COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
SPEECH BY
The Rt Hon. HAROLD HOLT, M. P.,
ON
ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VIP FLIGHT
Ministerial Statement
[ From the ' Parliamentary Debates', 4 October 1967]
Mr HAROLD HOLT ( Higgins-Prime
Minister)--by leave-It would have become
obvious, I think, to all members of the
Parliament that in recent times lines of
criticism have developed in certain sections
of the Press and also amongst some
members of the Parliament directed against
the conduct of the VIP flight. This criticism
has been directed in such a way as to give
quite a distorted picture to the public of
the way in which the flight operatcs and
the extent and nature of its use. I felt that
the Parliament should have an authoritative
statement before it so that any comment
that might be made in future would at
least be made against the background of
an accurate and comprehensive statement
of the recent history of this flight. I propose
in-the course of my statement to give the
House some facts showing how the flight
has developed over recent years. I use the
term ' developed' in the context of the aircraft
currently employed. There were nine
aircraft in the flight in 1958. When the
replacements have been received and the
planes that they replace have been removed
there will be nine aircraft operating again
in the flight. Recent history will fihow
that this is not a matter which has suddenly
leapt ahead in recent times and indeed it
13945/ 67 will show that for several years Cabinet
has been giving consideration to the problem
which was arising with the obsolescence
of some elements of the flight-the need to
replace some and the need to have a more
diverse range of aircraft for the changing
and varying conditions to be found around
the continent of Australia.
The VIP flight has actually been in
operation for somewhere in the neighbourhood
of 20 years, but it is over more recent
times that criticism of its use has intensified.
1, therefore, put these facts before the
Parliament. I go back to November 1962
when the Cabinet decided to appoint a
Cabinet committee to consider the replacement
of the flight with modern aircraft.
By April 1963 the committee had carried
on its own investigation and had decided
that there was a need, not only for replacement,
but for a more ready availability of
aircraft to assist Ministers and to deal with
the increasing VIP traffic coming to this
country. The committee authorised the
Minister for Air to investigate the possibility
of immediate replacement of or
additions to the existing flight pending the
introduction of pure jets. It was decided to
recommend to Cabinet that an order be
placed for three DH125 aircraft at that
time and that civil aviation aircraft supplement
the operations of the Royal Australian
Air Force flight. In point of fact, while
Cabinet endorsed the recommendation in
June 1963 for the purchase of the three
aircraft to replace threc Dakotas and agreed
that consideration should next be given to
the replacement of the ageing Convair
Metropolitans * by aircraft of the BACIII
type, it did not go ahead with the order of
the DH125 aircraft because in January
1964 it decided in favour of Mysteres as
being more suitable for Australian circumstances.
It also at that time agreed that the
suitability of adding Viscounts to the VIP
flight be immediately investigated.
This consideration went on through 1964
when Cabinet decided to buy two Viscount
aircraft to supplement the existing Convairs
and Dakotas and to leave in abeyance the
purchase of any jet aircraft. The Minister
for Air was to keep the requirements of
the flight under review, and in November
1965 Cabinet considered the whole question
and authorised the purchase of three
Mystere aircraft and two Hawker Siddeley
748 aircraft. These five aircraft were to
replace five Dakotas which, at that point
of time, were 20 years old. Orders were
to be placed for two BACI 11 aircraft to
replace two Convair Metropolitans which,
at that time, were 9 years old.
It will be seen from this recital of the
facts that no aircraft actually has been
ordered in the life of my own Government.
I say that not because I do not accept full
responsibility for, or approve of, the decisions
which were taken earlier but because
a picture seems to have been conjured up
in the public mind that we have suddenly
leapt into some expansion of the service
here in Australia whereas, in fact, the
decisions on which orders were placed were
taken back in November 1965. 1 do not
think that anybody who had any contact
with my predecessor, Sir Robert Menzies,
would ever argue that he was a spendthrift
of the public money. I know of no public
leader in my time who had greater regard
for the careful use of public funds. I made
the point that the fleet we now have was
ordered back in November 1965. It replaced
very old aircraft. In fact, my colleague the
Minister for Air reported to Cabinet that
the Chief of the Air Staff had told him that
the Dakota aircraift had reached a point at which they were below reasonably safe
operating conditions for use as VIP aircraft
and that in a short space of time would
have had to be declared unfit for such use.
As to the capital cost of these aircraft
-again there has been an attempt to conjure
up a picture of a great splurge of
expenditure in one year-this was spread
over a period of three financial years commencing
in 1965-66. It is perhaps typical
of the kind of criticism we have had to face
that one newspaper I saw recently stated
that to increase the age pension by
would cost about $ 20m a year whereas we
were spending $ 21 .6m on these aircraft.
Not only were the payments spread over 3
years; normally one can expect these aircraft
to have an operational life of 10 to
15 years.
Mr Duthie-What was the cost?
Mr HAROLD HOLT-They cost S21.6m.
I will refer to that matter in a moment. This
was the cost of the aircraft only, the fly
away cost, and included the price of spares
and matters of that sort. I do not need to
go into too much detail about the Dakota
aircraft. They are well known to honourable
members. They were great work
horses in their time. When the time came
for them to be replaced, the Minister
pointed out that for our VIP aircraft there
were two principal requirements. In the
majority of eases the use of VIP aircraft
involves the carriage of small numbers of
passengers over the main routes of Australia.
This is their role for a good deal of the
time and for this purpose we need a small,
fast, reasonably comfortable aircraft.
Secondly, there is -a small but significant
number of operations which involve the use
of relatively undeveloped airfields of limited
length. For these operations an aircraft
equipped with turbo propeller engines was
required; an aircraft with -better takeoff and
landing performances. The Mystere met the
first requirement and the Hawker Siddeley
748 met the second requirement.
The Mystere is described customarily in
the Press and by some of our parliamentary
critics as a luxury jet. I have flown in this
aircraft several times. It has the great merit
of speed. When I heard a member from
another place talking about the chicken
and bubbly and so forth which were available
in the aircraft I wished he had been
with me on Monday. We were flying over
the Australian Alps. He would have had
great difficulty in controlling either of those
commodities at that time. The standards of
catering are similar to those which have
always existed in the aircraft. I am sure
some could paint a pretty picture of the
services and standards provided. But as one
who has been a very regular user of the
VIP flight, I find that salad, in which the
ice has not been quite thawed out, and
lacking the flavour of a home cooked meal,
soon loses its appeal. When we were
coming back from Western Australia
recently, after attending the opening of the
North West Cape naval communication
establishment, my wife thought that, in
order to secure a change of diet for us, she
should order some pies and sausage rolls.
That was the luxury meal that we had on
that occasion.
For the replacement of the two Convair
Metropolitan' aircraft, the Minister recommended
the BAC111 which was somewhat
cheaper than the generally comparable
DC9. As I have said, the need for special
air transport available to the Commonwealth
Government has been recognised for
some 20 years and the business of Government
would be certainly less efficient if
the most senior Ministers had their work
and travel restricted to the rigid timetables
of the commercial airlines. I illustrate this
point by a look at the Canberra airline
schedules. There were no commercial flights
to Sydney today between 9.30 a. m. and
12.30 p. m. There is a 3-hour gap in the
morning and a 4-hour gap in the afternoon
on most days to Melbourne. There are no
daily flights to Sydney after 9.15 p. m. or to
Melbourne after 6 p. m. There are no daily
flights into Canberra from Sydney after
8.15 p. m. and none from Melbourne after
6.30 p. m. At weekends, when the business
of government, certainly in my own case,
and in the case of most of my other
Ministers, still goes on, the normal
schedules are even more limiting. The
schedules to other capital cities are even
more restricted.
The work of government goes on around
the clock and I think I can fairly claim to
average an 80-hour working week. Work
must continue even while we are flying to a
destination. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Whitlam) could confirm
this from his own experience. The aircraft
serves as a flying office, with staff available.
The use of executive aircraft is common to
governments of most other countries. This
is particularly the case in the United States
of America and Canada, where industrial
development and distances provide comparable
problems with those experienced in
Australia; and the availability is certainly
no less in Great Britain and other European
countries.
I mentioned earlier that when the decision
was made in 1965 to re-equip, the VIP
flight then consisted of nine aircraft, as
indeed it has since 1958. We purchased 2
Vickers Viscounts second hand that were
built in 1959 and 1960, 2 Convair Metropolitans
and 5 Dakotas. The Convair
Metropolitans and the Vickers Viscounts
are no longer in production, so that even
had we chosen to replace the ageing aircraft
with others of the same type we would not
have been able to procure them. The VIP
flight remains a flight of nine aircraft, and
for some time still it will include the two
Vickers Viscounts, which however have
only a limited operating life to run.
I can give the House some idea of the
extent of use, and, indeed, the character
of use, of the aircraft. From January to
June of this year the aircraft were used
by the Governor-General of Australia on
41 occasions, by myself on 46 occasions,
by the Treasurer ( Mr McMahon) on
occasions and by the Minister for Trade
and Industry ( Mr McEwen) on 22 occasions.
It will be seen that apart from those
relating to the Governor-General-who is
required to make frequent journeys for
ceremonial purposes-those figures relate
to the three most senior members of
Cabinet. No other Minister reached double
figures in his use of the aircraft, and seven
Ministers did not use the flight at all. Other
users were visiting rIPs. The service is
available to, and has been used by, the
Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy
Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Barnard)
and by officials, including the Service
chiefs. It might be of some interest to the House
to have an indication of the actual VIP
use of this flight in the past 12 months.
The users included Prince Charles, the
Prime Minister of Thailand, the Queen
Mother, the New Zealand Minister -of
Defence, the New Zealand Deputy Prime
Minister, the Canadian Secretary of State,
the British . Secretary for the Colonies,
the President of the British Board of Trade,
The Prime Minister of Malta, the Prime
Minister of South Vietnam, the Governor
of the National Bank of Cambodia, the
Malaysian Minister of Defence, the British
Secretary for Commonwealth Affairs, Princess
Alexandra, the Duke of Edinburgh,
the Foreign Minister of Israel, the Deputy
Prime Minister of Malaysia, the Secretary-
General of the Commonwealth Secretariat,
the Prime Minister of New Zealand and
the Indian and Pakistani parliamentary
delegations. Some of these visitors had
large retinues and official staff. For instance,
on one occasion it was necessary for us
to provide two Viscounts and one DC3 in
order to transport a visiting party around
Australia. For ceremonial visits there is
-always a large number of persons to be
carried and a large quantity of luggage,
and this often necessitates the provision of
more than one aircraft.
Particularly in relation to VIP users of
the service, the serviceability of the aircraft
at the time is a matter of importance. These
people are holding to tight schedules on
significant public occasions. I found, in
arranging to welcome the Prime Minister
of New Zealand, that two of the aircraft
we had sought to make available to him
were unserviceable, and a third aircraft had
to be found. Last Friday, when I had to
attend in Sydney with the President of Italy,
I found that two of the Mystere jets, one
of which I would have normally used,
were unserviceable, and a third aircraft had
to be made available. In other words, some
margin of utility has to be available if these
tight schedules are to be met. In the case
of visiting VIPs in particular we usually
have to have standby aircraft-this applies
most certainly in the cases of members of
the Royal Family and visiting Prime Ministers-
in case they would otherwise be
unable to carry out their commitments.
The use of these aircraft is strictly limited
and controlled, and only two Ministers have
authority in relation to this. Other than in
my own case and that of the Governor-
General or a member of the Royal Family,
the use of the aircraft is part of the responsibility
and exercise of ministerial authority of the Minister for Air. In cases where he
entertains some doubt as -to an application
he consults with me, so that, between us,
we exercise, on behalf of the Government,
the responsibility in relation to this service.
In simple -terms, thanks to this service,
Ministers can travel long distances quickly,
they can work on their way in reasonable
comfort and with security for classified
documents, and when they travel together
they have useful opportunities for continuing
discussions and for consultations.
The use of executive aircraft is common
these days, not only with governments but
with large companies in various parts of
the world. I know of one European company
with a turnover smaller than the
defence vote of this country which maintains
a flight of the same dimension as
ours. There would be at least half a dozen
American companies that maintain a flight
of the same dimension as our own. Proportionately,
I would say without hesitation,
the flights maintained by the governments
of the United States of America, Canada
and the United Kingdom would all be considerably
larger-even taking the difference
of population into account-than the Australian
flight.
What is often lost sight of, quite apart
from the service provided for Ministers,
officials, the Leader of the Opposition, the
Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others,
is the role that the flight plays in the training
of Air Force personnel. It provides a
valuable training medium in a variety of
directions, and many transport pilots have
received a course of training in VIP aircraft
before passing on to the work of transport
pilot in the Air Force proper. The hours
flown count towards the qualification of airmen
in various aspects of their air service.
It is this training role which makes the
problem of costing, to which I will refer in
a moment, complex if a clear and not misleading
picture is to be available to the
public. As to the use of these aircraft by VIPs
coming to Australia, it will be a matter of
common knowledge that the number of such
persons is increasing considerably as
Australia's significance and economic importance
grow throughout the world. I am
sure that all honourable members will have
been struck by the increase in interest which
heads of government, senior political figures
and senior industrial figures from other parts
of the world are manifesting in Australia
these days. Aircraft of the VIP flight, as I
have indicated, are available to Royal Aus-
-tralian Air Force pilots from all branches.
These* aircraft provide training for pilots in
modern aircraft and a necessary opportunity
to build up their flying time to the
level required by the Service.
The test as to whether a reasonable use
is made of the flight is, I suggest to thc
House, a matter of the responsibility of
~' those directly concerned, and they are the
Minister for Air and myself. If I felt that
the Minister for Air was not behaving
. responsibly in relation to the service, I could
take action. If the public thought that I was
not behaving responsibly in the role which
I play in relation to -the service I have nio
doubt that it would -take action against
me. This has a bearing on the problem of
costs. I have looked into this matter to see
whether a dissection of costs is feasible
as between uses of the aircraft, including
training purposes for which the aircraft are
used, and to make a dissection in such a
way as to present a realistic picture. I have
no doubt that the Air Force could come
up with a figure showing the total cost of
operating the service, but if you wanted a
realistic picture there would necessarily
have to be some division between the
training role of the aircraft and its other
uses. The training costs would vary, in
respect of a particular aircraft, almost
from flight to flight, depending on which
members of the crew are undergoing training
and the duration of that training. If
there were several Ministers in one aircraft,
should the cost be spread over the
various departments which they administer?
If there were in the one aircraft three or
four senior Service officials-perhaps thc
three Chiefs of Staff-do you spread the
cost through each of the Services?
It is my understanding that the Public
Accounts Committee, having looked at this
general problem in other directions, has
come to the conclusion that it is not satisfactory
to try to spread over a number of
departments the cost carried by a particular
department for services rendered to those
other departments. But I have no wish to
deny to the public or to the Parliament information which should reasonably be
available to them. It has never been my
practice to do so. This flight operates as an
essential element in the structure of govern--
ment. If ways and means could be found
of determining costs in a realistic waynot
a misleading way which would present
a false picture to the public-I would be
only too willing to see that course pursued.
I do not know which would be the most
appropriate body to do this. I imagine that
the Treasury contains more expertise on
these matters than any other area of government
that I could point -to and I would bewilling
to have the matter examined there.
Before I conclude perhaps I could deal
with what I might term some of the
mythology that has developed around'
this subject. I have already given one or
two illustrations of how far fetched some
of the criticism has been. Seeing that I have
been. involved in one, or two of these*
criticisms perhaps I could give the facts. I
know that a picture has been conjured upin
the public mind of frequent use of these
aircraft by members of my family. T1herehas
been only one instance since I ' became
Prime Minister on which members of my
family have travelled on an aircraft which
was not an aircraft carrying me to my
destination. In that instance the ' aircraft was
proceeding to Melbourne to pick up four
Ministers for the return journey to Canberra.
That was the extent of the incident
about which criticism was raised on that
occasion. One or two of my friends opposite havebeen
making gibes about the use of an air--
craft for a fishing trip. The facts of the
matter are that being in Rockhamptonnobody
has challenged my use of the air-.
craft to go to Rockhampton-I proceeded'
in the aircraft to Townsville. It was not
necessary for me to proceed to Townsville
in that aircraft. I was picked up in Townsville
in a privately owned aircraft and taken
to my destination, which was Dunk Island.
The aircraft belonged to a friend, who had
come from Sydney earlier, and he could
just as easily have picked me up at Rockhampton
as at Townsville.
What critics overlook is that a Prime
Minister is never able to divorce himself
from his job. He is never in a real sense
absent from his duty. I had to have staff'
with me from Rockhampton to Townsville.
Wherever I go my staff must be available.
They have to keep in touch with the
enormous machine that runs the business of
this country. They were stationed by me.
I repeat that in a very real sense a Prime
Minister is never off duty. I only wish that
sometimes I could be. That particular
weekend was the first in three on which I
had not been tied -up with official functions.
I hope that not too many honourable
members opposite will begrudge me an
opportunity to have a little recreation and
fresh air occasionally at the weekend. That
is the extent of the incident for which they
would level criticism.
The other matter about which I would
like to clear the air is what I regard as a
malicious and cruel presentation of an episode
in which my colleague, the Treasurer,
was involved when his young daughter was
seriously burned. His doctor advised that
she should be taken as speedily as possible
to a Sydney hospital in case skin grafting
had to be carried out. The allegation was
made that an aircraft was specially provided
for this purpose. An aircraft had been
previously ordered for the Treasurer, as was
his entitlement. He travels around with a mass of classified documents and normally
works while on his journeys. All that he
did on this occasion was advance the aircraft's
departure time by half an hour in
order to see that his young daughter was
given a proper opportunity to have hospital
treatment. Some of the newspaper editorials
directed towards this episode showed how
malicious and unreasonable some elements
of the Press can be when a public figure or
a politician is involved in a matter. I take
this opportunity to put the, facts before the
House. I hope that I have given honourable
members enough detailed material to enable
them to see the operation of the service in
its true perspective. If there are to be criticisms
let them be honest criticisms, not
politically motivated or designed to demean
the politician in the eyes of those who are
always too ready to accept criticisms of
those of us who sit in this place. With this
background I hope, that honourable members
will be better equipped to deal with
comments about this matter when they come
under their notice. I present the following
paper: Royal Australian Air Force VIEP Flight-Ministerial
Statement, 4 October 1967.
By Authority: A. J. Airnit, Commnonwealth Government Printer, Canberra