that he made. Many of his basic assertions, in my view, were right. That is fine. I agree with that. In point of fact, my own Committee, the External Affairs Committee, made even more radical proposals on our return. We would like to see at least some areas of complete indigenous autonomy this year, and we mentioned several in our reports on our return. But what did the Leader of the Opposition do with regard to this business? Right across the Territory he denigrated, insulted and tried to destroy several of the Ministerial members.  His  words were widely interpreted as an attack on Westminster parliamentary democracy. 1 take another example. He deplored the signs of increasing departmental control from Canberra and said that this must be drastically reduced. We agree with this. We agree that there is need for greater local autonomy. But what happened here again? Again and again we found that the Leader of the Opposition insulted, misrepresented and belittled the service of his fellow countrymen in Papua and New Guinea. I want to go on record as admiring the sacrifice, skill, integrity and devotion of the vast bulk of our compatriots in the Administion of the Territory. Of course there have been errors, even some stupid errors; but it is easy to lampoon, for instance, the riot police at Bougainville. But the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Fremantle <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Beazley)</inline> have tried to imply that the Rorovana episode was typical of the handling of all Bougainvillians from Panguna to Kieta. It is more true to say that Rorovana was deliberately stirred into revolt by unscrupulous individuals ?o that there was no readiness to negotiate and so obtain greater benefits such as were obtained at Panguna or Lonsiro not far from there, where, I remind the House, one native landholding family concluded an arrangement with the Administration under which it was paid $5,600 for a 42 year lease of 49 acres of land long before the Rorovana flare-up or its happier issue. But all this pales into insignificance, unhappily, beside the tactics and the revelations of the past few days of debate in this House. So I invite the House not to look now at New Guinea as a political football but at the man who I believe tried to make it so. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>On 5th March, during question time, I commenced to ask a question of the Attorney-General <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Hughes).</inline> I asked whether his attention had been drawn to attacks made by the Leader of the Opposition on the integrity of the courts in New Guinea and alleged racial discrimination. At this moment the Leader of the Opposition rose to his feet and burst in, saying that the matters which I purported to state could not be authenticated, namely, that he had made attacks on the integrity of the courts and alleged racial discrimination. The Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Gorton)</inline> drew attention to the magistrate at Rabaul being forced into replying to one such attack. Then the  Speaker  asked me whether I could vouch for the accuracy of the report; I take it, as I had mentioned no report, he meant the report of an attack on the integrity of the courts in New Guinea alleging racial discrimination. My reply was: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>I can vouch for the accuracy of what I am saying. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">The honourable member for Fremantle, who plays a significant role in this whole business, then burst out with the interjection that I was vouching for a lie, that is, that I was a liar, and -he repeated it later. Why was there this moment of display? Was it a premeditated performance? In my view, it jumped the gun before I had made any statement of details. So let us look closely, for instance, at the honourable member for Fremantle&#39;s description, as a lie, of the charge that I had just made and which I swear to this House to be accurately based, namely, that the Leader of the Opposition had carried out an attack on the integrity of the courts in New Guinea by alleging racial discrimination. In a personal explanation later I challenged the Leader of the Opposition to deny that he had personally and publicly attacked the integrity of the New Guinea courts by alleging that there was a policy of &#39;glaring race discrimination in the law of the Territory&#39;. I asked him to deny that he had made that statement, and he clearly and unambiguously denied to this House that he had made any such attack. I wish to table a Press release from the office of the Leader of the Opposition. Referring to the people of New Guinea, it reads in part: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>They are confused by ambiguous and precipitate action on the part of the authorities. They are motivated perhaps more than any other people to assert the manhood of the people of New Guinea in the face of a policy of glaring race discrimination in law, economic opportunity and wages. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">In short, they are the words I asked about and which the Leader of the Opposition denied he had used. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>256</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>10000</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
            </talker>
            <para>
              <inline font-weight="bold">-(Mr Lucock)</inline>- Is the honourable member for Evans asking leave to table the report? </para>
          </talk.start>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>256</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MACKAY, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Dr MACKAY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I ask leave to table it. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>256</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>10000</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr</name>
                <name role="display">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- There being Do objection, leave is granted. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>256</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KDP</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">EVERINGHAM, Douglas</name>
                <name role="display">Dr Everingham</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Read that out. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>256</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MACKAY, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Dr MACKAY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I asked the Leader of the Opposition to deny that he had stated there was glaring race discrimination in the law in the Territory. The honourable member will find it in Hansard and in the Leader of the Opposition&#39;s Press release. I ask the House: Do those words constitute an attack on the integrity of the courts in New Guinea? </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>256</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KUX</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">STEWART, Francis</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Stewart</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Of course they do not. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>256</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MACKAY, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Dr MACKAY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- Oh, they do not! Do they not do so by alleging racial discrimination? With this information firmly established as the basis of my question, was I vouching for a lie when I asked whether the Leader of the Opposition was attacking the courts on that basis? May I expect that, having had time to reflect, there will be an apology and a withdrawal? I had other evidence also. After this diversion I went on to complete my question, and I asked the Minister to examine incidents in Rabaul on 8th January 1970 which led to the senior magistrate defending his courts publicly against statements arising out of charges made by the Leader of the Opposition. The magistrate&#39;s statement has been tabled. Let me quote one paragraph. He said: </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <quote>
            <para>Was it legitimate criticism, this condemnation of this court for deciding questions on a racial (or other non-judicial) basis? If there were truth in it, then it would be legitimate criticism although I would have hoped that a lawyer - and <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Whitlam</inline> is a lawyer- would have taken steps to right the wrong complained of and have the court cleansed without having its authority and usefulness undermined. But is there any truth in it? </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">I will go on and quote the remainder in a moment as I continue what I am to say. I maintain that this statement is quite clear. The Attorney-General tabled the whole text of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Quinlivan&#39;s</inline> statement doing exactly and precisely that thing. There can be no question of this fact. Finally, I asked the Attorney-General to advise on the propriety of a visiting politician wrongly alleging homicide against a young Australian whom he knew to be on bail and about to stand trial before the Supreme Court. The Leader of the Opposition, however, after changing his grounds by falsely alleging that I had just verified the accuracy of a newspaper report - and I did no such thing - and, of course, after a passing snear at my veracity - went on to torpedo the honourable member for Fremantle&#39;s case. </para>
          <para class="block">Let me quote the Leader of the Opposition&#39;s words describing how he carried out what is an undeniable attack on the integrity of the courts by alleging racial discrimination. On page 101 of Hansard of last Thursday, he is reported as saying: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>I did give- </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">To the Gazelle Peninsula Council -  as an instance of the disquiet which we found in the Gazelle, the contrasting treatment by the courts of two cases. </para>
          <para class="block">These are his actual words: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The first concerned some indigenes charged with  assault  who were refused bail pending their trials before a lower court and refused legal aid in pending cases. The other case was that of an expatriate patrol officer charged with wounding - not, 1 recollect, with accidental wounding - who was released on his own recognisance. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">In any situation, let alone one where racial tension has been inflamed to fever pitch by extremists, those words are a grave attack on the integrity of the courts on the basis of racial discrimination. May I recall again the Leader of the Opposition&#39;s words. He said that he did give an instance of the contrasting treatment by the courts in two cases. The first related to some indigenes and the other to an expatriate. So on his own testimony the Leader of the Opposition demonstrates the falseness and the misleading nature of the attack on my veracity. Last Thursday the honourable member for Oxley <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Hayden)</inline> added his voice spontaneously to the charges of racial discrimination in the courts. But the Leader of the Opposition went further. He compounded his deception by these words: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>I have made no other public reference to the operations of the present courts or law authorities in New Guinea. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">That is a deliberate untruth. I have tabled the Press release from the office of the Leader of the Opposition where, some days after these events, he referred to &#39;glaring race discrimination in law&#39; in the Territory. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!</inline>I point out to the honourable member that it has not been the practice in this House to assert a deliberate untruth in those terms against a member of the House. I ask him to withdraw the words. I suggest that the honourable member might rephrase his remark. </para>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>257</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MACKAY, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Dr MACKAY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I will rephrase that and say: &#39;Unhappily that was not the case.&#39; There are some other very important aspects of this case. I read a transcript to the House which was given- </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <interjection>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>257</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>EE4</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">UREN, Tom</name>
                <name role="display">Mr Uren</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I take a point of order. The honourable member for Evans made no withdrawal. He merely said: &#39;I will rephrase that.&#39; I ask that the comment be withdrawn. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </interjection>
          <continue>
            <talk.start>
              <talker>
                <page.no>257</page.no>
                <time.stamp />
                <name.id>KIW</name.id>
                <electorate />
                <party />
                <role />
                <in.gov>0</in.gov>
                <first.speech>0</first.speech>
                <name role="metadata">MACKAY, Malcolm</name>
                <name role="display">Dr MACKAY</name>
              </talker>
              <para>- I said that I would withdraw and rephrase the sentence. As time is short I wish to continue. There are some other very important aspects of this case. I read to the House part of a transcript which was given to my Committee by the Acting District Commissioner, <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Jack</inline> Emmanuel. This was in Rabaul. It was compiled from tapes from several sources, we were told, such as from radio recordings, for example, from the Australian Broadcasting Commission and Radio Rabaul, and from individual recordings made by a number of people and collated by officers of the Administration taken at various meetings. </para>
            </talk.start>
          </continue>
          <para>The. Committee set out to hear some of these tapes for itself. We asked an ABC reporter for an opportunity to do so. But what did we find? We found that the Leader of the Opposition had been complaining about the way his meetings had been reported by the ABC, so these tapes and any records had been recalled to Port Moresby. We asked whether we could see the notes the ABC reporter had taken at the council meeting on the night of 8th January. He was under instructions not to divulge them. Tn a last desperate attempt, we asked whether, if we were to read to him the relevant parts of our transcript, he would be free to comment on its accuracy. He had no such prohibition so I read to him part of the transcript, in the company of my colleagues, and I also read it to this House. It is in Hansard. The reporter confirmed that it was. in all essentials, accurate bv h&#62;s recollection. </para>
          <para>We then sent for other eye witnesses. We probed especially as to the exact way the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter of the shooting of the Tolai boy. Wc were completely satisfied that he did Av that the boy had been shot and killed. We interviewed council members, some of whom described to us the way they had been dragged from their homes a month before and battered into insensibility by the leaders or groups of people associated with the Mataungans. We heard from fine old men their expressions of disgust at the support that the Leader of the Opposition had given to this group. A distinguished Tolai churchman summed it up to me when he said: <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Whitlam</inline> wasn&#39;t interested in us Tolais so much as his own Party in Australia.&#39; </para>
          <para>In this House on Thursday last the Leader pf the Opposition and the honourable member for Fremantle both swore that the basis of my question - perhaps they meant the version of events at the council meeting - was untrue. The honourable member for Fremantle used extreme language when he said that it was a completely false statement. Let us look at this. I have rehearsed the way in which we obtained what is titled, &#39;A transcript of tape recordings made during the visit of <inline font-weight="bold">Mr E.</inline> G. Whitlam&#39;. I have rehearsed this and described how we checked and rechecked it with eye witnesses. Yet the honourable member for Fremantle insists that it is completely false. </para>
          <para>I also present another report. This is one which was taken from a reporter who was travelling with the Leader of the Opposition, a <inline font-weight="bold">Mr John</inline> Lombard. I content myself with saying that it is almost identical in word and detail with the transcript that I quoted. The honourable member for Fremantle may say that this, too, is false. I draw attention to another report from Australian Associated Press and from Reuters. They can be found in editions of the national Press of 9th January. I point out again that, almost verbatim, they follow the substance of the transcript. What does that mean? Is this a mammoth conspiracy by the judge, by the Administration, by Radio Rabaul, by the ABC, by Australian Associated Press and Reuters, and by John Lombard to traduce these venturing politicians, or is there really some other form of conspiracy involving far fewer people? </para>
          <para>Let me hurry on to other vital matters that follow. The Leader of the Opposition falsely alleged homicide against the young Australian. Here in this House on Thursday last, and again today, he at least indicated that the wounding of the Tolai boy was deliberate. Let me quote from the statement from the Bench of the trial judge. He said, comparing the treatment of the indigenes and the expatriate: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>The facts of the first leg of the comparison are that the two Administration officers were admitted to bail to await their trial before the Supreme Court on a charge of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm to a child. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">Then he added: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>There is no reason to believe that the child is dead. There is no suggestion that the wounding was deliberate, and it is clear that the two young Australians have been ordered by this Court to stand their trial on the basis that they have a charge of criminal negligence to answer. In no respectable system of law would they have been refused bail in the circumstances, and they <inline font-style="italic">were</inline> not <inline font-style="italic">refused</inline> bail here. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">On the morning of 8th January last, a few hours before the Leader of the Opposition made these damaging statements about a man who was to face his trial, he was told the true facts by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr Harry</inline> West, the District Commissioner, who at that time was on Christian name terms with the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition was told that the shooting was accidental and that the charge was one of criminal negligence. He was told that the child was only wounded and was now virtually recovered, and also that the child came from Pomio. Yet that very same day this man tried to stir up passions by alleging that the shooting was deliberate - hence he should have been refused bail - and that the child was killed. </para>
          <para>We can see the way that the smell of power affected this man&#39;s conduct towards the District Commissioner. I have recited how he demanded that the District Commissioner withdraw when a polite correction was made by way of interjection. But now we see the full spectrum of a bully at work. Listen again to his words to this House last Thursday. I quote from page 103 of Hansard. He said: </para>
          <quote>
            <para>On this occasion, the District Commissioner had to be put in his place. He has since, for this and earlier incidents, been withdrawn from Rabaul. </para>
          </quote>
          <para class="block">This is something that every Australian should hear and note carefully. The Leader of the Opposition was here dealing with the character and career of one of our most respected, capable and distinguished servants, a man representing the Queen and Australia in his district, a man whose only crime was to ask for the truth from a blustering person. For this, we are told, the </para>
          <para class="block">Leader of the Opposition has had him withdrawn from duty. What were the real blunders and the real tragedies of the visit by the Leader of the Opposition? 1 believe that one of the supreme blunders was the inability of the Leader of the Opposition to see how he was used by the Mataungans, how his emotions were stirred, and how he left his prepared notes to rise like a trout to the regulated volume of applause, not knowing that more than half of its volume was not because of what he had just said but because of what the interpreter had just said that he had just said. </para>
          <para>I conclude by mentioning the international shame that this situation has brought. Throughout the journey the Leader of the Opposition and those who were with him tried to point out that the United Nations Organisation, that very year, had insisted by a vote of 112 to none that Australia should forthwith hand over Papua and New Guinea to independence. What are the facts about what happened at the United Nations on that last occasion? We understand from the reports that came from the United Nations that for the first time for many years, there had been a thawing in the attitude towards Australia&#39;s administration, that some who had attacked us in the past, some Asian delegations and persons who have been antipathetic to our efforts in the Territory, were now our champions. Indeed the resolution as first presented contained remarks complimentary to Australia&#39;s administration - remarks that were different from some of the blatant misplaced criticisms, such as turning the Territory into an armed camp, that had been made years before. For the first time it began to show an understanding and appreciation of Australia&#39;s role in Papua and New Guinea. For the first time there was no demand for a time table, and for the first time that this happens the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister, goes into the arena, and takes on Russia&#39;s job for her and demands a time table for independence. That is it in a nut shell. So left wingers like Lawrie Carmichael should take note. I remind Lawrie that when he delivered his paper The Trade Unions and the Left&#39; at the Conference for Left Action in April of last year, there was debate amongst the leftists and the Communists present as to whether the Leader of the </para>
          <para class="block">Opposition was on the left. Lawrie Carmichael said: &#39;Whilst seeking areas of agreement, I do not subscribe to the view expressed yesterday that Whitlam is on the left&#39;. That was in April 1969. I wonder what Lawrie would say in April 1970. </para>
          <para>But why else should the Leader of the Opposition set out to insult and denigrate his countrymen in New Guinea, abuse the bulk of the leadership amongst the indigenes and alienate the whole world of commerce, administration and the rest? Why did he go to the Matupit meeting? This was a meeting of people with a reactionary programme running counter to specific recommendations of the United Nations Trusteeship Council, to the determinations of their own House of Assembly and the popularly elected council, the multi-racial council. This is a matter we should look at. There are two ways of tackling injustice and inequity. There is the Marxist-Lenist or Maoist way, which is to foment every grievance, to sharpen the class or race struggle, to use terror as a political weapon and to use war as the ultimate sanction in politics. And there is another way, the way of democratic and constructive method, of reason, education and responsibility, of the encouragement of racial, inter-racial and multiracial co-operation and of the denial of violence and force. I know that the Leader of the Opposition deplored violence at the meeting he attended. I genuinely believe that he did deplore it personally. But the effect on his audience was that of a great man coming to support their movement when they were still at the bar of world opinion for having used violence on their own countrymen, their own revered leaders who had committed no other crime than that of trying to represent their people democratically. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>259</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KIH</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr</name>
              <name role="display">Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- Before calling the honourable member for Forrest, I would remind the House that this is bis maiden speech. I call the honourable member for Forrest. </para>
          </talk.start>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>259</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KGN</name.id>
              <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">KIRWAN, Frank</name>
              <name role="display">Mr KIRWAN</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I will try to speak above the noise of the attendants as they bring in the sludge pumps to pump out the venom that is flowing across the floor of the House. That I can rise in this place to address myself to the current debate is at one and the same time a tribute to the hundreds of dedicated workers right across the Forrest electorate and a resounding expression of condemnation of the Government by a clear majority of the electors of Forrest. Therefore I have on the one hand to thank all those who contributed in any way to the success of our cause and on the other to express for them in the strongest possible terms the censure that my election to this place represents for the Government&#39;s involvement in the fighting in Vietnam and for its neglect of the whole of rural Australia. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>I wish to place on record the fact that I contested Forrest first in 1966 on the issues of our involvement in the Vietnam war and of conscription. I did so hoping to force the result to a distribution of preferences against a Minister of the Government in what was regarded as a safe antiLabor seat. On that occasion I was endorsed only 6 weeks before the election and I failed to achieve the demonstration of public feeling that was sought. However, believing that our cause was right and that the Government should be embarrassed Into reversing its policies, with a Minister being defeated or forced to a distribution of preferences, I sought endorsement immediately after the 1966 election. Due to the untiring efforts of <inline font-weight="bold">Senator Wilkinson,</inline> who became our campaign organiser, and the efforts of members and supporters in Forrest, we succeeded not in forcing the Minister for Shipping and Transport to a distribution of preferences, as we had hoped in 1966, but in defeating the Minister for External Affairs. Of course, that it should be the Minister for External Affairs who was defeated was not due to our campaigning on Vietnam involvement primarily but to the whim of the Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Gorton)</inline> in that he demonstrated his appreciation of the place of external affairs in overall importance by sliding this portfolio down from fourth place to twelfth place in Cabinet ranking. </para>
          <para>It is only since the election defeat of my predecessor that we have had more fully disclosed the Prime Minister&#39;s grasp of the importance and place of the Department of External Affairs. Firstly he caused the portfolio to become available by following the practice of Robert Gordon Menzies of removing from Parliament men of superior talents so that his own hold on the leader ship might be protected. On that occasion his portfolio was slid down the scale from fourth place to twelfth place so that it would more closely fit the person chosen to handle it. Now, having lost his Minister because of the Government&#39;s vulnerability in this area, the portfolio is slid up the scale as a sop to the dispossessed former Treasurer, who is now the Minister for External Affairs <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr McMahon).</inline> In other words, the Prime Minister uses this all important portfolio at his whim with no regard for the effect on the Department or its morale. </para>
          <para>It is because of the way in which the Department is used as a pawn in the Prime Minister&#39;s game of chess with the nation&#39;s departments and because of the Government&#39;s lack of suitable men, following the practices of Menzies and the right honourable gentleman, that I believe the people of Forrest have expressed their concern by defeating the former Minister for External Affairs. However in saying that I must hasten to add that they have at the same time indicated that they no longer support the bungling defence and foreign policies of this tired, divided, lost and hapless coalition, but instead have consciously opted for a united, positive, virile and progressive movement, which does have due regard for the importance of external affairs and defence, including, I am sure, the posting of career diplomats to all embassies and consulates. </para>
          <para>My electors, I am sure, deplore the fact that a coalition that is a conglomeration of ginger groups, mushroom clubs, caterpillar clubs, Rhodesian lobbies and other factions can govern though it collectively received a vote that was 6% less than that received by the Australian Labor Party alone. My electors deplore the state of affairs that exists when a party given the task of governing is consciously emasculated to the point where, according to the inferences to be drawn from the actions of that party, no fit person remains to lead it and in desperation one has to be brought from the other place to assume the Prime Ministership. That a man of the capacity of the former member for Adelaide could feel confident of becoming Minister for Defence and eventually Prime Minister, because his modest assessment of the talent offering was such that he could come to no other conclusion, in itself should be judgment enough. My electors have expressed their rejection of the blunders that have been made in the field of defence, especially with the FI 1 1 fiasco and scandal. They have expressed their abhorrence of our Vietnam involvement and their dismay at the fact that, to appease certain pressure groups in the community, the Government should make criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens and unnecessarily disrupt and destroy the lives of fine young Australian men. </para>
          <para>The present Government has not only failed the nation in the important areas I have mentioned; it has also been responsible for the development of the worst crisis in the rural sector of this nation for more than 30 years. In my electorate, which is wholly rural, I see on every hand the need for decisive Government action. At the same time I see the results of the abdication of responsibility by governments, both State and Federal, with the resultant uncertainty and distress that this causes. I have within my electorate the greatest proportion of milk producers, potato growers, apple and pear growers and fine wool growers in the whole of Western Australia. I also represent beef producers, fat lamb producers, stone fruit growers, coarse grain growers and other primary producers. I have, too. the honour of representing miners of coal, bauxite, tin. titanium and other minerals, timber workers and so on. The main outlets for the produce of the electorate are the ports of Albany and Bunbury, together with the smaller port of Busselton, which does not have the use made of it that it is capable of providing. </para>
          <para>My electorate is urgently in need of some indication of Government policies and immediate intentions in the fields of direct concern to it. For example, the port of Albany provides an outlet for the produce of the whole of the Great Southern region of Western Australia and draws wool from as far east as Esperance. Albany possesses a natural harbour that has been used since the beginnings of Australia&#39;s history and it has had grow up around it a hinterland of great importance to the State. Woollen mills have been established to process some of the locally grown wool and in recent years the local people have built Albany up as a centre for wool selling to a point where a wool selling season means within the vicinity of $750,000 to the town. That sum is made up in this way: The annual wages bill for the wool stores, $500,000; wool stores annual operational expenses, $100,000; extra accommodation and meals for valuers, buyers, brokers, etc., attending sales, $42,000; cartage of wool from store to 67 wool ships, $5,000; waterside labour for wool shipped from Albany $60,000; plus port ancillary services such as mooring, launches, tug crews, wages, laundry, doctors, dentists, chemists, hospital and taxis, $22,000; ships&#39; personnel spending, including victualing, $20,000. </para>
          <para>These are only two of many instances of locally sponsored decentralised industries. It does not require, nor are the people requesting, government action to establish industries. However, because of the advent of containerisation Government intervention is required to give guidance and to protect what is already established. Surely, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, the</inline> responsible Minister, or one of the 3 Ministers who could be concerned, could make a definite statement that Albany will continue to be used as the port for the export of wool, primarily, but also of other products of the Great Southern region. Here is an opportunity for the Country Party Ministers, the Minister for Trade and Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr McEwen),</inline> the Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony)</inline> or the Minister for Shipping and Transport <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Sinclair)</inline> to demonstrate the genuineness of their Party in acting on behalf of rural interests. I suggest that they would be better off making no statement at all than to re-assert the Liberal Party solution as expressed by my predecessor and a former Minister for Shipping and Transport. To increase rail freights between Albany and Fremantle is not an answer. Farmers are suffering enough from the effects of the cost price squeeze without Liberal members making such suggestions in relation to what is a perplexing problem in the area. On the contrary I ask them to make arrangements with the Scan-Austral line of ships to call regularly for wool and other cargoes, or for the Minister for Shipping and Transport to see that the Australian National Line enters the AustraliaEurope trade to service Albany and similar ports. </para>
          <para>A second example from my electorate is the port of Bunbury, servicing a region which includes all the mineral areas of my electorate, most of the timber areas and, of course, a large part of the rural sector. The Bunbury and Collie regions are at the point where they can truly blossom, given the benefits of a deepened harbour and _ entrance channel, and the provision of a new port and port servicing facilities. I believe that the Federal Government provided funds for improvements for the port of Newcastle in 1962 and that those improvements have more than paid for themselves in the resultant streamlining of port handling. I am strongly of the opinion that money given to speed up the completion of the port works at Bunbury could be of immeasurable value to the Bunbury.CoIIie region. Increasing employment opportunities would result for local people, including farmers who might choose to leave the land if able to obtain suitable work in their own region. </para>
          <para>I believe the Minister for Shipping and Transport should have acted earlier to provide the funds necessary to expedite the work in Bunbury by combining with the Western Australian Government to bring into operation Australian built dredges, which are lying idle, to undertake the work to be done. Since that was not done I believe the Minister should offer his assistance to see that the work is carried out as quickly as possible. Perhaps he could provide the actual port facilities required to release the major obstruction in the way of rapid development in that depressed rural region. Alternatively, perhaps he could have the Australian subsidised dredges operate in cooperation with the South Korean dredge, provided that the Commonwealth Department of Immigration allows the work to proceed. </para>
          <para>
            <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline>want to impress upon the Government that there is urgent need for resolute Government action in the area of the Forrest electorate; action along the lines of the dairy rationalisation scheme which was to have been implemented 3 years ago but which still is only talked about; action to implement a sound wool selling scheme; action to find new markets for our fruit and potato growers; and action to bring new confidence into the region. If the Government is not going to give a lead to the farmers in my electorate in order to assist them to stay in the industry then it should provide rehabilitation schemes similar to that which operated after the last war to provide the nation with the tradesmen and professional men that it needed. It should act to improve and protect the ports of Bunbury and Albany, perhaps by directing all grain grown in the middle to lower wheat belt through Albany while containerised cargoes pass through the port of Fremantle. It should ensure that Bunbury receives the same favourable assistance already given to the port of Newcastle in order to stimulate the Western Australian coal fields and surrounding areas. </para>
          <para>I have endeavoured to make constructive proposals as well as to point out that this Government does not have the confidence of the people so that while it ebbs out the remainder of this Parliament it may consider ways of stimulating what is a very important section of this nation. Besides the things mentioned in this speech I have endeavoured to arrange for exploration of the possibility of selling apples in bulk to Singapore from the orchards of Forrest. I have written to the Minister for External Affairs asking him to do what he can to give assistance to protecting and encouraging the sale of seed potatoes to Ceylon. </para>
          <para>In conclusion, <inline font-weight="bold">Sir, I</inline> wish to emphasise the point 1 made earlier - that the electors of Forrest have expressed their opinion about where this Government should go. In doing so they have been at one with the majority of electors, to the extent of over 200,000, and they have contributed to the 6% surplus which the Australian Labor Party had over the combined total of the factions which constitute the fine body opposite. Results of by-elections in Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales suggest that an election today would give the Australian Labor Party occupancy of the Government benches in spite of preferential voting. We residents of Forrest are distressed at the blunders made in the fields of defence and foreign affairs. We are equally disturbed at the present conditions in rural Australia and the apparent ineptitude of the Government. We look forward to the new Parliament even though it may not contain the present Minister for External Affairs - yet another to hold that portfolio - the present honourable member for Phillip <inline font-weight="bold">(Sir William Aston),</inline> or the one remaining Liberal from my State. In spite of those losses we of the Australian Labor Party look forward with keen expectancy since we shall occupy the Treasury benches under the credible and stimulating leadership of the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Whitlam)</inline> and our superior front bench. </para>
        </speech>
        <speech>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>263</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KY7</name.id>
              <electorate>Hume</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">PETTITT, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr PETTITT</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- It is with rising confidence that I support the Government&#39;s programme as set out in the Governor-General&#39;s Speech; a feeling of confidence that we can look forward to better days ahead and a better deal for that vital though small section of the Australian nation, the rural community. The Prime Minister <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Gorton)</inline> has shown that he is big enough not only to survive a prolonged and vicious attack by a section of the so-called popular Press but also a bitter personal attack by the Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Whitlam)</inline> during the recent election campaign. As a result a great many more people have come to realise that that gentleman is as insincere as many of us have known for a long time. The statement of Abraham Lincoln that you can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but never all the people all the time, has never been more vividly exemplified than by the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition. </para>
          </talk.start>
          <para>The State Premiers came to Canberra recently with the whip hand, according to the metropolitan Press, and they were going to demand and force the Prime Minister to do this, that and the other. All of us know the result. We saw the attempt by the popular Press to crawl out of the stupid mess it had got itself into by its own inaccurate statements. We find today a Prime Minister with a new determination to lead and to put first the interests of all Australians. </para>
          <para>It was rather striking tonight when the Minister for Defence <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Malcolm Fraser)</inline> made a very important statement on defence that the Leader of the Opposition did not bother to enter the chamber. The  Deputy  Leader of the Opposition <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Barnard)</inline> was the only member of the socalled shadow cabinet present when the Minister began his speech. It was some time later before one or two members of the Opposition front bench bothered to enter the chamber. Most of the time, only two members of the Labor shadow cabinet were present. That is what the Opposition thinks of this very serious problem of defence. </para>
          <para>That brings me to the problem of rural industries. Perhaps the greatest problem facing the nation today is the rising cost squeeze, not only upon the rural industries - it has reached crisis proportions there, we know - but upon practically all of our export earning industries as well. It is not commonly known that the export of manufactured goods, for instance, will earn $600m this year. Wool earns Australia &#167;800m in a year. Farmers of course are well aware that the wage earner is their best friend. The wage earner must spend to live. He constitutes the home market. The home market is better than the export market, necessary as the export market is and will become. </para>
          <para>The problem of costs must be tackled and tackled effectively if the nation is to continue to prosper. Not only are our rural export industries in deep trouble but also are many of our secondary industries in trouble. Manufacturers are being forced or are in danger of being forced out of hard won overseas markets. Wage earners find every rise in wages means a greater rise in the cost of living. The recent across the board 3% rise in wages and salaries resulted in the Government taking about 1% of the rise by taxation and the cost of most necessities of life rising by 5% to 10% in price. </para>
          <para>There are many reasons for this rising cost problem. The tremendous inflow of foreign capital undoubtedly has been the main cause because pressure upon available labour and materials has forced an abnormal demand. But, without this great inflow of foreign capital, we would be bankrupt at the moment and our balance of payments would be in a disastrous state. In other words, we are living on borrowed capital. No doubt, we all agree that vast sums of capital are necessary to develop this large country, with all its potential. All possible effort must be made to keep our primary industries solvent or the nation eventually must go bankrupt. In that event, we will have unemployment and a major depression. </para>
          <para>Tariffs, in some cases, I believe, are too high. While tariffs are necessary to provide and to maintain employment, at times they do force our costs up to high levels. We find employers bidding up for labour, with substantial over-award payments being made. How, then, can we blame any union leader who goes to the courts for a higher wage when higher than award wages are actually being paid? The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has succumbed to the demands of the union leaders, particularly in respect of the notorious Metal Trades Award. Perhaps no single happening in recent years has done more damage not only to the nation but also to its export industries than this award. Certainly, no recent happening in the industrial field has been more detrimental to the family man on the average wage or the lower wage. Inflation hurts most of all the pensioner, the superannuitant, the lower wage groups, the primary industries and the export industries. I believe that the time has come to have a closer look at the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and its terms of reference to make it more economically responsible. The Commission must be compelled to take into account the economic consequences of its decisions particularly as they affect the average citizen, the wage earner, the small business man and the farmer. </para>
          <para>Irresponsible left wing union leaders have been allowed to take far too much control of industry. These extreme left wing union leaders - many are professed Communists - are not interested in the welfare of the people whom they purport to represent. They are interested in promoting a foreign philosophy and in creating unrest and discontent in the work force, for this is the only way in which they can hope to promote and to expand their foreign philosophy. They use strong arm and intima.datory tactics that should never be permitted in any democracy. They most definitely do not represent the great majority of Australian workers. The latest available figures - these are very interesting - show that in 1954 61% of Australian wage and salary earners belonged to any union. Today, only 53% of Australian wage and salary earners belong to a union. This is rather an extraordinary fact. Do not let us kid ourselves that employers would not take advantage of the work force if there was not a strong union movement. </para>
          <para>I believe in and am all for strong unions provided that they are in the hands of the rank and file. I would like to see control of unions put back in the hands of the rank and file where it ought to be. Today, many union leaders are elected by a minute number of the members of that union or those working in a job represented by that union. The result is obvious. The control of those unions is in the hands of the extreme left, the pro-Communist minority - the militant few. I believe that the Government should have enough courage to act in the present circumstances and to make secret ballots compulsory in all union affairs, under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Electoral Office. That is a democratic procedure. Do honourable members opposite object to a compulsory secret ballot? What are they afraid of? Such a step would destroy in one act the control exercised by many left wing extremists over the rank and file of unions. It would destroy a dictatorship much more ruthless and far less human than any dictatorship of the right wing, lt would eliminate immediately much of the present industrial unrest through which thousands of men are thrown out of work and women and children are going without proper food and clothing merely to satisfy a foreign philosophy. </para>
          <para>The average Australian as I know him wants to work. I have lived amongst working people all my life. The average Australian worker wants to dress as well as he can, to own the best home he can buy, to drive the best motor car and to give his children the best possible education. He is happy to do those things if he receives a reasonable wage. He hates unjustified industrial unrest. We all know that the average Australian is capable of doing as good a job as any worker in the world and, in many cases, a better job, given a fair chance. </para>
          <para>I represent a country electorate which embraces a wide field of rural, secondary and service industries. It is a section of the community that is not sharing in the booming prosperity about which we hear so much. Nevertheless, it is a most important part of the Australian nation which earns 75% of our overseas income, which must be found to pay for about 80% of our imports to keep the wheels of industry turning. I and my colleagues are determined that the people we represent will be given a better deal and a greater share in the rewards for their industry and hard work. Country people, whether in country towns or on the land, represent a minority and they, as well as we who represent them, must be a vigorous and determined minority if we are to be heard in the nation&#39;s councils. </para>
          <para>Last week an attempt was made in this House at political gain by the Opposition by raising a matter of urgency. It proved to be a damp squib, te use the words of the Australian Financial Review&#39;. Labor&#39;s two great and shining hopes made a completely destructive attack on primary industries without any attempt whatever to put forward a worthwhile suggestion. They were acting true to form. They not only attacked the Minister for Primary Industry <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Anthony);</inline> they also attacked every rural organisation. They attacked the Australian Wheat Board and growers&#39; organisations. Neither member is a practical or experienced farmer. There seems to be some doubt at present in the minds of honourable members opposite as to who is to be the shadow Minister for Primary Industry and who is to be the shadow Minister for National Development. </para>
          <para>I have not noticed the honourable member for Riverina <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr Grassby)</inline> wearing a sprig of Paterson&#39;s Curse as he promised to do in his maiden speech. I am not sure whether the honourable member for Dawson <inline font-weight="bold">(Dr Patterson),</inline> the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, refers to his colleague as &#39;Paterson&#39;s Curse&#39; or as &#39;Dawson&#39;s dilemma.&#39; After Bill Gunn finished with him in a recent television interview and after the Minister for Primary Industry deflated him at Jerilderie it may be that he will wither away and only dried sticks will remain of his emblem of the Riverina, Paterson&#39;s Curse. </para>
          <para>I have heard the honourable member for Riverina likened to a rainbow that today appears in the sky, tomorrow is gone, and touches the earth where the promised pot of gold is to be found but has never yet been discovered. Honourable members who wish to know more about him should be reminded that he is the man whose name was blazoned across the country when he stated that there was venereal disease in Arab horses. It was just as imaginative and wild a statement and was proved to be entirely as wrong as many of his other statements. I am reminded of a remark made to a colleague of mine by a reporter em ployed by a leading newspaper. He said: Say something stupid and we will give you a screaming headline&#39;. </para>
          <para>The Australian Labor Party of course has no rural policy, no policy for primary producers. Its only policy is to take advantage of the position in which primary industries find themselves today. Every member of the Party, including the honourable member for Dawson and the honourable member for Riverina, has voted in support of the policy of the Leader of the Opposition to disfranchise more and more people of an effective vote in this House. The aplication of the principle of one vote one value would eliminate several country seats in New South Wales and many throughout Australia, irrespective of party. How hypocritical can the honourable member for Riverina and the honourable member for Dawson become when they claim to be concerned for country people while they are actively working to stifle the small voice which people in rural areas have now? </para>
          <para>The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said that when he comes to office he will introduce a capital gains tax. He will tax the only equity which many farmers have left in their properties - an equity built up by hard labour, sweat and deprivation in an attempt to improve their farms. What are their capital gains? They are represented by the clearing of land, pasture improvement, fencing, the costly provision of water supplies, breeding more and better stock - all the costly improvements which represent years of toil and self-denial and upon which the farmer has already paid tax. Labor will tax this hard won equity. The honourable member for Riverina and the honourable member for Dawson will support the Leader of the Opposition in taxing this hard won equity. </para>
          <para>Labor&#39;s so-called rural policy is the very antithesis of the interests of primary producers. Chifley once said, of course, that Socialism will not work without the right to direct labour where it is needed, and Labor&#39;s policy is to direct the farmers where it wants them, to sell1 their wheat for what it wants to sell it and to give farmers what it wants to give them. It is very significant, I think, that following the Governor-General&#39;s Speech not one of the leading so-called popular metropolitan newspapers bothered to mention rural industries in its leading articles, and I read many of them. But we who represent rural industry and rural towns are determined to be heard; we are determined that we will be given consideration, and we are determined to ensure that our people who are the very backbone of the nation will not be allowed to languish; that they will not be allowed to become mere peasants as they would under a Socialist government. We fight not only for our own country people, but we fight because we know their interests are vital to the whole nation. </para>
          <para>The wheat industry, we know, is passing through a difficult period when record production in the major wheat producing countries has caused a world glut of wheat. However, the position is not as desperate as many would like to paint it. A crop failure in one or two of the major wheat producing countries could quite quickly change the whole situation. Labor has tried to break the quota system - a system put forward by the farmers themselves and by responsible industry leaders who have shown great courage and determination in trying to solve this very difficult problem. No government in history has ever given as much support to primary industry as this Government is giving. </para>
          <para>The wool industry, Australia&#39;s greatest export industry, is also in dire straits at the present time. Wool is selling at a price which is ridiculously low when compared with the price of other commodities. Wool, unlike wheat, is going into consumption, and I think that we should have a long hard look at the position of wool. I do not think that the auction system is being allowed to operate. We have to have a look at this matter. I believe that the world wants our wool, it needs our wool, and we have to do something about getting a fair price for it. I believe that the manufacturer is prepared to pay a fair price for wool provided somebody else does not buy it for 10c a lb less tomorrow. It is a fact of life that if the manufacturer were to get raw wool for nothing we would not buy a suit of clothes or a woollen jumper or any other woollen article lc cheaper. There is a great deal to be done in reducing handling costs which are one of the great bugbears. </para>
          <para class="block">I think the time has come when we have to take a particularly strong stand in order to see that the wool industry, which is still Australia&#39;s greatest export industry and one which has brought this country along to its present position, is given a fair deal having regard to the labour and enterprise which the producers have put into the industry. A rise of even 10c a lb in the price of wool would solve many of the difficulties facing the wool industry, as well as the wheat industry and many other industries. </para>
          <para>Perhaps the brightest part of the rural scene is in the meat industry. The world needs protein and is generally prepared to pay for it. Beef in particular is in keen demand throughout most of the world and new markets are being opened up all over the world including in southern Europe and Russia. A growing market for prime lamb is being enjoyed in the United States and Canada, and a great deal pf lamb has been exported from several abattoirs in my electorate to these markets. It .was Conkey and Sons of Cootamundra who pioneered the air freighting of fresh lamb by jet plane to Canada. I think the House should know this. This is private enterprise at its best. During Canada&#39;s winter, when the country is covered with ice and snow, Conkeys have been sending approximately 10 tons of boned lamb to Canada on every Qantas plane. Forty hours after it is slaughtered in Cootamundra it is on sale in the shops in Canada. Conkeys have also pioneered the air freighting by Qantas jet of fresh mutton and beef to Bahrain in the Middle East. The important part about this is that this meat is fresh, it is not frozen or chilled and consequently brings a better price and is in greater demand. </para>
          <para>There is a growing demand for meat throughout the world as standards of living rise, and the introduction of jumbo jets in the near future opens up all sorts of possibilities for the sale of air freighted beef. For instance, there are 700 million Chinese. If we could get every Chinaman to have one good feed of mutton a month we would not have enough sheep in Australia to feed them. That gives some idea of the tremendous potential. Taking the long view, I believe there is a bright future for primary industry provided we producers keep abreast of the times in modern methods of production and animal husbandry, but provided most of all that we are in the forefront in developing new, larger and better markets. Our job, the job of those of us who represent the great primary industries and who understand them, and of those of us engaged in them is to see that the present difficulties are not allowed to bankrupt our primary producers, that they are given every assistance and skilled advice to keep abreast of the latest techniques of management and that they are provided with adequate long-term finance to take advantage of new ideas and new methods. We must, too, give all possible assistance in the finding of new markets and the developing of them. Particularly must we encourage private enterprise as it is exemplified by Conkey and Sons who have, by sheer drive, ability and enterprise won these new markets in a way that should be an example and inspiration to everyone else. </para>
          <para>Shares in the H. G. Palmer company or Tasminex may disappear or fade into thin air overnight, but the land represents a solid permanent asset that has weathered many a storm and will weather this one. Rural industry may have its ups and downs, its booms and depressions but it has always proved itself to be Australia&#39;s solid economic foundation, and the people on the land are the very backbone of this nation in peace and in war. Now is the time for primary producers to close their ranks and to fight with resolution and determination for a better deal and a fairer and better share of present day prosperity. This is no time to listen to the blandishments of the Socialists who would use the present problems and frustrations of primary producers for political advantage and leave us a race of peasants on collective farms if they had their way. There are those of us who are prepared to fight, and fight all-out, for our primary producers and our primary industries. But, by God, we expect solid backing. We expect the backing from those for whom we are fighting. But there are some members of the rural community who arc saying, in effect: Those fellows are not doing a terribly good job up there in front. Let us shoot them out of the road. Let us shoot out the front line troops.* </para>
          <para>I appeal to all primary producers to close their ranks and to hold protest meetings everywhere. I welcome protest meetings. At long last the primary producers are coming out and backing the men who have been fighting for them for years. The more protest meetings and the more marchers we have the better it will be, because we understand their problems, we want their backing and we will fight for them. I say: &#39;Roll up the ammunition. We will fight. We will use it.&#39; We will fight not only in the interests of our primary producers but in the interests of all our people. Freights, we know, are a heavy and increasing burden and are paid both ways by every country dweller, be he a farmer, businessman or other country resident. Extremely high rail freights charged for primary produce in New South Wales at least are providing cheap transport for city workers. This cannot be denied if one looks at the State&#39;s railway reports. Telephones are another extremely costly problem and T will have a good deal to say about them later. We are determined to fight for a flat rate for all trunk calls, based on time and not on distance. This is a practical thing, much more practical than the uniform charge of 5c a letter. </para>
          <para>One of the greatest causes of increased costs in rural industry today is municipal and shire rates. The incidence of local government rates in rural areas has become unbearable, and the whole problem of financing local government is due for urgent revision. Shire councils are being called upon to provide all manner of amenities and services which were never intended to be their responsibility. Much of the capital expenditure by local government should be looked upon as part of our national development programme and at least the part responsibility of the whole nation if we are to hold this country. Communications - be they road, rail or telephone - are of extreme importance to country people in all walks of life. Water conservation and reticulation are extremely important. We have to look at the reuse of water. </para>
          <para>In the field of education vast strides have been made. Yet, despite strenuous attempts by myself, my colleagues and my Party to have a shearing school established at Cootamundra, we have been unsuccessful. I appeal to the Federal Government to give us this support for the training of operatives for Australia&#39;s most important export industry. Nobody has thought it important enough to train shearers or shed hands. </para>
          <para class="block">They are skilled artisans. They are worthy of a status in this community. They are worthy also of being properly trained. I am determined to see that a pilot shearing school is established at Cootamundra and that from there we will be able to build shearing schools throughout the whole of the Commonwealth. </para>
          <para>The Government has a tremendous record in the field of social services. There has been continued progress and a willingness to seek out the areas of greatest need and to give those areas priority. I agree that areas of poverty still remain. Cheaper and better housing for pensioners is perhaps the greatest need. The problems of the large family are still very real, and the Government is preparing to tackle them. Every Australian born child is a tremendous asset to this country. Large families need and deserve greater assistance. Whilst we spend - and must spend - large sums of money on immigration there is an even more urgent need to assist the large family that is already here. Widows with children also require greater assistance. One could quote many urgent and deserving cases in this field. 1 hope to speak more fully on social services at a later date. </para>
          <para>There are many other subjects about which I would like to have spoken. I would like to have spoken about national service. I would like to see universal national service. I believe that this nation can afford it. This nation is worth defending and if we are to defend it effectively and to have allies come to our aid we must be prepared to stand alongside them and be able to fight with them. I look forward to a worthwhile and fruitful session. We who represent the country areas are determined to obtain a much better deal for the people who are the backbone of this nation. </para>
          <para>Debate (on motion by <inline font-weight="bold">Dr Everingham)</inline> adjourned. </para>
        </speech>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY</title>
        <page.no>268</page.no>
        <type>miscellaneous</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para>Motion (by <inline font-weight="bold">Mr N.</inline> H. Bowen) - by leave - agreed to: </para>
      <quote>
        <para>That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian National University Act 1946-1967, this House elects the honourable member for Warringah <inline font-weight="bold">(Mr MacKellar)</inline> to be a member of the Council of the Australian National University in place of the former honourable member for Denison. </para>
      </quote>
    </debate>
    <adjournment>
      <adjournmentinfo>
        <page.no>268</page.no>
        <time.stamp>22:54:00</time.stamp>
      </adjournmentinfo>
      <para class="block">House adjourned at 10.54 p.m. </para>
    </adjournment>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <answers.to.questions>
    <debate>
      <debateinfo>
        <title>ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>269</page.no>
        <type>ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo>
      <para class="block">The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: </para>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation (Question No. 2)</title>
          <page.no>269</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>KXI</name.id>
              <electorate>STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA</electorate>
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WEBB, Charles</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Webb</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Treasurer, upon notice: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>Will the Government give consideration to including ambulance transport expenses with medical expenses as an allowable tax deduction. </para>
          </quote>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>269</page.no>
              <name.id>JTP</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">BURY, Leslie</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Bury</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answer to the honourable member&#39;s question is as follows: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>A number of representations have been received for amendment of the law to allow deductions for income tax purposes for ambulance transport expenses. lt is the Government&#39;s practice to examine the many requests that have been made for taxation concessions when it is preparing the annual Budget. The representation made by the honourable member will be considered when the 1970-71 Budget is being drawn up. </para>
          </quote>
          <para>Embassies in Australia (Question No. 12) </para>
        </answer>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>BV8</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">CALWELL, Arthur</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Calwell</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal">
            <item label="(1)">
              <para>What Embassies accredited to the Commonwealth of Australia have not yet established their headquarters in Canberra. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(2)">
              <para>Is he able to say why these Embassies have not established their headquarters in the national capital. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(3)">
              <para>Are any steps under consideration to persuade Embassies concerned to establish themselves in Canberra; if so, what steps. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(4)">
              <para>In what city or cities, other than Canberra, is any Ambassador or are any Ambassadors located. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>269</page.no>
              <name.id>009MA</name.id>
              <electorate>LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES</electorate>
              <party>LP</party>
              <role>Minister for External Affairs</role>
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">MCMAHON, William</name>
              <name role="display">Mr McMahon</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- I assume that the honourable member&#39;s question refers to Embassies established in Australia at locations outside Canberra, and not to non-resident Ambassadors who are dually accredited to Australia. If this is so, the answer to the honourable member&#39;s question is as follows: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <list type="decimal">
            <item label="(1)">
              <para>and (4) The Embassy of Lebanon, which is in Sydney. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(2)">
              <para>Lebanon had a Consulate-General in Sydney. It was converted into an Embassy in February 1968, and it was agreed at thai time that the Embassy would be removed to Canberra within a reasonable period. It is still the intention of the Lebanese Government to move the Embassy to Canberra. </para>
            </item>
            <item label="(3)">
              <para>The Department of External Affairs has been discussing with the Embassy the moving of the Embassy to Canberra. </para>
            </item>
          </list>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
      <subdebate.1>
        <subdebateinfo>
          <title>Export of Australian Cultural Property (Question No. 39)</title>
          <page.no>269</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo>
        <question>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>269</page.no>
              <time.stamp />
              <name.id>6U4</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party />
              <role />
              <in.gov>0</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">WHITLAM, Gough</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Whitlam</name>
            </talker>
            <para>asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>What progress has been made by the interdepartmental committee convened in 1968 to consider the question of controls over the export of Australian cultural property. </para>
          </quote>
        </question>
        <answer>
          <talk.start>
            <talker>
              <page.no>269</page.no>
              <name.id>KH5</name.id>
              <electorate />
              <party>LP</party>
              <role />
              <in.gov>1</in.gov>
              <first.speech>0</first.speech>
              <name role="metadata">GORTON, John</name>
              <name role="display">Mr Gorton</name>
            </talker>
            <para>- The answer to the honourable member&#39;s question is as follows: </para>
          </talk.start>
          <quote>
            <para>The interdepartmental committee which is looking into this question met recently. As I told the right honourable member for Melbourne last September (Hansard, 26th September 1969, page 2157), inquiries are being made about existing relevant legislation in the States and overseas. Consideration of this matter involves die rights of individuals as well as the national interest and 1 would not expect an easy or an early solution. </para>
          </quote>
        </answer>
      </subdebate.1>
    </debate>
  </answers.to.questions>
</hansard>