JEMBARGO: CHECK AGAIN4ST DELI VERY
STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTE-R,
THE RT. HON. HAROLD HOLT IN4 THE
HOUSE CF REPRESENTATIVES
24RD OCTOBER, 1967
CO-,' STING OF V. I. P. FLIGHTS
The House will recall that when making a statement recently
on the V. I. P. flight, I said I would examine the feasibility of some realistic
dissection of costs so that more information could be given to the Parlianentl
and I eXiTessed the view that the Treasury would be the most appropriate
body wihi the necessary expertise and objectivity to conduct such an
examination. I immediately followed this assurance given to the House by
asking my colleagues, the Minister for' Air and the Acting Treasurer, to
have examined the possibility of establishing a realistic basis for the
assessment of costs attributable to V. 1. P. flights and the financial policy
implications of the recovery of such costs by the Department of A ir from
other Depe,-rtments. In the light of the Treasury examination I now make the following
comment. In doing so, I remind Honourable Members that No. 34 Squadron
is an integral part of the R. F. and must be there in time of war to
provide transport and communications services. Currently the flights made
are mainly for the purpose of V. I. P. transport, for training, for air tests,
for ferrying, and for Squadron support. But in a time of emergency, there
would be both a national and a defence requirement for fast, secure and
independent transport and communication, for example, for the carriage
of serv ice-chiefs, for other direct service purposes and for the carriage
of persons directly connected with the defence side of Government. This,
of course, carries with it the need for air crew trained for these services.
I t has been regarded as the function of the Air Force to provide and conduct
this Squadron. Its operations clearly would, in an emergency, be integrated
with other R. A. A. F. tra-nsport arrangements.
In other words, No. 34 Squadron has, prospectively, a full
defence role in dir ect terms and in other ways directly related to the
national defence effort. Having re-gard to this, the capital costs of the
Squadron and certain other charges may be considered pyroperly attributable
to defence appropriations. This is not to deny that V. I. P. transport
requirements have not been allowed for in the re-equipment programme
or that certain f itting out with V. I. P. transport purposes in mind has taken
place. But neither is it to deny the defence support capability. Accordingly,
the Treasury, in its findings, has based its calculations for the costing of
V. 1. P. flights on an extra cost basis.
The Treasury has agreed, with the Department of Air, that
these costs comprise aircraft flying costs, aircraft handling at civil airports
and catering. The aircraft flying costs in turn comprise fuel and oil, tyres,
o xygen, spares and servicing by controctors. / 2
-2-
This basis means that certain items are eliminated from the
costing on the ground that they would be incurred in any event that is to
say, as a consequence of defence policy provision against a time of
emergency. These items include amortization and interest on the cost of
capital facilities, including aircraft, the pay and allowances and upkeep
of crews and other Squadron personnel, and support provided by Base
Squadron Fairbairn and other R. A. A. F. formations.
On this basis, the Treasury has been able to indicate the cost
of V. I. P. flights for the year 1967/ 68 that is the current financial year.
Its estimate is an amount of approximately $ 45C, CO.. The actual amount
could be somewhat higher this year and will certainly be higher next year
when the more modern aircraft are fully in operation. On the other hand,
there will be gains in efficiency and considerable saving of time in the air
on many flights for Ministers, their staffs and other users. The 1967/ 68
estimate provides for travel by senior service officers to be regarded as
a proper charge to the defence appropriations and not to V. I. P. flights.
Travel by the Defence and Service Ministers, however, is in this
calculation being attributed to V. I. P. flights even though their travel is
in part directly associated with defence and service assignments.
I now move to the question of charging out of costs.
As a general rule, it is not the policy for one Department to
recover from another Department costs of carrying out functions for which
it is responsible except in respect of services provided to or by business
undertakings such as the Postmaster-General. This rule has, I understand,
the general support of the joint Committee of Public Accounts. Treasury
suggests that this policy should be adhered to except in special circumstances.
It goes on to say, however, that if recovery is to be made, it would not
think that the costs should be recovered from every Department involved
but rather that they should be met from a separate appropriation item of
the Prime Minister's Department. This strikes me as being both practical
and sensible. My own Department is the most appropriate in view of
certain of its central responsibilities, and also since it is responsible for
costs relating to visits of Government guests from abroad and for the
travel costs of the Governor-General. The Government has decided to
adopt this procedure. These costs therefore will be charged to the Prime
Minister's Department. Payments from the Prime Minister's Departmert
will thereafter be credited to the relevant appropriations of the Department
of Air. This will have the effect of reducing defence expenditure by the
amount of the payments by the Prime Minister's Department. It is proposed
to institute this procedure in 1967/ 68 with funds initially provided to Prime
Minister's Department from Treasurer's advance pending additional estimates.
Except for service purposes any use of V. I. P. aircraft must be
approved by the Governor-General in respect of his own use of them and
that of his staff and myself or the Minister for Air in respect of all other
use. Similarly passengers must be approved within the same group, that
is by the Governor-General for those in aircraft occupied by him and by
myself or the Minister for Air in relation to all other passengers.
A number of questions which have been asked in the Senate are
also being answered today. This information will be available to Members
of the House of Representatives in Hansard. Some of the detail. sought was
so extensive, that it did not seem appropriate to handle it in that way.
Consequently, the details will be tabled in the Senate, and I propose to
table them here together with the questions and answers which relate to
them. / 3
-3-
Parliament is entitled to facts, if they can be procured, which
will enable Members to-form a judgment as to the purposes served by
the flight and the manner in which it is being conducted. My concern all
along h,-s been to ensure that the Parliament was not given a misleading
picture because of the type and range of questions. This prompted me to
make my first statement to the House which I have now supplemented. I
wish to add some further comments.
I have stressed more than once that responsibility for the
conduct of the V. I. P. flight rests with the Minister for Air and myself.
I hope this has not been overlooked by its critics. I am no more sensitive
to press and public criticism than most public men. After all, I experience
it on most of the seven days each week for fifty-two weeks of the year. I
do not claim to be a modern Gulliver, but usually I manage to shrug these
criticisms off as Gulliver did the darts of the Lilliputians. But there are
some forms of criticism to which I do react quite strongly. These are
criticisms of an unfair kind which undermine the status and authority of
Parliament, and which belittle whether thoughtlessly or cruelly decent,
conscientious men who serve in the Parliament and in the Ministry.
I have flown the best part of 25C, 000 miles since I became
Prime Minister. I do not fly for the fun of it. Some of it is uncomfortable:
most of it is tiring, and altogether it can be quite exhausting. The best
part of any flight for me is the walk out of the plane down the aircraft
steps. But the V. I. P. flight has enabled me to keep many more official
commitments with organisations and people all around Australia. I have
been able to see a great deal more of the three million square miles of
this continent and of the many projects contributing so much to our
development. In the recent week of Parliamentary recess so-called
I was able to keep official commitments in four capitals. No less
importantly, it has enabled me, as it has many of my colleagues, to devote
time more efficiently to the business of Cabinet and Department.
All this has somehow been conjured up by some as something
improper, inappropriate or unreasonable. There are always to be found
those who seize on any opportunity to demean Members of this Parliament.
SThere have been attempts to paint a picture of Australian
Ministers enjoying V. I. P. flight privileges not matched anywhere else
in the world. This, of course, is absurd. I recall being flown in a
British Government aircraft from Northern Ireland to London fifteen
years ago. When I attended the Finance Ministers meeting at Accra in
Ghana in 1963, my opposite number from Canada arrived in a four-engined
aircraft provided by his Government. During my years as Treasurer, I
was flown by the then Secretary of the United States Treasury, Mr. Douglas
Dillon, in the four-engined aircraft provided for his official use. In my
travels as Prime Minister I have been provided with this courtesy several
times. This has become a matter of course in many other countries. My
colleague, the Minister for External Affairs, has told me that Mr. Paul
Martin, his opposite number in Canada, wishing to speak to him in Ottawa,
sent a jet star aircraft to collect him, and arranged for him to be returned
by the same aircraft after talks had concluded.
As I have said previously, the V. I. P. flight is an adjunct of
modern, efficient Government. Nobody questions the use by the Department
of Civil Aviation of its fleet of seventeen aircraft. The V. I. P. flight
consisted of nine aircraft in 19C5. It is still a flight of nine aircraft. / 4
-4AV-.
hen replacements were decided upon in 19165, we acted on the best
technic~ 1 service advice available to us to get aircraft as nearly comparable
as could be obtained to thcse which had become obsolescent and to serve
the same purposes that is acan adjunct of modern Government. This
fact seems to have been overlooked by those Senators who question my
use of these aircraft in an election campaign. The business of the Australian
Government does not cease because an election is proceeding. The alrcraft
is a flying office in which my staff and I carry on our work as best we can.
It assists me to return to my Department the more speedily even while an
election campaign is in progress. I am sure that most A--ustralians will see
the uses of the flight sensibly in their proper setting, if the facts are not
distorted for them.