House of Representatives
17 October 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2087

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bourchier, Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Burns, Mr Falconer, Mr Jarman, Mr Peter Johnson, Mr Lynch, Mr Martyr, Mr Peacock and Mr Scholes.

Petitions received.

Fishing

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the agreement between the Commonwealth and Japanese governments granting Japanese long line fishing boats access to Australia’s recently declared two hundred mile fishing zone for a fee of SI. 4m will seriously imperil the world’s largest population of black martin which inhabit the North Queensland waters and consequently endanger the invaluable tourist and ancillary industries in that area which depend on big game fishing. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will declare:

  1. How many Japanese long line boats will be allowed to enter the Australian fishing zone in the year of the agreement;
  2. How many tonnes of black martin the Japanese will be allowed to catch;
  3. What is the composition of the overseas interests, referred to by the former Minister in his ministerial statement of September 25, which have expressed interest in carrying out feasibility fishing projects;
  4. Whether the Japanese-Australian Fishing Agreement includes provision for a portion of the foreign catch to be processed in Australia;
  5. What assurances on access to the Japanese market for Australian fish and fish products have been given by the Japanese;
  6. What was the basis for the calculation of the fee which the Japanese will pay for access to the AFZ;
  7. Were any guarantees given by the Japanese for the protection and conservation of black martin numbers in the AFZ:

And asks that the Government undertake not to re-issue the licences to the Japanese fishermen next year when the terms of access are again reviewed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Mr Armitage, Mr Cohen, Dr Everingham, Mr Fry, Mr Humphreys, Mr Charles Jones, Mr Kerin, Mr Leo McLeay and Mr Wallis.

Petitions received.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the price of LPG in Victoria has risen by $80 per tonne since November 1978 as a result of Federal Government policy thereby causing hardship to country consumers using LPG for cooking, heating and hot water and to decentralized industries using LPG for industrial purposes.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. . that the Federal Government should abolish its so called export parity’ pricing policy for LPG consumed in Australia.
  2. that the price of Bass Strait LPG sold on the Australian market should be related to the true cost of production plus a fair margin of profit for the producers;
  3. that all LPG ex. Bass Strait consumed on the Australian market should be free of excise levy;
  4. that there should be no restriction on availability of LPG ex. Bass Strait to meet the requirements of the Australian market;
  5. that the price of LPG ex. oil refineries should be established by the P.J.T. at parity with Bass Strait LPG consumed on the Australian market;

  6. that pending the establishment of a fair price in accordance with Clause 2 above and to provide some immediate relief to country consumers:

    1. the existing excise on Bass Strait LPG consumed in Australia be abolished forthwith, thus providing a reduction in price of $27.60 per tonne for propane,
    2. that the windfall profit that Esso/B.H.P. is enjoying as a result of the increase in price of LPG from $ 1 1 0 to $147 per tonne be directed to Australian consumers rather than the Federal Treasury through excise, thus providing an additional decrease in the present price of $37.00 per tonne.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bourchier, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Falconer, Mr Fife, Mr Fisher, Mr Malcolm Fraser, Mr Keith Johnson, Mr Lynch and Mr Scholes.

Petitions received.

Education

To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, of the Australian Parliament assembled.

The petition of certain citizens of NSW.

Respectfully showeth:

Dismay at the reduction in the total expenditure on education proposed for 1980 and in particular to Government Schools.

Government Schools bear the burden of these cuts, 1 1.2 per cent while non-Government school will receive an increase of 3.4 per cent

We call on the Government to again examine the proposals as set out in the guidelines for Education expenditure 1980 and to immediately restore and increase substantially in real terms the allocation of funds for education expenditure in 1 980 to Government schools.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lionel Bowen, Mr Bradfield, Mr Hunt, Mr Kerin, Mr Lucock, Mr Lusher and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Sale of Publicly Owned Enterprises

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

There is a definite limit to the quantity of Australia’s mineral resources.

Accordingly our resources should be managed and developed under Australian ownership and control.

Publicly owned trading enterprises and corporations have been established and operated for the benefit of Australians since Federation.

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, Australian Wheat Board, were all designed to operate to the benefit of our Nation as a whole under public ownership.

The Fraser government’s irresponsible proposals to sell off our Nation’s interest in the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and to dispose of other successful statutory corporations such as Trans Australia Airlines, would be contrary to the Nation’s interests.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright proposals of the Fraser government to sell the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and Trans Australia Airlines.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Arm it age and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Sale of Publicly Owned Enterprises

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

There is a limit to the capacity of Australia’s drug manufacturing industry in Australian hands.

Accordingly our resources should be managed and developed under Australian ownership and control.

Publicly owned trading enterprises and corporations have been established and operated for the benefit of Australians since Federation.

The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, Commonwealth Banking Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines, Qantas, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Australian Meat and

Livestock Corporation, Australian Wheat Board, were all designed to operate to the benefit of our Nation as a whole under public ownership.

The Fraser government’s irresponsible proposals to sell off our Nation’s interest in the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, and to dispose of other successful statutory corporations such as Trans Australia Airlines and the Fawnmac group of drug companies would be contrary to the Nation’s interests. Fawnmac still makes a profit of about half the proposed sale price in a year and costs the Australian government several times the proposed sale price. It provides the Pharmaceutical Benefits pricing negotiators within the Health Department with inside information on drug manufacturing costs and so prevents collusive monopolistic pricing by major transnational drug firms. It complements the resources of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories to make both Government owned drug firms more efficient and competitive by co-operation.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives will reject outright proposals of the Fraser government to sell the Ranger Uranium Mine, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Trans Australia Airlines and the Fawnmac group of companies.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Everingham and Mr Kerin.

Petitions received.

Refugees

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That a grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo-China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.

That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.

As a wealthy nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.

It should be possible for Australia to: establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year; mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.

The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia ‘s standing within the region.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burns, Mr Jarman and Mr Shipton.

Petitions received.

Marine Radio Licence Fees

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we strongly oppose the increase in Marine Radio Licence fees for the following reasons:

  1. 1 ) Radios are an essential part of safety equipment.
  2. Marine Radio users save the government millions of dollars in Search and Rescue.
  3. Increased licence fees will deter the boating fraternity from purchasing and using radios for their own safety and assistance to other craft will be therefore reduced.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the government will not only reconsider the increased licence fee, but consider a reduction of same in the interest of Safety. by Mr Charles Jones and Mr Morris.

Petitions received.

Unemployment

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That, as it is clear that unemployment is a long term problem in Australia, the Government should extend to the unemployed the same assistance as is given to any other disadvantaged member of the community. There is an urgent need to alleviate the financial hardship and emotional stress that the unemployed are suffering.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

  1. That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment.
  2. That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson.
  3. In line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20 per week.
  4. That the financial penalties above the earning of $20 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits.
  5. That the Commonwealth grant subsidies to state governments so that the unemployed can be granted transport concessions in order that they are not penalised in job seeking.
  6. That pharmaceutical and medical concessions be granted to the unemployed equivalent to those received by other Social Service beneficiaries.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Armitage.

Petition received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of electors of the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights. Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bradfield.

Petition received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of electors of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights. Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Everingham. Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilise whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Bradfield.

Petition received.

Intensive Livestock Farming

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we object in principle to Intensive Livestock Farming, namely the system of keeping animals in close confinement in artificial environments and feeding them entirely or pardy on concentrated foods with a variety of artificial additives.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

Legislation be introduced to eliminate the existence of both the abovememioned practices, namely (1) the close confinement of animals in artificial environments, and (2) the feeding of animals entirely or partly on concentrated foods with a variety of artificial additives.

Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Clyde Cameron.

Petition received.

Senate Elections

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that great concern is being caused by statements from the Queensland Premier, the Honourable Joh Bjelke-Petersen, which indicate that he is considering using clause 7 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, relating to Senate elections, in order to divide the State of Queensland into electorates from which senators are to be elected, so as to ensure that at the next half Senate election, the Premier’s wife, Mrs Florence Bjelke-Petersen, gains a Senate seat, and the Queensland branch of the National Party retains its present complement of three senators.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this House put an end to current and future speculation about the use of clause 7 of the Constitution by resolving that the State of Queensland remains as one indivisible electorate for the purpose of electing senators to the Commonwealth Parliament.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Mr Humphreys.

Petition received.

Brisbane Airport

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, showeth:

That great concern is being caused to residents in certain Brisbane suburbs by statements made by the Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association of Australia that the present phase 1 plan for the development of Brisbane’s International Airport is inadequate and would waste $ 1 78m because:

  1. a ) The airport would be incorrectly situated,
  2. The main runway is not positioned so as to minimise noise pollution and cross wind dangers and
  3. It would deter rather than encourage use by international airlines.

As residents of Brisbane suburbs which, according to the Civil Air Operations Officers, are likely to be affected by increased noise pollution as a result of the position and direction of the new proposed runway, your petitioners therefore pray the Government will (a) take note of the submission of the Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association of Australia to the Public Works Committee Public Hearing on the Brisbane Airport plans, and (b) ensure citizens of Brisbane that no increase in noise pollution will result from the Brisbane Airport Plan adopted by the Government.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys.

Petition received.

Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, showeth:

  1. that in comparison to Heidelberg and Concord repatriation general hospitals, the Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital in Brisbane has been discriminated against and deprived of basic facilities thereby placing at risk the lives and safety of patients;
  2. b ) that the Government has deliberately down-graded the repatriation services of the Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital in favour of the general hospital services.

Your petitioners therefore pray that this House will call on the Government to review its administration of the Greenslopes Repatriation General Hospital, and make available to that hospital the staff, funding, equipment and other resources provided other repatriation general hospitals, particularly Heidelberg and Concord repatriation general hospitals.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys.

Petition received.

Unemployment Benefit

To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the City of Nunawading in the Electorate of Deakin respectfully showeth:

Whereas:

  1. a ) The number of positions available throughout Australia is insufficient to provide the opportunity for fulltime employment for several hundred thousand Australians including School Leavers who have as yet been unable to avail themselves of work experience.
  2. The provisions of the Social Security Act be so modified as to permit all such persons to engage in part time employment without suffering the immediate disincentive of loss of Social Security support (Dole Money). The proposed modification to the Act to permit incomes at least to the Henderson ‘Poverty Level’ and to taper off in such manner as to maintain incentive to work.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia per medium of the Minister for Social Security give all directions to ensure that necessary action be taken without delay.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jarman.

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly paymentsthat the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. . Restore twice-yearly pension payments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of AWE.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

Health of Aboriginal Children

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that there are Australian Aboriginal children living under conditions of inadequate nutrition in a background of poor housing, hygiene, and overcrowding that amounts to a Third World enclave in the midst of affluence’ (see also the Report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs ‘Aboriginal Health’ 1979); that such a state of affairs is intolerable in our country; that only an effort on an unprecedented scale could create conditions that would give these children the rights set out in the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will make generous funding available for the specific purposes of: making a real improvement in the health, housing, education, employment and welfare of the Aboriginal people, doing so with due regard for the needs, hopes and aspirations of the Aboriginal people themselves; providing increased help, encouragement and opportunity for Aboriginal people to train as nursing aides and in other paramedical roles, and as fully qualified nurses, doctors and social workers; providing increased health education for Aboriginal people in ways that are acceptable to them. by Mr Ruddock.

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Lynch.

Petition received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the attached citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

We present this petition to seek a fairer and better deal for handicapped persons.

We urge you to implement this request through your Minister for Social Security.

The signatories to this petition are pleased to acknowledge the action your Government has taken to reverse the Budget announcement and therefore exclude the Invalid Pension from taxable income.

We now urge you to act in another area of discrimination to handicapped persons by: increasing the $20.00 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40.00 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40.00 per week level with CPI pension adjustments in the future.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you act in this area of discrimination to handicapped persons by increasing the $20.00 per week income allowed in a sheltered workshop to $40.00 per week, before that income begins to reduce pension benefits; and then tie the $40.00 per week level with CPI/pension adjustments in the future.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Shipton.

Petition received.

Fishing

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of concerned citizens respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That the black marlin is a national asset and is recognised as an endangered species;
  2. That the United States has totally banned long-line bill fishing for ten years;
  3. That over-fishing could cause great damage to the ecology of the marlin fishing grounds and also destroy the food chain for it and other species;
  4. That the game-fishing industry centred on the black marlin is a vital part of Far North Queensland’s tourist industry and its removal could cause a great revenue loss to tourist operators.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. 1 ) That the signing of the Commonwealth/Queensland agreement with Japan be delayed;
  2. That negotiations re-commence to allow a larger buffer zone from North of Lizard Island to the Torres Strait and in a straight line from Bramble Cay to East of the Swain Reefs off Gladstone to be declared;
  3. That during these further negotiations all long-line fishing be prohibited.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Thomson.

Petition received.

page 2092

AIR FARE AGREEMENT

Notice of Motion

Mr MORRIS:
Shortland

-I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That this House-

notes that despite repeated assurances to the contrary the Federal Government has failed to conclude a lower air fare agreement with Italy whereas agreements have already been signed with 11 other countries;

recognises that the unavailability of lower air fares to Italy effectively discriminates against the 700,000 Australians of Italian descent;

observes that there is widespread discontent in the Italian community as evidenced by a petition signed by tens of thousands of people calling for the early introduction of lower air fares to Italy;

further notes that no date has been set for the resumption of talks with the Italian government on lower air fares despite Qantas and Alitalia having reached agreement, and

is of the opinion that the Government should give the utmost priority to the conclusion of a lower air fare agreement with Italy and that provision be made for the special needs of families of Italian origin.

page 2092

DISALLOWED NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr Innes proceeding to give a notice qf motion-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I have ruled many times that a notice of motion ought to put a proposition before the House and should not state the arguments upon which the proposition will be debated. I suggest to the honourable gentleman that he look at his notice again, redraft it and the Clerk will receive it later this day. Alternatively, the honourable member can give notice tomorrow.

page 2092

PRIVILEGE

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. Yesterday in this House I asked a question of the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). I was given an answer. But my perusal of the Hansard today leads me to believe that the sense of that answer has been altered in the text of the Hansard- altered most dramatically, almost to produce a direct negative of the answer I was given. I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to establish whether a prima facie case of privilege exists by listening to the tape of the proceedings.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the honourable gentleman that he not pursue the matter as an issue of privilege. It is the practice of the House, when a member disagrees with the Hansard report, to bring it to my attention. It is the Presiding Officer’s responsibility to ensure that there is an accurate Hansard report. The honourable gentleman will point out to me where he believes that the report does not accurately reflect what was said. I will make my own inquiries. If I am satisfied that there has been a change in the meaning I will have the Hansard report altered. The honourable gentleman may take the matter up with me when I leave the chair.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you consider the manner in which the change has been made to the greens, the manuscript of the answer which was given, you will note that there has been a substantial change, to the point where there has been an effort to give a totally different import to the Minister’s response. That is tantamount to misleading.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I do not wish to have the matter debated at the moment. I will hear the honourable member for Parramatta. I will make my own inquiries. Then I will report to the House on what is recorded in the Hansard report and what I am satisfied was said.

Mr STREET:
Minister for Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Could I ask for your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to make a statement. I heard that there was some allegation that the Hansard greens had been altered in some way. I checked with the Principal Parliamentary Reporter. He has authorised me to say that any alterations to the greens of the questions or the debate on the matter of public importance were made by Hansard staff and were of an editorial nature only.

Mr Keating:

– On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have personally seen the green. If what the Minister said is the case, then Hansard is deciphering debate in this Parliament. Therefore, to expose the Minister, you should give an early hearing to the honourable member for Parramatta.

Mr Scholes:

– On the point of order, Mr Speaker. The explanation given by the Minister for Industrial Relations does not relate to the matter raised by the honourable member for Parramatta. The issue of privilege raised by the honourable member for Parramatta was that a misrepresentation of the answer to a question in this House had been placed in Hansard by alterations to the text of the answer. It did not refer to the debate on the matter of public importance at all, but to a question, which is a quite different matter.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I will hear the honourable member for Parramatta and report to the House. Does the Minister wish to say anything further?

Mr STREET:

-Mr Speaker, I do not know whether the House appreciates that the Principal Parliamentary Reporter authorised me to say that any alterations to the greens of the questions or the debate on the matter of public importance were made by Hansard staff and were of an editorial nature only. My comment applied equally to the questions.

Mr SPEAKER:

-There the matter must rest until I make inquiries.

page 2093

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2093

QUESTION

URANIUM SALES

Mr KEATING:

– I ask the Prime Minister a question about uranium. I refer him to the fact that approval has been given for the development of the Ranger, Nabarlek, Yeelirrie and Roxby Downs uranium deposits- that is, excluding Pancontinental Mining Ltd- and that production from the first three mines will reach 8,000 tonnes per annum by 1985 with at least a further 3,000 tonnes from Roxby Downs. Given that the Australian Atomic Energy Commission estimates of annual world demand for uranium have dropped from 115,000 tonnes in 1973 to 54,000 tonnes in 1978 and that the surplus in world uranium production will be more than 30,000 tonnes a year by 1985, does this not mean that Australian uranium will be in acute oversupply and will be sold into a buyers market with tumbling prices and safeguards deterioration? Will the Prime Minister confirm that not one new uranium contract has been entered into since 1972? Will he confirm that the one small prospect of sales to the Philippines is now receding and that the only other likely prospect at the moment is for modest sales to Britain? Finally, will he expatiate upon his Government’s bullish assessments for Australian uranium sales by telling the Parliament precisely where all this uranium is to be sold? May I ask respectfully that the answer be based upon fact and not upon rhetoric?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-As to the details of the honourable gentleman’s question, I will treat the question as placed on the Notice Paper and get a written reply to that as soon as I can. But, there are one or two general things that, I think, ought to be said. The Government has made decisions about the mining and export of uranium under the strictest possible safeguards because it believes that there is a need to supply energy in an energy-short world. I would have thought that some of the discussions on energy conservation and statements by representatives from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and others in recent days and the news in the Press this morning that there is a likelihood of a further price rise by some OPEC countries all indicate that there is at the very least a great scarcity of oil. I hope the honourable gentleman will accept that.

There is also an acceptance throughout European countries and in Japan and a great many other countries that if they are to have the energy that they need to keep their own industries going and to keep their homes warm in the winter, they will need to rely increasingly on nuclear generated electricity. Therefore, the trade is going to go on. I would have thought that it would be far better for the peaceful and proper prosecution of that trade for Australia to be very actively involved in it because that then strengthens our voice in non-proliferation matters and in making sure that the world nonproliferation regime is as effective as it possibly can be. That affects our security as it affects everyone ‘s security. It does not help Australian security at all for Australia to stay out of the business of selling uranium and let other people do it in the way that may be less secure and less safe than if Australia itself had been involved. So, Australian security in the longer term, as well as world security in relation to proliferation, is a significant part of what we are about. But also I think that there have been some notable comments made about this subject in quite recent times. Somebody recently said:

I have been to Japan and talked with the people there. And one overwhelming point that was put to me by the trade union officials and the workers there unanimously was . . . what right have you, the Australian trade union movement to tell us, the Japanese people, about the dangers of nuclear power.

He went on: . . Can you figure any greater gall and greater hypocrisy than we comfortably sitting here in Australia should make a decision on the basis of what is good or not good for Japanese workers in respect of nuclear power. They have been through it and they have made an economic decision -

Mr Keating:

– I raise a point of order. I did not ask about Japanese workers; I asked about Australian uranium demand on the basis that the Australian Cabinet has approved the development of four major uranium mines in Australia. If Cabinet has considered this issue, the Prime Minister should be able to expatiate on his feet about market demand and give us some indication and not to put the question quietly on the Notice Paper.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. The answer being given by the Prime Minister is relevant to the question asked.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-If the honourable gentleman wants to ask a detailed question and quote a great many figures in the question, I think it only appropriate to make sure that the information is adequately recorded and that a proper answer is given, and it will be. The honourable gentleman said that he was not concerned about Japanese workers. That, of course, is the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in relation to these matters. The Australian Labor Party just does not care about people. It cares only about an unrelated philosophy that bears no relationship to the real world.

I will continue with the quotation. This gentleman said, and let me repeat a little of it:

Can you figure any greater gall and greater hypocrisy than we comfortably sitting here in Australia should make a decision on the basis of what is good or not good for Japanese workers in respect of nuclear power. They have been through it and they have made an economic decision endorsed by the trade union movement that in terms of the economic needs of Japan, it is essential that they have nuclear generated power. They have made the decision and if some of you sitting here in your luxury want to substitute your consciences for theirs, I could not think of any greater hypocrisy.

Of course -

Mr Jull:

-Who said that?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-Oh, the candidate for Wills said that; Mr Hawke said that. Oh, and they said he lost. Well, he did win the preselection for Wills in spite of the Opposition’s best efforts through the Socialist Left in Victoria to see that he did lose. Even if he got in by only three of four votes, or whatever it was, at least he got in.

Mr Chapman:

– It was pretty close.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It was very close.

Mr Holding:

– What did he say about your amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– I thought, my friend, we were talking about uranium.

Mr Holding:

– Do you support his views on that?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-We can support his views sometimes but you fight him all ways.

Mr Keating:

– I take a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will resume his seat. There is far too much interjection across the chamber. I ask the right honourable gentleman to remain relevant to the question and not to address himself to other issues. I ask the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to cease interjecting. I will now hear the honourable member for Blaxland. I hope it is a point of order and not a part of the debate.

Mr Keating:

– Does the Prime Minister’s answer mean that he has no understanding of Australian -

Mr SPEAKER:

-There is no point of order.

Mr Keating:

– He should try and be attentive to the question.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

– It is perfectly plain that the candidate for Wills does understand the needs and necessities of trade in uranium. I know that he said- as part of the effort to get that preselection, I suspect- that of course he would stick by Australian Labor Party policy on the subject, but he has made his own view very clear and it expresses the morality of the position that the Government takes, and the reality of the world need for nuclear power. The honourable member for Blaxland can try to suggest that there is no need for them to move off their comfortable but hypocritical perch- not my term but, in the words of Mr Hawke, hypocritical- because he thinks there is not going to be a substantial need. There will be a market for Australian uranium. The honourable gentleman knows quite well that there has been a need to negotiate safeguards arrangements. He knows quite well that over the time there will be an expanding market for uranium from Australia. The honourable gentleman wants to suggest that there is a respectability in his position because, he says, there is not, and will not be, a demand for Australian uranium. As usual, the honourable gentleman will find his judgment very much misplaced.

page 2094

QUESTION

BLACK MARLIN

Mr THOMSON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister will be aware that a petition containing 8,818 signatures from Cairns has just been presented to this House. It calls for a delay in the signing of the fisheries agreement with Japan so that negotiations can be continued for a larger buffer zone to protect black martin. Last night the Minister had a meeting with fishing representatives from Queensland and New South Wales to discuss this very difficult problem. Can the Minister comment on the possibility of delaying the signing of the agreement? What steps can be taken to ensure that the black marl in are protected from long-line fishing, both now and in the future?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Primary Industry · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– I regret having to tell the honourable member that under the international obligations we have in respect of this agreement there is no way in which we can delay the signing of the agreement. The signing will take place this afternoon. I should remind the honourable member of the important factor in this agreement that will allow for a consideration of the concern expressed by the 8,000-odd people who signed the petition which has been presented to the House. For the first time the 200-mile economic fishing zone now comes under the control of the Australian Government. For the first time there is an agreement between the Australian Government and the Japanese Government as to fishing in those waters, and for the first time there is also a capacity to negotiate with respect to long-line tuna fishing in those areas in the 12 months ahead. As I pointed out to the House yesterday, the present agreement excludes the Japanese from fishing in an area of some 80,000 square miles of waters. That is a very significant departure from the situation that existed while these were Commonwealth waters.

I also pointed out to the House yesterday that there are a number of other protections that are important to the marlin fishing in that area. For the first time we will be able to co-ordinate the monitoring of the fishing that is taking place and we will be able to have Australian officials on board Japanese boats which are fishing in the area. The essential point is that the long-line tuna agreement is for 12 months only. Representatives of the game fishing clubs who met me last night agreed to the setting up of a joint committee consisting of Commonwealth, State and game fishing officials who would take part in the monitoring. Whilst to those who are concerned there may seem to be some negatives in the agreement, the fact is that there are a number of positives that should not be ignored.

page 2095

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations: When did he first learn that members of his personal staff released copies of Mr Justice Staples’ letter on the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery on the night of Thursday, 1 1 October? Did the Minister authorise the release before or after it was released?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I want to correct again a misunderstanding or misapprehension. The letter from Mr Justice Staples to members of the Commission- both the commissioners and deputy presidents, I believe- was a matter of public comment and record before any copies came from my office.

Mr Keating:

– We dispute that.

Mr STREET:

– Well, it was in the hands of the Australian Broadcasting Commission before that.

Mr Keating:

– And it disputes that.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will remain silent.

Mr Keating:

– He cannot make bland assertions which are not true.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Blaxland will remain silent or I will have to deal with him.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Make him tell the truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Newcastle will withdraw that statement.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am asking that he tell the truth.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will withdraw.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, I did not say it was a lie; I asked him to tell the truth. Where is that unparliamentary?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The implication was there. I ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Even though what I said was true, I withdraw it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will withdraw unqualifiedly.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

- Mr Speaker, this place has got to have some degree of respectability and credibility.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will withdraw unqualifiedly.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– When I ask the Minister a question, the Minister should answer truthfully.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable gentleman. I do not want to deal with him. He asked a question. The Minister is entitled to reply without implication and interjections of the kind the honourable member made. I ask the honourable member to withdraw unqualifiedly.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I withdraw.

Mr STREET:

– I understand that the Opposition had copies of this document for some time as well. As the honourable gentleman has asked a question which needs accuracy in reply, I shall find out from my staff precisely the timing -

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– For heaven’s sake, don’t you know yet?

Mr STREET:

-Just a minute. I shall find out from my staff the precise timing at which the copies made available from my office were made available. When I find out I will report to the House.

page 2096

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCE: APPOINTMENT OF FORMER OFFICERS TO COMPANIES

Mr NEIL:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Defence inform the House whether there was any irregularity involved in the recent appointment of a former officer to a company that may enter into a contract with the Government?

Mr KILLEN:
Minister for Defence · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I take it that my honourable friend is adverting to the matter which the honourable member for Melbourne raised in the House this afternoon. There is no provision that I am aware of in the Defence Act which would preclude any former member of the Defence Force entering into private employment anywhere in Australia. I am not aware of any such provision, and I am not aware of any convention or practice to that end. I am aware of the fact that the Public Service Board has recently provided guidelines which it is suggested should be followed by former public servants of the country. As things now stand I invite the House to accept the view that those guidelines would be persuasive only in character and would not have the force of law. This Parliament has not legislated to prevent former members of the Public Service or former members of the Defence Force from entering into private employment. That would be a matter for conscious government decision and for the authority of this House, and that is clearly a matter of policy. I think that the great majority of members in the Parliament would be aware that this matter has been considered by the Bowen committee of inquiry; with what results, we will have to wait and see. I would say that how a former member of the Defence Force behaves upon entering into private employment would be essentially a matter for his own sense of fitness and integrity.

I hold the view, and I hold it very strongly, that where there is no instinct for honour one cannot legislate for it. I am not aware of any abuse by any former member of the Service who has gone into private employment. Members of this Parliament, members of this House, have gone into private employment. I would regard it as a startling proposal to seek to place a complete embargo on all former members of the Public Service or the Parliament or of government or of the Defence Force entering into private employment. I remind the House that several members of this House have returned to pastoral duties. I would think any person who returned to pastoral duties out in the parish after a few years in this place would have a distinct advantage over his brethren.

page 2096

QUESTION

FORD AEROSPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Bearing in mind paragraph 3.2S of the guidelines issues by the Public Service Board, which were read out by the honourable member for Melbourne yesterday, can the Minister for Defence indicate whether the recently mentioned Army officer sought permission or guidance from the permanent head of the Department of Defence or the Public Service Board prior to taking up employment with Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation? I ask the Minister to bear in mind also this officer’s recent experience in the Army and as the Government’s representative on the committee of inquiry into an international satellite proposal.

Mr KILLEN:
LP

– The short answer is no. I am not aware of any obligation upon that gentleman to seek the approval of the present Secretary of the Department of Defence. I remind my honourable friend of what I said a few moments ago: Those guidelines as they exist at the moment are persuasive in character only. In my view they do not have the force of law. If the honourable gentleman does not wish to accept that opinion I hope he will pay promptly for another one.

page 2096

QUESTION

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr CARLTON:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Treasurer aware of arguments, advanced during his absence abroad, that the time has come to allow an increase in inflation in order to improve the employment situation? Did he find any evidence overseas to suggest that an improvement in employment prospects could be achieved by allowing the inflation rate to rise?

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-While I was absent I noticed reports of proposals, mainly emanating from the Opposition in this Parliament, that there should be a change in the Government’s economic strategy in the name of being more effective in reducing unemployment. I tell the honourable gentleman and the members of the Opposition that the single most important impression that I gained more than ever before from the annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund in Belgrade and discussions that I had with my counterparts in the governments of the United States of

America, Britain, Germany, France and other industrialised countries was the unanimity of opinion amongst those countries as to the need to defeat inflation as a fundamental pre-condition of lasting economic growth and therefore a recovery in employment levels.

Country after country which has tinkered with the policies now advanced by the Opposition has abandoned them. If members of the Opposition doubt that I invite them to look at what the former British Labour Government was doing to the job creation schemes that were established by the Wilson and Callaghan governments in the 1970s. I invite them to examine the communique issued by the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund after its meeting in Belgrade a couple of weeks ago. It stated, among other things, that the committee emphasised that the main task of economic policy was to contain inflationary pressures and to reduce inflationary expectations. I draw the attention of honourable gentlemen on the other side of the House to the increased emphasis now being placed by the United States Government on containing inflation. In that context I welcome the measures recently announced by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve which are designed to constrain the rate of growth of the money supply in the United States and also to introduce quantitative controls on the volume of credit in that country.

All around the industrialised world governments are reaffirming in a stronger manner than ever before the importance of fighting inflation as a fundamental pre-condition to economic growth. There is no greater hoax in the economic debate in Australia at the present time than the proposition that one can defeat unemployment by allowing inflation to go up. Nothing has altered the simple economic truth that the only way effectively to fight unemployment in this country is to defeat inflation, and that is why more than ever before this Government does not intend to make any alteration to the fundamental basis of its economic policies.

page 2097

QUESTION

FORD AEROSPACE AND COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister which follows questions to the Minister for Defence and answers by that Minister in relation to a senior military officer who has accepted an appointment with a firm which is likely to be a supplier to the Government of expensive electronic equipment of a nature with which he has had intimate policy association on behalf of the Government. Does the Prime Minister recall debate in this Parliament in March 1978 on the

IBM-Facom affair? Does he recall one of the points at issue in that debate relating to the appointment of a Mr Harragan, formerly of the Department of Social Security, with Facom Australia Ltd, a likely supplier of computer equipment? The Prime Minister will recall saying, as recorded at page 591 of the House of Representatives Hansard of the debate:

It is not only my judgment and the judgment of the Government that what was done in those circumstances was wrong.

The Prime Minister then went on approvingly to quote my criticism of Mr Harragan taking such an appointment when there was likely to be a conflict of this sort of interest. I ask the Prime Minister: Why is the Government now distinguishing between its attitude of objection to Mr Harragan taking such an appointment and its justification of Brigadier McMillen taking an appointment with the Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-Mr Speaker, I have nothing to add to what the Minister for Defence has already said on this issue.

page 2097

QUESTION

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Treasurer able to give the Parliament any details of progress in redrafting section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-Section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, as honourable members will know, is the general anti-avoidance section which was inserted many years ago. As a consequence of successive decisions of the High Court of Australia, the section now has a more limited operation than was originally the case. The Government has been engaged in trying to rewrite the section for a number of months. A draft of the section was completed by Parliamentary Counsel and the Taxation Office some weeks ago and on my instructions the Deputy Crown Solicitor briefed senior and junior counsel in Melbourne and Sydney to settle the draft of the section. So far I have received one of the combined opinions from two of the counsel involved and I am presently awaiting the second opinion. When that has been received, I, in consultation with my advisers in this respect, will consider those opinions and their impact upon the draft.

The Government attaches a good deal of importance to the successful rewriting of section 260, for two reasons. Firstly, I believe that the Income Tax Assessment Act should, in the name of effective anti-avoidance, contain a general antiavoidance provision. I think that is a view that would be shared by honourable gentlemen on both sides of the House. Secondly, I believe that in the course of rewriting the section we should be careful that it is done in a way that makes it effective to detect tax avoidance but at the same time ensure that it is not written in such a general fashion as to cast an unnecessary pall over ordinary and thoroughly legitimate commercial transactions. It is for that reason that the Government is taking very considerable pains, through briefing private counsel, to make sure, to put it shortly, that we get it right.

I do not believe, in view of the time scale involved, that it would be possible to expose a draft of the section before the House rises, but it is my intention, when I have completed a draft of it and it has been approved by the Government, to make that draft public and to invite comment upon it from all interested parties from both sides of the House so that, when the Parliament resumes in the New Year, we will be in a position, in the light of those comments, to present to the Parliament for adoption what will then be regarded as a satisfactory rewrite of section 260.

While I am on this subject, I take the opportunity of publicly commending some remarks made recently in the Journal of the Institute of Chartered Accountants by Mr Bishop, the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. He drew attention to the obligations of members of that profession so far as advice in respect of tax avoidance practices is concerned. I believe that Mr Bishop, in giving that advice, displayed very considerable courage and displayed a conspicuous sensitivity to the responsibilities of his office. I believe that all of us who think that there is merit in members of the legal and accountancy professions accepting a sense of responsibility in these matters ought to pay particular tribute to Mr Bishop’s stand and his remarks.

page 2098

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Mr JACOBI:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Was the Minister for Industrial Relations aware, when his staff was distributing the Staples letter to journalists, that they were in fact doing so?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I have just got some information and timing from my staff. The timetable is something like this: Public comment on the Staples letter was first made by the Australian Broadcasting Commission program PM at or about six minutes past six on 1 1 October. Following this, my office received numerous requests seeking confirmation that I had received the document and asking for copies of the document. After reading a transcript of the PM segment and after speaking to employees of the ABC PM program several hours later- I cannot give a precise time, but it was some time after 9 p.m.- a member of my staff made copies available to several members of the Press, particularly those who had been seeking information about the document. It is my staff’s recollection and my recollection that I became aware of the distribution to these Press people following the review of the PM program and the talking by my staff to members of the PM program staff.

Mr Hayden:

– When did you approve of thatafter the paper had been circulated or before?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat. I will not permit questioning across the chamber in that fashion.

Mr Jacobi:

- Mr Speaker, my question was: When did the Minister become aware?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman has asked his question and the Minister has answered it.

Mr Jacobi:

– But he failed to answer the question: When did he become aware?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Hawker will resume his seat. Does the Minister wish to continue his reply?

Mr STREET:

-Mr Speaker, I have described the timetable as being approximately 9 p.m. and that I became aware of* the distribution of the document at about 9 p.m., but I cannot give an exact time.

Mr Hayden:

– After it had been distributed?

Mr STREET:

– After it had been distributed.

Mr Hayden:

– And did you approve of that? Did you approve of the distribution?

Mr STREET:

-Certainly, because I -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Minister will resume his seat.

Mr Hayden:

– You do not have to follow any trucks around Canberra; just go to the Minister’s office.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent. I am not prepared to allow a barrage of questions across the chamber to the Minister. If the Minister wishes to continue his answer, I will permit it. I ask all honourable members on my left to remain silent while the Minister does so.

Mr STREET:

– I make clear again, Mr Speaker, that the letter itself was not addressed to me; it was addressed to the members of the Commission. The copy or copies were sent to me without comment, with a ‘with compliments’ slip, some time after it was written and I understand the Opposition -

Mr Hayden:

– By whom? Whose ‘with compliments’ slip?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will remain silent.

Mr STREET:

-Mr Justice Staples’. I understand that the Opposition has also had a copy for some time. It was not my intention to make the document public until I became aware through the program which I have already talked about that it was in the hands of the media and was a matter of public comment.

page 2099

QUESTION

DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr BRADFIELD:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. He will be aware of speculation regarding the Government’s Budget announcement of an $18,000 ceiling for depreciation purposes on passenger cars and station wagons. Is he also aware that some community uncertainty is causing a temporary loss of car sales? Does he agree that some speculation regarding the effect of this legislation is incorrect?

Mr HOWARD:
LP

-I thank the honourable member for Barton for that question because I believe that some unfortunate confusion and doubt has arisen from this Budget measure. I make it clear to the honourable member that the Government has given very careful consideration to many representations that have been received. As I indicated in the Press statement which I made yesterday, the Government intends to adhere to the Budget decision. I indicated in that statement that because of the application of the commencement date the measure will not affect cars and station wagons which were ordered or were on hand prior to the time of the Budget. In those circumstances, in effect, some kind of transitional period will be allowed. That will obviate severe liquidity problems that might- I stress the word ‘might’- have been experienced by a limited number of dealers.

I will arrange as soon as possible for details of the announcement and any anticipated questions arising out of it to be circulated to all motor dealers in Australia. I am aware, for example, that some dealers did not know that under the Budget decision all lease charges will remain totally tax deductible, provided a business use can be established. Equally, some people were under the impression that the measure in some way affects vehicles purchased entirely or partly for private use. Of course, that has never been the case. The measure was designed simply to put a ceiling on the amount that can be claimed for depreciation purposes for the business use of a motor car or station wagon.

I think it is a fair measure that will be seen by the community as having been taken in the interests of tax equity. I think that the interruption in sales which has been alleged by a number of dealers in recent weeks has been due more to an anticipation that the measure may be reversed than the actual effect of the measure. Some of the evidence available to the Government, particularly that regarding motor vehicles which are priced only just above $18,000, indicates that this is almost certainly the case. I make it clear to the honourable member that the Government has looked very carefully at the measure. We have decided not to alter it. The modification I announced last night will be the only modification to it. The necessary legislation will be introduced in due course.

page 2099

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Mr HAYDEN:

– I ask the Minister for Industrial Relations a question which follows the answer he last gave. He will recall that yesterday several questions were directed to him asking him directly whether he was responsible in some way or another, either through direct action or instruction to a member of his staff, for the distribution of a copy or copies of Mr Justice Staples’ letter to fellow commissioners of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. He will recall denying that he was responsible. He will also recall that subsequently I asked him a question directly whether any member of his staff was responsible for such a distribution. I ask whether he recalls stating:

I will check up on the question asked by the honourable gentleman and let him know.

Why did he prevaricate in his answer yesterday -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman is not entitled to use that word. He may ask for information but he is not entitled to use coloured words of that kind.

Mr HAYDEN:

-Mr Speaker, I might observe for the record that I have noted that you have upbraided members of the Opposition for delaying in withdrawing certain comment they have made in this House, and you have referred to it as prevarication. I have also noted that according to May’s Parliamentary Practice it is not an acceptable word in the House of Commons, and of course I withdraw it.

I direct my question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Why did he seek to evade a direct response to that question when he clearly would recall such an important matter of such recent event, unless he had decided to embark on an attempted cover-up?

Mr STREET:
LP

– I reiterate, because I think it needs to be said every time the allegation is made, that the original release of this document was not made by me. I would certainly not have released the document had it not already been released and had that release not been checked. I sought no evasion of the response to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. As I said, I had no intention of making this document public until it had become public, because, as the honourable gentleman would appreciate, there is no mileage in Mr Justice Staples’ letter so far as the Government is concerned. It is a matter of public knowledge that the contents of the letter are highly critical, in emotional terms, of much of the Government’s legislation which has been through this House and which is now before the Senate. There is no advantage for this information to have been made available by the Government for that very reason, but when it had become a matter of public comment there was no point in pretending it did not exist.

Mr Porter:

– Did Hayden leak it?

Mr Chapman:

– Yes.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. A member of the Government parties has quite clearly stated to this House that the Leader of the Opposition had leaked a document to PM.

Mr Bourchier:

– That is right.

Mr Scholes:

– PM did not have the document. The honourable member for Bendigo has said: That is right’. It is an improper allegation to state that a member has leaked a document. It is imputing improper motives. It is an untrue statement. The document was not available to PM at the time, and I think such statements should not be allowed.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I take the honourable gentleman ‘s point. He will resume his seat. I did not hear the remark which the honourable member for Corio says was made. If any honourable member made such a remark I ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr Neil:

- Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Did the honourable member make such a comment?

Mr Neil:

– Not in those terms.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member will resume his seat. Did the honourable member for Barker make such a comment?

Mr Porter:

- Mr Speaker, the remark -

Mr SPEAKER:

-Did the honourable gentleman make such a comment?

Mr Porter:

– Well -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr Porter:

- Mr Speaker, I think I ought to clarify the matter. I did ask the Minister whether -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Barker will resume his seat or I will name him. Are there any other volunteers? The point made by the honourable member for Corio is correct. Nobody has withdrawn the remark. Had I heard it I would have required that it be withdrawn.

page 2100

WINE EXPORTS

Mr CHAPMAN:

– Is the Acting Minister for Trade and Resources aware that Australian wines, especially South Australian wines -

Mr Baume:

– And Hunter Valley wines.

Mr CHAPMAN:

– And some wines from other districts, recently won a number of prizes in the authoritative Paris Wine Olympiad? Is the Government taking any steps to capitalise on this success by promoting increased exports of Australian wines?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am sure that all Australians will be delighted by the success of Australian wines at the important Paris Olympiad. Indeed, in one of the main classes for red wine, Australian wines won all four of the first places. I congratulate the wine producers. I am sure all honourable members will join me in that. Australian wines have consistently won international awards. Our exports of wine are increasing, but there is still a big job to do. Perhaps it ought to be noted that only about 2 per cent of Australian production is exported. Last year those exports were increased by about 15 per cent which was the first increase for five or six years. Traditionally, the wine producers themselves have undertaken the exports. Some markets in Scandinavia are new. Other important marketsJapan, Germany and the United Kingdom- are increasing.

The Australian Wine Board has taken generalised promotion abroad and has recently appointed an international marketing manager, which we think will assist. The Government has made a number of efforts in respect of export market expansion and development. It has taken a direct interest in assisting those exports. Nevertheless, exporters of Australian wines, whether they be good South Australian wines or good Hunter Valley wines, are encountering difficulties in some markets, notably in Europe, in respect of labelling and certification, but the Australian Government is vigorous in endeavouring to remove those obstacles and to assist this worthwhile and high quality trade.

page 2101

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION LEGISLATION

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Does the Minister for Industrial Relations recall his statement on the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program PM last night in relation to the Staples letter? I quote accurately and without amendment the Minister’s words:

My office checked with PM to ensure that the document had in fact become public before I did anything about it at all.

In another part of the interview, he said:

We checked with PM to find whether they had in fact got the letter and they had.

Does the Minister stand by those statements in this Parliament today?

Mr STREET:
LP

– Yes. I quote from the full transcript of the item on PM on Mr Justice Staples’ letter:

In an extraordinary letter to his colleagues in the Arbitration Commission, Mr Justice Staples has condemned the Government’s latest changes to the conciliation and arbitration system.

The Judge’s letter, a copy of which came into our hands today, follows criticism -

Mr Young:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is: Did the Minister check with PM to see whether it had a copy and did PM tell him that it had a copy?

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat. There is no point of order.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:

- Mr Speaker, on that point of order, I know that you have drawn attention to this on many occasions, but during Question Time today probably eight or ten times Opposition members have raised alleged points of order which have not been points of order at all. I venture to say that they all knew before they rose to their feet that they were not raising points of order but were merely seeking to interpolate political comment under the guise of points of order. I suggest that that practice ought to cease.

Mr Young:

- Mr Speaker, further to the point of order -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Port Adelaide raised a point of order. I held that there was no point of order.

Mr Young:

-But further to the point of order, the question raised by the Prime Minister -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman was speaking by indulgence. The honourable member for Port Adelaide will resume his seat.

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, I also seek your indulgence to speak to that point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I am not prepared to grant it. I call the Minister -

Mr Scholes:

-Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a very injurious statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat. I call the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Mr STREET:

– Following a study of that transcript which said, and I repeat:

The Judge’s letter, a copy of which came into our hands today . . .

My staff did check with the program PM and it confirmed that it had a copy.

page 2101

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN AID TO EAST TIMOR

Mr HODGMAN:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– In view of Australia’s very genuine concern for the tragic humanitarian situation in East Timor, and in view of reports that over 40 per cent of a recent multi-million dollar aid grant from the International Red Cross failed to reach its proper destination, I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs what steps are taken -

Honourable members interjecting;

Mr HODGMAN:

– I would rather have a sick throat than a sick mind. My throat will be better in a couple of days. I ask the Minister: What steps are taken to ensure that Australian Government aid truly reaches the scores of thousands of people in need? Is the Minister able to comment on a recent announcement by the New Zealand Government that it intends to institute a full inquiry into the delivery of New Zealand humanitarian aid to East Timor?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

-In relation to the aid purchased under previous arrangements and to previous Australian grants, and delivered by barge to Dili, Australian officials, as I have said in this House in answer to a question from the honourable member for Fraser, were satisfied with the storage and distribution facilities used for the aid. They were impressed also with arrangements that they saw for distribution of relief material. Indonesian authorities have, for that aid for that particular area and for those particular grants, provided satisfactory accounting for the distribution of that aid. We believe that the record of the Indonesian Red Cross in relation to its relief effort in East Timor is reasonably satisfactory. Similar conclusions were, in fact, drawn by New Zealand Red Cross officials following a visit to East Timor last January. There has been with later consignments of aid a hold-up which I have been concerned about. I have asked the Australian Embassy in Jakarta to investigate this and have the matter expedited. When I receive the Ambassador’s report on that matter, I will advise the honourable member.

page 2102

QUESTION

URANIUM SALES

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

– I ask for your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to add to the other part of the answer about uranium sales which I gave earlier to the honourable member for Blaxland.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The right honourable gentleman may proceed.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The honourable gentleman was concerned whether there would be an adequate demand for Australian uranium. It ought to be noted that there are 200 nuclear reactors operating in 22 countries at the present time and a similar number under construction in 29 countries. The reactors now being built have an average of around 70 per cent greater capacity than those now operating. Even if 400 or more additional reactors which are either firmly ordered or planned are excluded, what is now happening represents a three-fold expansion of uranium requirements over the next ten years. It is nonsense to suggest therefore, as some have done, that production from new Australian mines will not find a market in this situation. Indeed, after 1990, the question is not whether there will be a market for uranium but whether there will be productive capacity to meet the requirements of the reactors then in use. The interest already shown by companies wishing to acquire a share of the Government’s participation in the Ranger project is an indication that industry shares the Government’s view that a substantial future market exists for Australian uranium.

page 2102

QUESTION TIME: POINTS OF ORDER

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

- Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance for a moment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio wishes to have my guidance. I will see whether I can give it.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Mr Speaker, quite properly, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) complained about irrelevant points of order during Question Time. I am not challenging his right there. I ask, Mr Speaker, whether you will examine the questions and answers and, especially, the reciting differently of questions in order to provide relevant answers by Ministers and indicate to the House whether the Standing Orders are sufficient in order that questions and answers can be asked in this House and honourable members can be expected to sit quietly while answers not relevant- or barely relevant, I make that qualification- to questions are given. I think it is unreal that what the Prime Minister complained about should -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman is not asking for guidance; he is making a complaint.

Mr SCHOLES:

-Mr Speaker, I am asking what course the Opposition can take under the existing Standing Orders in order to protect itself against answers to questions which have no relationship to the questions that are asked.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– When the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) was in the chair as Mr Speaker Scholes some time ago, he made the point very plainly that answers from Ministers were in the hands of Ministers themselves. He would know quite well the use and abuse that Ministers made of that in those circumstances. He also showed a very great readiness to name honourable members who took points of order that were not points of order. The parliamentary Hansard will record that.

page 2102

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SCHOLES:

– Yes. No member was ever named by me in those circumstances. This is just another lie of the Prime Minister; he cannot help himself.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio will withdraw.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I suggest to the honourable member for Corio that he knows that he should not use those terms and he should not do it. I call on presentation of papers by Ministers.

Mr SCHOLES:

-In my own defence, Mr Speaker -

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Corio will resume his seat.

Mr SCHOLES:

-The Prime Minister has made a dishonest statement about me naming members in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honourable gentleman will resume his seat.

Mr SCHOLES:

– It is not true and he knows that it is not true.

Mr SPEAKER:

-I warn the honourable member for Corio to remain silent.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I will remain silent.

page 2103

INSURANCE ACT 1973

Mr HOWARD (BennelongTreasurer)Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973, 1 present the fifth annual report of the Insurance Commissioner 1979.

page 2103

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr GROOM:
Minister for Housing and Construction · Braddon · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction for the 1978-79 financial year.

page 2103

DUAL NATIONALITY

Ministerial Statement

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– by leave- On 14 October 1976 the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) presented to the House on behalf of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the Committee’s report on The International Legal and Diplomatic Aspects of the Situation of Australians Possessing Dual or Plural Nationality’. This is a short statement on this matter. The report of the Joint Committee was presented on a realistic note by the honourable member with the comment that the problems of dual nationality are well nigh impossible of unilateral resolution by Australia. Further study has unfortunately confirmed that view. The difficulties that arise for Australian citizens from their dual nationality are however of continuing concern to the Government.

The House will recall that in my statement of 26 May 1 978 on consular services I dealt with the problems of dual nationality. Briefly, I indicated at that time that many migrants who are naturalised Australians, or in some cases their children who are natural born Australians, may be regarded by their countries of birth, or of their parents’ birth, still to be citizens of those countries. Such dual nationals can be subject to the laws of the country of their first citizenship, who may claim jurisdiction over them in such matters as military service or taxation. My Department and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs attempt to make dual nationals aware of the problems they might encounter on return to their country of birth or ethnic origin.

The requirement for assistance to dual nationals has inevitably grown as more foreignborn Australians return to visit their former homes. The problems of dual nationals cannot be overcome by citizens simply asserting that they do not accept their other citizenship. In some cases formal acts of renunciation are possible, but in other countries no such provisions exist; the requirements should be carefully established in advance. It is for the individual to ascertain and to bear the consequences of coming within the jurisdiction of another country which claims his or her citizenship, whether the individual or the Australian Government recognises that claim or not. I take this opportunity to repeat my earlier advice that consular officers can advise, but beyond a strict limit they cannot assist when in these circumstances the jurisdiction of another country is being asserted. My Department publishes a booklet called ‘Hints for Australian Travellers’, which is issued free with all Australian passports, and which is available from any office of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Australia and from any overseas Australian mission. This booklet contains information and advice on the problem of dual nationality.

The report of the Joint Committee was referred to an interdepartmental committee drawn from the Departments of Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The interdepartmental committee’s conclusions were endorsed by the three Ministers concerned. The committee’s report and conclusions by departments have most recently been given consideration by the Government.

The long-standing policy of the Australian Government of avoiding wherever possible the creation by its legislation of instances of dual nationality, while at the same time giving recognition to such status wherever it occurs, has been reaffirmed. The Government thus accepts the over-riding conclusion and recommendation of the committee. As I have indicated, responsible Ministers and departments are also active in disseminating information on dual nationality problems- another recommendation of the Joint Committee report. On the other hand, our conclusion is that there is no requirement as proposed in the report for new or additional machinery to investigate complaints by dual nationals. The recommendation that consideration should be given to replacing particulars of place of birth in Australian passports with particulars of place of residence has been dealt with in detail in my second reading speech on the Passports Amendment Bill.

There remain two recommendations of the report calling for constructive action: That Australia should initiate relevant action in the United Nations and should give high priority to negotiating bilateral agreements to overcome dual nationality problems. Formidable difficulties of a political, legal and practical nature stand in the way of progress on dual nationality problems, either by way of bilateral or multilateral agreement. This cautious and, I might add, common assessment needs to be emphasised.

Nevertheless the Government has decided, with respect to the report submitted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee, to study the prospects of negotiating bilateral agreements with certain countries. The Government also proposes to examine further the possibility of having the question of dual nationality examined in an appropriate forum of the United Nations. A further statement to the House will be made at a future time on this subject in the light of these studies.

While speaking about this question of dual nationality I should mention that the Government is keenly aware of the concern felt by certain Australian citizens about the new Soviet law on citizenship which came into force on 1 July this year. The implications of this law are the subject of an urgent study in departments concerned, and the Australian Embassy in Moscow has formally sought clarification of certain points from the Soviet authorities. I hope that the Government will soon be in a position to provide guidance to those people who have made inquiries about this new law. In the meantime I can give an assurance that nobody will lose Australian citizenship through the operation of a law of another country.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Before the Minister sits down, could he inform the House as to the nature of the new Soviet law of citizenship?

Mr PEACOCK:

-I have indicated this very thing to the honourable member. We are receiving advice in regard to that matter so that we can give detailed information not only to the honourable members who have made representations to me, but also to various individuals who have corresponded directly with me. The Soviet Union introduced fairly all-embracing laws regarding its citizenship and the ramifications of these laws should be responded to, I believe, with the best of legal advice available, both at private international law and public international law. That is why I say that I will be advising honourable members in due course.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN (KingsfordSmith) by leave- It will be appreciated that I will be unable to refer to the Soviet law matter but I would like to make some other comments. We appreciate what the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) has done by making a statement. We are aware of the fact that there was a committee which reported some time ago as the Minister indicated. I am also aware of the conclusions and recommendations of that committee, which the Minister has suggested in good faith he will endeavour to implement if possible.

We are aware of the situation in Australia. It is important that we try to get bilateral arrangements. If other countries are anxious to have us take their citizens- as many countries are because they are anxious to get the financial exchange which in many cases is remitted to them- it seems to be an appropriate time to suggest that those countries might enter into a bilateral arrangement whereby a citizen, on acceptance of nationality in Australia, is no longer obliged to be a dual national. I am aware of the international law which relates to the question of domicile of origin. It will be difficult to erase that law because the domicile of origin is related to birth. If one is born in another country there is going to be an issue always as to whether one is deemed to be originally a national of that country. Honourable members will notice that it is an accepted principle of international law that diplomatic protection may not be given by a state to a dual national of that state when he is in the country of the other nationality. So there are also problems in regard to international law.

I am aware of what has been happening. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) is anxious to put certain matters before the Parliament,!^ Par and he is going to say a few words in a moment. We have made representations to other countries on the basis of those countries accepting passports which did not have the place of birth entered in them. From the answer given in the Senate on 1 1 October, it is pretty clear that many countries- such as Greece- are not prepared to accede to that request. We have the difficulty of countries not being prepared to accede to what I would say is a reasonable request. This will require further strong negotiation. The Opposition would give support to the Government in that area. We are also mindful of the recommendations of the Joint Parliamentary

Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence that the Hague Convention was of the opinion that a person should have only one nationality. Obviously it would be the nationality of the resident’s permanent domicile. If honourable members look at page 5 of the report of the Committee, they will see that only 20 countries ever became parties to that particular Convention. Australia is one of those countries, but the major countries from which we obtain migrants are not parties to the Convention.

We appreciate the efforts made by the Committee and by the Minister, but there is a long way to go. It would seem appropriate that we should be using some of our monetary muscle to indicate clearly to these countries that when citizens leave them and come to Australia, by a bilateral arrangement which we should negotiate at the time, and if they adopt our citizenship, they should be accepted by other countries as having one nationality only, namely, that of Australia.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-by leave-I would like to comment on the interdepartmental committee’s report which the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) was kind enough to let me look at. I understand that the interdepartmental committee consisted of officers from the Department of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Department of the AttorneyGeneral, and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I would like to draw the attention of the House to paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of that report. I seek leave to incorporate parts of the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. For example, between 1956 and 1958 the Soviet Union concluded bilateral agreements with Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, North Korea, Poland and Mongolia. These Conventions provide that persons who possess the citizenship of both contracting States and reside in the territory of one of them, may choose exclusively the citizenship of the other by filing a declaration to that effect with its Embassy within one year from the date of coming into force of the respective Convention.
  2. The declaration of choice is examined by the competent authorities to whom it has been submitted. The Contracting States are bound to inform each other of the applications which have been accepted and, in the case of certain Conventions, also of the applications rejected. Persons who fail to express their choice of citizenship are to be regarded as citizens solely of their country of residence. Minors as a rule follow the citizenship of their parents.
  3. An example of a multipartite agreement to which the Committee made reference is the 1963 Council of Europe Convention on Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality. This Convention comprises two substantive chaptersChapter I concerns reduction of cases of multiple nationality and Chapter II concerns military obligations. Parties may apply both chapters, Chapter I with reservations and Chapter II, or Chapter II only. Only Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg apply both chapters without reservations. Unlike the Conventions concluded between the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, which require only that a person seek the consent of the State in which he is not resident but whose nationality he wishes to retain, Chapter II of the Council of Europe Convention requires that a person seek the consent of the State whose nationality he wishes to renounce. Such consent may not, however, be withheld if the person has not been a resident of that State for ten years and is at the time ordinarily resident in the State whose nationality he wishes to retain.
  4. There is provision in the European Convention for other States to accede to it. The Government is considering the desirability of Australia doing so, although it should be noted that the countries with which Australia encounters most difficulties over dual nationality are not parties to the Convention.
Dr KLUGMAN:

-Paragraphs 26 and 27 refer basically to what has happened in what we call Soviet satellite states’. I will read very quickly from paragraph 26 which says:

  1. . between 1956 and 1958 the Soviet Union included bilateral agreements with Yugoslavia -

I suppose that Yugoslavia is not a Soviet satellite state. I apologise to the Yugoslavs.

Hungary, Romania, Albania -

Albania also is not a Soviet satellite-

Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, North Korea, Poland and Mongolia

North Korea probably is not a Soviet satellite. It is probably having an argument with the Chinese in that regard.

These Conventions provide that persons who possess the citizenship of both contracting States and reside in the territory of one of them, may choose exclusively the citizenship of the other by filing a declaration to that effect with its Embassy within one year from the date of coming into force of the respective Convention.

Paragraph 27 makes the following point:

Persons who fail to express their choice of citizenship are to be regarded as citizens solely of their country of residence. Minors as a rule follow the citizenship of their parents.

That is the important point that we ought to aim at. If a person desires to have a citizenship of his new country of residence, as is the case with most of the people who have moved to Australia, he ought to be entitled to that citizenship, and exclusively that. That is the important point. The second point I would like to make is that the Council of Europe Convention on Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality in 1963, made a number of suggestions. I quote from paragraph 28 which reads:

Unlike the Conventions concluded between the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, which require only that a person seek the consent of the State in which he is not resident but whose nationality he wishes to retain, Chapter II of the Council of Europe Convention requires that a person seek the consent of the State whose nationality he wishes to renounce.

Such consent may not, however, be withheld -

That is important- if the person has been a resident of that State for ten years and is at the time ordinarily resident in the State whose nationality he wishes to retain.

My own view is that the Government ought to try to conclude bilateral agreements with the countries of Europe and other countries of origin of Australian citizens on the basis of either one of those criteria. As I said earlier I think that that would be of great satisfaction to Australian citizens whose origins were the co-called Soviet bloc countries- I admit that not all of them are Soviet bloc countries- and the countries belonging to the Council of Europe.

The only other point I make- it was an important point that we raised in the report on dual nationality- concerns the question of whether the place of birth should appear on passports. The argument has been that the place of birth has to appear on passports because a number of countries will not accept passports if the place of birth does not apear on them. Paragraph 44 of the interdepartmental committee report states:

The authorities of France, Turkey, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa and Guyana stated that passports which did not show the place of birth would not be acceptable for travel to those countries. Jamaican authorities stated that if passports did not include this information, travellers would be required to provide other proof of place of birth.

The only point I make is that it is regrettable to my mind that a number of countries require the place of birth to be inserted in a passport before that passport is considered to be valid. I urge the Minister and the Department to take at least the first step in the right direction and to state clearly that Australia does not require foreign passports to contain the place of birth of the person carrying that passport before we accept that passport as being valid. I do not know whether at the present time we accept as being valid passports that do not show the place of birth. I think that it is purely a bureaucratic requirement or inertia and that we are used to having the place of birth put in passports. To my mind it is fairly irrelevant. There must be much better methods of obtaining the identity of a person, such as photographs or fingerprints, than the place of birth.

I urge the Australian Government to state quite clearly that it does not require the place of birth to appear on foreign passports before it accepts those passports. I think that we should continue to press for the situation of passports for Australian citizens not being required to show the place of birth. The holder of the passport should have the opportunity either of not filling in that part of it or voluntarily having his place of birth inserted. Alternatively the place of residence, rather than the place of birth, could be shown so that Australian citizens born in certain countries are not afraid that they will be considered to be citizens of their country of birth, when they visit that country, or other countries, because their place of birth appears in the passport. I thank the House.

page 2106

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

States Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill 1979.

Quarantine Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Amendment Bill 1979.

Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1979.

Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill (No. 2 ) 1 979.

page 2106

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

-Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Keeffe has been discharged from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and that Senator Georges has been appointed in his place.

page 2106

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 1979.

Loan Bill 1979.

page 2106

AUSTRALIAN FISHING ZONE: PROTECTION OF BLACK MARLIN

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Australian Government to protect black marlin in the Australian fishing zone.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Mr COHEN:
Robertson

-In the last two weeks an issue has erupted that has angered Australian people, and Queenslanders in particular, in a manner that most members have not experienced in their lives in Parliament. This Government has announced that it is about to sign an agreement with the Japanese Government that will permit Japanese long-line fishermen to fish for black marlin within the Australian fishing zone. The size and scope of people’s anger has quite clearly shocked and surprised both the Australian and Queensland governments but it appears to be insufficient to make them do anything about the matter. A number of members of parliament, including one Minister, have informed me that they have received more phone calls, letters, telegrams and petitions on this issue than on any other issue in their parliamentary careers. The arrogance and insensitivity of the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) is breathtaking. Despite the overwhelming opposition of the Australian people, and incidentally of many Government members, the Government insists that it will proceed to sign the agreement this afternoon.

It has been suggested by some quarters that the reason for people’s anger is the fact that the fishermen are Japanese. In a few instances this may be true. Having flown to Cairns last Sunday to talk to people of north Queensland and to the fishermen in particular, I can assure the House, the Japanese people and the Japanese Government that the overwhelming majority of Australians are not interested in who takes the black martin, but only about the fact that they are being taken. If the long-line fishermen were French, American or British the objection to this act of negligence and gross vandalism would have been just the same. The reasons for Australians’ anger over the Government’s action or inaction is very simple. They know very well how important the resources of the Great Barrier Reef are to Australia. They know that the area off north Queensland is the greatest black martin fishing area in the world. The people of Australia have been made aware of the fact that, due to the past exploitation of the waters, the region is being denuded of one of its greatest assets.

Let me make it clear that while the game fishermen may be leading the fight to save the black martin they are far from being the only people who are furious at the Government’s action. North Queensland’s prosperity depends to a great degree on tourism. I have said so many times before that the Great Barrier Reef is Australia’s greatest tourist attraction. The thousands of people involved in tourism are equally concerned. The world knows that the Great Barrier Reef is one of the greatest ecological masterpieces in the world. In recent years the world has become aware of the threat to the Great Barrier Reef’s survival from, firstly, the crown of thorns starfish, secondly, the Taiwanese clam fishermen, more recently the threat to drill for oil in its waters and now the long-line fishermen. Conservationists are equally concerned. The black martin is the symbol of north Queensland’s tourist industry. If the black martin goes, so will a large part of the north Queensland and Australian tourism.

This matter first surfaced, if that is the appropriate phrase, when the former Minister for Primary Industry, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), announced the proclamation of the 200-mile nautical fishing zone. He stated in his speech to the House of Representatives on 25 September that negotiations were proceeding with the Japanese Government to provide access for Japanese fishing vessels to the Australian fishing zone. Within a matter of days it was announced that the Queensland Government would refuse to cooperate in the declaration of the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park unless the Australian Government renegotiated the agreement to exclude Japanese long-line fishermen because of the threat to black martin. From that moment the conflicting and confusing statements emanating from the new Minister for Primary Industry and the Queensland Government have been so conflicting and confusing that they would be laughable if the matter were not so serious.

Without getting into this comedy of errors, let me point out that while originally professing great indignation at the agreement the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, now is an enthusiasic supporter of it. What became apparent when this matter was raised in the House was the incredible lack of knowledge of the Minister for Primary Industry and, even more, his lack of concern for the future of the black martin. When I asked him on 9 October on what scientific information concerning the population of black martin off the Great Barrier Reef did the Government decide to allow Japanese long-line fishermen access to fish for tuna and black martin, he provided the following priceless reply:

In all the discussions that have taken place in respect of martin fishing in these waters, whatever scientific evidence has been available has been used. One of the problems is that there is a complete lack of scientific evidence.

When the House finally stopped laughing he went on to say:

The only evidence of any use at all is the experience the Japanese have gained from fishing these waters over the past 20 years. On that basis and on the knowledge of the history of fishing in these waters an agreement has been reached with the Japanese.

The Minister is wrong on two counts. Firstly, scientific studies have been done and papers have been published on the black martin fishing area off north Queensland. Two papers, one published in 1965 by John Howard and Shoji Neyanagi and the other in 1972 by Isumi Nakamura, provided scientific evidence that the waters around Cairns are a major breeding ground for black marlin. Secondly, there is considerable evidence from responsible bodies that the black marlin catch is declining at an alarming rate. The United States Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Services 1978 report states that the catch rate from sport fisheries off Cairns had declined by 50 per cent from 1971 to 1976. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation statistics show a decline in the tonnage of black marlin landed in Japan from 2,200 tonnes in 1 97 1 to 772 tonnes in 1976.

In 1975 the Japanese took 394 tonnes of black marlin from the Cairns region but in 1976, one year later, their catch dropped to 169 tonnes. This may not be scientific evidence but when these figures are considered alongside the fact that charter fishing operators from the Cairns region have reported a marked decline in the sightings of black marlin during the past two years one would have thought that the Minister for Primary Industry and his Department would have taken an educated guess and come to the view that something serious was happening to black marlin in the area off Cairns. A sensitive Minister would have said to himself: ‘These figures indicate that something is wrong. Let us have a scientific study before we proceed with the agreement’. But no, the Minister prefers to take the risk and for a miserable $1.4m is prepared to allow the Japanese long-line fishermen to deplete black marlin stocks further to the point where black marlin may become an endangered species.

I am sorry to have to say this but the Japanese record on conservation of the world’s fishing resources is quite deplorable. We are all well aware of Japan’s appalling record, along with that of the Russians, with regard to the whale. One could have some sympathy for Japanese fisher men if Japan were a poor developing country. But clearly it is not. It is one of the wealthiest countries in the world and it can well afford to buy other food to replace whale and marlin. The total value of the black marlin catch from Australian waters landed in Japan is an insignificant $750,000. To look at this in strictly monetary terms, Australia stands to lose a great deal more financially than the $1.4m that it will receive in licensing fees from the Japanese- the major portion, incidentally, being for tuna. At least 28 boats are engaged in charter for black martin sport fishing plus 10 mother ships for accommodation. Some 300 tourist fishermen pay more than $3m each year in charter fees alone, not to mention air fares, food, transport and a whole range of other goods and services that they pay for when they come to Australia, including of course the multiplier effect of -

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Grog.

Mr COHEN:

– As the honourable member for Parramatta reminds me, I imagine that those fishermen occasionally have a drink. There is also the multiplier effect on the tourist industry and the effect that has on the north Queensland economy. The publicity alone that people such as Lee Marvin and Jack Nicklaus bring to north Queensland is a major factor in building the aura of the region as an exciting tourist destination for hundreds of thousands of other visitors, both domestic and international, who come to the area even though they personally may never fish for marlin. In my view this answers the sort of charge made by my dear friend Mungo MacCullum, who wrote in this morning’s Australian Financial Review that the campaign was to: . . save the black marlin from marauding Japanese fishermen so that macho American actors like Lee Marvin can spend huge amounts of money coming to Queensland to catch one and be photographed with it.

I point out to those who make this point that the sports fishermen catch only 100 black martin a year. The rest are tagged and released. The New South Wales State Fisheries Game Fishing Tagging Program, under which the catching and tagging in the region is supervised, reports that 1,200 martin have been caught and tagged during the past two years alone. So there is a very small ratio of one martin killed for every six which are caught and released.

One would have thought and hoped that at least the Government would have insisted upon a provision in the agreement similar to that required by the United States Government. Since 1977 the United States has prohibited foreign long-line vessels operating in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters from keeping any billfish such as martin or sailfish if they are caught in the United States 200-mile fishing zone. United States observers are on board each fishing vessel at the fishermen’s expense to see that all billfish caught are released. The Minister, who professes to be concerned about the problem, had not even heard about the United States regulation when I asked him a question about it yesterday. I understand that the United States is drafting similar regulations to apply to its Pacific waters next year. The Minister has made great play of the fact that Japanese long-line fishermen have been operating in this region for the past 20 to 30 years. That is totally irrelevant because, as the Minister well knows, under the previously existing law of the sea there was no way that we could have stopped them. The declaration of the Australian fishing zone under the new law of the sea enabled Australia to prohibit those fishing practices which we considered deleterious to Australia’s resources. What the Minister has now done is to formalise and legalise these practices for a small fee.

The agreement reached between the Commonwealth and Queensland supposedly restricts the Japanese fishermen from 80,000 square miles. The Australian fishing zone does absolutely nothing further to restrict Japanese fishermen other than to ban them from the Gulf of Carpenteria. Long-line fishermen would not fish in most of those 80,000 square miles anyhow. The agreement that prohibits them from 12 miles seaward of the 200-metre depth mark is absurd. In the Cairns area the 200-metre line is only 100 or so metres from much of the reef. Earlier the Queensland Government was publicly calling on the Federal Government not to allow long-lines any closer than 100 miles from the reef in an area 13 degrees south to 18 degrees south. This is still the call from fishing organisations and conservation groups. One of the most disgraceful episodes of this whole mess is the fact that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has not been consulted. This was made clear when on 1 1 October Senator Webster, the Minister for Science and the Environment, was asked a question about black marlin fishing. We have also been informed from reliable sources that the Department of Primary Industry is setting up a State-Commonwealth committee to investigate game fishing. It does not include representatives of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. When the Authority asked why it was not to be brought into the discussion it was told: ‘You stick to tourism. Fishing is none of your business’. When one realises that the next section of the reef to be declared is likely to be the area between Lizard Island and Innisfail one wonders just what is going on.

This is just another example of the total incompetence of this Government when it comes to protecting Australia’s environment from predators. The Government still has not given an assurance that the Great Barrier Reef will not be drilled for oil. Taiwanese fishermen are still operating quite openly and taking hundreds of thousands of clams. And now we have an Australian government selling out the black marlin for a miserable few dollars. It is ironic that next week Australia Post will release four stamps dealing with fish that have a special significance to Australia. One of those stamps will be a 50c stamp showing a black marlin. If the Government does not move soon to end this outrage the only people who will see black marlin in future will be philatelists. As Lee Marvin has been mentioned in relation to this matter I finish by quoting what he said. He is one of our best known black marlin fishermen. He has made a public appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) not to sign the fishing agreement with the Japanese because, he said:

If you do, Mr Prime Minister, it will be like the purchase of Manhattan for 27 bucks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Transport and Minister for Primary Industry · Gippsland · NCP/NP

– The honourable member for Robertson (Mr Cohen) does no service to the black marlin fishing industry, nor does he solve the problems facing it, when he speaks so emotionally, illogically and with a lack of information. It is interesting to note that this is the first time that the Opposition has started to take any interest in the welfare of Australia’s fishing resources. Let us look at the current position. Till this point of time the Japanese have been fishing in Australian waters, unhindered, up to the 12-mile limit and in some cases, till 1 975, up to the 3-mile limit for the past 20 to 30 years. Why has not the Australian Labor Party expressed any concern about that? Till this point of time, fishing has been almost open slather. I can only say that the honourable member for Robertson is simply trying to score cheap political points.

One could readily ask the Opposition what its intentions would be, looking at its policy in respect of the 200-mile Australian fishing zone. Its policy states that a Labor government will without prejudice to the existing fishing industry establish Australian and joint international projects to exploit the 200-mile economic zone for control over fisheries. There is no mention in that policy of protecting the marlin. So let us not have any of the humbug that we had from the honourable member for Robertson. What the Opposition refuses to recognise in this matter is that as a result of the declaration of the 200-mile Australian fishing zone, Australia has been able for the first time to negotiate a fisheries agreement with Japan which places very considerable restrictions on its fishing activities within Australian waters. This agreement places on

Japanese activities limits which have never previously been imposed and with regard to the tuna long-line fishing the agreement can be renegotiated at the end of 12 months. This agreement is not life-long. It is re-negotiable after 12 months and within the period of the agreement it can and will be closely monitored.

The Opposition completely and absolutely refuses to acknowledge the benefits of the agreement. It seems that fundamentally the Labor Party has adopted the view that Australia should not sign any fishing agreement with Japan and presumably with any other foreign country. That attitude totally ignores ALP policy, but more importantly it ignores Australia’s international obligations and can be described only as completely irresponsible. In extending jurisdiction over a 200-mile fishing zone Australia gets certain rights but also has to assume certain obligations. Among these is a requirement from the Law of the Sea Conference ‘that coastal States are required to have regard to the need to minimise economic dislocation in States whose nationals have habitually fished in the zone or have made substantial efforts in research and identification of stocks’. Japan fills both these criteria. The Japanese have been fishing these waters for 25 years. But despite this Australia has succeeded through the fisheries agreement to have Japanese fishing activities in Australian waters restricted over considerable areas around Australia, including the 80,000 square miles of water off Queensland.

Let me explain some of the history which led up to this agreement. Preliminary discussions with regard to this proposed agreement took place in mid- 1978. Since then there have been consistent consultations through the Australian Fisheries Council, consisting of Commonwealth and State Ministers, and the Standing Committee on Fisheries, the South Eastern Fisheries Committee, the Northern Fisheries Committee and directly, as occasion required, by official discussions with the States concerned. In the last two weeks further discussions have been held on the martin issue. Last Friday a joint Commonwealth-Queensland officials meeting in Brisbane reached an agreed position on access by Japanese tuna long-line fishing vessels in waters off the north of Queensland. The Japanese Government has been notified of that agreement. Prior to signing the agreement the Japanese have been informed that the Australian Government will seek early consultations to examine the necessity or otherwise of an additional area off Cairns from which long-line tuna vessels should be excluded next year. Also more detailed studies will be undertaken during the period of the one year agreement to determine the full effects of Japanese long-line activities in Australian waters. The Japanese Government has been notified that in the ensuing months Australia will be paying particular attention to monitoring the arrangements as they affect game fishing stocks and activities in the Cairns area. Under the agreement the Japanese fishermen will be required to report the activities regularly, including catch information every six days. Their activities will also be subject to inspection by Australian officials at any time. These restrictions have not been imposed on Japanese fishing activities in the past.

As I have already said, this agreement excludes Japanese fishing operations from considerable areas of Australian waters. Put in simple terms, these areas of exclusion on the east coast take in all waters inside the 200-mile isobath. This includes all the Great Barrier Reef and the continental shelf. In addition, on the east coast there is further exclusion of long-liners from a strip of water some 3,600 square miles in area between 14 degrees 20 minutes south and 18 degrees. This is the area fished by northern Queensland game fishermen. In both these areas, there is total exclusion of Japanese longline vessels accounting for a total area of about 80,000 square miles of water. None of these exclusions would have been possible without a fisheries agreement with Japan. Around the remainder of Australia Japanese long-liners are excluded from operating in large areas of waters in the south-east, across the Great Australian Bight and off the Northern Territory either completely or on a seasonal basis. Otherwise their operations are excluded from all waters within 12 miles of the Australian coastline or its islands. These conditions are precisely defined in the proposed agreement relating to Japanese longline access.

Let me stress another point about this agreement in respect of long-line vessels. It will be an agreement for only one year. During the year, as I have said, we will be closely monitoring the working of it and the effects of the Japanese long-line activities. We will be taking into full account the views of interested parties, including the observations of game fishing organisations. I am advised that statistics do not indicate evidence that the operations of the Japanese longliners are seriously affecting martin stocks m waters off north Queensland nor that they are having an adverse effect on the appeal of big game fishing as a sport and tourist attraction. Members of the Opposition might be interested to know that the Japanese claim that this agreement will result in a considerably reduced fish take.

The honourable member for Robertson tried to make capital from what I said the other day in answer to a question about the lack of research information. Let me make the point again that there has been no Commonwealth funded or effective research into marlin or other bill fish, but there has been considerable research and scientific evidence available to and used by the Commonwealth in relation to fisheries. The Commonwealth has not involved itself directly because until now it has had no jurisdictional responsibility in this area. However, all information on the various examinations that have been carried out has been available to the Department of Primary Industry and has been used by the Department in its assessment of the situation. These research programs have provided information into breeding areas, fishing patterns, migratory patterns, the size of marlin stocks and age distribution within stocks. On the basis of all this information there is no evidence that marlin or tuna fish stocks in the Coral Sea are under any biological threat through present fishing activity. I think the honourable member for Robertson does a disservice by trying to build this up into an emotional issue. Indeed statements in recent days by game fishermen spokesmen bear this out, On AM yesterday the President of the Cairns Game Fishing Club, Mr Jock Izatt reiterated a point which he made on Australian Broadcasting Commission radio in Brisbane the day before. He said:

There is absolutely no evidence we have found that we have to hand to suggest that the black marlin is an endangered species. Catches have been variable from year to year over the past 30 years. But, definitely nothing to suggest that they are an endangered species. There’s still plenty of good fish up here.

Mr Cohen:

– He is the only one in the area who says so.

Mr NIXON:

– I suggest he would know more about it than the honourable member would. That is what Mr Izatt, who is the President of the Cairns Game Fishing Club, said on Brisbane radio in the last couple of days. He also said- this is the truth- that the whole affair had become a political football. He said that the people who have been making statements have not the knowledge- I think he is referring to the honourable member for Robertson- or the right to make statements on behalf of the areas in the far north of Queensland. However, should there be any evidence of deterioration in the stocks of marlin or tuna fish during the 12 months of the agreement with the Japanese it will be within the power of the Commonwealth to modify any future agreements in order to protect Australian fishing interests.

It is worth looking further at the protection and benefits that the 200-mile Australian fishing zone offers to Australia. The essential effect is that foreign fishermen operating within the 200-mile zone will be in breach of the law unless they have an Australian licence and they comply with terms and conditions of access determined by Australia. Australia will determine the total allowable catch; the catch that will be taken by Australians, and the allocation to foreign countries of any available surplus. Foreigners will not be allowed to fish areas fully exploited by Australians or likely to be exploited in the near future. The allocation to foreign fishermen will be reduced as Australians develop the capacity to operate in specific areas. Foreigners will not be allowed to fish areas fully exploited by Australians or likely to be so exploited in the near future. Allocations to foreign fishermen will be reduced as Australians develop the capacity to operate in specific areas.

Let me summarise: Australia is now in a far better position than ever before with regard to Japanese fishing activities in our waters. For the past 30-odd years, the Japanese have been operating freely up to 12 miles off the Australian coastline. They are now required to report details of their catch and operation every six days. Their activities are subject to inspection by Australian officials at any time. Japanese tuna long-line vessels are excluded at present from a total area of 80,000 square miles off the Queensland coast; and that has never been the case before. All this is the result of negotiations among the Commonwealth, the Queensland Government, industry organisations and the Japanese.

We have now served notice on the Japanese that we will be closely monitoring the effects of their fishing activities on the tuna and marlin stocks off the Queensland coast. If there is need to exclude their long-liners from additional waters, they will be excluded in future agreements. We will be conducting studies which will include input by game fishermen organisations throughout the duration of this 12 month agreement. Australia will not allow the marlin or tuna stocks to be dangerously depleted. There is no evidence at present to suggest that past fishing activities by the Japanese are leading to such a situation. For the first time ever, the entire question of Japanese long line fishing activities has been brought under control to a position where it can be monitored and its effects studied.

As a result of a meeting that I had last night with representatives of New South Wales and Queensland game fishing organisations, a working committee is to be established to monitor the progress of the agreement. The committee will be made up of Commonwealth, Queensland and New South Wales government officials and representatives of game fishing organisations.

Mr Cohen:

– The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority?

Mr NIXON:

-The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is not in it because it is not even in the zone of fishing. That is the simple reason. The fishing begins way beyond the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It is as simple as that. I have also agreed to put to the Government as soon as possible a request by the game fishing delegation that Australia seek a voluntary withdrawal by the Japanese of their tuna long-line fishing vessels from operating in waters off the Queensland coast between 13 degrees and 18 degrees south during the period of the agreement. I can assure the House, as I assured the delegation which saw me last night, that the Australian Government is vitally concerned to ensure adequate protection of the marlin fishery off north Queensland. We will not allow long line fishing activities to jeopardise that fishery.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

-The discussion is concluded.

page 2112

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

Bill presented by Mr Fife, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I move:

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979 now before the House proposes amendments to Schedule 2 to the Customs Tariff Act 1966.

The Bill follows a complete review of the operation and application of the 2 per cent revenue duty imposed on 1 July 1979 as part of the Government’s overall budgetary policy. As a result of this review the Government has decided to exempt two specific areas of imports from the 2 per cent duty. While remaining committed to the retention of the levy, the Government had decided to exempt two specific areas from its application.

The areas involved are: Ships and other vessels temporarily imported into Australia on the authority of the Minister for Transport under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations; and goods for use in connection with the exploration for petroleum or the development of petroleum wells to the point where the well-head assembly is attached.

Exemption from the 2 per cent duty on these goods has been made because of the temporary nature of imports of ships and similar vessels and the Government’s desire not to impede oil exploration in Australia.

Whilst the Government appreciates the effect of the revenue duty on other goods and areas of industry it could not see its way clear to extending exemptions beyond the two areas referred to. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Clyde Cameron) adjourned.

page 2112

DIESEL FUEL TAXATION (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill presented by Mr Fife, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– I move:

The Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Act 1957, which contains the administrative machinery for the collection of a tax imposed on diesel fuel when used in propelling a road vehicle on a public road, currently stipulates that if a person who has purchased diesel fuel free of tax for use otherwise than in propelling a road vehicle on a public road subsequently uses that fuel for propelting a road vehicle on a public road he shall, within 2 1 days after such use, notify a collector of customs in writing that the fuel has been so used.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Diesel Fuel Taxation (Administration) Act 1957 to enable that notification period to be extended beyond 2 1 days so as to accommodate persons who have experienced difficulty in complying with this requirement because of present day accounting practices.

Clause 4 of the Bill continues the Government’s policy of expanding, wherever possible, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to administrative decisions which affect the rights or entitlements of persons under Commonwealth legislation. I commend the Bill to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Cohen) adjourned.

page 2113

SECURITY LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motions ( by Mr Viner) proposed:

  1. . That Standing Order 48a be suspended for this sitting.
  2. That in relation to the prog. ceedings on the following Bills, so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the House making one declaration of urgency and moving one motion for the allotment of time in respect of all the Bills:

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1 979

Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 [No. 2]

Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. ( Quorum formed).

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I oppose the motion. I did not think I would ever see a day when a so-called parliamentary democracy would allow a Bill such as the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill, which will introduce into this country a police state, to be pushed through the Parliament without proper debate. That is what the motion moved by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) is all about. He is asking this House to agree to allow a Minister to gag a debate on the introduction of a police state.

I remember speaking at a meeting of the InterParliamentary Union in Majorca how I astounded some of my co-delegates when I set out some of the complaints I had against the laws and the government of this country. I said that I lived in a country in which people could be forced to fight against their will in an undeclared foreign war; a country in which men could be sent to gaol for refusing to work at a rate of pay fixed by somebody sitting as an arbitrator. I said that I belonged to a country which had a Crimes Act which made it a crime to decide to withhold one’s labour until one got a rate of pay that one considered to be justifiable. I went through all the complaints I had about Australia but I concluded my speech by saying: ‘But with all the things I have enumerated with which I disagree I have one advantage over most of the delegates at this conference. The advantage is this: When I go back to Australia after condemning my own government in the manner in which I have, nobody will put his hand on my shoulder as I get out of the plane and say “Come with me”.’ I remarked that to me that represented an enormous advantage. It was something that distinguished my country from those of many of the delegates who had spoken at the same conference.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– Gough Whitlam said it to you in 1 974 when he sacked you.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Gough Whitlam did not sack me in 1 974.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– In 1 975 then.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Now the honourable member is changing his ground. He should make up his mind. Gough Whitlam did not sack me in 1975 either. Gough Whitlam told the Governor-General how to sack Ministers. He pointed out to the Governor-General the section of the Constitution which gave him the right to sack any Minister. There is no such thing in the Constitution as a Prime Minister. I want to correct the honourable member on that point.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! I ask the honourable member for Hindmarsh to remain relevant to the motion.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The proposal to gag the debate on a matter such as this must be unprecedented. I could not now go to another international conference and make concluding remarks of the kind I did at the IPU meeting in 1967. This Government is not a democratic government. It treats the Parliament with utter contempt, otherwise it would not have moved a motion such as that which has been moved. This Government is being governed by public servants who are not answerable to anybody. It does not care two hoots for the Parliament. We may as well all pack up, go home and allow the Government to ram through its dictatorial legislation without debate. One would have thought that the Government would at least have gone through the pretence of making it appear that we are living in a democracy.

I do not know of any democracy in the world in which such a motion could be moved. In the United States a Bill such as the ASIO Bill could certainly not be railroaded through the Congress without proper debate. It was bad enough pushing through the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill without debate and without letting those who wished to make contributions have their say, but to push through a proposal that affects the liberty of every single human being in this country is the last straw. I asked in the debate yesterday- I repeat it now- why is my private residence under almost constant surveillance? That is what I want to know. The Minister will not answer the question.

Mr Viner:

– Gough Whitlam wants to look at your papers.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The Minister says that Gough Whitlam wants to look at my papers and that he is about to make a Watergate break into my house. I do not care who is doing it. All I know is that the surveillance is being carried out by two people who are using motor cars from the Commonwealth car pool.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Hindmarsh will come back to the motion.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-If Gough Whitlam has the use of Commonwealth cars, he has much more influence than I imagined him to have. I am genuinely disturbed about the trend in Australia. I warn the Government that once it has set the police state apparatus in motion there is no way that it can unwind it. There is no going back on it. We are taking steps from which there is no possible retreat. We are elected by our various constituencies to put a point of view. I remind the House that that view is widely held by people all over Australia. Those honourable members who will vote to gag the most important debate that any of us in the Parliament have listened to for the past two or three years are representing people who will not support them in what they are going to do. People do not agree with the police state propositions which the Government is trying to push through the Parliament without debate.

Mr Hodges:

– Rubbish.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-It is not rubbish. It is absolutely correct. I am answering the interjection because I want the honourable member’s remark to be registered in Hansard. I notice that the Hansard reporter has looked at him and got his name. The electors of his district will now know that he believes that it is rubbish to have a proper debate on a Bill that affects the civil liberties of every human being in this country, including the people in his electorate.

Mr Ruddock:

– It was rubbish when you suggested that it was a police state.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Of course it is a police state. I repeat that it is a police state and I make no apology for saying that. It is a police state purely and simply, without any qualification at all. The Minister can grin. He does not seem to care whether this country is a police state. His behaviour today is a behaviour of a Minister of a police state. Honourable members opposite should not grizzle. I repeat that the Minister’s behaviour today is the behaviour one would expect from a Minister of a police state. No self-respecting democracy in the world would try to push this sort of legislation through without the people’s representatives having the right to say what their constituents think about the matter. Honourable members are not cheating us. They are cheating the people we represent. They are cheating not only the people whom we on this side of the Parliament represent but also the people whom they represent. They do it smugly with an arrogant indifference to the effect of what they are doing. They do not care that the people’s representatives are being prevented from saying what they want to say. They sit smugly, satisfied that because they have the numbers they can do what they like. I do not mind their using their numbers to win a vote after there has been a fair and reasonable debate but I reject and resent their using their numbers to prevent a proper debate before the vote is taken.

Motion ( by Mr Viner) proposed:

That the question be now put.

Mr Holding:

– What a dirty little fascist you are.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member will withdraw the statement.

Mr Holding:

– It is very accurate.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The honourable member for Melbourne Ports will withdraw the statement.

Mr Holding:

– I withdraw the ‘dirty’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member will rise to his feet and withdraw the statement in a manner appropriate to the offence.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘dirty’.

Mr Viner:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for the whole phrase to be withdrawn without qualification.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The Chair called on the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to withdraw the statement he made. The Chair did not detect in his remarks, as they faded, that he had put a qualification on his withdrawal. If he has not withdrawn in total, I ask him to do so.

Mr Holding:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect to your ruling, the words I used, which I should not repeat -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-I request the honourable member not to repeat them.

Mr Holding:

– The words involved a political description of the honourable gentleman opposite. I believe it is an accurate political description, having regard -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I call on the honourable member to withdraw immediately.

Mr Holding:

– On what basis, sir? If you are ruling that the word ‘fascist’ is unparliamentary -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! I have called on the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to withdraw the statement that the Chair determined to be offensive. The honourable member is well aware of the statement to which I allude.

Mr Holding:

– If the Chair determines it is offensive, I will withdraw.

Question put-

That the question be now put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 70

NOES: 30

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the motion (Mr Viner’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 70

NOES: 30

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority.

Declaration of Urgency

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

, the Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979 and the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The question is: That the Bills be considered urgent Bills ‘.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr VINER:
Leader of the House · Stirling · LP

-I move:

That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows:

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979:

For the remainder of the committee stage, until 8.20 p.m. this day;

For the remaining stages, until 8.30 p.m. this day;

Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 [No. 2] -For the remaining stages, until 10 p.m. this day;

Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979- For the remaining stages, until 10.15 p.m. this day;

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979-For the remaining stages, until 10.30 p.m. this day.

In giving the reasons for introducing this limitation to the debate, let me explain that it has been found necessary during this Budget session to create a balance between the Budget debate, the debates within Estimates committees and the debates on the Budget Bills as well as debates on other important legislation which is before the House. Included in those important Bills are those upon which this limitation of debate is being placed. Let me point out to the House that already there has been very extensive debate on all these Bills in the other place and in this House. The time taken in the Senate for debate on these Bills was just under 30 hours. Already in this House we have spent some 18 hours and 15 minutes in debate. With the time now allotted before completion there will be a total of 2 1 hours debate in this House. Therefore I think that all honourable members will appreciate that with 5 1 hours of debate on this Bill the Government has allowed very extensive time. I have previously advised the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Manager of Opposition Business that the Government is anxious to complete the passage of these Bills by this evening. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table setting out particulars of the amount of time taken in debate in this House as well as the figures that I have mentioned relating to debate in the Senate.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr VINER:

– Just in case the Opposition should think that the Government is using a heavy hand in bringing about this limitation of debate on these Bills, let me just compare the experience of the Parliament under the present Government since it was elected to office late in 1975 and the experience when Mr Fred Daly was Leader of the House between autumn of 1973 and the Budget of 1975. I remember this very well because Fred Daly as Leader of the House for the Labor Government, was a very good mentor. Just to show the earnestness with which this Government approaches the operation of the Parliament and the opportunity for debate in this Parliament, I mention these total figures. Under the former Labor Government, Bills initiated totalled 694; Bills passed, 504; closures, 404; matters of public importance, 93; and guillotines 26. That was 26 guillotines involving 59 Bills. Under the present Government, the totals are: Bills initiated, 618; Bills passed, 581; closures, 296; matters of public importance, 154, against the Labor Government’s 93; and guillotines, 3.

Mr Bourchier:

– How many?

Mr VINER:
Mr Bourchier:

– How many?

Mr VINER:

– Three guillotines involving only seven Bills. I ask leave of the Parliament to incorporate that table in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Mr VINER:

-I think that this House will appreciate that the Government has allowed very extensive debate in the Senate and in this House on what we do acknowledge is a Bill of considerable importance. We bring down this guillotine only in order to facilitate the business of the Parliament in this very busy Budget session.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– The Opposition rejects the motion moved by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). I think it is quite a specious argument to talk about who moved so many guillotines in the past. There have been no Bills like these in the Government’s legislation program before. There would be no more important pieces of legislation in Australia than these Bills. A report on the security service took some years to prepare. Mr Justice Hope travelled the world to gather information on how an intelligence organisation should be run in this country. He said that it ought to be run on a bipartisan basis. I cannot think of anything more ridiculous or more confrontationist than to say at this stage that the Government will guillotine debate on this legislation. This action will guarantee that everybody in the country who feels that there is something wrong with this legislation will go out and agitate against it. So they should, as this is a democratic country.

How do we expect to maintain democracy in this country if these Rafferty rules apply to the consideration of this legislation which has been dragged into this Parliament as a stop-gap matter for debate over the past two months. The Government has never set aside a consecutive period of days for discussion of this Bill. We are talking about the liberties of the people. We are not talking about Fred Daly, how many guillotines he moved or how many pieces of legislation were passed by such a device. We are talking about the rights of the people. Not one of the amendments moved by the Opposition has been accepted. The Government has a Charlie McCarthy type of proposition here: Whatever we put up cannot be accepted. At least in the Senate the senators did have some discussions on this legislation. Some amendments were accepted. In terms of the Government adopting a flexible approach to or acknowledging any expertise in the suggestions that we make, this arrangement is a phony one.

Let us put the argument very clearly. I discussed this matter with the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) on a television program. He said that the Leader of the Opposition would be entitled to as much information as he as Attorney-General had. When we moved the amendment yesterday, that proposition was rejected by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. This is the sort of nonsense we get. It demonstrates the duplicity of standards in intelligence gathering in this country. Let us make this point very clear: If the Government does not get the co-operation of the Opposition, it will have no intelligence system. Let us make that very clear indeed because that is the very problem we face at the present time. How does the Government expect to maintain the democratic forces in this country if it is to deny to an Opposition the chance to move amendments. Honourable members should look at the dme schedule allowed for the discussion of the Bills. Within an hour and a half, we have to debate another 19 amendments. Government members have been participating in the debate as often as we have.

The Government has allocated an hour and a half to the debate on the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1 979 (No. 2 ) to which we propose another 16 amendments. Why have a debate at all? Why not guillotine consideration of the legislation now? That is the Government’s standard. Do not worry too much when eruptions take place outside, public meetings and national protests are held, or anything else occurs because of the standard that has been adopted by the Government. Does the Government think that it will hold the line on the basis that because it passes certain legislation by the use of the guillotine device here it will be able to explain to the people outside that it gave the Opposition the opportunity for a bipartisan debate on this matter. It did nothing of the sort. The Opposition has carefully prepared and circulated 25 amendments and they require a lot of consideration. We have now reached consideration of amendment No. 6. We therefore have 19 to go and only an hour in which to deal with them. I put it to honourable members -

Mr Hodges:

– You are wasting time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-I am not wasting time. I place on record the fact that, if the Government does not get the co-operation of the Opposition there will be no intelligence service. Do not come here with a jack-boot arrangement. There was no discussion, none at all, about this legislation. Let us make that point clear. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs asked me yesterday whether he could get the cooperation of the Opposition to finish debate on the Bill. I said that I could not guarantee it because of the number of amendments we proposed to move. These amendments will not be discussed. This Bill will not be discussed.

Mr Hodges:

– It is up to you.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-It is up to the Government. It proposes this action. That is the problem it faces. So I will move, in the concluding stages of my speech, that we alter the timetable. We do it on the basis that the time for the remainder of the Committee stages of this Bill be until 6 p.m. on Thursday, 18 October and for the remaining stages until 10.30 p.m. of that day. I will move that the debate on the remaining stages of the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill be allowed to continue until 10 p.m. on 23 October, that debate on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill continue until 10. 15 p.m. on 23 October, and that debate on the Customs Amendment Bill continue until 10.30 pm. on 23 October. Therefore, in accordance with what I have outlined, I move:

That the timetable and dates be omitted and the following substituted:

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979:

For the remainder of the committee stage, until 6 p.m. Thursday 18 October.

For the remaining stages, until 10.30 p.m. 18 October.

Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 [_o. 2]’#or the remaining stages, until 1 0 p.m. 23 October.

Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979- For the remaining stages, until 1 0. 1 5 p.m. 23 October.

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979-For the remaining stages, until 10.30 p.m. 23 October 1979.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-I second the amendment and, in speaking to the amendment, I make this point: I have never heard two more specious arguments than those used by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), who is at the table. I listened to the constitutional nonsense that is involved in his motion. What we are told is that if a period is spent in the Senate debating a particular Bill, that is time, presumably in the view of this Government, that ought to be deducted from the debating time in this House. The logic of that argument presumably is that if the Senate spent double that amount of time in considering the legislation, there would be no need at all for debate in this chamber on these matters. That is not only constitutional nonsense from the Minister. He is a lawyer and he knows it is constitutional nonsense. It is also political hypocrisy of the worst sort.

Of course, the other argument is that we look at what a government did at some other time. Many present members of this Parliament were not in this Parliament at the earlier time referred to. To say that what somebody did in the past is binding upon honourable members who were elected to this House at the last election is constitutional nonsense also. Let us look at the substance and the merits of the argument. What we are being told is that it is more important for honourable members to have two hours for dinner. This is the reality of the argument. The great

Liberal Party- the party that talks about liberty and freedom believes that it is more important for all members on the Government side to be able to go and wine and dine for two hours than to allocate more than an hour and a half to consider the main Committee stages of the legislation. That is the logic of it.

Mr Haslem:

– Don’t you have committee meetings?

Mr HOLDING:

– The honourable member for Canberra wants to put a gag on himself. I do not blame him. Most of the things he says are so unintelligent that he ought to apply a gag to himself. But there are many of us who are concerned about the rights and the liberties of the people of Canberra. I do not believe that, because, the honourable member or some of his colleagues wander off into a room with a handful of food and some bottles of wine and talk about great matters affecting the Liberal Party and the nation, they are discharging their obligations. What honourable members opposite are saying is that they can have two hours for those sorts of meetings but only an hour and a half is to be allocated for members of this Parliament to debate this Bill. What honourable members opposite are paid for is to put their arguments in this Parliament, to stand up and argue the issues that are involved in this very important legislation. There is no single piece of legislation that deals with the rights and liberties of the Australian people that is as important as this legislation.

The honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), who is trying to interject, comes in here only to put up his hand to suggest the guillotine. He has not been present for any stage of the debate on these Bills. Of course, he is in here now to give the Government the numbers. I endorse very strongly the views previously put by the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). He said quite properly that the Government by virtue of the numbers that it has in this House is entitled to use those numbers in order to get whatever legislation it wants through the Parliament. We understand that that is how the process works. If this process is destroyed it demeans this Parliament. It makes a laughing stock of the Parliament when the Government uses its numbers to deny honourable members the right to argue these issues fully, within the framework of their conscience, and to put the argument that they want to put. That is what it comes down to.

Mr Graham:

– Ask Senator Pat Kennelly.

Mr HOLDING:

– I would defend the right of the honourable gentleman opposite to get up and put bis argument. I concede that he has been in the chamber for most of the debate, but I, and the people who elected him, want to hear his argument. On an issue as important as this I believe the Parliament does itself a great disservice when honourable members opposite simply walk in, and put up their hand for the gag and say: ‘We have the numbers and we are going to use them’. Honourable members opposite should not believe that by gagging this Parliament they are going to stop the debate. The debate concerning these issues will continue in the community. They are important issues, and the debate will go on.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

– I must say that I am somewhat surprised at this rather feigned anger to which we have just had to listen. Usually, when the guillotine is introduced, there is an immediate reaction. One hears cries from the Opposition at the way in which it is being treated. It was remarkable that today, when notice was given of this motion and the suspension of Standing Orders was moved on this most important question, as it was described by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), there were no cries of anger.

Mr Giles:

– No reference to jack-boots.

Mr RUDDOCK:

– There was no concern expressed and there was no reference to jack-boots, as my honourable friend mentions. There were so few honourable members opposite interested in hearing the discussion that there were not enough of them to rise to their usual chorus. One of the honourable members opposite even had to go to the trouble of calling for a quorum. Usually members of the Opposition wait outside the door to make the Government provide the numbers- we all know about that tactic- but on this occasion an honourable member was madly waving to his friends to come into the chamber. One person to whom he waved was the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett), who was wandering about outside, wondering whether to come into the House to help provide the audience to give us this demonstration of concern.

One might be convinced if one thought that all honourable members of the Opposition were basically interested in this subject, wanted to see it discussed and had new information to bring to us, which matters they wanted to be put on public record. Of the 37 members opposite only 14 have spoken in this debate at any stage. There have been many opportunities for them to do so. Yesterday we had to listen to four or more honourable members opposite making speeches twice in order to ensure that the debate was continued as long as possible. Honourable members on this side of the House are expected to sit back and allow the proceedings of the House to be thwarted in this way. If honourable members opposite had been in that position, we all know what would have happened. We know from their record what has happened in that situation. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner) quoted from the record of the Opposition. I am surprised that some of the newer members of the Opposition do not take the time to read through Hansard in order to see what that record was. They might care to dissociate themselves from it. I would be happy to hear from them if they did. I do not think anybody really expects them to do that. During the term of office of the previous government some 59 Bills were dealt with in 26 guillotines. During the term of office of this Government only three such procedural mechanisms have been used. I am quite prepared to put that record against the record of the Opposition at any time. I admit that the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill is an important piece of legislation. If it were not necessary for the business of the Parliament to proceed perhaps I would be prepared to give honourable members opposite extra time. I enjoyed the debate so much yesterday when honourable members opposite demonstrated their differences of opinion on this question, that I would like to see them given more time to develop those differences.

Dr Blewett:

– Then why not vote with us?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-I said that if it were not important to the procedures of this House that the legislation be dealt with I would be happy to give the Opposition an opportunity to do that. But of course we all know about the Opposition and its differences of opinion. We have started to see them emerging in relation to the debate that has taken place already. But one of the most remarkable propositions was put by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) in relation to committees, when he referred to my friend the honourable member for Canbera (Mr Haslem). He was suggesting that the Liberal Party decides matters behind closed doors and closets itself away to make decisions affecting the welfare of the nation.

Now who is really fooling whom? Caucus is something that I have heard about. If the Labor Party thinks it can do without its Caucus to decide how it is going to vote on these important questions, or to bring everybody into line to ensure that nobody with a different view will be able to vote, let us have the Parliament meet on Wednesday mornings. Then we will see whether the Labor Party wants to do without Caucus. Even the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron), who has a different point of view, will not be able to vote and give effect to that point of view in this House. Honourable members opposite are the people who need the opportunity to get behind closed doors in order to decide their approach. When those sorts of remarks are made during debate it is clear to the people of Australia which party has an admirable record in relation to opportunities to speak on these questions.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The time allowed for discussion of the motion has expired.

Question put-

That the times proposed to be omitted (Mr Lionel Bowen’s amendment) stand part of the motion.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 68

NOES: 29

Majority…… 39

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 69

NOES: 29

Majority…… 40

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2121

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 16 October.

Clause 8.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Last night just before the adjournment debate I made the declaration that a tap had been placed on the private telephone of Mr Justice Staples by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

Mr Roger Johnston:

– How do you know? Prove it.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do know and I am not going to tell the honourable member how I know because when people give me confidential information I never reveal in this place where I get it. That is why I get so much information. People know that they can trust me not to disclose my source. I am expecting to get a little more information as a consequence of the declaration I have now made.

During the weekend just passed Mr Justice Staples phoned me at my home to ask whether I knew whether there was any truth in the newspaper reports that the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) had been the person responsible for leaking to the Press a copy of the letter of Mr Justice Staples. I told him- the ASIO tape recording of our conversation will confirm this-that I refused to believe that the Minister had leaked it; that I believed it had been leaked by other persons, perhaps from the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. I asked him whether he had sent copies to the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations, the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations and the employers. This had also been reported in some of the newspapers. He told me quite emphatically that no copy of his letter had gone to the ACTU. I then warned him that I had been informed on impeccable authority that his telephone was under tap. I said to him: ‘If you want to say anything more to me that is likely to be of a confidential nature I ask you not to proceed because our telephone is under tap’.

Mr Birney:

– What did he ring you for? Why you?

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-He rang me to ask- I repeat what I said earlier- whether I believed there was any truth in newspaper reports that the Minister for Industrial Relations had been the one responsible for leaking a copy of his letter. I denied it. I said that I did not believe that the Minister would do it; that there would be no mileage in it for him; and I am now astonished to learn that somebody from his office, apparently without his knowledge, had done exactly that. I repeat that the tape recording of the conversation which ASIO has in its possession will confirm those remarks.

It is terribly important that the Minister have the right to call for dossiers and for the files that ASIO might keep. I cite no better case than the case of Mr Justice Lionel Murphy, as he now is. When he was the Attorney-General, one Thursday night after the Senate adjourned he decided to go to the headquarters of ASIO in Canberra with Mr Kerry Milte and Maureen Barron to have a talk about concern that was being expressed by the Commonwealth Police regarding the security of the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, who was expected to arrive in Canberra within a few days time. ASIO had previously said that there would be no threat to the Prime Minister’s life. It had to say this, because this was the story it had kept feeding to Senator Greenwood when he was Attorney-General. When Senator Murphy got to the ASIO headquarters he discovered that in point of fact ASIO had received information that it was the intention of Croatian terrorists to put cyanide in the air conditioning system of the Lakeside Hotel.

What I am telling the Parliament now has never been revealed before but it has to be revealed now because it is germane to the clause that we are talking about. Senator Murphy asked the people at ASIO: ‘What have you done about this threat?’ They replied: ‘We have put telephone taps on all the people who we believe might be involved in this attempt to kill the Prime Minister’. He asked: ‘What does the telephone tapping reveal?’ They replied: ‘Oh, we do not know because we have not transcribed the recordings yet’. He asked: ‘When do you propose to transcribe them?’ They replied: ‘Oh, it won’t be for a while- perhaps a week or so after the Prime Minister leaves Australia’. He asked: Have you photographs of the Croatian suspects?’ They answered: ‘Oh, yes, we have photographs’. He asked: ‘Have you given photographs to the Lakeside Hotel? “They replied: ‘Oh no, but that is a jolly good idea. We have given the Lakeside the names’. He asked: ‘Couldn’t they change their names?’ They agreed: ‘Of course, but you have a good idea, AttorneyGeneral. We will give the Lakeside the photos of the suspects’.

Senator Murphy then said: ‘Now I want to have a look at the file, if I may’. So the people at ASIO handed over the file. Among other things, in the file Senator Murphy discovered that there had been a secret meeting among officers of the Department of Immigration, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General’s Department, his own Department and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at which these officers had decided that they would inform Senator Murphy that his answer to a question relating to Croatian terrorism should be in the form of a lie.

Mr Carlton:

– That was probably a dummy file.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-No, it was not a dummy file, the honourable member would know a lot about this. I will not say any more about his involvement in it. But it was not a dummy file. Senator Murphy then discovered to his astonishment that, because the public servants on this interdepartmental committee, had told Senator Greenwood to lie to the Senate, they decided it was important that they make Senator Murphy lie as well. What I am telling the Parliament now in revealing these facts publicly for the first time ever is information given to me by one of the people who was present at that meeting with ASIO that evening.

Mr Birney:

– Lionel Murphy.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The honourable member says that Lionel Murphy told him that. I can tell him that somebody else told me the same so that confirms it. What Senator Murphy saw in the file was so disturbing that he decided that he would there and then make arrangements to go to Melbourne immediately next day to check on other vital, quite sensational revelations shown up in that file. He sought to make a booking on a VIP aircraft first thing next morning and could not do so because one was not available. But ASIO was immediately told of his attempt to get a VIP aircraft and started to prepare for his visit to the ASIO headquarters in Melbourne next day. When Senator Murphy went to the airport on the Friday morning- I was standing alongside him and I can bear witness to the fact that I heard Murphy go through this dialogue- he asked whether he could be given a seat on the aircraft. He was told to his astonishment that every seat was taken up. He said: ‘It cannot be that every seat is taken up. Is everybody on yet?’ The reply was:’ No, but there have been some bookings made by ASIO for all the empty seats. It was not until Murphy discovered about the phantom bookings made by ASIO, for the purpose of preventing his getting a seat to Melbourne, that he asserted his authority as head of ASIO and demanded that seats be given to him.

ASIO was quite prepared to pay for booked seats it was not going to use in order to prevent its own Minister travelling with one of its officers. On the flight Murphy found himself sitting next to an ASIO officer named Marshall who had been told by his headquarters in Melbourne to bring with him a particular file. Murphy said: What have you got there?’ The officer replied: ‘I have got a file’. Murphy said: ‘I want to have a look at it’. The officer said: ‘I am sorry, you cannot have a look inside this file because I am working for the Director-General of ASIO, not for the Attorney-General’. Murphy, it was reported, said: ‘You are now working for me; hand it over’. When he had a look at the file what he discovered was nothing short of startling. For people subsequently to talk about -

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon. Ian Robinson)- Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I wish to make some brief remarks concerning the amendment. But first let me deal with what the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) said last night at 10.29. 1 think everyone in this chamber, certainly those on this side, would consider that outrageous allegations have been made, in effect, against the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (Senator Durack), although the honourable member was not prepared to say that, because it is the

Attorney-General who must approve the issue of a warrant on the recommendation of the Director-General. The allegation was that a phone tap had been put on the private phone of Mr Justice Staples by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It is an outrageous allegation because, among other things, the honourable member would know that the present practice of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Attorney-General in relation to parliamentary questions concerning ASIO is not to comment, that is, neither to confirm nor to deny any allegations or presumed allegations. Mr Justice Hope in volume I of the fourth report at page 2 1 9 said that he thought that that practice should continue except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 781, at page 259, under the heading ‘Parliamentary Responsibility’ in the recommendations of that same volume, states:

That the present practice, whereby the Prime Minister and the Minister administering the ASIO Act do not confirm or deny any allegations, or presumed allegations, in respect of ASIO, continue in force.

I am sure the honourable member for Hindmarsh knew of that recommendation. Notwithstanding that, he was prepared to make those allegations. I also notice that it was reported on one radio station this morning that the honourable gentleman was not prepared to repeat the allegations outside the chamber. I should however point out that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) has already had a number of briefings by the Director-General of ASIO. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to have a briefing concerning the allegation by the honourable member, the Government will certainly facilitate that briefing by the Director-General. As to the other allegations concerning the conduct of ASIO and His Honour Mr Justice Murphy, it is a matter of rehashing what was a great political scandal at the dme. I do not intend to embark upon any comment on it.

In directing my attention to the amendment moved by the Opposition, I would say that the Bill, as now drafted, gives effect to the longstanding philosophy that while the Minister responsible, that is, the Attorney-General, should in a general way be responsible for the activities of the Organisation- and I refer to the speech by the late Dr Evatt in 1956- he should not concern himself with the details of the activities of the Organisation except insofar as this is necessary for the carrying out of the Minister’s responsibilities. The Opposition’s amendment assumes that the Attorney-General could police the activities of the Organisation by ascertaining the existence or non-existence of specific files but without access to contents. This is a fallacy because the mere existence of a file in the Organisation is virtually meaningless. The best example I can give of that is that files are kept on persons having a top secret clearance. Surely it can be assumed that the Director-General, whoever he or she is, having regard to the manner of his or her selection will truthfully and accurately report to the Attorney-General as required. Likewise, the Director-General must be prepared to answer the questions of the Leader of the Opposition in regular consultations.

The proposal to give the Minister a right of access to files as a method of policing the activities of the Organisation is, with the greatest respect to the Opposition and particularly the honourable member for Hindmarsh, based on a crude misunderstanding of the real position. Furthermore, the Opposition directly seeks to intrude politics and political considerations into the operations of ASIO. The Government believes that the general power of direction given to the Attorney-General in clause 8 of the Bill, meeting as it does the longstanding philosophy, does provide the Parliament through the ministerial responsibility of the Attorney-General with a safeguard to watch over the affairs of ASIO together with the other safeguards that are built into the exercise of special powers, the requirement of an annual report and the requirement of regular consultation and briefings with the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, the Government opposes the amendment.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-Mr Deputy Chairman, by way of explanation, I point out that we do not intend to call a division because only 50 minutes remain in which to debate 19 clauses. I would just like the Opposition’s objection recorded.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon. Ian Robinson)- The request of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be acceded to.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 17- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 18 (Communication of intelligence et cetera).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

- Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek leave to move together amendments No. 7 and No. 8 as circulated.

Leave granted.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

Clause 18, page 6, line 41, omit ‘or relates to the performance by the Organization of its functions ‘.

Clause 18, page 7, at the end of sub-clause (3) add ‘which consent shall not be given unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that the communication the subject of the prosecution had, or would be likely to have, the effect of seriously prejudicing security*.

The Opposition’s amendment No. 7 seeks to omit from clause 18 the words ‘or relates to the performance by the Organisation of its functions’. Under clause 18 a person is unable to communicate any information or matter that has come to his knowledge by reason of having been an officer or employee of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The clause refers to information or matter that relates to the performance by the Organisation of its functions. We think that provision is far too wide. It is important that there be freedom of information. We should bear in mind what has happened in America with the Central Intelligence Agency. A lot of information was disclosed by former officers. This is a healthy exercise. The disclosure of information that clearly indicates some clandestine operations which had been undertaken should not have been perpetrated. This is a democratic country. We do not want a position in which former officers and employees are unable to communicate information relating to the performance of the Organisation in relation to the way it works. We do not want detailed information. We want to know how the Organisation works. The clause lays down a heavy penalty. There is a discretion as to whether an offence can be dealt with summarily or on indictment. Upon summary conviction, the penalty is a fine not exceeding $ 1 ,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, and on indictment it is imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. They are very substantial penalties indeed.

From our point of view, this clause would be improved if we were to delete the reference which relates to the performance by the Organisation of its functions. We propose adding to the end of this clause this discretion which relates to the question of action being taken by way of prosecution either summarily or on indictment. We say that it has to be with the consent of the Attorney-General, ‘which consent shall not be given unless the Attorney-General is satisfied that the communication the subject of the prosecution had, or would be likely to have, the effect of seriously prejudicing security’. In other words, it has to be pretty substantial offence. If we leave it as it is in the Bill we will really create a situation whereby public comment by ASIO officials will be denied. I do not think that that is at all effective, particularly if they are former employees, from the point of view of how they see, particularly from a conscience point of view, the operations of the Organisation. Where else can they go with that sort of conscience position? To whom can they go and talk about the problems that they have? They cannot go back to the Director-General; he happens to be their superior. They really are not able to go to the Attorney-General because that would involve all the other problems that we have been talking about. It is important that later on we have a judicial audit. We would like to think that, if there were some matter of close security, there could be an opportunity for an officer to talk to the judicial auditor about matters. But in matters relating to the Organisation in the performance of its functions, we think it imperative that there be as much information as possible given to the public and to the Parliament and that no penalty be imposed on employees on that basis.

What we are proposing here is a better drafting exercise than has been perpetrated in clause 18. That is the whole idea of debate in the Committee stage. We are not here to say that there has not to be some obvious prohibition against the disclosure of information which relates to security or which would prejudice officers in that intelligence organisation. Far be it from that. But the proposal to leave it in the form of not imparting any information which would relate to the performance by the Organisation of its functions is far too wide.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 23- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 23A.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I move:

These warrants of course concern the question of privacy, searches, seizures, inspection of records, inspection of postal articles, use of listening devices and, in a complementary piece of legislation, telephone tapping. In other words, they are matters of most serious concern to every Australian citizen. The major difference between the Government and Opposition here is that the

Government seems to believe that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation should use these powers as a matter of course. Whilst we are prepared to accept the use of ministerial warrants in the security area, we do not believe that they should be used, except as a very last resort. Mr Justice Hope made it clear that in the past ASIO had frequently broken the law. That is on record.

Because of the capacity of this legislation to affect the civil liberties of every Australian by legal means, it is essential that safeguards be written into the legislation. This amendment is by no means the only safeguard that we would like to see written in. We would like to insist on the inclusion of parliamentary reporting and other matters that we have mentioned here, such as the Leader of the Oppositions being fully informed and in particular- this will be foreshadowed in a later amendment- the opportunity for judicial audit. This would simply require the Attorney-General to be satisfied, before issuing a warrant, that no other form of obtaining the information would be successful.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It is very important that a qualification as proposed in new clause 23A as moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) be agreed to to make sure that, if the enormous powers of this section are in fact used, it must be on reasonable grounds. I draw the attention of the Committee again to the case that I mentioned yesterday, that is, the trial of Dr W. B. Sutch in February 1 975 in New Zealand. That case provides the best example that we know about the organisation and operation of security services in the Southwest Pacific. There is no comparable case in Australia that we know of. This New Zealand case is the best example. It is the Mount Everest of security work in the South Pacific; the tip of the iceberg. Not only is it the best example; it is almost the only example. It provides the most clear cut evidence of how a security service works. I put the initials ‘SS’ in my notes and I think that perhaps in the circumstances they are appropriate. We are justified in assuming that the evidence adduced in the Sutch case is, at best, of superior quality to the evidence in the files that we know nothing of or, at worst, of similar quality or worse than most of the evidence in the files.

There was a series of incidents in New Zealand during the period of the Labour Government, first of Mr Kirk and then of Mr Rowling, which involved Security Intelligence Service activity, carefully leaked to the then Opposition leader, Mr Muldoon. The incidents involved members of the Labour Cabinet, Labour members of parliament and members of the Labour Party organisation. In the case of the Sutch prosecution, the Labour AttorneyGeneral, Dr Finlay, was put in an excruciating position. He did not think much of the prosecution case but, if he failed to authorise the prosecution, inevitably it would have leaked through to Mr Muldoon and the Opposition would have said: ‘There you are. The Labour Party is going against the Security Intelligence Service and is sabotaging the national interest’. So, Dr Finlay authorised the prosecution. I have no reason to assume that same type of activity as happened in the Sutch trial would not happen here in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and has not happened in the pastthat is, political harassment of a kind where it is very difficult to fight back. For example, they can tap our telephones but we cannot tap theirs. So it gives the ordinary citizen or even the ordinary member of parliament very little fight-back capacity.

The New Zealand experience is a grisly example that we ought to examine very thoughtfully. The report of that trial is really instructive and I urge all honourable members including the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott), who is at the table, to examine it. I think that the most charitable description that could be applied to the prosecution case in the Sutch trial is that it was piffling and mindless. The great fallacy- a fallacy as big as the George Washington monument- is that the prosecution goes along and says: ‘Look, in this manila folder we have such devastating information that if ever it got out the whole of society would collapse’. But if people say ‘Can we see what is in the folder’, the officials say: ‘No, it is too devastating’. Then, once in every 25 years when the information does come out, one finds that the actual evidence that they are leading is evidence such as that brought out in the Sutch case to the effect that Dr Sutch was going around picking up his milk and talking to someone who used to come around jogging in the morning. There were conversations with this man and, worst of all, this man was an embassy employee of a foreign power- to wit, Russia. They said that they came to the conclusion that something sinister had gone on. As they said, they knew that he was a man who had been associated with some very dangerous causes, to wit after the war he organised a nationwide collection of old clothing to relieve the hardship of refugees in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. With a background like that it must have seemed like an open and shut case. That is what one might assume to be the best example of the work being done by security services in New Zealand and Australia. If that is the best example, we might ask: ‘What are the worst ones?’

Mr Jacobi:

– Jean Seberg in the United States.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Perhaps one would be the Jean Seberg case, as the honourable member suggests.

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

– This amendment is an example of the sorts of amendments which have been put forward by the Opposition and which probably strike at the unreality of the situation. The unreality is that the integrity of the security service depends on two people. It depends on the integrity of the Attorney-General and the DirectorGeneral, as well as the officers in the service. No amount of prescription of requirements about being satisfied with this, that and the other can get over that fact. Any security service has to depend on the integrity of those two people. Having had experience of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation over a number of years and having been involved with it as Attorney-General I can only say that that is the conclusion to which any reasonable person who has some knowledge of the security service has to come.

If the Attorney-General has to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that other lawful methods of investigation have proved insufficient or would in all the circumstances be quite impracticable as a means of obtaining the information for which the warrant is proposed to be issued he would have to assume the character of a super DirectorGeneral. In other words, he would have to inquire as to all the methods that had been undertaken in relation to every warrant. He would have to say: ‘Have you done this, that or something else’, et cetera. A considerable investigation would be required. It cannot happen that way. The Attorney-General is not in that position. The Minister could never be in that position. If the question of a warrant is being discussed between him and the Director-General, needless to say the question of what investigations have been undertaken will inevitably be discussed. But the prescription contained in the Opposition’s amendment would place the Attorney-General in an impossible position visavis the Director-General. He would never be able to satisfy that prescription unless he had almost a royal commission every time he issued a warrant. As I said, it does not happen that way.

The Government rejects this amendment not because it wants to put the officers concerned, the Minister and the Director-General in some absolute position but because it does not meet the reality of the situation. We always come back to this simple proposition: The issue of warrants depends on the integrity of the two people I have mentioned. If one of them, particularly the Director-General, is not a person of integrity and presents to an Attorney-General a case which is not based on fact, obviously the AttorneyGeneral can be misled. The great fortune in this country is that we have never had such a Director-General. Certainly, the DirectorGeneral we have at the moment is a man of considerable capacity and integrity. His appointment was recommended by the previous Government and he was actually appointed by this Government. The same sort of bipartisan attitude needs to be adopted every time.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– There was nothing bipartisan about his predecessor but one.

Mr ELLICOTT:

-I do not think that is a fair comment. I do not think that the honourable member knows enough about the circumstances. I do not want to go into that sort of discussion. It is not fair. When the question of appointing a Director-General comes up there is a great need for a bipartisan attitude. There is a need to find a person with qualities similar to those of the present Director-General because that is the only guarantee.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

-In answer to the Minister, in my view the present incumbent of the position of Director-General of Security has neither a mortgage on wisdom nor longevity. Somewhere along the line the Parliament has an obligation to provide appropriate safeguardschecks and balances and the protection to which every citizen is entitled. I support the remarks of the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) on what can be done by security organisations. I corroborate the point he made. I consider that the most horrific case to be recorded is the Seberg case. I draw the attention of the House to a letter from America by Alastair Cooke on 23 September from which I shall quote extensively. It stated:

I picked up the Sunday paper and read a story that I hope has given Americans the sort of pause that chills the blood.

It was a postscript to the suicide of Jean Seberg, the young actress from Iowa and expatriate in France, who was found dead in her car, leaving an empty bottle of barbiturates and a note.

The postscript was released by the Government, by in fact the FBI, and it ‘s certainly to the credit of its present chief that he released a detestable confession which reinforces the suspicion that for many years the FBI in the hands of J. Edgar Hoover, its first and long-time head, could hardly be matched by any government for malice and cunning.

Miss Seberg at one time was a passionate supporter of Leftist causes and made no bones about it.

In Mr Hoover’s view she became, like the late Martin Luther King, a social nuisance who it was necessary to intimidate, then to bug, in the hope of breaking their will.

Some anonymous source one day got in touch with the FBI and passed on to them a rumour, or an invented smear, that Miss Seberg was pregnant by one of the Black Panther leaders. The source suggested to Hoover that, if this rumour could be fed to gossip columnists, it would help tarnish Miss Seberg ‘s image as a glamourous young movie star from the Middle West.

Very good, ‘ said Mr Hoover, ‘a fine idea. ‘

So the Bureau fed the item; most papers turned it down, but a Hollywood writer, what is politely known as a ‘lady’ columnist, printed it.

Pretty soon Jean Seberg saw it, living in Paris. There are always good friends alert enough to see that you get the nastiest clippings.

From that moment on Jean Seberg was a doomed girl. She was pregnant by her husband, the French novelist Romain Gary. But, as he said last weekend, while she was intelligent and courageous, she did not possess a tough hide, the ruthlessness that can tolerate an outrage against oneself.

She saw the item and within hours went into premature labour; was delivered, by Caesarean section, of a girl who died within days. She took the dead baby back to Iowa in a glass coffin as a glaring proof that the baby was white- an excessive reaction perhaps, but in 1970 she knew that the FBI could and did destroy hundreds of radicals .and non-radicals.

Romain Gary says that on each succeeding anniversary of the baby’s death she attempted suicide. Finally, last week, she made it.

A former FBI man, who was with the Bureau at the time, had no other justification to offer for this barbarity than to say that getting involved in radical politics could get you involved in national security, that the kid with the picket sign might turn into the kid with the bomb. And, he said, you just keep going down the line.

Well, for too long the FBI went down the line of its own improvised rules, as we can horribly see, once the Freedom of Information Act made it possible for you and me, the ordinary citizen, to go to government files, including the files of the FBI, and read anything and everything which had been kept under wraps as confidential government information.

Congress has up for debate in this session- and its committees are already taking testimony on it- a new law, a chaner of dos and dont’s, a legal chaner of behaviour for the FBI.

Roosevelt once confided to a friend that, if the Congress had ever had a hint of the shifts and manoeuvres he was engaged in with the British, before this country got into the war, he would have been impeached. And many of these manoeuvres involved brutal decisions and secret tricks not at all unlike the techniques of James Bond. We can now salve our conscience by saying that after all Hitler was the enemy, we were fighting to survive, and that it was essential for us to go beyond any traditional code of open warfare. However, these tricks and shifts passed over, when the war was over, from the main secret intelligence body, the OSS, into the running of the CIA, which was set up after the war.

Watergate:

Watergate, of course, more than anything, did enormous damage to the reputation of the CIA and the FBI. And when all the dirt was shovelled out from under, President Ford’s Attorney-General re-vamped the FBI and set his own strong rules. It was the present head of the FBI who chose to make public the disgraceful treatment of Jean Seberg. Romain Gary said he was grateful. He always maintained that she had been destroyed by the FBI, but he said: if the postWatergate FBI had not issued a confirmation, to this day I would have been considered a ‘ ‘mytho-maniac’

I think if this sad wind has blown any good it must be in the thought that the Seberg case will quicken the conscience of the Congress and sharpen its wits, and make it get busy writing and passing a new legal charter of the FBI.

I pass a couple of simple observations. I have refrained from entering the debate on this Bill so far. The only part of the Bill I want to debate are the provisions relating to judicial audit. I ask the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) what safeguards are contained within the provisions of this Bill, what mechanisms are provided for in the Bill, and what criteria are laid down that will obviate the possibility of something like the Seberg case happening in Australia in the absence of a freedom of information Act? My next question arises from this statement by Hoover:

Well, for too long the FBI went down the line of its own improvised rules, as we can horribly see.

Do I assume from the lack of checks and balances in the current legislation that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation is to go down the line with its own improvised rules? I think it is regrettable. This Parliament ought to institute checks and balances by way of its legislation to obviate what otherwise will ultimately be inevitable in Australia, as it was in New Zealand, and as it was in the United States of America. I would be grateful if the Minister could reply to this point. I see nothing in this legislation that provides for this type of safeguard, which is critically important.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-May I make two points. The first is that Hansard may not have picked up the retraction I made in my short interchange with the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott). It was essentially the appointment of not the preceding DirectorGeneral but the penultimate Director-General that I was more concerned about. I hope the Minister will reply to my second point. He said that there was a double check in that approval had to be obtained from the Director-General and the Attorney-General before certain activities could take place.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s comment, as a former Attorney-General, on the excruciating situation in which Dr Finlay found himself in New Zealand, as Attorney-General in a Labor government. All indications were that the Security Intelligence Service was, in effect, leaking information like a sieve to the Government’s political opponents. As the AttorneyGeneral he was in a ‘Morton’s fork’ situation. If he declined to go ahead with the prosecution, obviously that would be leaked to the Opposition and used to the detriment of the Government. Yet he really was obliged under very strong political pressure to go ahead with the prosecution in which he had no great confidence.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question before the Committee is that new clause 23A proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition be inserted in the Bill.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clauses 24 to 34- by leave- taken together.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Kingsford Smith

– I wish to state for the record that the Opposition has not been calling divisions because of the time available. Under the guillotine there are only ten minutes of the Committee stage left. Accordingly we want to deal with other amendments that we have not yet had a chance to debate. They are the Opposition’s proposed amendments 15 to 29. 1 know that one of my colleagues would like to support me in the remaining ten minutes, but I advert to the fact that these amendments are very important in the whole context of the debate that has been taking place in respect of -

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeking leave to move the amendments together?

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

  1. 15 ) Clause 38, page 1 7, lines 35-37, omit paragraph (a).

In the past people have been seriously prejudiced by adverse security assessments. It has affected their careers; it has prevented their advancement; and, in many cases, it has guaranteed they were not able to continue in the service of their country. All of us know that, particularly in political life, we are subjected to public opinion from day to day and we do meet those people who hold positions of authority who have developed a paranoia or a fixation and hold all sorts of prejudices. This is a normal hazard of humanity. But if in the process, cloaked around that sort of fixation or that particular human fraility there are the ramifications of this sort of legislation where, because someone holds a particular office in an intelligence organisation he is not going to be subject to review, all the weaknesses that flow from that particular personality are hidden.

Hoover and how he went right off the rails in America has been mentioned. We have noted it here in a number of areas. We are well aware of the events which have occurred in our own country in relatively recent times. It is for that reason that we think the idea of the Ombudsman is an excellent proposition. He has done excellent work already. It is a further safeguard. So, we would be anxious to press for the passage of that amendment. Again, we would like to see the Organisation keep proper accounts. In other words, it should have a financial accountability. We want to know what happens to the public moneys that are given to the Organisation. Are they properly spent? To whom are they given? We suggest that there be a financial accountability. The Auditor-General should have a chance to audit and to report on what he is able to ascertain.

We again urge that there be an annual report by the Minister to the Parliament to indicate all those details of invasion of privacy. That will guarantee that there is a parliamentary scrutiny of what has happened. It is on that basis again that we can give some safeguard to the people who elect all of us, to whom we are answerable and to whom we must guarantee that their rights have not unnecessarily been infringed or invaded. Appeals against these matters do not go to any court of law. Officers of this Organisation become the privileged group, can regard themselves as being a power unto themselves and are able to have that information. We would like to know the circumstances. If we had an annual report clearly indicating the number of telephone taps and warrants and the number of devices that are being used, that would be a further safeguard.

Finally, and more importantly from the Opposition’s point of view, is the real safeguard contained in the Opposition’s amendment No. 25 which relates to the judicial audit of the Organisation. Nobody can object to that proposal. Its acceptance would mean that a qualified judge of great experience would hold this judicial audit. We have mentioned that we would like one to be held every three years. We would tike to see one held more frequently where the judge will go in and have a look at how the Organisation is working and report to the Minister whether the Organisation has complied with its charter, whether the Organisation has unjustifiably infringed the civil liberties of any person and whether the Organisation has operated effectively and efficiently. Two such audits have been held, one by Mr Acting Justice White in South Australia and the other into the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation by Mr Justice Hope. They found that the Special Branch in South Australia and ASIO had failed to fulfil their charter. Many people have been seriously and maliciously damaged because of such infringements. We cannot allow that to continue. No democracy can continue to sustain itself if that sort of infringement occurs and that sort of damage is done to people.

The ability of a judicial inquiry to test the veracity of evidence and to test the reason why files have been collated is a great safeguard of liberty. On that basis we press most strongly for an acceptance of that amendment which will guarantee to the people of Australia that some independent person will judge the situation. Anyone of us can be hauled or arraigned before a judge or tribunal of this country and dealt with according to the law. No officer of an intelligence organisation should be deemed to be above that law. But there is no court of law in which they can be arrainged. The knowledge that there will be a judicial audit will act as a sanction and guarantee that those people will not violate any of the rights of the citizens of this country. I know that one of my colleagues wishes to say a few words. Accordingly, I will finish my remarks on that point.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– I wish to say a few last words about the amendments. I stress that these amendments have the intention of attempting to strengthen the power of the Parliament vis-a-vis the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, whereas the purpose of this legislation is to strengthen ASIO’s powers visavis the Parliament. The Opposition wants to stengthen the standing and the rights of the ordinary citizen vis-a-vis ASIO. The Bill attempts to do the reverse. We are trying to attempt to strengthen the processes of the law relative to ASIO. This Bill attempts to do the reverse.

As I have suggested earlier, there is a serious side to ASIO and perhaps a more trivial side to ASIO. Most of what we know or what leaks out about ASIO suggests that ASIO in Australia really concentrates very much on easy targets -on targets on street marches, especially in Brisbane, Aboriginal land rights campaigners, pacifists, environmentalists, trade unionists and so on. But the ostensible reason for it all is to keep Australia free of subversion. In a sense that fundamental argument is based on a total fallacy, I believe; and that is that there is a secret or collection of secrets that can be put in an envelope somewhere and passed from hand to hand and that the handing over of that envelope can really fundamentally change the entire strategic position of and the entire safety of a nation. I think that the more we examine the contemporary world, the more it seems extraordinarily unlikely that this would be the case.

There is abundant evidence, I think, that there is a great deal of collusion between the great international systems and that ASIO, MI6, the KGB and the Central Intelligence Agency have more in common with each other than with the democratic system in our own country. It may have a good deal more in common with the system of the Soviet Union. I believe that the points that have been made so eloquently throughout this debate by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) are absolutely right. It could not be said that the Hope report had the effect of destroying ASIO. Indeed, we are told that this Bill was, in a large part, a response to Mr Justice Hope’s report. I could add to the report being done by Mr Acting Justice White in South Australia the fact that the former Mr Justice Nelson of the Victorian Supreme Court is performing a similar exercise in Victoria by going through and destroying files of the Special Branch of the Victorian Police Force when they are not considered to be relevant.

I will close with a valuable quotation which illustrates the point I have been making earlier. I have only just located it. It is a quotation from the Far Eastern Economic Review of 14 March 1975. It refers again to the case of Dr Sutch. It states:

Five days after Dr William Sutch was found not guilty of spying (Review, March 7), on a charge brought under the Official Secrets Act, he said in a television interview that he believed Dmitri Aleksandrovich Razgovorov, formerly first secretary at the Soviet Embassy in Wellington, wanted to defect and was about to seek his help. Sutch said his suspicions (which were not mentioned in court as Sutch was not called as a witness) were aroused when he learned from Crown evidence that the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) knew of his last meeting with the Russian, and its agents lay in waiting before apprehending him. But one rumour in Wellington suggests that that is only part of the story: Razgovorov wanted to defect and his masters wanted to catch him at it. The late Prime Minister, Norman Kirk, a romantic, wanted to disband or greatly restrain the power of the SIS.

The SIS needed public justification for its existence and Sutch stumbled into its path. The Russians got their man, but the spy-catchers of the SIS were empty-handed, even with the help of the Soviets.

It sounds like a story by John le Carre. I believe it is the truth.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The time allotted for the remainder of the Committee stage of the Bill has expired.

Amendments negatived.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is: That the remainder of the Bill be agreed to and that I report the Bill without amendment ‘.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Mr P. C. Millar)

AYES: 67

NOES: 30

Majority…… 37

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has now expired. The question now is: ‘That the report be adopted and that the Bill be now read a third time’.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G.O’H. Giles)

AYES: 66

NOES: 31

Majority…… 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2134

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) BILL 1979 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-The question is: ‘That the Bill be now read a second time’. Those of that opinion say aye, to the contrary no.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– I think the ayes have it.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– The noes have it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Is a division required?

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– We will not divide at this stage. We just want our objections noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 8- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 1 1- by leave- taken together.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– I seek leave to deal with amendments numbered 1 to 5 circulated in my name, which relate to clauses 9 to 1 1. As there is limited time we need to adopt this procedure.

Leave granted.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:

-Clause 9 relates to warrants authorising the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to intercept telecommunications. The Opposition amendment to that clause is in respect of the period of validity of the warrants. The clause provides that a warrant may remain in existence for a period that does not exceed 6 months. We think that is far too long to have in existence a warrant whereby premises can be the subject of telecommunications interception. Accordingly, we will move that the period be reduced to 90 days. I think that amendment is self-explanatory. It gives the further assurance to people that warrants will not be issued for a lengthy period. We think that 90 days is more than adequate.

Clause 10 deals with the issue of a warrant by the Director-General of Security in an emergency. We have been dealing with ministerial accountability and responsibility. Warrants issued under clause 9 of the Bill are to be issued only by the Attorney-General but clause 10 provides for a moving away from that responsibility and accountability of the Minister. It provides that the Director-General may issue warrants. It provides that the Director-General may, by warrant, authorise persons to do certain things. That is not good enough from the Opposition’s point of view. We cannot really imagine a circumstance in which the Director-General would not be able to make oral contact with the Attorney-General. Accordingly our amendment to this clause proposes to remove the power of the DirectorGeneral to issue warrants without any consultation. ‘Consultation’ is a word we have heard much about recently. We propose to omit the words ‘the Director-General of Security may’ and substitute ‘the Attorney-General may orally authorize the Director-General of Security to’ issue a warrant. In other words, should the Director-General want to issue a warrant when he is in Melbourne and the Attorney-General is in Perth there would be no problem in getting some sort of telephone authorisation for the issue of the warrant. We do not want a situation in which the Director-General can issue the warrant himself.

This clause is rather curiously worded. It provides that the Director-General has first to make a request to the Attorney-General. If the Attorney-General has not, to the knowledge of the Director-General of Security, made a decision, the Director-General can bring into operation his emergency powers. I fail to see how there would be such an inordinate lapse of time after the Director-General made a request, as he is bound to do, that, because he has not heard from the Attorney-General, he would issue the warrant himself. I think all of us in the Parliament would be very surprised if we thought that a request, having been made, had not been received. We would want to make certain that if it had in fact been made there would be no reason why the Attorney-General could not give the authorisation. If the request is made orally or by telephone why could the authorisation not be on that same basis? There would be no delay. Accordingly, the Opposition will move that the Attorney-General should have the direct responsibility of authorising the Director-General to issue those warrants.

We propose other ancillary amendments to clause 1 1, which relates to the issue of warrants to intercept telegrams. As I said, clause 10 relates to telecommunications; clause 11 to telegrams. Our amendment proposes that the power of the Director-General of Security to take these actions on his own initiative be deleted. We think it is essential that the Attorney-General always be involved and informed and that he have the obligation of authorising the Director-General so to act.

Amendment No. 5, relating to clause 1 1, proposes that ‘six months’ be omitted and ‘90 days’ be substituted. We think that six months is far too long, and to be consistent we propose that the time be reduced to 90 days. The amendments are virtually self-explanatory if read in the context of the Bill. I have nothing further to add. I move:

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– The thrust of the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) are twofold. Firstly, they not only again re-emphasise the attitude of the Opposition on this legislation but also endorse the principle that we previously followed in respect of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill, namely that we believe that the AttorneyGeneral has to be placed in a position in which he is seen ultimately as having some real authority over the Director-General of Security. For that reason the thrust of the amendments is to strengthen the position of the Attorney-General as against the position of the Director-General in relation to the issuing of warrants. Secondly, the time factors are relevant. The amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are directed towards greater efficiency and to the establishment of an important principle. Therefore I commend them to the Committee.

Amendments negatived.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 19- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 20 (Issue of warrants for the Customs to intercept telecommunications).

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

The Opposition proposes that ‘information on oath’ be omitted and ‘affidavit’ be substituted. In other words we want some very definite and detailed information given and not for the matter just to be left on a verbal basis. Accordingly we have moved for this. Amendment No. 7 proposes to omit sub-clause (2), which reads:

A Judge may grant a warrant under sub-section ( 1 ) in respect of a telecommunications service situated anywhere in Australia.

We propose the substitution of the following sub-clause:

A Judge of the Federal Court of Australia may grant a warrant under sub-section (1) in respect of a telecommunications service situated anywhere in Australia but a judge of a State Supreme Court or of the Australian Capital Territory or Northern Territory Supreme Court shall grant warrants under sub-section (1) only in respect of a telecommunications service situated in the State or Territory of which he is a Judge.

We think it is important, particularly in this day and age, that there be some sort of bipartisan approach by the judiciary to what is happening. There would be no reason why we could not have Supreme Court judges in States involved in the issuing of warrants. They have experience in being able to test the validity of the information given to them. That amendment relates to States and Territories and judges thereof.

The Opposition’s amendment No. 8 proposes to omit sub-clause (3) which states:

Information furnished to a Judge for the purposes of subsection ( 1 )-

a ) may be given orally or otherwise; and

shall include the facts and other grounds on which the applicant considers it necessary that the warrant should be issued.

Our amendment seeks to strengthen that subclause. We want a more definite clause. Our amendment proposes that a judge shall not issue a warrant in relation to an affidavit unless certain details are set out- we think this is important- on which the judge is satisfied that a warrant ought to be issued. We propose that the affidavit of the Customs officer should specify the facts and other grounds on which the issue of the warrant is sought, including the name and occupation of the subscriber to the service and that the Customs officer has given to the judge either orally or by further affidavit, such other information as the judge may require concerning the grounds on which the issue of a warrant is being sought. Our amendment proposes that the judge is to be satisfied as to the matters specified in the application for a warrant. The amendment also proposes that the judge is satisfied that other methods of investigation have been tried without success or would be unlikely to be successful or would be impracticable.

This legislation deals with the interception of communications. Under the Bill some information on the facts has to be given to the judge before a warrant is to be issued. We say that the clause should be more specific. We say that the information should be provided in the affidavit and that the judge is to be satisfied that other methods have been tried but have proved unsuccessful. In other words, the issue of a warrant would be the last resort and it was necessary to go to that extreme length of interfering with the rights of citizens. Our amendment proposes that the judge will be satisfied that given the seriousness of the suspected offence the issue of a warrant would be in the public interest. Our amendment also proposes that where a judge issues a warrant under this clause he shall state on the affidavit furnished to him which of the grounds specified in the affidavit he has relied on to justify the issue of the warrant. In other words, we propose that the judge himself will indicate the position. That is a judicial test. Bear in mind that enforcement of the law will be involved. If action is to be taken the validity of the method of how evidence was obtained can be contested in the courts. There is the further safeguard that information in an affidavit would be available to the public and the proceedings would be made public. There would be an opportunity to contest the veracity of the information and the basis on which it was obtained. It is very important, in dealing with the rights of people, to bear in mind that this Bill goes a long way in providing that a judge has to be satisfied on oral and other facts which are put before him before he issues a warrant. We are merely spelling out that the facts which ought to be submitted and on which the judge relies are laid down in a affidavit and are on record.

Our amendment No. 9, which is ancillary to what I said earlier, proposes that a warrant shall remain in force for 30 days instead of six months, as is provided in clause 20. We suggest that because of the enforcement nature of the warrants the period should be reduced to 30 days. There is no reason at all why warrants of this nature, particularly in relation to narcotic offences, should remain in force for more than 30 days. There is always an opportunity to seek the issue of another warrant, on the facts. If the Customs officers know the facts there is nothing to prevent them from getting supporting evidence in 30 days. I ask honourable members opposite to bear in mind the safeguard that is contained in our amendment. In tapping people’s telephones every conversation between a person in his living room and the outside world is overheard. So it is important that there should be some limitation of time on warrants. They should not remain in force for a lengthy period such as six months. Those of us who are interested in the law know that it is important for prosecutions to be launched promptly when one is in possession of certain information. We suggest that a surveillance period of six months is far too lengthy. We think a period of 30 days is more than adequate.

I have endeavoured to explain the Opposition’s amendments to clause 20 in the few minutes available to me. They definitely relate to the fact that we recognise that the processes of law enforcement can involve the interception of a telecommunications service, but it should occur only when a judge is satisfied that a warrant is necessary to gain information of a suspected offence which is serious and which under normal methods of investigation would be unsuccessful. I repeat, that a warrant may be issued when the normal methods of obtaining evidence have proved unsuccessful. In dealing with narcotic infringements there has to be some evidence. A person cannot rely on verbal information that might be obtained over the telephone to launch a prosecution and hope to obtain a conviction. He has to have more tangible evidence than that. That is why we say there is a need for an adequate safeguard that a warrant is issued only when other methods have proved unsuccessful. It is important that we give consideration to the problems of policing the narcotics drugs trade which wreaks devastation on people and is controlled by the criminal element. It is well known that there are international links and the trade is not restricted to Australia.

I think that honourable members opposite will agree that the Opposition’s amendments to clause 20 in no way weaken the Bill. In fact, they strengthen the Bill insofar as there is a guarantee to every citizen that there will be no unnecessary interference with their rights of privacy.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-I disagree with the proposition. I think that a period of six months is necessary in surveillance. I do not see why the judge should be asked to carry out other than the normal routine procedures. After all, there will be a trial at a later date. Why, in this early stage, should the judge be asked to go through all this complicated rigmarole put down in the amendments.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is important.

Mr YATES:

-It might be important. But I would suggest the importance would come up in the trial later. Therefore, I suggest that the amendments ought to be rejected.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Unlike the security area dealt with in the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill which is highly subjective, highly emotive and liable to the grossest errors of self-deception, the drug area is a very real problem in which there are identifiable victims, measurable harm done and a quantifiable amount of social loss. Nevertheless it is still very important that procedures that deviate from the norm, so far as the tapping of telephones and the like are concerned, are carried out to the absolute minimum, provided there is some kind of judicial safeguard. I think that the procedures with regard to the kind of evidence needed before a judge will grant a warrant, as moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), are thoroughly justified. At first glance clause 20 ( 1 ) says that no warrant shall be issued, in effect, unless the judge is satisfied by information on oath’. A whole series of supporting sub-clauses is set out. In some ways it may be thought that by changing that provision to requiring the information on affidavit actually weakens it. I do not think that is so.

Those of us who have had experience in magistrates’ courts and so on will be aware of the fact that many things are said very glibly on oath where the constable grabs the Testament and gabbles off something very rapidly. There is an old legal maxim that the truth will out even in an affidavit. We believe that an affidavit must be presented by way of evidence and that it should be quite specific. In the circumstances it will not be possible to have the normal adversarial situation of the court where it is possible for evidence to be challenged. Therefore, I think it is perfectly proper that the judge who is hearing the application should satisfy himself that a whole number of points are set out quite specifically and quite cogently in the affidavit before him. He will then, of course, have an opportunity to test the validity of the arguments put forward in the affidavit.

As a result, I think that the Committee ought to accept the amendments put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not believe that they weaken what the Government is attempting to do in this area, but they do make sure that, if there is to be a violation of the telephone system or the telegraph system, or any other form of communication under the responsibility of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, it is done by the following of due process. As a result, I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

-In speaking to the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen), I do not accept the analysis used by the honourable member for Holt (Mr Yates) who asked the question: Why should the judge be put to all this trouble? It seems to me that the answer to that question is that we are conferring very important powers upon our officers of the Bureau of Customs, and it is perfectly proper, in conferring powers essentially to tap telephones, that the judge who issues the warrant has before him all the available evidence upon which he ought to make a judgment. The granting of a warrant is not an exercise that ought to be taken lightly. The fact that it might deal with a potentially serious offence does not, in my view, of itself impose upon this Parliament the view that we should just simply adopt a set of standards which do not require a judge who has to consider whether he will grant a warrant with all the relevant evidence upon which he can make that decision. That evidence, it has been suggested, ought to be made available upon affidavit. It has also been suggested that when the judge grants a warrant on the basis of that evidence, he should indicate the basis upon which the warrant is granted and the time for which the warrant will last.

Mr Yates:

– He may be wrong to grant it. Then what?

Mr HOLDING:

– I do not follow the interjection of the honourable member for Holt. What I am saying is that I believe that all judges are trained to weigh evidence. I believe that they will treat the application seriously within the terms of the Act. Anyone who has had any dealings with judges in chambers knows that judges deal with a large variety of applications of similar import. All we are doing is specifying those standards and those evidentiary procedures which we believe are proper evidentiary procedures upon which a judge shall or shall not issue a warrant. I would think that the real test- and this might have been the argument of the honourable member for Holt- is whether in any of these amendments we are imposing standards upon Customs officers in the performance of their duties which are either too high or too onerous. Looking at the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I do not think that it can be seriously argued that we are doing so. What we are giving to a Customs officer is a power to put a telephone tap on a citizen’s phone on the basis that he just simply suspects that there is likely to be a breach of security. What we are saying is that if he has that suspicion, and he establishes the basis of that suspicion to a judge, the judge, acting on the information before him, can then make a decision.

I invite honourable members opposite to apply their minds to this question: Do these standards as proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the amendments moved by him place a burden or a set of standards upon the operations of Customs officers which are onerous or which will prevent the proper implementation of the duties of those Customs officers? If the amendments are examined objectively and fairly, I do not believe that it can seriously be argued that it is too high a burden. All the amendments do is ensure that evidence will be properly presented to a judge upon which he will make his decision. That is the issue. We believe that the Act, as it is currently worded, does not give full protection to the rights of the average citizen. I am sure that all honourable members are concerned about the problems of drug trafficking and the problems that exist in this community in terms of the incidence of and the effect of drug traffickers. I am certain that all honourable members are concerned to see that those people are dealt with within the framework of the law. But it has not been unknown for Customs officers to abuse their powers and their responsibilities from time to time.

If this Parliament is to give a Customs officer a power to place a tap on a citizen’s telephone and to intercept messages, this Parliament must be satisfied that in granting that power we do so under circumstances and conditions which protect the innocent and which will, we hope, lead to the apprehension of the guilty. We believe- and

I think that both the Government and the Opposition are in agreement about this-that judges, with their training and their capacity to weigh evidence are suitable persons to make that judgment. The real question therefore is: What is the basis of the evidence and the standards that we impose upon the Customs officer in presenting the information that he puts before a judge? We believe that the standards, as they are established in the legislation, are somewhat slack, having regard to the very important powers that are being granted.

The amendments that have been moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are balanced. It cannot be said on any real analysis that they impose upon Customs officers standards which are harsh, oppressive or onerous and will make it less likely for Customs officers to be able to carry out their duties fully, but that in imposing these standards- and we say that they are proper standards- we can be satisfied that such warrants as are issued will be issued to fulfil both properly and adequately the genuine desire of all members of this Parliament that those who are prepared to traffic or deal in drugs are apprehended and the full resources of the law used. But those resources, when we are dealing with a power like telephone tapping, have always to be used within the framework of the law. The amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I think, ensure that that situation will occur.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

– I am on equal ground tonight with the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) because he exclaimed the other night that he has no expertise as a criminal lawyer; he works in the industrial field. He accused me of only having had experience in the conveyancing area. I am pleased that we can look at these clauses now in detail and bring our minds to bear on the problem involved. I appreciate that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, having no experience in this area, was not able to adduce any evidence in support of his proposition, which would indicate from considerable experience and background in the courts where these matters are dealt with, that these are the sorts of procedures that are laid down for a policeman to satisfy a magistrate when he seeks the issue of a warrant. I suspect that what honourable members opposite are seeking to do is to fetter Customs officers to a far greater extent than any policeman is fettered in relation to the information that he is required to provide to a magistrate in relation to the issue of any other warrant.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– For what purpose?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-Perhaps the honourable member for Lalor, with his considerable police court experience which he alluded to earlier- in fact he suggested that the standards that would apply in relation to these matters may be somewhat lax- will give us the benefit of his experience in a little while. But in this case we are dealing with a judge; we are not dealing with some police court in which procedures are treated with some laxity, and I assume that that was what the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) was referring to. What we are talking about is a judge, a very senior and experienced practitioner, who has to satisfy himself by information on oath as to certain matters. What honourable members opposite, by their amendment, are trying to do is to fetter the basis upon which a judge will come to the conclusions that he is required under this legislation to make in relation to the issue of a warrant. Bearing in mind that I have not been informed of any requirements like this in any other legislation dealing with these matters, I ask honourable members opposite why Customs officers and judges of our courts have to be fettered by requirements of this sort. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph (d) of the Opposition’s amendment.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– How many magistrates give orders about telephone tapping?

Mr RUDDOCK:

-The honourable member made the point a little while ago that we are required to make judgments of a qualitative type in relation to this legislation. He said that telephone taps are a significant intrusion into the rights of the individual. I accept that. But he also stated in his comments on this Bill that we were dealing with drug matters. He indicated the importance that he attached to that point. We are not embarking upon telephone taps lightly. They are not something to be used in relation to speeding fines or offences of that nature. They are to be used in relation to the distribution of drugs which are wreaking such havoc in our community. It is an important matter; it is not a matter to be dealt with lightly. That is why matters of this nature are to come before a judge. We have before us a number of requirements which I ask honourable members opposite to consider. In my view they fetter the basis upon which a judge will come to the proper conclusion as to the extent to which he is satisfied. Paragraph (d) of the amendment states:

The judge is satisfied that other methods of investigation have been tried without success, or would be unlikely to be successful, or would be impracticable . . .

I ask honourable members to imagine a situation in which we want to catch urgently a drug pedlar and we need a warrant for an urgent telephone tap. A judge may ponder for hours over what those words mean. Paragraph (e) states:

The Judge is satisfied that, given the seriousness of the suspected offence, or suspected likely offence, the issue of a warrant would be in the public interest.

After the judge has turned his mind to all those matters he would then be required to state which grounds specified in the affidavit he has relied on to justify the issue of the warrant and the particulars of any other grounds relied on by him to justify the issue of the warrant. What is the purpose behind these requirements? It seems to me that their purpose is to provide a framework in which smart people defending smart operators will have a basis for challenging the very evidence upon which a conviction might be sought. Such a challenge will arise not on the bona fides of that evidence but because we have provided a framework of law which is so complex and technical that until we have run the gamut of test cases and de1’ “ oed procedures of the sort with which the he ible member might be familiar in the police courts of Victoria we will not be able to get a conviction. I do not think that that is the way in which these matters ought to be dealt with.

I think that a judge who is asked to make findings in relation to these matters and required to satisfy himself by information on oath as to the matters specified in sub-clause (1) (a) and (b) will genuinely turn his mind to the adequacy of that evidence. I would be much happier if the judge had to turn his mind to the evidence placed before him in the individual case to decide whether he himself is satisfied. I am perfectly happy to leave him with a discretion in that matter rather than to put down a catalogue of requirements which will only confuse and create circumstances in which the smart operators who are dealing in hard drugs and doing so much harm in our community will find ways and means of getting off charges when they are caught and when we have the capacity to deal with them.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-When I hear the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) he reminds me of the Buddhist koan about the sound of one hand clapping. The point he is making is absolutely nonsensical. What he forgets is that we are not dealing with the ordinary situation in court where a judge hears a case put by a prosecutor and another case put on an adversarial basis on the other hand. The judge has to form an opinion. The other point is that the issuing of a warrant to tap a telephone is on a different basis and of different seriousness from most of the warrants issued by magistrates. Of course it is proper that a warrant be issued by a judge rather than a magistrate. But what we are simply saying is that if it is good enough for evidence to be given on oath that evidence ought to be particularised in writing in the form of an affidavit so that there is a permanent record of it if there is any subsequent inquiry about it.

I think there is a large amount of hypocrisy in this matter. If there were a suggestion that we should use telephone tapping for the purpose of dealing with tax avoidance or tax frauds I wonder whether we would get the same kind of reaction from members on the other side of the House.

Mr Yates:

– Stick to the clause.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I am dealing very strictly with the clause. I was so carried away with the splendid drafting of the amendments by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) that I was lost in admiration and lost my place in the voluminous document for a moment. The point is this: We ought to be able to apply the general principles of law right across the board whether in drug cases, security cases or tax avoidance cases. But, of course, this Government has not got round to legislating on tax avoidance and the use of telephone tapping in this regard. I believe that the power to tap telephones is an extremely dangerous power because of the consequences of the information that might be secured. If the wrong person’s telephone is tapped and his conversations are recorded a person who is completely innocent may be under sur.viellance when his activities ought not to attract the attention of the law enforcement bodies. This is a very dangerous precedent. Those of us who have been in Russia have always had the uneasy sense that when we go into an hotel room we are not sure whether we are there to watch the television or whether the television is there to watch us. I regard as absolutely repellant the thought that somebody who wanted an instant warrant from a judge could approach him by telephone- we hope that it would not be bugged- in order to pick up a warrant. I beg honourable members to think of the seriousness and the implications of that happening. In a curious way the honourable member for Dundas in his naivety seemed to be arguing for our case. He conceded the real significance of the matter. He said that we should not fetter the people who are seeking the warrants.

Mr Ruddock:

– The judge.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-I said the people seeking the warrants. All I am saying is that I would like to see the best evidence put before the judge. The judge is put in an exceedingly invidious position in which he is not necessarily -

Mr Ruddock:

– If you do not satisfy him.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Just a minute. One of the things that troubles me about this clause is that we are able in a sense to pick any judge. In a sense, what the Opposition has tried to do is to break down the system from a jurisdictional point of view -

Mr Ruddock:

– I do not know what you are suggesting by that. Are you suggesting that we should not trust Mr Justice Staples?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-Not necessarily, but I am simply saying one would not necessarily want the situation -

Mr Ruddock:

– Any judge! What a proposition.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-No, I am saying quite the reverse. I am saying that this legislation says that you can go to any judge -

Mr Ruddock:

– Are you suggesting that there might be a qualitative difference?

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-No, what I am saying is that obviously if there is a case that is specifically involving Queensland it would seem quite logical to me to approach a judge in Queensland. If we wanted to approach a situation in TasmaniaGod help us- I would want to see probably a relative of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), a Tasmanian judge, involved in the matter- somebody closer to the actual scene. In amendment No. 7 to clause 20 one sees we want particularised which judge may grant a warrant and we want the evidence that goes before the judge to be particularised.

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– I normally agree with the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) on many matters involving civil rights. I do not with any immodesty challenge his bona fides on this issue but I do submit that in a lot of ways the honourable member has presented a very good argument as to why the Bill in its present form ought to be accepted in preference to the amendments drafted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen). The honourable member speaks about protection. He talks about picking judges -

Dr Klugman:

– If you tell lies your voice will go.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I said earlier today, and I remind the honourable member for Prospect of it, that I would rather have a sick throat than a sick mind because my throat will be better in a couple of days; I hope his mind similarly improves. I say to the honourable member for Lalor that the Opposition’s amendments may very well create a situation that will defeat the very objective which it is trying to obtain. Is the honourable member telling me- we are now talking about Tasmania and Western Australia, which have no resident Federal judge, and therefore under section 19 the application will go to a State Supreme Court judge- that the Customs officers will attempt to pick a judge in Tasmania? In Tasmania there are five judges, two of whom might be sitting in Hobart at one time, one in Launceston, one in Burnie and one on reserved decisions. When one is dealing with small numbers like that it is rather difficult to pick and choose which judge will hear an application. If the honourable member is talking about Federal Court judges at large-

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Re-read the amendment.

Mr HODGMAN:

– Just pardon me a minute. I listened very patiently to the honourable member.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– You are not reading the amendment.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I beg your pardon. I will make my speech and the honourable member may make his. The honourable member suggests that the officers would pick a judge in the Federal Court. How will they get on in the Northern Territory? Look at paragraph (c) of clause 18. There are three judges in the Northern Territory. Will the officials be able to pick and choose? With the greatest respect, the honourable member for Lalor shows a fine academic appreciation of the way the law works but not a very fine practical appreciation.

The second point I put to the honourable member is that we are talking about judicial proceedings. These are proceedings in a court of record. He knows very well that even in ex parte applications, the court of record insists that it have documentary evidence either at the beginning of the hearing or by the end of the hearing. Whether that comes in the form of a transcript taken in chambers or whether it comes in the form of an affidavit which is subsequently sworn- an affidavit which is presented in escrow at the commencement of the proceedings and sworn subsequently- or whether it comes in the judge’s notes, is the honourable member suggesting for one minute to me and to the members of this Committee that a judge, on a matter as important as the tapping of a telephone, is not going to ensure that he has evidence in black and white upon which he can justify his decision, albeit he knows that that decision may not be reviewed in a superior court? What is the situation if a judge or his associate is called to produce the records of the proceedings?

Does the honourable member- I turn to the amendments- seriously think that any judge in Australia is going to make an order for telephone tapping without knowing the name, address and occupation of the subscriber? It would be lovely if the judge made an order to tap a telephone if he did not know the name, address and occupation of the subscriber or the number given. Great effort! With the greatest of respect, this is an insult to the intelligence of Australia’s Federal, Supreme Court and Northern Territory judges. Are judges really going to give an order to tap a telephone and not ask what number it is or whose phone it is? I turn to the next point. Proposed new clause 20 (3) (b) states: the officer of Customs has given to the Judge, either orally or by further affidavit, such further information as the Judge requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of a warrant is being sought;

Do not tell me that the judges of Australia need to be told in an Act of Parliament that they have power to say to a witness: ‘Your evidence is not sufficient. I want more, either viva voce oral evidence or by affidavit’. Is the honourable member really suggesting that a judge needs to have it stated in an Act of Parliament that he has power to say to a witness: ‘Go away and come back with more evidence’? Paragraph (c) of proposed new clause 20 (3) states: the Judge is satisfied as to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section ( 1 );

That is what the Government put in. Proposed new paragraph (d) states: the Judge is satisfied that other methods of investigation have been tried without success-

Just contemplate that point. The Opposition issaying that the Customs official has to try another method without success before he can get an order to tap a telephone. Is that not terrific? If the officers hear about the offence only three or four minutes beforehand and they know a telephone call is coming through whereby an arrangement will be made to pick up drugs -

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– Read the rest.

Mr HODGMAN:

– I am sorry, but I am going to make this point. Why do Customs officers have to try another method first without success? The Opposition is saying to them: ‘Have a go the wrong way first and we will let you have a go the right way second ‘.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Because it is a dangerous principle to start interfering with phones.

Mr HODGMAN:

-We are talking about catching people involved in the trade of narcotics. Why does the Opposition say that Customs officers have to try a method which will be unsuccessful before they try a method which will be successful? The amendment goes even further and states: or would be unlikely to be successful-

This really puts the investigating officer in a wonderful situation. He has to choose between giving evidence to the judge that he has tried something already without success, or that he has not tried it but if he did try it he thinks it would be unlikely to be successful. I reckon the judge would certify an officer who said: ‘I have not tried it but I am pretty sure if I did try it it would be unsuccessful’. I am not making fun of the matter. I am trying to point out that whilst the honourable intentions of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are clear to me, this amendment shows that the Opposition is virtually creating one of the most extraordinary legal circumstances I have ever seen in my life. The amendment continues: or would be impracticable . . .

Let us look at the amendment analytically. If the officer tries a method and it is unsuccessful, he can get an order to tap a telephone; but if he has not tried the method because he thinks it would be unlikely to be successful or it would be impracticable, then he would also get an order. With the greatest respect, I do not think that the Opposition ought to suggest that the judges of Australia should cop that sort of nonsense. Then we come to the next part of the amendment. Paragraph (e) states: the Judge is satisfied that, given the seriousness of the suspected offence, or suspected likely offence, the issue of a warrant would be in the public interest.

I want to be heard to say in this Parliament that I hope every judge in Australia, prima facie, is against the issuing of warrants to tap telephones. I believe that every judge in Australia, learned in the law, and appreciating the civil liberties of this nation, prima facie would be against the issuing of a warrant. On that basis, to suggest that a judge has to have it spelt out to him as though he is a first year law student that he has to take into account the seriousness of the offence, in my respectful submission, is again insulting to the judiciary. I repeat that I am not against the spirit of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seeks to do, but I am saying that, intended or otherwise, the Opposition is creating a legal nonsense, an insult to the judiciary. Quite frankly, as the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) said, in the minds of some the amendment may well be fettering the exercise of judicial discretion. Lastly- honourable members should listen to this; it is as if one were talking to a jusdee of the peace- the Opposition’s proposed new sub-clause (3A) reads:

Where a Judge issues a warrant under this section, he shall state on the affidavit furnished to him by the officer of Customs, which of the grounds specified in that affidavit he has relied on to justify the issue of the warrant and particulars of any other grounds relied on by him to justify the issue of the warrant.

It is almost like tick-a-box justice if we say to the judge: ‘We trust you so little, Joe, that we are going to make you say on which ground you have relied’. It is almost intimidatory. I repeat that it is a lawyer’s argument. I do not dispute the intentions of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, but, really, whoever dreamt this provision up for him has a most fertile imagination. Perhaps he has entertained the Parliament a little but really he has insulted the judiciary of Australia and has suggested that the judiciary does not know the first thing about human rights, whereas I believe it is the fundamental protector of human rights in this nation.

Mr JACOBI:
Hawker

– I wish to make a couple of observations. I recall that not very long ago I asked the Government to persist with a procedure that had been followed in this country for many years in dealing with corporate defalcation. I asked that the procedure be maintained for Ministers exclusively to have the power to withhold a passport where it was considered that a person had committed corporate defalcation. That proposal was rejected by the Government on the grounds that it was an infringement of civil liberties. To get to that stage would have required a recommendation from the Corporate Affairs Commission or the Insurance Commissioner. That proposal did not involve telephone tapping. The Government made it law that a passport can be withheld only on the grounds of a judicial warrant. Now, I follow that, but the important difference between the two matters is that in this case the question of civil , liberties is involved to a much greater extent. We are not going to apply telephone tapping in the case of corporate law, but in the area, principally of narcotics.

I suppose that of the members on this side of the chamber I would take one of the hardest lines on narcotics. The thing that worries me is that Customs officers, the people who initiate a warrant, who are not trained in the law and who do not have a mortgage on wisdom, are to apply to intercept the telephone of an individual. Such action could lead to a criminal indictment because ultimately if a charge is pressed it comes before judicial proceedings. I ask the lawyers this question: In those circumstances is an oath satisfactory? If such action ultimately is tested in a court, which has the greater force of law and credibility- an affidavit or an oath? I do not know, but I come down on the side of an affidavit.

Mr Ruddock:

– They are both the same, are they not?

Mr JACOBI:

-I do not know. Honourable members opposite are the lawyers, I am not.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– It depends. One is subject to cross-examination.

Mr JACOBI:

– All right. I am just making a point. I am not a lawyer. I think this is an extremely serious area. There is no question about that. I suppose that I am more conscious of these matters than are many honourable members, but I do not know how one ever really adds up the social cost of the downstream of the distribution of narcotics. It is horrific, and the penalties ought to be much higher. I am extremely concerned about the procedures which are necessary to get a warrant. I think that a judge, whether he be a Supreme Court judge or a federal judge, surely ought to be more than adequately satisfied that when he issues a warrant the warrant in fact is justified. Surely a judge has some indication at that stage that ultimately there will be judicial proceedings on that case. The constructive aspect which I am looking at is this: Whoever the individual may be, whatever grounds the Customs officer has- he may be as sure as anything that a telephone ought to be tapped- those grounds will not be tested until the case is finally determined judicially. I think that that individual, whoever he may be, has a right to the full protection and full force of the law at that stage. The only question in my mind is whether the procedures to achieve that protection are better as set out in the amendment or in the proposed legislation. At this stage I must confess that the answer is on the side of the amendment.

Mr HOLDING:
Melbourne Ports

– I enter this debate to deal with some of the points raised by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). In doing so I make two points. The first is that in considering a narcotics offence I think we always presume that we are dealing with the merchandisers of hard drugs. In fact, if one looks to the definition of narcotics in the Customs Act and to the actual reference to narcotics in the Bill one sees that a whole series of offences can be covered. They certainly do not go as far as the purveying of hard drugs. A young man or woman returning to Australia carrying enough of what is fashionably termed pot, or marihuana, to fill his or her personal use, could be caught within the provisions of this legislation. I make that point because I think it is a point that ought to be considered. That does not delete in any way from the thrust of the argument in relation to what I think we are all basically concerned with, the trafficker of hard drugs. I think our approach to that is uniform.

I am disappointed at the approach of the honourable member for Denison who takes the view that the requirement to set out the details as proposed in the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) is an insult to the judiciary. I wish to make several points about that. First of all, the honourable gentleman, who is a lawyer, has only to pick up copies of the rules of practice in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the Supreme Court of Victoria or the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to see set out in great detail the forms which professional practitioners have to use in making applications to judges in chambers. The forms are set out in some detail. That is not regarded by the judiciary as an insult to them, neither is it regarded by legal practitioners as an insult to them. It is in order that when dealing with these matters judges will have before them what is basically a uniform set of standards by which they can make a determination upon facts.

Mr Hodgman:

– You are talking about pleadings in a civil case. There is no connection at all.

Mr HOLDING:

– Let me just deal with the honourable gentleman because I think he was a little glib in his handling of this situation. Setting out the details as the amendments proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does achieve two things. First of all it acts as a guide to all Customs officers who make an application. If this amendment were to be adopted by the Government, a Customs officer would be far less likely to be caught in a situation where a judge is entitled to say that he regards their application as not containing sufficient material. In fact, the Act itself sets out the criteria that the customs officer would have to fulfil in making his application. That provision does one very important thing. It establishes the set of criteria and the standards which Customs officers know and know that they have to deal with.

Let me deal with some of the points and some of the problems that the honourable member for

Denison was virtually trying to laugh out of this chamber. I do not see that it is anything too difficult in requiring a Customs officer to state in an affidavit to a judge that, on the basis of his experience as a Customs officer- he may have had some 20 years experience- that the circumstances -

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

– Or three weeks.

Mr HOLDING:

– Or three weeks or whatever- that the circumstances of this case make the use of a warrant to tap a telephone imperative because there is no other effective method available, having regard to the nature of the suspected offence, which is likely to be successuful. That is a reasonable statement and, if contained in an affidavit, that simplifies the function for the judges. It is very important to try to establish, as far as possible, uniform standards.

I disagree with my friend, the honourable member for Denison, when he says that, of course, all judges instinctively have an opposition to telephone tapping. I do not speak with that degree of authority because the honourable member for Denison knows as well as I do that judges in all courts, in all jurisdictions, within our system- I have a great respect for them- often approach particular offences in quite a different way because of all sorts of different fundamental attitudes. There are some judges, for example, as the honourable member would know, who take a far more serious view of crimes against the person than they do crimes against property. As an experienced practitioner, has not the honourable member for Denison ever stood at a listing of cases and decided that he wants a particular case- it may be an assault case or a larceny against property- on one list in preference to another. Of course, he nods his head in agreement. Why does he seek such a listing? He knows that if he gets a client before judge A as against judge B and given the nature of the offence, he is far more likely to get a better result for his client. That goes on every day in our courts. Experienced practitioners know it goes on. It is no insult to the judiciary. But it is important, therefore, that we understand these things. To say that every judge in Australia in every jurisdiction will have an automatic instinct against granting a warrant, I do not believe can be justified. Judges are like other human beings. They have all sorts of social attitudes towards these issues and they govern their attitudes. There is nothing wrong with that. That is known and understood by all practising lawyers.

Now the benefit and the advantage of the amendments moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are that they create, as far as is reasonably practicable, given the very seriousness of the issues with which we are dealing, a set of facts which are clear and known to the Customs officer. He knows that if he wants to make an application there are certain things that he has to put in his document otherwise he does not get to the first bench.

Mr Yates:
Mr HOLDING:

-Well, the honourable member might scoff at that but if he has seen some of the sloppy applications presented by solicitors and members of the legal profession, who do not know their jobs, that from time to time have to be dealt with by judges he would not be scoffing quite so hard. If he wants to pick up an ordinary book of practice, he will find far more detail set out in that for the guidance and direction of practitioners- men experienced in the law- than is contained here for the guidance and direction of Customs officers who do not always have the benefit of that sort of detailed training. So there is a real benefit in this kind of detail. It makes the approach to be taken by Customs officers uniform. They know what is required of them in making these applications.

Secondly, the fact that that is done also, I believe, over a period, will provide a far more uniform approach by the judiciary in handling these matters than if they are just left open. That is why I believe that they are beneficial. I am sorry to say to my friend, the honourable member for Denison, that I do not believe that he did his cause any real service by suggesting that somehow these procedures which operate, I believe, to the benefit of and to provide clarity to Customs officers in the pursuit of their duty are just a set of silly standards. I could show the honourable gentleman and he could show me in any practice book which exists for the guidance of members of the legal profession a set of standards which require far more detail than is suggested here. That, I believe, is the argument.

I invite the honourable gentleman opposite to argue whether these amendments, if adopted, would make life more onerous for Customs officers. No one has joined issue on that claim. What they have endeavoured to do is to say that by providing a proper set of standards we are making requirements which are unnecessary. I believe that if the amendments are adopted it will be easier for Customs officers to know the requirements that they have to meet in making these applications. I believe that it will lead to a uniform practice by members of the judiciary and I believe that that will be a good thing.

Mr Ruddock:

- Mr Deputy Chairman!

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy Chairman!

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)-I call the honourable member for Dundas.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

-Mr Deputy Chairman, I wish to crave your indulgence to mention that we have only 1 1 minutes to try to deal with another seven amendments. The honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) sought the call. I would like some co-operation, as the Government ‘s guillotine is preventing us from speaking.

Mr RUDDOCK:
Dundas

-My comment is very brief. I only wish to say that these rules, of course, are for judges, not for practitioners. The sorts of rules that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding) has been talking about are the sorts of rules that are laid down to enable practitioners who are going to appear before a judge to regulate their forms and to give them some guidance. This is not what we have here. This is a statutory obligation on judges telling them how they will exercise their discretion. It fetters the judge. It is not dealing with the matters relevant to the practitioner. That is my first point. Secondly, does the honourable member for Melbourne Ports really think that the Customs officers are going to be trotting off with their facts in relation to these sorts of matters, looking at the other questions that are involved in clause 20 of this Bill, without the assistance of very skilled Crown law officers?

Mr HODGMAN:
Denison

– With all due respect to the frog-like arguments of the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), everything he has said is destroyed by the Opposition’s proposed new to clause 20a. After saying everything has to be written down in forms, that the Customs officer has to know exactly what he has to say and that the judge has to know exactly what he has to do, this amendment makes provision for telephone applications. Ring him up in the middle of the night on the telephone. Now, with all due respect, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports took me to task and he spoke about pleadings. I do not think we have pleadings in the Supreme Court of Tasmania in its criminal jurisdiction. I am sure that the honourable member does not have it in Victoria. However, I will let the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) speak, but how is someone going to do affidavits by telephone? He will make legal history. They do not even do that on the Muppet Show.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)-Is it the wish of the Committee that the remainder of the Bill be taken as a whole? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– by leave- I move:

  1. Page IS, after clause 20, insert the following new clause: 20a. ( 1 ) Where it is impracticable for an officer of Customs to make application to a Judge for the issue of a warrant in accordance with section 20, the officer of Customs may make application for the issue of a warrant in respect of a telecommunications service to a Judge, by telephone, in accordance with this section.
  2. Before making application to a Judge by telephone under sub-section ( 1 ), the officer of Customs shall prepare an affidavit setting out the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought, but may, if it is necessary to do so, make the application before the affidavit has been sworn.

  3. Where a Judge is, upon application made under subsection ( 1 ), satisfied-

    1. after having considered the terms of the affidavit prepared in accordance with sub-section (2); and
    2. after having had given to him such further information (if any) as he requires concerning the grounds on which the issue of the warrant is being sought, that there are reasonable grounds for issuing the warrant, the Judge shall issue such a warrant as he would issue under section 20 if the application had been made to him in accordance with that section.

  4. Where a Judge issues a warrant under sub-section (3)-

    1. a ) the Judge shall complete and sign the warrant;
    2. the Judge shall inform the officer of Customs of the terms of the warrant signed by him, and record on the warrant his reasons for issuing the warrant; and
    3. the officer of Customs shall complete a form of warrant in the terms furnished to him by the Judge and write on it the name of the Judge who issued the warrant and the date on which and the dme at which it was issued.
  5. 5 ) Where a Judge issues a warrant under sub-section (3 ), the officer of Customs shall, not later than the day next following the date of expiry of the warrant, forward to the Judge who issued the warrant the form of warrant prepared by htm and the information and affidavit duly sworn in connection with the issue of the warrant.
  6. Upon receipt of the documents referred to in subsection (S), the Judge shall attach to them the warrant signed by him and deal with the documents in the manner in which he would have dealt with the information if the application for the warrant had been made to him in accordance with section 20.
  7. a form of warrant duly completed by the officer of Customs in accordance with sub-section (4), is, if it is in accordance with the terms of the warrant signed by the Judge, authority for the use of any listening device in relation to any particular person or premises that it authorizes. “(8) Where it is necessary for a court, in any proceeding, to be satisfied that the use of a listening device was authorised by a warrant issued by a Judge in accordance with this section, and the warrant signed by a Judge in accordance with this section authorising the entry or seizure is not produced in evidence, the court shall assume, unless the contrary is proved, that the entry or seizure was not authorised by such a warrant and information thereby obtained is inadmissible as evidence.”.

That report will include information on the number of warrants and, where they apply to telephones, the total number of services, et cetera. In other words, further information will have to be supplied. This is a further sanction. The whole idea of affidavits and everything else is to guarantee that these intrusions into privacy are not readily sought or granted. The Parliament itself is always interested in, for example, the amount of money spent in some department. It would be very important to know what sort of action has taken place under this Bill. I have formally moved the amendments; I invite my colleagues to participate in the remaining few minutes.

Dr BLEWETT:
Bonython

– I would like to speak to the Opposition’s amendment (16) and to relate this amendment to amendment (24) to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill which, unfortunately, was guillotined, giving us no chance to discuss it. It is important for the Committee to realise that, for all practical purposes, once this package of Bills has passed from this House, the House virtually has washed its hands of ASIO. For instance, it is quite clear that questions about ASIO will not be answered. Secondly, there is no annual report to Parliament by ASIO, so there can be no check through that means. There is no effective parliamentary audit of ASIO and, in the Opposition’s view, we have ineffective ministerial control of ASIO. We are in the paradoxical position where Parliament has no effective control in relation to

ASIO, yet ASIO is empowered to investigate individual members of Parliament.

As a result of this Bill we are in the extraordinary position where honourable members of this House may be examined by an organisation over which, for all practical purposes, this House has no effective supervision. This is why we are proposing an annual report to the Parliament, both in the ASIO Bill and also in the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill, in relation simply to warrants involved with telephone tapping in this Bill and to listening devices in the ASIO Bill. I want really to ask all honourable members on the Government side, particularly those honourable members who outside the House posture as defenders of civil liberties, what is wrong with having an annual report on the issue of telephone tapping and listening devices. I give due credit to the honourable members opposite I have had my doubts during this debate, particularly in regard to some of the remarks made by honourable members opposite, but I do give them credit- in believing that none of them believe that telephone tapping and listening devices are desirable things in this society even though sometimes they may be necessary.If it is an undesirable feature of our society it is very important that the Parliament retain some oversight of the development of that cancer in our society.

All that we are asking in this report is that each year the Parliament be told the number of warrants issued in relation to wire taps and in relation to listening devices and be given some details in that regard. I do not believe that anyone who honestly says that he is concerned with civil liberties can object to that. It in no way endangers the security operation. We are simply asking that this Parliament be told the extent of this development in our society. It in no way threatens any particular security operation. It in no way affects any Customs operation in toto because we are asking just for general fig toto beures. Unless this Parliament gets that information there is a real danger that year after year this cancer will creep through our society without this Parliament having any effective supervision. I would hope that all honourable members opposite who talk about civil liberties will support this particular amendment proposed by the Opposition.

Mr YATES:
Holt

-I must agree to the sovereignty of Parliament. I must support what the honourable member for Bonython (Dr Blewett) has said. I must agree that, historically, we have not been allowed to question the funds given to these organisations. I must accept also that we cannot question the operation of these organisations.

Mr Young:

– That is what Kim Philby said.

Mr YATES:

– Well, the honourable member probably knows more than I do about Mr Kim Philby.

Mr Young:

– I have read a lot about him.

Mr YATES:

– I have just read the book. I also understand him and I have met him.

Mr Young:

– It is because the Parliament didn’t ask questions that he did what he did.

Mr YATES:

– I do not think that would be so.

Mr Young:

- Sir Marcus Lipton asked those questions.

Mr YATES:

– I know that Colonel Lipton did ask those questions and I realise that Sir Harold Macmillan probably replied to the best of his ability. I am not actually dealing with that point, though it is a very important one. The question of sovereignty of Parliament is paramount. I talked to the Clerk of the House about this matter and I am convinced that a resolution of this House would be sufficient to demand that anything to be required of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation would have to be provided to this House. That could be done by a resolution of this House. Therefore, I accept fundamentally that if a resolution of this House demanded something from ASIO it would have to be known. The honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) will agree that that is the maximum that the Parliament could demand, and it is a maximum power which would be used only in the most exceptional cases. The Opposition has asked for something which could be reasonable. I do not think what it is suggesting is unreasonable.

I ask for the attention of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), who is at the table, as he might not be listening. I realise that the discussions between the chief Whip and the Minister are probably more important than what I have to say. I was just suggesting that the Minister might like to look carefully at this amendment, and, when he comes to the report stage, having discussed the matter with those concerned in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), say to himself: ‘Which is to prevail, the sovereignty of Parliament or the Executive?’ That is fundamental. I hope that the Minister is listening. Which is to prevail; the sovereignty of Parliament or the Executive? I would hardly think it possible that, without disclosing anything dangerous, this Parliament could not be provided with information as to the number of times warrants were granted or matters of this nature were dealt with. In fact honourable members probably would be happy to think that, if there were 20, 30 or 40 operations, they were probably doing their duty very well, whereas if there were only one or two operations they would be wondering whether they were worth the millions of dollars which they get.

Mr Viner:

– There are only ten seconds remaining for me to answer.

Mr YATES:

– I am sorry. In order that I do not embarrass the Minister I will resume my seat.

Mr VINER:
Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs · Stirling · LP

– I simply draw the attention of the honourable gentleman to clause 27 of the Bill which requires the Comptroller-General of Customs to furnish to the Minister responsible for the legislation a copy of each warrant issued under clauses 20 or 2 1 , and the Minister, of course, is responsible to this Parliament.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)-It being 10 p.m. the time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question is: That amendments 10 to 16 be agreed to’.

Question put.

The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman- Mr A. W. Jarman)

AYES: 30

NOES: 64

Majority…… 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Jarman)The question now is: ‘That the remainder of the Bill be agreed to and that the Bill be reported without amendment’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-The question now is: ‘That the report be adopted and that the Bill be now read a third time ‘.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O’H. Giles)

AYES: 65

NOES: 31

Majority…… 34

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2150

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

-The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question now is: ‘That this Bill be now read a second time ‘.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Remaining stages of the Bill agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

page 2150

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
Smith · Kingsford

– This Bill involves an amendment to the Customs Act. Normally one would not contest such a Bill. However the amendments proposed in the Bill follow the amendments already dealt with in respect of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Bill and the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 (No. 2). The amendments are saying that we approve of the use of listening devices in accordance with the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill and we also give the warning that anybody who gains information by such interception is not to disclose it.

Honourable members will recall that when we were debating the ASIO Bill and Telecommunications (Interception) Bills we proposed amendments to both Bills.

The Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) normally would be a machinery Bill. It amends the Customs Act 1901 in respect of the use of listening devices. That was dealt with in the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill. The Customs Act is being amended in respect of certain information not to be disclosed. That was dealt with in the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill. I reiterate that the Opposition opposed the ASIO Bill and the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill and moved a number of amendments. Accordingly, consistent with our attitude we oppose the Customs Amendment Bill. The Telecommunications Amendment Bill merely replaced a section in the Act, so there was no need to object to it. In respect of the Customs Amendment Bill there is a need for the Opposition clearly to indicate that although our amendments to the ASIO Bill and the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill in respect of accountability, warrants, annual reports and the question of the Leader of the Opposition being fully briefed on all matters were not accepted the same arguments apply to this Bill. The amendments which we proposed earlier also apply to this Bill, so it is logical that we would oppose it. Accordingly, the Opposition disapproves of this Bill.

Question put-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. ( Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr G. O ‘H. Giles)

AYES: 64

NOES: 31

Majority…… 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired. The question now is:That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to ‘.

Mr Lionel Bowen:

– The Opposition would like its objection recorded.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Hansard will note the objection.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2152

ADJOURNMENT

Social Security Benefits- Amalgamation of County Councils- Conciliation and Arbitration Legislation-North-South Road-Canterbury Community Youth Support Scheme

Motion (by Mr Viner) proposed:

That (he House do now adjourn.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– I raise a matter which I hope will be of concern to all members of this House. Some two weeks ago, I raised in this House the question of discrimination against women who, having been widowed -

Mr Bourchier:

– You put Jean Melzer No. 3 on the Senate ticket.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I think it is unfortunate that the honourable member for Bendigo seeks to make a joke of what I consider to be a very serious matter. The case I refer to is that of a women who, having been widowed, subsequently has a child and that child is treated by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs as nonexistent where the woman receives a war pension. The Department of Veterans’ Affairs takes the position that the child, not being the child of the husband as a result of whose war service the woman receives a war widows pension, is not the responsibility of that Department. That may be an acceptable argument. It is an argument which previously applied to social security widows pensions but which, in a period of some enlightenment, was changed. I do not think that it is the responsibility of Acts of Parliament to moralise on the conduct of people to the extent that they are fined and their children are disadvantaged.

I raise this matter in this House for the second time because I hope that at least some Government members will have sufficient concern to take the matter up. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Mr Adermann), in answer to correspondence from me, has indicated that he is not going to do anything about the matter. He has left it to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). The situation of a woman who has a child not covered by a war widows pension because it is not a child of the deceased exserviceman whose offspring attract a pension, is that if she applies to the Department of Social Security for coverage of that child, the war widows pension is applied as a means test against her in assessing whether the childrens allowance will be paid in respect of that child. If she were receiving a social security widows pension, the child would be covered automatically, but because she is receiving a war widows pension, she is denied cover for the child under either form of pension. In one case the Department of Veterans’ Affairs says that it is not the child of the ex-serviceman and in the other case the Department of Social Security says to the woman: ‘Your widows pension is such that it excludes you, because of the means test, from getting coverage for that child ‘.

I consider that this is a simple anomaly which should be able to be corrected. It was corrected in the case of social security pensions where such children who were born subsequent to a woman being widowed were excluded. They are no longer excluded. But they are excluded under this system. I consider it to be an anomaly and I hope that sufficient members of the Government will be prepared to take it up with the Minister concerned and with other Ministers to have the situation reversed.

Society sets certain moral standards. I do not believe that it is the place of veterans’ affairs or the social security legislation to moralise to the extent of discriminating against people in lowincome brackets for making mistakes that other people can make without any cost at all. I do not believe that an Act of Parliament should prescribe celibacy for anyone, whether they are married or not. But that virtually is what the present legislation does. What it is really saying to that woman is that she has to give up her war widows pension and take a social security pension in order to get coverage for that child because of the cross use of the means test. This is the second time I have raised this matter. I hope that someone will do something about it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BAUME:
Macarthur

– I draw the attention of the House to a measure being taken by the New South Wales Government which will seriously reduce employment in my electorate and increase the cost of living in my electorate. I refer to the amalgamation of county councils in my electorate. This action is being forced on these county councils despite the clearly-stated wishes of the residents and despite the strong objections of Labor Party officials in my area. This is happening throughout the coastal area of New South Wales and even in the electorate of St George, I am told. Whatever the effect in metropolitan areas, the reality of what is happening in the country areas is absolutely shattering.

There are three county councils in my electorate- the Nepean River County Council, the Berrima County Council and the Shoalhaven

County Council. These three county councils are in decentralised areas. Nepean River County Council is in Picton. The Berrima County Council is in Bowral. The Shoalhaven County Council is in Nowra. The State Labor Party in New South Wales, with its steamroller tactics, with its gauleiter approach to local government -

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The saviour of local government.

Mr BAUME:

– It is temporarily in government in New South Wales. The New South Wales State Labor Party, with its steamroller approach, not caring for the wishes of the residents, has imposed its will on the people as is the normal style of that kind of centralist organisation- the people will be able to express their view at the next opportunity- and has forced the amalgamation of these councils. Some people might say that it is a great thing, that it will make for greater efficiency. The facts are that that is not so; it will not lead to greater efficiency. In the case of all the county councils in my electorate, it will lead to higher costs because they will be forced to amalgamate with councils with higher rate structures to the disadvantage of my constituents. But, even more serious, there are small areas like Picton in my electorate where the removal of the county council to Parramatta, of all places- and what a curious place to move it towill mean the removal of jobs from a decentralised area to a city area. We all know that the Labor Government in New South Wales hates decentralised areas, does not like the bush and wants to kick the guts of the people in Picton. Let me quote from a recent issue of the Illawarra Mercury, a paper which the Labor Party appears to love because it quotes it so frequently. An article in this newspaper states:

More than 100 jobs are expected to be transferred out of the town- that is, the town of Picton- when the Nepean River district is swallowed up by Prospect County Council and the transfer will cause other businesses in the town to lay off staff.

Picton ‘s Chamber of Commerce President Mr Hilton Middleton yesterday said the State Government seemed determined to go ahead with amalgamation, despite the affect it would have on the economies of many regional centres such as Picton.

Mr Middleton said protests from people of all political persuasions had fallen on deaf ears in the Government.

As I understand it, in Sydney there was the most intriguing little Caucus fight where some of the most disgraceful trade-offs were involved in getting this proposal steamrolled through the Caucus. The article continues:

Amalgamation is a tragedy for Picton ‘, he said.

Institutions like the County Council are vital to the economies of regional centres and amalgamation is the opposite of the decentralisation the State needs ‘.

I totally agree with the points that Mr Middleton has made. In this regard I have received a letter from a constituent who writes:

About a month ago a group, including myself, from the lower ranks of the Nepean River County Council staff formed an action committee to fight the State Government’s plans to amalgamate the County Councils on the Eastern seaboard. This little organisation that we call Consumers Against Amalgamation represents people from both sides of the political fence . . .

I am not trying to push only one political barrow; I am trying to push for a fair deal for the people of my electorate. I am pushing for a fair deal for the people in small, decentralised towns. I am pushing for a fair deal for employment in Picton, in Bowral and in Nowra. When I hear members of the Labor Party get up and complain about unemployment in those areas, I put the finger on where the blame really lies.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I will not take very long. I now have a copy of the letter circulated to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by His Honour Mr Justice Staples. I am concerned that the Press has either deliberately misquoted or has been misled into misquoting that part of the letter which some newspapers say mentions Hitlerite Germany and which others say uses the term Nazi Germany. No such expression appears anywhere in His Honour’s letter. The letter says this:

Whether or not the jurisdiction is left in our hands by the High Court, which of us in any event would want to be like the judges in pre-war Germany who simply acted out their office in a train of events that culminated in legal conclusions that ‘Jews’ and ‘Communists’ were no longer full citizens entitled to rely on rights previously accumulated, that is to say, were persons who could be struck down by a mere executive act.

Those remarks which talked about the position that the judges would be placed in were the only remarks anywhere in this letter on which the Press, or whoever handed out a copy of the letter or alleged extracts from the letter to the Press, could have based its reports. But in order to get the worst possible public relations effect of the letter the term ‘Hitlerite Germany’ was used in one case and in most cases the term ‘Nazi Germany’ was used. One after the other the newspapers said that Mr Justice Staples likened the legislation to Nazi Germany. The situation was entirely different.

Mr Yates:

– That is what he did.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-He did nothing of the kind. That is why I wish to have the letter incorporated in Hansard. I hope that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) will give me leave. I am sorry that

I have not had time to show him the letter but I think that he knows what it is all about. I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard so that honourable members can read it and form their own view as to whether the judge has been misreported. Quite clearly, there was an intent to set him up. It backfired and I am glad it did.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

AUSTRALIAN CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Chambers, Law Courts Building Queens Square Sydney, 2000 28 September 1979

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

I circulate to members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission some comments on the proposed amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act introduced into the House of Representatives by the Minister for Industrial Relations on Thursday, 20 September 1979.

The amendments have been produced under conditions of secrecy not appropriate in a law-making field in which the prime concern is and should remain the conciliation of conflicting interests.

It appears that the Department of Industrial Relations played no part in the drafting of the amendments, that no member of this Commission was consulted and no trade union or employer or peak council representing employees or employers was consulted.

The Minister, in his second reading speech claimed that the “initial proposals” (but not, apparently, the final proposals) were shown to some persons present at the National Labour Consultative Council, but he admits that no trade union representatives were present at that meeting. He does not claim that those “initial proposals” were forwarded to the trade union representatives who were entitled to be at the meeting, or left in the possession of the employers’ representatives present. He does not claim that the final proposals were shown to any member of the National Labour Consultative Council or to the Council as a whole. Nor does he offer any reason for his failure to take the final proposals to the Council before their introduction into the legislative process. Urgency, if it is ever an excuse for hasty legislating, is not a factor discernible here.

Considerations of courtesy to this Commission warranted consultation with ourselves if only because the amendments can be construed by uncharitable minds as insulting to the integrity of the Commission as a whole and to certain particular members of it whose decisions are part of the background of the proposed changes.

Some notice of the “initial proposals” was given to members of the Government parties some weeks ago under conditions of privacy and confidentiality. Persons privy to this disclosure were not permitted to retain the text distributed. Each was required to surrender the same before leaving the place of meeting. “The Government (was) keeping the legislation under tight wraps. Copies were collected at the end of Tuesday night’s meeting and backbenchers were asked to regard the briefing as confidential.” (Age, 31 August 1979).

Law making by these methods is antipathetic to the best procedures open to be pursued in a democratic socity. They deny the search for consensus and the accommodation of conflicting interests. Laws made in such circumstances are not likely to gather up broad assent and respect which it may be desired to put in place of the temptation to resort to force.

Law reform is often proposed on two grounds:

Firstly, it may have the purpose to restate in more concrete and substantive manner values which are not obtaining expression in the decisions of persons, judges or administrators. So, a rule must be stated or restated so that its intendment may not be avoided in its application in particular cases. Secondly, law reform is often directed to procedural questions. Most commonly, procedural changes are proposed so as to simplify and expedite, with a reduction in cost, delay and complexity, the trial of issues of fact and law. Procedural reforms set the quality and import of the substantive rules of law. It has been said that the substantive law is secreted in the interstices of procedure’.

Measured by these considerations the present Bill is not reform: it is reaction. It introduces complexity and delay. It is not argued that the procedural changes are required in order to achieve expedition and economy in the trial of issues. Such a contention would fall before a timeconsuming, cost-incurring, delay-provoking system of resorting to Full Benches on issues which have hitherto been dealt with by one person under the sanction of an appeal procedure, (which is now in practice to be broadly removed with all its benefits taken away).

The denial of the right of appeal is a step backwards. I take the liberty of reproducing what I wrote in a recent Full Bench decision:

Institutions such as ours, however, should be structured so as not to afford even the appearance of arbitrariness of judgment, fickleness of decision or other waywardness. That is why an appeal tribunal is put here behind the arbitrator within reach of a dissatisfied party. Law systems that do not provide opportunities for appeal invite suspicion. Thus, the existence of the opportunity to appeal may serve from time to time to condition the manner and the terms in which a decision is brought down. The presence of an appeal tribunal gives confidence to parties to enter into a procedure having a binding result. A decision is more authoritative if it has been confirmed on appeal; it may sometimes fetch authority precisely because it has not been appealed.’ (B.W.I.U. and the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, 1 1 May 1979-Print E39.’

The Bill proposes to require Commissioners to consult with Presidential members in certain circumstances, in a smoke-filled back room, as it were, to deal with the interests of absent parties. In every sense this proposal deprecates the competence and integrity of Commissioners. They are directed to submit their will and their judgment in the discharge of an office (in which they have given their oath faithfully and impartially to perform the duties of that office ‘) to the overriding determination of another.

The evil of this proposal is that it can only shake the confidence of parties before a Commissioner in the integrity of any ruling to which he ultimately puts his hand. No party knowing that a Commissioner reserves his decision and submits it to another can have sure confidence that he will report each party’s case accurately to the Presidential member or that the Presidential member will accurately understand that party’s case. The understanding may be conditioned by the manner in which the Commissioner sees fit, in all good faith, to present it.

The Minister justifies this astonishing departure from established standards of behaviour by claiming that there is a complex range of awards and agreements within the jurisdiction of the Commission. He argues that ‘this very fact demands consistency of principle and decision making . . there have been some occasions when such consistency has been lacking.’ One is entitled to wonder when it came about that identical dollar sums alone may manifest consistency of principle and why a discrepancy in dollar sums manifests a want of principle.

What is the principle that the Minister contends for? Is it lock-step mechanical judgment in the face of all the circumstances of a case? Is the only decision correct which comes first in time? Is the only decision correct which makes the most modest draft upon the resources of an employer? Is it right that a matter be resolved not by reference to its own facts but by force of other facts established by other persons between other parties? What do we have an appeal procedure for?

No person need fear that I will deal with the interests of patties whom I have not heard in open court. I will prefer to be a member of a panel of one or, if this is not convenient, to require that any consultation take place in open court with the parties present by way of a rehearing.

I would do this acting out the values expressed by the Privy Council in the Boilermakers’ Case 95 C.L.R. 529 & 544: ‘The same qualities of fairness, patience and courtesy should be exhibited by conciliator, arbitrator or judge alike . . . none of them should act without hearing both sides of the case.’ It would be inconceivable that the community would tolerate judges acting in the manner enjoined of Commissioners and Presidential members by the Bill.

  1. Clause 6 of the Bill deals with stand-downs. It sanctions one of the great evils that beset the judicial process from time to dme, namely, the manoeuvring of parties to select the judge of their cause. Where an applicant for a stand-down finds success in doubt he may have another court as of right (even after a matter has been reserved for decision) and thereby not only does he shed one judge but he deprives his opponent of a right of appeal against the decision taken at first instance. Moreover, an exercise expressed to be directed to expedition is thereby beset with delay.

Further, the second court is permitted to take short cuts without the consent of the parties by having regard to evidence given and arguments adduced in the previous attempt at a trial at first instance.

  1. Time lost through industrial action.

The Minister in his second reading speech described his amendments in terms of ‘time lost’ and ‘industrial action’. It is to be noted that ‘industrial action’ embraces conduct not involving a strike, e.g. bans. Such bans do not necessarily involve any loss of working time. Nonetheless they may attract the amendment. To the extent that the Minister adopted the phrase ‘dme lost’ he has not stated accurately what is embraced by the proposal, which is directed to claims in respect of a period during which the employees are engaged in industrial action’. This need not necessarily have involved the loss of time as in a strike. The claim may arise in a period in which work was done. The Minister seeks to enrich employers by saving them from paying for what is done.

This amendment seeks to defeat the common law and to deny employees access to this Commission in the interest of employers. It can only serve to depreciate the status of this Commission in the eyes of the millions of employees who contribute by their taxes to its support, for it is proposed to forbid members of the Commission to attempt to prevent and settle by conciliation and arbitration industrial disputes.

It occurs under the same speech in which the Minister complains that some unions have failed to bring their disputes to the commission and have ‘rejected the proper processes for settling their disputes’. Yet here there is a denial of all process for settling a dispute.

Other members of the Commission have mentioned to me cases in which they have given decisions which they believe would be caught by the amendment. I wish to add to the count a ruling I gave in a dispute between the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists and the Australian Postal Commission on 26 April 1979 (Print D9961)-a ruling which provoked a certain displeasure in high places at the time. It was a ‘no work no pay’ case. In the particular case an employee had carried out 99.999 per cent of his duties, omitting one of trifling significance as a work task but of monstrous import to the bureaucratic mind, for by reason of a union ban he had declined to sign a document which was otherwise authentic, complete and accurate, lacking merely his mark. He had performed in every other respect his duties faithfully and well but for none of it would the employer pay him. It was plain to me that the employer had requested implicitly, if not explicitly, the doing of the work for which it would not pay. Inter aiia, I had this to say on the ‘work-on but no pay ‘ principle:

My understanding of the law and the position is perfectly clear. A servant has certain entitlements of his master and he has certain duties towards his master. If the contract of employment requires of the servant that he should perform certain duties then a refusal by the servant to perform those duties provides an option to the employer. Where a servant declines to perform a task within the duties contemplated by the contract of service the employer may treat the contract as being at an end. It is voidable at his option; he may, if he wishes, dismiss the servant; he may, if he wishes, ignore the refusal. But he is not entitled to take the benefit of services rendered by the employee, by the servant, without paying a fair price for them. It may be that the price that is deemed fair and which ought to be paid by the master to his servant for such services as the master accepts, explicitly or implicitly, from the servant ought not to be remunerated by reference to the amount due if the service that is refused were given and taken into account. In other words, a fair price for the service that is rendered by the servant may not be one that is determined by reference to the wage due in the ordinary circumstance, but it does not follow that a fair wage for services that are offered and accepted may be refused out of hand. The master is under a duty to pay for what he accepts from his servant. The master, however, has another resort and that is to sue the servant for damages if he declines to dismiss him, and he may recover damages from the servant simply for the mere refusal to carry out the full intent of the bargain. The mere breach of the contract gives rise immediately to a right to nominal damages arising from the fact of the breach. Whether the master is entitled to recover damages that are not nominal but, indeed, are substantive is a question that needs to be determined by reference to the loss suffered by the master as the result of the breach.

In the present case the position taken by Australia Post is ‘ We will accept the servant and we are accepting the service*. Indeed, it has been represented to me that they actually threatened someone against withdrawing service, or more accurately, perhaps, required of that person that he should actually continue to render service and not go home, although he was on no pay.

It is not conceivable to me that any authority can be found in the common law which will support a result that the Postal Commission is entitled to take the services without payment on the facts that I have been dealing with here. The Postal Commission, one would have thought, consistent with its being a creature of statute law would at least seek to justify its position by argument about the consequences of the common law rules. However, here they seek to evade the obligations that may appear to be cast upon them by the common law by arguing that in this tribunal there is no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and further they put that the employee if dissatisfied can take them to law in another place.

Let me just put the position as I see it. Every citizen in this community has a duty to adhere to the rules of law and has no privilege to escape his obligations by reason merely that he has not been ordered by a court to carry out that which the law prescribes, just as I have a duty to conform to the rules of law as I understand them to be and am bound to do my best to carry them out without the command of a court.

In my view the Australian Postal Commission, being a creature of the parliament, is acting inconsistently with the public’s interest in the upholding of the law if they decline to act out the rules of law of their own volition and sit pat waiting until someone sues them in a court properly vested with the jurisdiction to make the orders appropriate in the circumstances. People should volunteer to obey the law, the Australian Postal Commission should volunteer to obey the law, and the law includes not only the statutes but the rules of common law; in this case, contrary to what one would expect of a great statutory corporation, we find people sitting pat and asking others not nearly as equally placed as they are to call on the courts in their aid if they have a complaint.

Not only in my view is the Postal Commission at law misconducting itself on the facts revealed to me, but they are misconducting themselves in that they are seeking to impose a situation of total inequality upon their employees. In my view, the proper position for Australia Post to take up at this dme is to pay the employees and then sue the employees at law if Australia Post feel the law is on its side. The resources available to Australia Post to conduct litigation on its own initiative are infinitely greater than are the resources of ordinary employees, and if the law is on its side and it is justified in pursuing the line of conduct it would lead to the consequence that Australia Post should do the right thing and pay these people for the work taken from them, and if it feels it has suffered a loss that goes beyond nominal damages, it can sue to recover the losses.’

  1. It is proposed in Clause 8 to empower the President to take a matter out of the hands of a member of the Commission which is actively before him if he is of the opinion that there are ‘special reasons’ to justify his so doing. What considerations, one is entitled to ask, constitute ‘special reasons’. A definition would be peculiarly appropriate here.

Nothing is more calculated to strike at the independence and authority of any member of the Commission than that he be under threat of becoming disentitled to act if he does not please. By what corridor of power may complainants hope to reach the ear of the President and to induce him to defrock a colleague? What pressures may we expect to be brought against a recalcitrant President if he fails to respond to insinuations, subtle or overt, against one judge in favour of another? How will the President satisfy himself that there are special reasons’?

With whom is he to consult? With the parties? Severally, or altogether, or shall strangers be consulted? Or shall the President be left to act with all the appearance of caprice?

The power to remove a matter before a member of the Commission from his hands falls somewhere near a power already in the Act (s. 23 (3) ), under which Presidential members may allocate work to members of the panel who are bound to comply with the directions of the Presidential member. There is no basis for concluding that the power of a Presidential member to organise and allocate the work of a member of his panel permits what is here proposed. I had occasion, not so long ago, to give a direction to a member of my panel not to take any step in a matter which had been previously under his active attention, and which came before me in his absence. My direction gave rise to certain misunderstandings.

The member of my panel affected was away on vacation when a matter was notified to me and was urgent. When it was last before my colleague certain recommendations he had made had been rejected. The matter had been stood over generally. When it blew up again, I conferred privately with the parties. I gained a strong impression that a manoeuvre was on foot, notwithstanding the urgency of the matter and the absence of my colleague, to delay a further hearing in the Commission until he returned and became available. I had the strong impression that this manoeuvre was founded on two considerations- firstly, to ensure that I did not hear the matter and secondly, to ensure that my colleague did. To put a short word on what I believed to be going on, some persons were intent on selecting the judge of their cause. I gave the direction, of which I immediately informed the parties, without explanation, in order to make it perfectly plain that I would not permit it to appear that outsiders could influence the procedures of this Commission. Whether the particular means I chose to quash the ambitions that I detected were politic is a matter that others may question. It was not my purpose to act against my colleague’s stature, rather to uphold his and mine and the independence of the Commission. This amendment strikes at the concept of judicial independence.

Moreover, the amendment curtails a provision in the Act which is intended to serve the interest that justice shall appear to be done. Section 22 provides that where a member of the Commission has exercised powers with respect to conciliation he shall not participate in an arbitration, if there is an objection.

Under this proposal the President is free to attempt a conciliation and thereafter to impose an arbitration at his will. So much for the spirit of s. 22 (2).

  1. It is proposed in Clause 16 to empower a Full Bench to make relevant declaration where it is satisfied that two persons have been in the past engaged in industrial action (e.g. a ban) which has had a substantial adverse effect on the welfare of part of the community.

The declaration may rest upon the losses alleged to have been incurred by shareholders. Such persons are ‘part of the community’. The system is not limited to present or future situations and would not be any more acceptable if it were.

One of the key practices of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes is to dissolve trade unions and to put puppets in their place. This legislation provides for precisely that possibility.

The amendment is framed so as to manoeuvre this Commission into providing respectability for an exercise which is essentially reactionary and under which this Commission may be rendered perfectly superfluous if it is not willing to be an instrument of the Government’s will in a particular case. We have already seen a number of examples recently where the present Government’s will has been declared to have been thwarted by the decisions of this Commission. So, amendments have been brought into the Act and are now proposed again for the Act in order to promote the authority of the Government over our deliberations. Under this amendment, if the Government can empower the Commission to make a declaration it can, as well, amend the law so that it may proceed without the need for our declaration. We shall be left with the power only so long as we exercise it to the pleasure of the Government.

One could write a treatise on the unconstitutionality of this proposal taken as a whole. It is not a proposal to prevent and settle industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration. Its purpose is to proceed to put an end to relevant industrial action by Government harassment, oppression and expropriation. Furthermore, a choice is given to the Government either to cancel registration or to set at nought the rights of a particular employee. By stripping a man of his civil rights, he becomes to that extent an outlaw. It is not to the point to clothe this diminution of status under the misleading phrase suspension’. A man at any point of time is either within or without the law. This proposal seeks power to put a man outside the law and to do it withal by executive act.

Who wishes to co-operate in Full Benches trying such applications? Whether or not the jurisdiction is left in our hands by the High Court, which of us in any event would want to be like the judges in pre-war Germany who simply acted out their office in a train of events that culminated in legal conclusions that ‘Jews’ and ‘Communists’ were no longer full citizens entitled to rely on rights previously accumulated, that is to say, were persons who could be struck down by a mere executive act.

  1. I am opposed to the amendments one and all and I would wish that my colleagues were too. We shall be lesser men and women and of lesser use to the community as a whole if they become law.

    1. F. Staples, Deputy President
Mr NEIL:
St George

– I wish to give to the House a view in relation to the Executive and the judiciary or conciliation and arbitration commissioners. It may not be the view that is always adopted in practice. I take the view that the Executive, the legislature and the judiciary should remain separate. We have a separation of powers under our constitutional system. There should be at all times a clear and guiding principle that we maintain the separation of those functions. The Executive and the legislature, although composed of persons who are elected to the Parliament, have separate functions and the judiciary has separate functions. The position of commissioners and members of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission who are presidential members is one that needs to be considered especially. However, because they carry out functions that are very much analogous to those of the judiciary and because they carry out important matters of conciliation and arbitration and lay down rules which bind- at least we hope that they bind- those parties to the various disputes, I believe that there is for the purposes of considering separation of powers no real distinction between their position and that of the judiciary. We should re-emphasise that.

The point I want to make is that I do not believe that on matters of substantive law as against procedural matters there ought to be any consultations or discussions between any of the judiciary or commissioners and members of the legislature or the Executive. I believe that that is a fundamental principle. Perhaps it has been eroded at various times by practices that, understandably, have come onto the scene in the industrial relations field because of the wish of parties to try to provide the maximum amount of prior consideration of proposed amendments. But this can lead to difficulties and the types of problems which have arisen recently. I do not believe that a conciliation and arbitration commissioner, a presidential member of the Commission or a judge ought to write to a member of the legislature or the Executive- that includes the appropriate Minister- on matters of substantive amendments to an Act. It is up to the judiciary or the Commission to take the laws as they are amended and to interpret them in accordance with their office. I do not believe that the Executive should seek to contact the judiciary or the Commission in respect of substantive laws and tell them what it believes should be an approach to those laws.

Procedural matters are different. One would not suggest that matters such as delays in court proceedings or how to ensure that the business of the court or the Commission is best conducted should be the subject of such a rule. Procedural matters obviously ought to be considered prior to their implementation to provide the smooth running of the court or the Commission. In this case procedural matters have been alluded to and the provision in the Act- I will not go into itrelating to consultation was procedural. But there should not be these types of discussions on other matters. This would avoid the problems that have arisen. If Mr Justice Staples sent a copy of some criticism of substantive matters to members of Parliament, including members of the Opposition, as I understand he did, or to the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) I do not believe that he should have done so. Those substantive matters should have simply been returned to him without any comment. Procedural matters are different but I think it is most important that we understand the basic principle.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) (10.48)- During the adjournment debate last night I referred to the great value of country newspapers. I was about to mention the north-south road when I was sidetracked by someone saying that I should not retire. I believe that the New South Western Standard has every justification in reviving interest in the north-south road. The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and I have raised this matter in this House on several occasions. Recently, members of the Broken Hill City Council, the secretary of the Barrier Industrial Council, Mr Fred Smith, and others have asked me to raise the matter in the House once again. I inform the House that interest was first taken in the north-south road when a picture was taken by an out-of-course satellite in its dying days. This was during the greatest inland flood in living memory in 1974. At that time the inland of Australia had been deluged by rain and the inland road system was impassable to traffic. All roads to the east were cut by flooding in the Channel country. The low roads south from Alice Springs were a quagmire. The route of the proposed north-south road follows the high ridge of land dividing the two great drainage basins of this continent, the Lake Eyre and Murray-Darling Basins, and continues along the eastern edge of Lake Eyre connecting with Sturt ‘s Stony Desert. The satellite picture showed that the route was flood free even in the record flood. It not only showed the proposed route to be flood free, but also showed it to be the most direct route to the north from the populated east of Australia. Much of the proposed highway is already in existence. From the south, from Melbourne through Mildura to Broken Hill the road is fully sealed. To the north, Darwin is already linked by a sealed highway through Tennant Creek, Mount Isa and Boulia. The portion of the road we are worried about is from Boulia through to Tibooburra. This portion has not been constructed.

The Committee asks that the Army do a survey of this road. I think it is important that this road survey be carried out at this time. The debate last week on roads pointed out the value of road work to employment. We were told that 75 per cent of the cost of road work goes to labour. Soil tests have been taken of this road which show that the material is already there. One can see the great advantage now of investigating this road further. It has caught the imagination of all of the people in the area who have had a look at this road. I think it is up to the Government at least to say that it will put the Army in to do this survey. I believe that during the period of the Labor Government the Army stated that it was anxious to make this survey and I believe it still would be.

I ask the Government to give further consideration to this road and to remember that it is of great benefit to Australia’s tourism, beef roads, agriculture, natural gas line servicing, et cetera. Australians would be able to travel and explore the interior of their own land. Darwin would not be isolated during flood periods and it would become a greater consumer of goods from the south and possibly a port for overseas goods for the inland. I ask the Government to take an interest in this road once again because I think there are great benefits to be derived for Australia.

Mr YATES:
Holt

– I was delighted this evening to receive from the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) a full copy of the letter by Mr Justice Staples, Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, about the Government’s proposed changes to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. On page 4 of his letter appears a statement which I think honourable members will be most interested to hear. It reads:

The Bill proposes to require Commissioners to consult with Presidential members in certain circumstances, in a smoke-filled back room, as it were, to deal with the interests of absent parties. In every sense this proposal deprecates the competence and integrity of Commissioners. They are -

I suppose in this smoke-filled back room- directed to submit their will and their judgment in the discharge of an office (in which they have given their oath faithfully and impartially to perform the dudes of that office ‘) to the overriding determination of another.

I never read anything of that sort in the Bill. I wonder whether this is written by a man of the law or a politician? I am amazed that the honourable member for Hindmarsh could be so affronted. In his wind-up, Mr Justice Staples stated:

Whether or not the jurisdiction is left in our hands by the High Court, which of us in any event would want to be like the judges in pre-war Germany who simply acted out their office in a train of events that culminated in legal conclusions that ‘Jews ‘ and ‘Communists’ were no longer full citizens entided to rely on rights previously accumulated, that is to say, were persons who could be struck down by a mere executive act.

I think the media, for the first time, were quite right. I am amazed to find an occasion when one would really think that the media were perfectly fair. What were judges in pre-war Germany? Were they some sort of saintly organisation? I thought that in pre-war Germany the nazi government was in full power. What is the Opposition complaining of? I am amazed to think that the honourable member for Hindmarsh could be so sensitive. I would say that Mr Justice Staples has stated his view quite clearly. What he does not like is any action of this Parliament to decide that we should reinforce the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to protect the members of smaller unions and give job security. My own electors do not care about what goes on in this high fandango of arbitration. They want job security. They are saying: ‘Does the legislation of the

Government give me more chance of job security or not?’ The perfect answer is that it will. What is more, the Opposition has not woken up to this fact- the electorate knows it will increase job security. This honourable justice has complained that the Government is going to strengthen the powers of the President of the Commission. What is wrong with that? Does the Opposition object to that? Why has it not said so? If the Act asks a Commissioner to consult with the President, does that mean to say that when he has consulted the President he will say to the two parties -

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar)Order! The honourable member is not entitled to canvass the contents of a question that has previously been before the House or is scheduled for the attention of the House. His remarks in the main were acceptable but he is now proceeding to debate the contents of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. If he continues to do so he will be out of order.

Mr YATES:

-Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you have probably run me out of time. I say quite frankly that this proposition put before us by the honourable member for Hindmarsh does not stand up to any examination by any honourable member of parliament. The honourable member for Hindmarsh is greatly mistaken. The letter I have read is political pamphleteering and I cannot see that it has any justification whatever.

Mr Leo McLeay:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-This evening I bring to the attention of the House the plight of the Canterbury Community Youth Support Scheme. Today I received advice from the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner), that that scheme had received $26,616 for the half-year program this year. That amount is a reduction of 10 per cent on the grant that that scheme received last year. In real terms it is a reduction of about 20 per cent. When one considers that this Canterbury scheme is a most successful multilingual, multicultural scheme- probably one of the most successful schemes in the metropolitan area of Sydney- it is a crying shame that the Minister has seen fit to provide a 10 per cent across the board reduction to it. Those running the scheme receive enough subsidy to provide three salaries. In fact, they have four part time workers- two Arabic speaking people and two English speaking people.

In 1977-78, 960 young people went through the scheme in the Canterbury area. This month nearly 800 people under 21 years of age who are out of work are registered with the Campsie Commonwealth Employment Service office, and 30 job vacancies are registered as being unfilled. Arabic speaking people constitute 45 per cent of those who have gone through this scheme in Canterbury. I submit to the Parliament and to the Minister- unfortunately he has not seen fit to come into the chamber tonight even though I did ring his office to let him know I would be raising this question during the adjournment debatethat this is a special case that should receive a sympathetic hearing from the Government. There are very few community youth support schemes that have such a high ethnic content as the Canterbury one. Very few schemes have taken positive steps to ensure that the cultural and work experience of all the people in the electorate are taken care of.

I submit that the Minister should reconsider his decision to reduce the Canterbury scheme funding by 10 per cent and that in view of the very good job that is being done for migrant children in the community in Canterbury in my electorate of Grayndler he should give the scheme personnel some special consideration to ensure that they can keep up the job they have been doing over the last three years and do not have to dismiss staff.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

page 2159

NOTICES

The following notices were given:

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act relating to the marketing of certain canned fruits, and for. related purposes.

Mr Nixon to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion ) Act 1 95 9.

Mr Howard to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Act 1976.

Mr Howard to present a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance in Queensland.

House adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 2160

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Korea (Question No. 4570)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1979:

Is Australia still bound by thedeclaration made in 1 953 by the nations which had contributed forces to the United Nations in Korea that they would again resist an armed attack in breach of the armistice.

Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The declaration in 1953 by sixteen countries which had contributed forces to the United Nations Command in Korea was made in the immediate aftermath of the cease-fire in Korea as a warning against any major breach of the cease-fire arrangements. The Declaration does not constitute a treaty, but Australia has continued to support efforts to bring about a lasting and equitable settlement on the Korean peninsula. Australia’s response to any breach of the Korean armistice would be decided at the time in the light of all the circumstances.

Kangaroos (Question No. 4571)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:

  1. What are the quotas for kangaroo kills for 1979-80 in respect of each State and Territory.
  2. In each case, (a) what species are included in the quotas and (b) does the quota represent an increase or decrease on the 1978-79 figures.
  3. How many kangaroos were killed for export in each year from 1969-70 to date.
Mr Groom:
LP

– The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The following annual kangaroo harvest quotas were proposed by the States and accepted by the Commonwealth:
  1. There is no ‘export quota’ as such. Skins and products up to the total approved annual quota may be exported. The following table provides current available information on skins and meat exported from 1969-70:

Productivity (Question No. 4596)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. What was the growth in productivity for the (a) primary, (b) mining, (c) manufacturing and (d) services sectors between 1964-65 and 1975-76 as measured by (i) annual average increase in GDP per hour worked and (ii) annual average increase in GDP per person employed.
  2. What is the growth in productivity for the (a) construction, (b) wholesale and retail, (c) finance, (d) community services, ( e ) entertainment and (f) other industries as measured by (i) annual average increase in GDP per hour worked and (ii) annual average increase in GDP per person employed.
Mr Lynch:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) The information contained in the two tables provided below is based on preliminary estimates prepared by the Bureau of Industry Economics. The two tables give details of growth in productivity, as measured by (i) annual average in GDP per hour worked and (ii) annual average increase in GDP per person employed, by sector (Table 1) and by service industry (Table 2).

Accidents Involving Home-made Aircraft (Question No. 4612)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Melbourne Age of 10 September 1979 entitled Home-made Plane Tragedy.
  2. If so, how many accidents involving home-made aircraft have been reported to his Department in the last 5 years.
  3. 3 ) How many of the accidents were fatal.
  4. What specific controls does his Department exercise over home-made aircraft.
  5. Is there a register of these aircraft in Australia; if not, why not
  6. Will his Department establish a register.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes.

  2. and (3) It is assumed that the question is directed only to power driven aeroplanes. Air Navigation Regulations define an aeroplane as ‘a power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft deriving its lift in flight chiefly from aerodynamic reactions on surfaces remaining fixed under given conditions of flight.’ Assuming ‘home-made’ to include those aeroplanes including rotorcraft built to a set of plans provided by the designer, or those assembled from a kit of parts, which may include some completed sub-assemblies, there are two categories of aeroplane to consider:

    1. Those in the amateur built category which must comply with airworthiness requirements specified in Air Navigation Orders, and
    2. those sport aeroplanes operated under exemptions specified in Air Navigation Orders. These include powered hang gliders, minimum aeroplanes and gyroplanes.

Between 1 January 1975 and 18 September 1979 the following accidents were reported:

  1. The Department of Transport exercises control over amateur built aeroplanes which are constructed by individuals or groups for recreational or educational purposes. An amateur built aeroplane may not have a maximum take-off weight in excess of 1,000 kg.

Aeroplanes certificated in the amateur built category must comply with the airworthiness standards specified in Air Navigation Orders. These orders define the design standards applied to this class of aircraft and detail the inspections and tests required for a certificate of airworthiness. Amateur built category aeroplanes must be registered and must comply with the Air Navigation Regulations, in common with other registered aircraft. On 30 June 1979 there were 107 registered aeroplanes certificated in the amateur built category.

There are, however, other aeroplanes and gyroplanes which may be either home built of factory produced, exempt from certain Air Navigation Regulations including those concerning registration and airworthiness. They are, firstly, aeroplanes having a maximum take-off weight not in excess of 180 kg and with a maximum wing loading not in excess of 19.5 kg per square metre (sometimes called minimum aeroplanes) and, secondly, gyroplanes with a maximum take-off weight not exceeding 350 kg.

  1. Certificated amateur built category aeroplanes are included in the register of Australian aircraft. Minimum aeroplanes and gyroplanes are not included in the register as Departmental control of these types is confined to the specification of operational limitations in Air Navigation Orders to minimise third party risk.
  2. It is not intended to keep a register of minimum aeroplanes or gyroplanes.

Referrals from General Practitioners to Specialists (Question No. 4619)

Mr Moore:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. Do a considerable number of persons in the community receive specialist medical treatment for various chronic illnesses.
  2. Are these persons required to obtain a new note of referral from a general practitioner every 1 2 months.
  3. If so, is the patient treated as a new patient and charged a much higher fee when attending the first specialist consultation after the general practitioner’s referral.
  4. What action will he take to alleviate the necessity of patients having to make these visits to general practitioners for referrals.
Mr Hunt:
Minister for Health · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes. Not all chronic conditions require continuous specialist treatment. Ideally the specialist orders a course of treatment to be supervised by the patient’s general practitioner.
  2. Yes, if they wish to qualify for the higher rate of medical benefits for the charges raised by the specialist
  3. The fact that a new referral is issued after 12 months does not necessarily mean that the specialist would charge an initial consultation fee which would attract the higher rate of benefit. However, where the specialist has not seen the person for a considerable period, or is commencing a new, or reassessing the current, course of treatment it would not be unreasonable for the initial consultation fee to be charged.
  4. Because of the wide and to some extent unpredictable variations in circumstances which may arise in relation to medical treatment, there are obvious difficulties in developing referral procedures to meet all cases. From the viewpoint of any particular individual who is fortunate enough not to require the services of a general practitioner between annual visits to a specialist, the system may be seen as involving some personal inconvenience and small added expense. From the viewpoint of efficient and economical administration of the Medical Benefits Scheme, it is a necessary safeguard against unnecessary expenditure by the Commonwealth and by the health insurance funds. The amount of medical benefits paid for visits to general practitioners to obtain referral renewals once a year would undoubtedly be less than that involved in paying the higher rates of medical benefits for visits to specialist for attention to conditions that could be adequately cared for by general practitioners, which is regarded as being the likely result if there were no referral system or if no limit were placed on the life of referrals. This is particularly relevant where, as frequently occurs, the specialist recommends a course of treatment which can then be supervised by the general practitioner, with only occasional reassessment by the specialist.

With some 35 million specialist services each year, of which only a small proportion relate to continuing treatment by specialists of chronic illnesses, it would be administratively impracticable to consider each individual service separately to decide whether or not a new referral should be required in that particular case. The only practical course is to lay down a system which is capable of uniform application.

Since 1970 there have been a number of reviews of the referral system undertaken by my Department in conjunction with the Australian Medical Association. The latest review was specifically directed at the question of treatment of chronic illnesses. The outcome of each review has been the general consensus’ that the system is necessary, is a good one, and is working satisfactorily in the overall interests of the Medical Benefits Scheme.

Uranium Advisory Council (Question No. 4684)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

What action has the Government taken or does it propose to take to devise adequate procedures to ensure that the Uranium Advisory Council is fully informed on all relevant matters pertaining to its functions as expressed in its terms of reference.

Mr Garland:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I refer the honourable member to the Ministerial Statement of 13 September 1979 by the Minister for Trade and Resources on the Uranium Advisory Council First Report (Hansard, pages 1085-7).

British National Oil Corporation (Question No. 4686)

Mr James:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the British Government’s decision to abandon plans to sell off state owned North Sea Oil assets in the form of British National Oil Corporation (BNOC); if so, is he able to say whether the Thatcher Government will now offer the private investor a share in the Corporation.
  2. What form will this investment take.
  3. 3 ) Will public investment in the Corporation be restricted in any way.
  4. What form will any restriction take.
  5. Will the Australian Government consider similar restrictions with regard to the proposal to sell the Ranger project.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1) to (4) These matters are not within the scope of responsibility of the Australian Government.
  2. 5 ) The Government has not yet made a decision to sell its share in the Ranger project. If in the event the Government decided to sell its share in the Ranger project the terms and conditions of any sale would be considered at that time.

Australian Capital Territory: Use of Public Places (Question No. 4714)

Mr Innes:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. What are his Department’s guidelines regulating the use, by private individuals and companies engaging in profit-making business activities, of public places such as community halls, public parks and reserves, administered by bis Department.
  2. What charges are levied for the use of (a) public facilities and (b) public risk insurance for patrons, spectators and passers-by.
  3. Do some community organisations book community facilities in their name and then cede the use to commercial organisations; if so, what action is taken by his Department in relation to this practice.
  4. What guidelines apply to the use by private individuals or companies of the area known as Equestrian Park.
  5. Do these guidelines differ from those pertaining to other public places administered by his Department; if so, why.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

I am informed by my Department that:

The general principle followed by the Department of the Capital Territory in managing facilities and land set aside for recreational purposes is that they should be available to as many people and uses as possible, provided the basic management principles are observed. If any conflicts emerge these are usually settled by conference between the user groups.

(a) The charges levied are variable. However, if there are special and identifiable costs involved the Department endeavours to recover these costs.

Organised users of such areas are required under the terms and conditions of hire to indemnify the Commonwealth against all claims brought by third parties for damage or injuries incurred.

The sub-letting of facilities is prohibited. However, community organisations may and do book facilities and arrange for coaches to run schools, clinics, et cetera, on their behalf provided they conform with the guidelines as set out in(1

The same guidelines as set out in ( 1 ).

No.

Commonwealth Contributions to Memorials (Question No. 4717)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 25 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What contributions has the Commonwealth made to memorials to prominent (a) Australians and (b) non-Australians.
  2. On what date was each contribution approved and to whom was it made.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The information necessary to answer the honourable member’s question is not readily available. To obtain the details of Commonwealth contributions towards the various forms of memorials, it would be necessary to consult with the majority of Commonwealth departments and authorities. It would also be necessary to identify the various kinds of memorials that have been established.

In view of the resources that would be needed to gather together the information sought I am not prepared to ask my Department to carry out this work. If, however, the honourable member is prepared to indicate more precisely the information he seeks I will see whether it can be proviled.

Australian National Railways: Compensation Payments (Question No. 4727)

Mr Wallis:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

What sum has been paid under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act to employees of the Northern Division of Australian National Railways for loss of hearing due to their employment.

Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

Since the Australian National Railways began payments in 1966-67, a total of $353,772.48 has been paid as compensation to employees in the Northern Division of ANR for loss of hearing under Commonwealth Employees compensation legislation.

Australian National Railways: Northern Division (Question No. 4728)

Mr Wallis:

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many employees were in the Northern Division of Australian National Railways as at 1 September (a) 1 978 and(b) 1979.
  2. How many employees were in each of the various branches of ANR as at those dates.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)(a)3,875,(b)4,376*.

  1. The number of employees in each of the various branches of ANR as at 1 September 1978 and 1 September 1979 was as follows:

Radiation Exposure Levels at Nabarlek (Question No. 4764)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 27 September 1 979:

  1. Does the Australian Radiation Laboratory monitor exposure levels of miners working at Nabarlek, NT.
  2. If so, what are the (a) mean and (b) highest exposure levels measured to 26 September 1 979 by radiation monitoring film, of miners working at Nabarlek.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Yes. The Australian Radiation Laboratory does provide a radiation monitoring service at Nabarlek. This service is available to uranium mining companies as an extension of the normal national film badge service although the severe temperature and humidity conditions encountered at uranium mines have required the development by the Laboratory of a new badge using thermoluminescent phosphors in lieu of the normal radiation sensitive film.

The badges are normally worn for a period of 4 weeks and then returned to the Laboratory for processing. Total radiation exposures for the wearing period are reported to the mining company and to the Northern Territory supervisory authorities.

  1. The highest exposure recorded for any individual at Nabarlek up to 14 September 1979 (when the latest series of badges was recalled) is 378 millirem accumulated over a 6 week period thus corresponding to an average rate of 63 millirem per week.

It is difficult to provide a meaningful average figure for the entire workforce as it is distorted by the large number of employees who wear badges but whose work does not normally take them into areas of significant radiation and whose badges accordingly indicate only a normal background level of about 2 millirem per week. However, of those whose badges indicate exposures significantly above the normal background level the weekly rate lies within the range of 8 to 63 millirem per week with an average value of 27 millirem per week.

Under the 1975 Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores which is currently in force in the Northern Territory, the maximum permitted whole body exposure for an occupationalry exposed employee is 5,000 millirem per year or approximately 100 millirem per week.

Immigration Forms (Question No. 4771)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 24 September 1979:

  1. Further to his amended answer to Question No. 4472 (Hansard, 25 September 1979, page 1530) concerning the necessity for the use of the English language in incoming passenger cards and outgoing passenger cards, is it a fact that the words ‘The card must be completed in the English language’ appear on the back of each card and that the instructions are printed in the English language alone which might give rise to an inference that no other language will be understood by immigration officials.
  2. Is it also a fact that in the (a) outgoing passenger card of 12 questions and (b) incoming passenger card of 13 questions, in only one (No. 10, usual occupation) is the matter of language of any relevance.
  3. While English is the official language in Australia and presumably is the official language in Great Britain, is he able to say whether the British immigration authorities do not regard it as necessary to say that it is compulsory for British immigration forms to be filled in in English.
  4. Further to the answer to part 2 of Question No. 4472, have immigration officials ever complained that passengers have in practice made their tasks difficult by the use of native scripts; if so, what were the native scripts in question and in what way would the answers to questions 1 to 9 and 1 1 and 12 on the exit form and questions 1 to 9 and 1 1 and 13 on the entry form differ if they were written in a language other than English.
  5. Will he give further consideration to the contention that the insistence on the use of the English language suggests a cultural anxiety and insecurity which is not appropri atefor a nationwith100languagesinuse.
  6. Would Australian travellers be (a) advantaged or (b) disadvantaged if other countries, e.g. China and Japan, require them to fill in forms in the local national language.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The passenger cards contain in English the words ‘The card must be completed in the English language’. The cards are collected by Customs officers acting for my Department. They are processed by staff not recruited for multi-lingual service. Information obtained from the passenger card is used by a number of Departments. It is available also for evidentiary purposes before Courts.
  2. No. It is of relevance that, other than where a mark is required, all answers to questions on passenger cards are to be given in the English language. This facilitates identification and passenger clearance at ports, the subsequent handling of the documents and retrieval of data.

For some time multi-lingual pamphlets were made available to travellers to assist in the preparation of passenger cards. The practice was discontinued since they were rarely made use of by passengers.

  1. No. U.K. practice is not necessarily relevant to Australian needs.
  2. Passenger cards are not often presented in a language other than English. No specific record is held of the incidences where they were not. In those instances where the answers to questions are not in English passengers can be assisted, with the aid of an interpreter if necessary, to complete the card in the English language.

The answers to the questions on passenger cards referred to would not differ in content if completed in native script but subsequent translation for essential purposes would be a time consuming and expensive undertaking.

  1. No.
  2. I am not able to comment. However, English is in very common use in countries caught up with international travel.

Sex Education Lecture (Question No. 4799)

Mr Humphreys:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government been contacted by any member of the Queensland Government in connection with a sex education lecture given to pupils at a Brisbane college by a Sydney-based art lecturer whose trip to Brisbane was apparently financed by Commonwealth Government funds.
  2. If so, what assistance has the Government offered the Queensland Government for its investigation into this matter.
  3. What cultural organisations are involved and what is the amount Commonwealth Government assistance each receives.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Not to my knowledge.
  2. and (3) See (1) above.

Foreign Fishing Vessels (Question No. 3331)

Mr Braithwaite:
DAWSON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the number of reported intrusions into Australian waters by foreign vessels during the periods (a) 1 July 1977 to 30 June 1 978 and (b) 1 July 1978 to date.
  2. ) How many of these vessels were arrested.
  3. What is the average cost to the Government for each vessel arrested in terms of detection, arrest, detention, port dues, legal processes, quarantine, cleaning and repatriation of crews to their own country.
  4. What is the average total receipt for each vessel captured through fines and sale of vessels.
  5. 5 ) How many of the arrests were made ( a ) by naval craft and (b) from ‘private charter vessels ‘.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

-The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. (a) Fifty-five reports involving 150 vessels were received in 1977-78.

    1. Fifty-seven reports involving 97 vessels were received between 1 July 1978 and 30 June 1979.
  2. Twenty-three vessels were apprehended.
  3. It has not been possible to identify every component cost to the Government for the apprehension and subsequent actions required in respect of each foreign fishing vessel found in breach of Australian fisheries law. However, the following figures give an indication of the cost that can be incurred in respect of some of the actions involved:

Port dues- depending on the port up to $ 1 00 per day for each apprehended foreign fishing vessel.

Legal costs- examination of the consideration of matters has revealed a difference in average costs (Counsel’s fees, travel expenses and filing fees) from one capital city to another e.g. Brisbane $206; Darwin $560; Hobart $ 1 57.

Quarantine- average of $200 per each vessel.

Repatriation- average cost per crew in respect of apprehended Taiwanese fishing vessels has been approximately $9,500.

Arrest- average cost for use of Commonwealth Police has been in the vicinity of $7,400 per incident.

Surveillance- primary and secondary surveillance efforts are directed to covering the requirements of a number of departments and are co-ordinated through a centralised surveillance unit in the Department of Transport, the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre. It is not possible to apportion costs, to any one department or to any specific incident, in this case the detection of foreign fishing vessels.

  1. Fines imposed for breaches of fisheries law vary depending on the circumstances of each case. Revenue from vessel sales depends on the type of vessel, its condition and the demand for such vessels. For example, fines have ranged from $200 in one case to $ 1 ,600 in another.

Revenue from vessel sales has also varied from $600 for a clam boat in poor condition to $65,000 for a stern trawler. In 1977-78 $183,902 was received through fines and vessel sales and from 1 July 1978 to 31 June 1979 $86,210 was received.

  1. Between 1 July 1977 and 30 June 1979, 14 vessels were apprehended by the defence forces, 8 vessels were apprehended by civil craft chartered by the Department of Primary Industry, and 1 vessel was apprehended as a result of combined operations between a chartered civil vessel and a defence force vessel.

Queensland Oil Production (Question No. 3348)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 6 March 1979:

What was the production of crude oil from Queensland oil fields during the periods-

1 July to 15 August 1978

16 August to 30 September 1978 and

1 October to 3 1 December 1978.

Mr Newman:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 7,995 kilolitres.
  2. 8,087 kilolitres
  3. 17,637 kilolitres

Oil Refining (Question No. 3679)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Royal Commission on Petroleum, in its 5th Report, point out that the failure of the Government, as part of a national petroleum refinery policy, to achieve the international standard of 90 per cent utilisation of stream day capacity, added a cost of some $300 million to expenditure on new refinery capacity which must be supported by the Australian consumer.
  2. Which of the Royal Commission’s proposed remedies to this shortcoming have been adopted by the Government, when were they adopted and with what effect to date.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) No. The Royal Commission on Petroleum pointed out that the difference between an 80 per cent and 90 per cent utilisation factor was equivalent then to approximately 50,000 barrels per day and that new refinery capacity of thus order would require an investment of $300 million.
  2. The Royal Commission made no specific recommendations regarding methods to increase the low utilisation factor. However on page 134 the Report stated ‘it seems possible that the onset of industrial disputes in Australia in the early part of this decade contributed to the low utilisation factor of the refining industry’.

Moonie-Alton Oil Fields (Question No. 3824)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

What quantity of crude oil was produced from the Moonie-Alton fields in the periods (a) 25 May 1964 to 16 September 1965, (b) 17 September 1965 to 17 September 1970, (c) 18 September 1970 to 17 September 1975, (d) 18 September 1975 to 17 September 1976, (e) 18 September 1976 to 16 August 1977 and (f) 17 August to 31 December 1977.

Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The available statistics on Queensland crude oil production are published in ‘Petroleum Statistics’ on a fiscal and annual basis by the Department of National Development (and its predecessor Departments). The production figures from 1964 to 1968 are published in ‘Petroleum Statistics’ for 1967-68 and the calendar year 1968.

Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights (Question No. 3902)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 9 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What indicators, both economic and technical, will be used to determine the operating life of the existing nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, N.S.W.
  2. What is the rate of increase in repair and maintenance and reduction in operating efficiency expected to occur within the next 10 years with respect to the existing Lucas Heights reactor.
  3. What is involved technically, economically and environmentally in the decommissioning of the existing reactor at Lucas Heights.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. The length of the operating life of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s HIFAR reactor might be determined by any of the following technical and economic indicators: unacceptable deterioration of vital components which could only be replaced with great difficulty and cost; unavailability of imported components or materials which need to be replaced, such as fuel or heavy water; increased costs related to maintenance, operation or fuel; the incapacity of the plant to meet demands for radioisotopes and scientific research in terms of neutron flux, volume of irradiation space, quality of neutron beams and plant reliability.
  2. Some increase in repair and maintenance costs is to be expected over the next 10 years. However, this is not expected to result in a significant increase in unscheduled outages.
  3. No detailed assessment has yet been made on the decommissioning of HIFAR. The decommissioning of nuclear reactors is receiving considerable study overseas and the Commission’s officers are following developments closely.

Energy Research Grants (Question No. 4084)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 30 May 1979:

What procedures were followed by the technical standing committees of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council in their evaluation of grant applications made by committee members, or by organisations with which they are affiliated, to ensure disinterested assessment of all projects.

Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is:

All committee assessments are reviewed by the full Council. In the case of those applications submitted by committee members, or by organisations with which they are affiliated, Council agreed that such recommendations require ratification by the Chairman of Council before being forwarded to the Minister.

The Council Secretariat is required to bring all such recommendations to the Chairman’s attention. Should he consider it necessary he will seek the views of the Executive Member/Secretary of the Technical Standing Committee which carried out the initial assessment. The Executive Member/Secretary is a Departmental officer and can provide the Chairman of Council with all details of the actual assessment process.

Details of all grants are made public and it is intended to publish reports on progress.

Alumina Refineries (Question No. 4116)

Mr Cohen:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is it a fact that Alcoa alumina refineries at Pinjarra and Kwinana in Western Australia use 60 per cent of all natural gas produced in Western Australia; if not, what was the consumption of natural gas by these refineries during (a) 1977 and (b) 1978.
  2. It is also a fact that in 1977 Alcoa in its bauxite mining and alumina refining operations used 20 per cent of all energy consumed in Western Australia; if not, what was the percentage of energy consumed by Alcoa.
  3. What was the fuel oil consumption of Alcoa’s Kwinana and Pinjarra alumina refineries during (a) 1977 and (b) 1978 and what was the average sulphur content of the fuel oil used by the refineries in each year.
  4. What levies or royalties does the Commonwealth collea from exports of alumina and bauxite from Australia.
  5. What royalties or levies does the Western Australian Government collect from export of alumina and bauxite from Western Australia.
  6. Is the proposed alumina refinery at Wagerup in Western Australia projected to use natural gas from the northwest shelf fields when a pipeline is constructed.
  7. What is the projected percentage consumption of natural gas by alumina refineries out of the total volume of gas supplied by pipeline to southern Western Australia.
Mr Newman:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) to ( 3 ) The Department of National Development collects, on a confidential basis, statistics of actual and forecast fuel usage in the industrial and mining sectors. The most recent results of the fuel survey are published in ‘Demand for Primary Fuels, Australia 1976-77 to 1986-87’ and ‘End-use Analysis of Primary Fuels Demand, Australia 1973-74 to 1986-87 ‘. Confidentiality prevents disclosure of the data on a company basis.
  2. The royalty rates for bauxite mined from leases on the Gove Peninsula, Northern Territory are prescribed by Northern Territory Ordinance at $0.30 per tonne of bauxite mined for export without further processing and $0.20 per tonne of bauxite mined for refining in Australia. There is provision to reduce the rate for bauxite to be refined in Australia to $0.15 or to $0.10 if the profit per tonne of alumina produced is less than $12 or less than $8 respectively. There is no separate royalty on the alumina produced, all of which is exported.
  3. to (7) As these questions concern matters which are primarily the responsibility of the Western Australian Government, the honourable member should direct his questions to that Government.

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs: Fees for Services (Question No. 4573)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 11 September 1979:

Will representations made by members of (a) Federal and (b) State Parliaments on behalf of constituents be required to be accompanied by the prescribed fee under the changed arrangements announced in his statement to the House on 22 August 1979.

Mr MacKellar:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The honourable member’s question of 1 1 September 1 979 relates to the charges to be introduced on 1 November 1979 for certain services to be provided by my Department. Of these services- and there are seven of them- only one appears to have direct relevance for the question asked: obtaining information by way of cables initiated by applicants/clients.

Applicants for entry to Australia often seek expeditious processing of their applications or information on the progress of the application at overseas offices by cable communication overseas. The proposed charges are intended to recover those costs which are incurred by the Government at the initiative of the applicant.

Where normal processing of an application warrants cable communication, current practice will continue: the Department will pay for the cable.

In this context, it is usual for State or Federal Parliamentarians to seek answers, without specifying the means by which these are expedited. It is thus a matter for my Department to decide what information, if any, is needed from overseas and how this is to be obtained. In such circumstances, no charges would apply to parliamentary representations.

Zoonoses Disease (Question No. 4611)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to the concern of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union that occupational as well as family and community health standards are threatened by the lack of research into the Zoonoses disease to which meat workers are exposed.
  2. 2 ) If so, will he support the case for the funding of the research unit at the Department of Microbiology, University of Melbourne, which is applying itself to the difficulties associated with brucellosis diagnosis.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) I am aware of this concern of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union. However the real threat to health arises from the existence of these zoonoses in our animal population rather than lack of research.

The Government is therefore investing money in campaigns to eradicate brucellosis in animals thus removing the risk to human health.

  1. All requests for research funding of this type are considered on their merits by the independent scientific bodies concerned.

The National Health and Medical Research Council, which is the body within my portfolio, advises that no application has been received this year from the Department of Mircobiology, University of Melbourne, for the support of a project related to brucellosis, although eight other research projects are currently being supported in that Department.

Sheep and Cattle Skins (Question No. 4648)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the decrease in the number of carcasses exported during the period January to June 1979 as compared with the same 6 months in 1978.
  2. Is it a fact that those countries to which Australia has exported live sheep are now competing with Australia in the overseas skin trade.
  3. Will he investigate the introduction of a more simple, less damaging form of identification for sheep and cattle as a means of saving more carcasses for use in the skin trade.
Mr Nixon:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. 1 ) Statistics on export of Australian meat are recorded as tonnages shipped, and numbers of carcasses exported are not available. Estimates of the carcase equivalent of tonnages exported are as follows:

The decrease in the estimates of carcase equivalent of tonnages exported during the period January to June 1 979 as compared with the same 6 months in 1978 are:

Cattle- no decrease.

Calves- no decrease.

Sheep-800,400.

Lambs-323,100.

  1. It has been reported that some sheepskins derived from Australian sheep exported live to Iran are sold to other countries.
  2. Sheep are normally identified as to ownership by means of ear marks or ear tattoos. I am not aware that branding of sheep is practised nor further of any related problem associated with damage to sheep skins. Investigation and extension work on the subject of hide damage arising from brand identification of cattle is currently being undertaken by CSIRO.

Satellite Communication Stations: Employment of Contract Labour (Question No. 4658)

Mr Humphreys:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 18 September 1979:

  1. Have objections been raised by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association concerning the Minister’s decision to employ contract labour for the operation and management of two satellite communications stations in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.
  2. Is it a fact that the employment of contract labour in Landsat will deny public service staff training and experience in satellite communications and deprive them of the opportunity to develop skills in digital technology.
  3. Does the employment of contract labour allow the Department of Science and the Environment to circumvent its staff ceiling.
Mr Groom:
LP

– The Minister for Science and the Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. ) Public Service staff will be closely involved in management and technical aspects of Landsat and will have responsibility for monitoring technical developments relating to Landsat, both overseas and in Australia, to ensure that the best possible use is made of the facility to meet Australia’s needs.
  3. A consideration of staff ceilings was not one of the issues which led to the decision in 197S to employ a contractor for the Landsat project.

Special Youth Employment Training Program (Question No. 4677)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many subsidy grants have been made to organisations in the Electoral Division of Shortland under the Special Youth Employment Training Program in each year since the inception of the Program.
  2. ) What was the name, address and subsidy in each case.
  3. What were the specific types of training provided in each case.
  4. How many (a) males and (b) females in the Electoral Division of Shortland gained employment under the Program in each year since its inception.
  5. How many (a) males and (b) females retained employment with the recipient organisation for a period of longer than one month after the loss of entitlement to Program subsidy.
  6. What was the total cost of Program subsidy payments in each year since its inception.
Mr Viner:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2), (3), (4) and (5) The information requested is not available since statistics collected relate to Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) Office areas or, as in the case of expenditure on manpower programs, to Regions, neither of which correspond with Electoral Divisions.

  1. Total Program expenditure is as follows: 1976-77-$6.6m; 1977-78-$47.1m; 1978-79-$82.6m.

National Employment and Training System (Question No. 4722)

Dr Cass:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

What proportion and amount of the $67,900,000 for the National Employment and Training System will be allocated for (a) widow and repatriation pensioners, (b) migrants and (c) Aboriginals.

Mr Viner:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The allocation for Aboriginal training under the NEAT System for 1979-80 is estimated to be $ 17.5m which is approximately 25 per cent of the total allocation. There is no separate allocation for widow and repatriation pensioners and migrants under NEAT.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Aboriginal Unemployment Figures (Question No. 4805)

Dr Everingham:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has an employee of the Commonwealth Employment Service in Townsville, Queensland, been transferred as a result of findings by the Commonwealth Ombudsman that unemployment figures of Aborigines and Islanders have been falsified.
  2. If so, what is the extent of this falsification.
  3. What plans does his Department have for the future of the Aboriginal and Islander Employment Section at Townsville and to ensure that falsification is not occurring elsewhere.
  4. Has a Mr Eddie Marboo resigned as a result of the falsification in Townsville.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. No.
  2. and (3) Not available.
  3. On 2 1 September Mr Eddie Mabo submitted his resignation with effect from 19 October 1979. His letter of resignation did not give reasons for his resignation.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 17 October 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1979/19791017_reps_31_hor116/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant